The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Remakes, revamps, and reboots
Chia Mountain
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Yes I'm new to the forums
Now that I got that awkward greeting off my chest, what do you guys think of remakes of old games? If a developer has that right amount of giddy nostalgia and savvy, and cash, I say why not, but sometimes I wonder if this might get the best of people and their intentions of wowing people with all the glitz of 21st century graphics.
A good launching point for debate could be the new Medal of Honor (a bit of a modernized revamp than a total back-to-basics remake) and Tomb Raider Anniversary. I might be in the minority when I say that I actually enjoyed TRA, but in no small part because me and my sister when we were littler would play it together, volume all the way down and listening to some 90s alternative rock (Third eye blind and Chumbawumba, anyone? No?), so obviously it sold me already just by bringing back memories. But the game wasn't perfect, people swore off crystal dynamics for ruining the franchise, and it was incredibly short too. For me though, the optional commentary through out the levels when you beat the game the first time just made it totally worth it, and if it was up to me alot of videogames would have optional developer commentaries to add that second level of replay value to the game.
But I'm curious what you people have to say, about any of these games or other remakes. And what do you think is beckoning for a come back?
Edit: I changed the title of the thread to be a little more friendly for a more encompassing debate of all things do-over, and less dumb and polarized as the original title.
Now that I got that awkward greeting off my chest, what do you guys think of remakes of old games? If a developer has that right amount of giddy nostalgia and savvy, and cash, I say why not, but sometimes I wonder if this might get the best of people and their intentions of wowing people with all the glitz of 21st century graphics.
A good launching point for debate could be the new Medal of Honor (a bit of a modernized revamp than a total back-to-basics remake) and Tomb Raider Anniversary. I might be in the minority when I say that I actually enjoyed TRA, but in no small part because me and my sister when we were littler would play it together, volume all the way down and listening to some 90s alternative rock (Third eye blind and Chumbawumba, anyone? No?), so obviously it sold me already just by bringing back memories. But the game wasn't perfect, people swore off crystal dynamics for ruining the franchise, and it was incredibly short too. For me though, the optional commentary through out the levels when you beat the game the first time just made it totally worth it, and if it was up to me alot of videogames would have optional developer commentaries to add that second level of replay value to the game.
But I'm curious what you people have to say, about any of these games or other remakes. And what do you think is beckoning for a come back?
Edit: I changed the title of the thread to be a little more friendly for a more encompassing debate of all things do-over, and less dumb and polarized as the original title.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Schlitz!
Schlitz!
Chia Mountain on
0
Posts
There is the perfect remake, games like Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green, and Megaman Maverick Hunter X. Games like these pretty much just take the source game, make it pretty, and call it a day. Can't go too wrong there.
Then, you have polarizing remakes, like Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, and Tomb Raider Anniversary. Games like these usually run a thin line between changing just enough to keep the game fresh, and changing so much that you aggravate longtime fans.
Then there are the in-between remakes, like Megaman: Powered Up and Metroid: Zero Mission, which add a ton of new features or gameplay, but still include the original game (or some sort of facsimile) to appease everybody.
When you mention Medal of Honor, you're talking about a Reboot, not a Remake. Reboots can be ok too though (Doom 3, Tomb Raider Legend, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time).
Basically what I am trying to say is that I would pay $60 for a SotC remake.
In any case, an older game revamped onto a new platform with fixes across the board for bugs and whatnot, as well as vastly improved graphics is always good. As long as a company listens to feedback from the original game and then applies that with the remake, glory is had.
Just saying
When a game gets remade to reinforce a weak story, that's a rewarding experience. I think it can be more rewarding though when a game already strong in story is reinforced to be stronger in that narrative.
Goes for gameplay too. Metroid: Zero Mission is a good example of this. The first Metroid was a fucking mess, even though it was a good game. And they enhanced the fuck out of it.
Surprisingly deep, man.
Take two games I like a lot: Half-Life and Metroid Prime
I'd say Half-Life needs a remake. It shows it's age badly via the graphics, it's level design (though great at the time) really negates a sense of realism for the environment these days, and IMO, more could be done to integrate a better fleshed out story to the game (Especially one that draws a stronger connection to Half-Life 2).
Meanwhile, Metroid Prime, IMO, doesn't need a remake. It's graphics extremely well, and it's gameplay and story easily hold a candle to modern day games. I don't even think it needed the port to the Wii.
silly answers for silly threads
'Reboots' I don't mind since they're generally completely new games, and they're just using the old name for a bit of name recognition (PoP 2008 was vastly different, and could have gone under a totally different name). This goes for your example of the new Medal of Honour. It's not a remake, or really a reboot, it's a new game in the series, and they're using the basic 'Medal of Honour' name since it's known, and putting a sequel number in there scares away some customers who haven't played the other games.
"Reboot" is supposed to involved continuity. It's where you toss out all previously existing continuity and start over from scratch. (Doom 1/2 vs Doom 3, for example.)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The same rule applies to reboots. Modern Warfare showed that reboots can work... Provided you don't let the developers rest on their laurels for the inevitable sequel.
Both have a string of very troubled games that have drifted away from what many fans consider to be 'core.'
Then they released Settlers 2 10th anniversary edition and all (well half) was right with the world. The graphics have been cranked up to modern standards, the same with the UI. But the gameplay is identical to the old one.
So I've seen the Resident Evil remake, the Perfect Dark "upgrade" & the TMNT IV: Turtles in Time remake. And what i'm left wondering is, if the remake is so stuck on being like the original game, why not just start selling the old game again? People who return to it for nostalgia's sake end up disappointed at the changes, and people who didn't have the opportunity to play it in the first place are left with an altered version of the game, AKA The George Lucas Effect.
They could also just create a sequel, but it's often simply derivative of the original work and is an uninspiring experience. So why not just start selling the old game again? I know I stopped myself from buying Hexic 2 on XBLA because I just wanted the original which they refused to sell me, same with Turtles in Time Reshelled.
They're Unnecessary in my opinion.
Reboots can be useful if a franchise has fallen from grace such as happened to Tomb Raider, a fresh start can be the only way to bring it back to life. But when it's something like Prince of Persia which was recently rebooted for no reason, then those can just die in a fire.
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
That game was a shitty remake. That's like saying movies are unnecessary because of The Hottie and the Nottie.
Of course redrawing comic strips is a waste of time. No one is reading PVP because it's a visual tour de force.
Really? I can't really see much worthwhile aside from the art (which is admittedly not amazing but it is palatable).
This has needed to happen for a very long time. There would be no end to my love for Lucasarts if they did this.
Never gonna happen, though.
I'm not saying the writing is great. I'm just saying that like newspaper comics (which all pretty much suck these days), people aren't reading PVP for its art, therefore improving his art is a waste of time beyond his personal desire for self-improvement.
Not all of them, obviously, but most.
Anyway, since I'm playing through HeartGold even as we speak, I'm going to go ahead and say 'delightfully unnecessary'. I didn't really need a trip back to whenever Gold was originally released, but damned if I'm not enjoying it.
Rounding out Lara's boobies and giving Soild Snake's eyes are a-ok.
It worked okay for Star Trek, but now a lot of folks seem to have the idea that it would be a good thing to do the same with a lot of other IPs. I disagree entirely.
I could see George Lucas going "Sorry guys, I fucked up Episode I-III, I'm going to let someone else do them again, but I'll pay for it". I am pretty sure I was dreaming though.
You mean make DMC2 right? Cause they had some weird numbering scheme like DMC 1, DMC 3, DMC SE, DMC4. Weird, I know.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
oh, i would so buy X game if they remade it! X game comes out.
X is horrible.
In concept they are fine, but in reality, they give the devs and producers even more of a reason to cut costs and be lazy. So consequently, remakes tend to be shit.
a) The established continuity has reached a logical conclusion (I was in favor of POP'08 going in a completely different direction, as the Sands of Time trilogy was pretty neatly wrapped up; its just a shame the gameplay was weak);
b) The established continuity is completely fucked up (your franchise got Batman-&-Robin'd? Go ahead and reboot that shit).
Ya gotta take the bittuh wit' the sweet. I don't care if there are ten shitty remakes for every quality one. I don't have to play the other ten, and I want to play the good one. Games in general tend to suck. For every awesome game that we splooge over on this forum, there are probably 20 pieces of shitty shovelware. So if you think we should scrap remakes because of the crap:good ratio, then we should scrap all video games.
True enough.
But I'd argue more that remakes tend to motivate devs and producers to be more lazy, so I don't like it just because it gives them an easy scapegoat to be lazy.
Remakes already have
an installed base
a narrative (lol)
level layout
enemies
weapons
powerups
on and on.
So why work harder than one really has to?
=p
Plus, ya know, Bionic commando.