Game Remakes & Remasters: Rip-off or important?

[dany28]

What do you think are game remakes & remasters: rip-off or important?

 

[ATenderLad]

I think that's probably too hyperbolic, the concept of a remake isn't always bad or always good; I'm sure everyone will give their opinion, but it's gonna mostly be "well context matters, so yes and no."

 

[DukeRed]

They are good to bring the game to a modern audience who will not play retro games. However when done badly like RE3 remake, they are disappointing if you know the original.

 

[goregoregoregoregoregore]

Depends heavily on the game. Some games had a lot of potential that was hindered either by lack of experience, time or simply because of tech limitations, these games deserve remasters and remakes, but what is happening nowadays is that a successful game that has everything done right is getting remaked in order to get dumb hyped fans. To me the only path for games that doesn't have such flaws is to be ported to newer systems, preferentially PC.
but fuck it, just emulate it, lmao

 

[Antilocal123]

If it’s a game I like I like it if it’s a game I don't like I don't like it.

Profound stuff, huh?

 

[goregoregoregoregoregore]

If it’s a game I like I like it if it’s a game I don't like I don't like it.

Profound stuff, huh?

You should make an essay in the writers guild about that

 

[Exdeath92]

They're a double-edged sword. Sometimes they work great when they keep most of what made the original great (like Silent Hill 2 Remake), but they can be disappointing when they end up doing something quite different from the original (the Final Fantasy VII R Trilogy is one of these, because they're more of a sequel than a proper remake)

 

[NotGodlike]

As long as they don't replace or remove the originals, I'm fine with them. There will always be changes that can feel like downgrades when compared to the original

 

[wilddogsdivorce]

i like remakes, generally. sometimes you see a remake of something that didn't need one, like dead space. but they have an opportunity to flex graphics and add new ideas to things i already enjoyed. the potential of remakes is high but they don't often deliver on that potential.

i think remasters are on the whole less compelling but if they can attract attention to older products or maybe even provide motivation for new titles in older series they can serve a purpose.

 

[HextarVigar]

It's nothing more than lazy double-dipping: "Hey, instead of coming up with something new, how about we just take a game from ten years ago, tidy up the graphics a bit and charge them fifty bucks all over again? It's free money!"

 

[Leon]

Sometimes they are good, but usually they are rip-offs meant to just bleed people dry.

 

[CG4R12I4N]

Remake good
Remaster bad
Simple as

 

[Gamma]

My first contact with some classics were with the Remasters for ps3 like: DMC, MGS and Ratchet and Clank and while some of them have problems(R&C), I liked how they improved performance and made the games more available. Nowadays with stuff like Tomb Raider that made them have updated controls and camera and Quality of life features, Remasters can offer a way to experience old games with updated content without overhauling everything visually like a remake would do.

 

[LightningmanEXE]

I despise when a remaster is not the definitive version of the game. if you republished it, it better damn well come with all the DLC, all the bonus content that was console exclusive back when it came out, and that side story you had in the portable port. I have a game in mind, but the fact it might not be the one you are thinking of means this is a problem.

as for remakes? love em. I think a proper remake can feel amazing. remakes have been a thing since mario all stars on the snes, and I'd say that wasn't too bad a start. I think my favorite remake might be kirby superstar ultra for the DS, it's a proper standard when looking at one of what to expect.

 

[UnDubious]

Generally prefer playing the originals, but playing Rent A Hero dreamcast a few years ago made me question that since it's just way better than the Genesis game (and about 40-50% of the content or more is different, I'd say). Either way, I don't understand the "bleed gamers dry" sentiment. Nobody's forcing you to buy these games, if you don't think it's worth it then don't do it.

 

[moonbits]

old good, new bad
but if its old but new then must be good
unga bunga

 

[Rorisu]

What do you think are game remakes & remasters: rip-off or important?

I think it depends on the game itself, there are some games that with time are difficult to find around at a good price and that deserve to be played by more people, but there are other games that are resold as remastered after some year from release, that you can still buy without any problem, then again there are remakes that do a good job to make an old game modern and other remakes that change too much the original game to be a remake, so i will just say what i think.

A good remastered is when it mantains all the original feature and asset of a game that typically is hard to find on todays market, making it available again on todays market with some extra feature like upscaled texture, fast forward, quicksave and other similar feature that don't impact the game itself.

A good remake is when it mantains the original feature of the games and adds more to the game itself, making it more enjoyable for old and new fans alike, there are some old games that unfortunately didn't age well... it's normal, but that doesn't make them bad games, so with a good remake they can usually shine again like they used to when they got released, or at least that's the concept behind it i think...

So in the end i think they are important when there is a reason to make them, they are rip-off when there isn't reason to make them aside from the fact "it will surely sell well"

 

[IyoTheHelpfulWolf]

Remasters are a good way to make a game more accessible with things like control tweaks and other adjustments for modern hardware as long as the original intent and spirit of the design stays mostly in tact. Even if I personally have no need for a remaster, it can be a great way to reach more people and gauge interest in the IP without too much commitment.

In an ideal world, there would be nothing wrong with remakes. Were time and money unlimited, there would be no drawbacks to having more variations of a thing apart from having to decide which one to play. But we live in a world where time, money, and energy are finite resources and those resources must be spent wisely. I would rather those resources be spent on games that felt like they had untapped potential, either because the games were flawed with good ideas or because they were very ahead of their time and held back by hardware limitations. Instead, games that were already fantastic are the first to get remade because stuff people already like with a new coat of paint is what sells.

 

[Graw]

Depends on the remake or remaster. Some are very well done and generally make the original obsolete. Others not so much. I like using Square-Enix as an example because they have just about every type of remake and remaster out there in their library and the quality of them ranges wildly.

The SaGa series has pretty high quality remakes and remasters all around. I'd say the majority of them, apart from maybe the DS remakes of the second and third SaGa games, are vast improvements over the originals. The first Romancing SaGa on the Super Famicom was kind of a buggy broken mess. The ps2 remake was probably about as big a leap forward as the FF7 remake was from the original except, rather than completely change the game to something totally different, they expanded on the original systems, fixed the problems, expanded the story and generally turned it into a very good game that stays true to the spirit and mechanics of the original. The more recent remaster of that version is also a big improvement over the ps2 version that pretty much makes the ps2 version obsolete because you can play the remaster without any of the new additions.

The remaster of SaGa Frontier re-adds a bunch of content that was cut out of the original and basically, there's no reason to play the ps1 version over the remaster. The recent 3d remake of Romancing SaGa 2 keeps the mechanics of the original while expanding on them and making the game overall more friendly to newcomers without sacrificing what makes the original game good.

The Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy series though have been more of a mixed bag. A lot of the Dragon Quest remakes have been fairly well done. Some of them not so much. Final Fantasy is all over the place and if you were to ask ten different people which version of a Final Fantasy game is best and which one to play, you'd probably get ten different answers and any of them would be reasonably correct.

 

[AceOfAces]

You're probably going to get a slanted answer to this on this site in particular, since this is a community for which not having the Real Hardware a game is meant to be played on, or for which living in an area where a given version of a game was never released, is not an obstacle.
For people who are unable or unwilling to sail the high seas, a remake or a remaster might be their only way to play a game they've always been interested in, or had enjoyed in their childhood but no longer had the hardware for.

Muddying the waters further, we sometimes get remakes that aren't actually remakes. FF7 "Remake" is a good example, as it has that in the title, but is actually a stealth sequel, and does not serve as a replacement for FF7 original (and will make very little sense if you aren't already intimately familiar with FF7). While Rebirth somewhat strikes out in its own direction to an extent, it still relies heavily on an assumption that you've already played FF7 - perhaps most importantly, that you know what a WEAPON is, but some humorous pieces rely on that knowledge as well, like Red's entrance at the QB tournament being a parody to his lack of skill at walking on two legs in the PSX game:

Speaking of FF7 'original', which version would you like to call that? For example, the NTSC-U and PAL versions had massive, sweeping changes to the game, including lots of content that was just absent from the original NTSC-J release. These changes were then backported to the Japanese "International" release, which itself made additional changes. The 1998 Windows PC version is based on a pre-finalized copy of the NTSC-U release - but includes changes made to the Japanese-exclusive "International" release.

 

[TheBritishAreComing]

I think context plays a role in that question, a remake can either be good or bad in the same vein as a remaster.

 

[waterxwraith]

I think they do more help than harm. For example, Sonic Origins is lacking in many ways but your average joe and sally is not going to download sonic 3 air and screw around with it. This is a really simple way for the average consumer to play the Classic Sonic games in widescreen and on modern devices that frequently goes on sale. Is it the best way to play these games? Again, no. But it's mostly passable and consumers benefit in a lot of ways from that while also keeping the memory of these classic experiences alive.

 

[AceOfAces]

For example, Sonic Origins is lacking in many ways but your average joe and sally is not going to download sonic 3 air and screw around with it.

But they really should, AIR is fantastic.

 

[Boog111]

Depends on the quality of the remake/remaster. I love games like Dragon Quest III HD Remake and the Final Fantasy Pixel remasters as they add more updated graphics and great quality of life improvements.

 

[Cheela]

Important in concept
rip off in most practices

Remakes and remasters can be good! But sadly there are lot of them that are like Disney remakes: Just for money