I honestly think one of the best things that a company can do is release an official emulator on their consoles and let you play the originals kinda like the virtual console... but obviously not full price.
It's a shame that the big 3 decided to stop with backwards compatibility. Nintendo's handhelds could play the previous generation's games and do could the Wii and Wii U. PlayStation 2 and 3 could play PlayStation games and some PS3s could play PS2 as well. Xbox never had 100% compatibility with the previous generation (or even 50%) but they have stopped the backwards compatibility program in 2021. I'm glad that PS5 and Xbox Series S|X are compatible with (most) PS4 and One software, respectively.
@Jescribano1 I'm part of the Deaf community, I'm Hard-of-Hearing, so I can hear, but it's easier for most to not have to deal with the comparison between the two conditions. I fit under the umbrella if Deaf, but I'm not completely deaf, you see?
Nice video, I'm personally a fan of these definitions: - Remaster, a rerelease with the same assets (perhaps uncompressed) and higher resolution / frame rate e.g. Dark souls remastered. - Remake, a recreation of the same game with new assets e.g. Demon's souls PS5. - Reimagining, a recreation of the same idea from a new perspective e.g. FF7 remake (lol). - Reboot, the same characters and/or world with different starting parameters e.g. Tomb Raider.
@@isaacduraes7685 not exactly, sometimes it could be the same thing but more often we see reboots such as Tomb Raider (2013). It is indeed a reboot of the franchise, but in no way it is a reimagining of the first game. In my mind a reimagining wants to tell the same story but differently, while a reboot takes existing characters and tries to tell a new story disregarding the events of the previous games except maybe for the character’s entry point let’s say in the story which could be similar
This was a great break down. The one addition I'd mention is that some games are remade as means of creating assets in a specific engine to be used in a future title, like how Crash N Sane led into Crash 4. In that case, I see it as a great way to port old games while building excitement for the new release. (Even if they're usually too expensive anyway)
Funny enough I bought into the excitement, got Crash 4 and was completely crushed by the absolutely absurd difficulty of the game. Now I hate Crash Bandicoot.
I wouldn’t say Crash N Sane made assets for use in Crash 4, as Crash 4 is in a completely different style and I believe Crash 4 uses completely new assets. Now the REmakes on the other hand, those definitely use assets from the new RE games and the other REmakes.
My favourite kind of port is something like the Zelda Collectors edition for GameCube. At the moment it'll cost you £42 and you get Majora's Mask, Ocarina of Time and Zelda 2 all packaged into 1 disc. While I'm sure it's intention was to hype up the release of Wind Waker (as it has a playable demo) I thought it was a neat idea.
I understand why survival horror games moved away from tank controls, but I do miss the old fixed camera, pre-rendered backgrounds style. Is it partly just because of nostalgia? Yes. But I also feel like it did help add to the tension. It's also always fun watching someone who's never played any of those games stumble around trying to figure out how they work and getting super frustrated lol
I have absolutely no nostalgia for prerendered backgrounds or Tank controls but I genuinely think they are better for the genre. Picking up these games for the first time today, the lack of control created by Tank controls and the lack of ability to see where you are going adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere and sense of dread Within these titles. Modern camera and shooter controls completely strips these elements from modern versions of the games, turning them into action power fantasies and basically making them a completely different genre
I've played RE4 (original) for the first time and while I really struggle with the tank controls (I think mostly because I'm not used to it anymore) I really appreciate the inability to both move and aim/shoot. That adds a ton of tension to the gameplay for me and it's something I'd love to see return. When it comes to the fixed camera I have more double feelings about it. I like how it looks and you can get some good atmospheric angles but it is a problem that you are sometimes unable to see things that the character you control would be able to see. It is also just a bit jarring to go from angle to angle in the same area. What I find funny is that Luigi's Mansion still seems to stick to a static camera in a horror game and it works well to go around areas like that. I think a slightly more advanced camera than that could do wonders for horror games but I really find that in 3D games developers have pretty much given up on creating a good camera system that you as the player don't have to think about. I get it when it comes to more open-ended games as it becomes difficult to consider where a player might be looking at as well as the kinds of shooters where controlling the camera is basically just the gameplay, but in games taking place in tighter environments where aiming isn't part of the core gameplay I'd love to see the developers take control of the camera again, it could dynamically move around to positions that would be beneficial for that specific moment may it be gameplay or atmosphere. It would also be nice to see that second stick on the controller get freed up to actually play the game with instead of constantly needing to be used on something you'd rather not have to think about.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305tank controls aren’t really janky though. They make perfect sense when paired with the fixed cameras and don’t take that long to get used to. I say this as someone what got in resident evil through the remake of 2
More games should do what Dragon Quest XI did where it just straight up included a 2D demake version because the devs felt like it, and you could freely switch between the 2D and 3D versions of the game.
Interestingly I'd actually describe remaster vs remake by intent, rather than by any technicality of the game's development, but I like "rebuild" too. While "they make money" is a pretty good way to sum up why remakes get made, I think it's a very specific form of making money; we have a current environment of mass industry layoffs and squeezing players for every last microtransacted drop available, all in the name of being able to put "more profit than last year" on the shareholder report. Remasters and remakes combine known brands, nostalgia, and minimum development effort, which is pretty much a slam dunk if you're trying to maximise "growth".
The term “rebuild” could just have easily been a redefining of remaster. But I personally don’t like the word remaster and wanted to change the term so there’s less confusion. Great points about money and profit though.
Minimum developer effort for remakes? Sounds like you just made that up. With remasters it’s debatable but a quick search didn’t yield any definite answers.
Hey Lextorias keep doing what you are doing man. UA-cam has stopped recommending me your content even though I am subbed, but your content is still some of the best out there for the genre of what you do.
Other reason is to why they re-release games is that those are recognized brands and icons by the gaming audience. Just like the movies, AAA game companies are playing “safe” and not risk tons of investment on a new IP.
You are the first UA-camr that made me become the member. I love your voice, topics and jokes. I would really love to see more in-depth game reviews. Keep it up ❤
one reason i've always thought devs might want to do a rebuild/make/master/fourth thing is to fully realize their original vision of the game. Like if you made an ambitious sci-fi game in the 90's and wanted to make it again with modern technology so you can fully build whatever you wanted. but that does only apply if the original creators are involved in one way or another (even if it's just the guy who came up with the idea working with a new team), whereas a lot of remakes are started by companies because free money.
I think people forget that newer generations would never play some of the greatest games ever made if they don’t get rereleased for modern hardware. And most youths arent gonna choose to play games that look “bad” (to them) so a new lick of paint is necessary. Never understood the point of view that says remakes are lazy and companies should only make new games
Dead Space is definitely a remake. They changed the map, the characters, some gameplay mechanics and added new plot points. Something like Spyro is closer to being a remastered as it is only a graphical update, as far as I know. Even though the game was built from the ground up.
Tbh i prefer what Spyro and Crash method for a remake. It really doesn't change much and more of a big graphical update with some QOL elements when it comes to controls.
Honestly my perspective is that I'm ok with these rer-eleases. I've only been a gamer since December 2021 and there's still so many classic games that I haven't had the time to play. For someone new like me, without the nostalgia goggles, having a newer coat of paint can reaally help me to have insight into why the games were so popular in the first place, where I might not have had the same appreciation for them otherwise. An example would be Halo 2 Anniversary, where without the graphical improvements and phenomenal cutscenes it wouldn't have felt close to as epic to me as a new gamer who is used to modern graphics. Because of that game (as well as Reach's excellent campaign) I wouldn't be even close to as big a Halo fan as I am now. I'm not defending that a lot of them are blatant cash-grabs. But as a newer gamer, I really appreciate being able to play and see classics as everyone else saw them at the time, without resorting to the expensive and complicated hobby that is retro gaming.
I absolutely agree with your argument that for people which only now started gaming, some old games might seam outdated in graphics and game design, so having them rebuild can be a great way to experience their magic. I for example would have never played Links awakening if not for the remake and now I love the game. Halo 2 anniversary is also a great rebuild because especially in the cutscenes you get a feeling of: Oh this is what the developers wanted to show while in the original I did not get some aspects.
@@doctorlauch6300 I dont have a switch so I haven’t played Links awakening, but I know several families who bought it that wouldn’t have if it never got a rerelease. That’s definitely another great example.
im so jealous you have so many great games to play im glad halo was among your first, id recommend cod 4 remastered and modern warfare 2 remastered if you have not gotten to them yet, genre defineing shooters for sure.
@@doctorlauch6300 I think that straight up remakes only make sense for the PS1/N64/Dreamcast era, and maybe/potentially for some original XBOX/PS2 games, because that was the era when developers were still experimenting with 3D graphics. Later generations can get away with just remasters, upping the polygon count and texture resolution, but with these games, a straight up remake is often the much better option. On the other hand, you can still pick up SNES/Genesis games, and their pixel art will look perfectly serviceable today, with the only potential issue being the low resolution on modern monitors. The games themselves, however, are still going to look and play precisely as well as they did thirty years ago, which is pretty remarkable.
Some of our Hollywood classics are actually remakes, becoming more renowned than what they remade. The most famous version or Ben-Hur (1959) was a remake of a 1925 version (which almost nobody remembers). I think this could also apply to games, tho I’m struggling to come up with an example (Black Mesa maybe being the closest).
Funnily enough, Ben-Hur also had a remake in 2016 that was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. In a similar vein, The Thing (1982) was a "remake" of The Thing From Another World (1951), and was followed up with remake/prequel The Thing (2011) that made history as one of the worst failures in cinema. I think the difference is still that the good remakes had their own ideas in mind and took the original as inspiration. Whereas the bad remakes just tried to copy and profit off of an older work without any other reason to be made. And, of course, we can all still watch Ben-Hur (1959) and The Thing (1982) in remastered HD quality on Blu-Ray or streaming right now. So there's no point to checking out the remakes that do nothing new.
Sorry this comment is so late, but the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is *not* a remake of the '70s Gene Wilder film; its just another adaptation of the source material (the Roald Dahl book).@@Lextorias
There's a term that I've seen in a Wikipedia page, I think, that nobody uses for some reason, and it describes that middle ground between remake and remaster: "enhanced port". That's what I would call games like TLOZ Ocarina 3d, Sonic Adventure DX, Shadow of the collosus PS4 or Metroid Prime Remaster. It's essentially a port of a game (same code, game design, maybe even the same game engine) with some remade assets (like 3d models or textures)
one thing i like about remakes is how the game is most likely developed by fans who grew up playing the original game when they were young, so there can be that level of passione put into it from those developers who recreate the game feel as to how they were experiencing it for the first time
I hated the DeS “Remake” precisely because it was just a glorified Remaster that took the skeleton of the old game and put a new one on which ruined the art direction and musical score. BluePoint themselves said that they wanted to be faithful to the original, yet also said that they changed the designs because they wanted “creative freedom and make it more realistic (which misses the point of the Demons looking strange, which they acknowledged, but did anyway)”. This ended up with a game which fails at being a faithful upgrade, and fails a being it’s own thing. The original DeS wasn’t perfect. It was incredibly flawed, but the art direction was amazing and didn’t need changing. It was the rest of the game that needed changing. Honestly I would have been fine with them making it a full on reimagining, that allows the game to be judged more on it’s own terms, but that’s not the game that we got. The System Shock Remake actually justifies it’s existence. The original game wasn’t intuitive even when it came out, and has gotten worse with time. The Remake stays faithful the 90’s retro futurism, keeps the OG voice for SHODAN, and the level design among other things, but changes the first person gameplay to be closer to modern contemporary games that have come out. You don’t need to “modernize” the art direction, just the gameplay.
Man you really had to remind me of the pain of being a metal gear fan. My day is ruined but it's still okay because it was a great video. Thank you for another banger
You also mentioned loving demakes. That's something I loved about DQ XI S. It had it's normal 3D edition with modern graphics but you could also play the entire game in a 2D pixel art mode that was fun to play as well. It even had old school random battles instead of enemies on screen.
Anime reboots could be another topic to follow up this one. Those have been around for quite a while, albeit more often in recent times. Though aside from FMA Brotherhood, HxH 2011, Devilman Crybaby and arguably Rebuild of Evangelion, none have really reached the popularity and relevance of their respective originals iirc.
@@Lextorias Glad you found interest in this idea! The rabbit hole can get quite deep in a topic like this, also when comparing anime reboots over the years with the Hollywood / western media ones. Overall, anime reboots tend to fall in either the "a new adaptation that is closer to the original manga" camp or the "a bold, contemporary reimagining with some notable changes" one, and I guess a few could even be in both too. Imo, the former can actually be a double edged sword, as even if the hardcore fans of the IP end up getting their more faithful adaptation and it sometimes might actually become the default series afterwards (like in HxH and FMA's cases), it could also lose some of the things that made the first series successful and appealing in the first place such as music, artstyle, tone, extended / tweaked character work, additional stories, etc; resulting in some fans and the general public still preferring the originals despite some deviating from the source quite a bit. So I think that trying something different with the latter style could be more interesting. I often heard the 2019 Dororo series being a major example of that. Anyway, some random info I can recall about this topic is how the 2020 Digimon Adventure reboot came out very shortly after the movie that closed up the original series' story; how one of Toei's lesser known IPs in the west, Kitaro, got several adaptations between the 60s and 2010s; and that the early 2000s Yu-Gi-Oh show we're all familiar with is technically a "rebootquel" of the original 1998 one despite being from a different studio / production company, given it sort of picks up exactly where the first series left off story arc-wise.
I really love the term Rebuild for gaming and that is what I will use to describe many games that are confusingly stating they are remakes or remasters.
I think something worth noting is remakes can be the developers trying to build the game the way they originally intended back then but couldn't because of hardware limitations, lack of funding or other reasons. Sometimes it's about making the same game but how they envisioned it years ago.
I don't think it matter, limitations and low budgets force creativity. 90% of these remakes aren't even close to as good as the original games, so we're lucky they had those limitations
@@brya9681 Some games are impossible or very difficult to make with today's graphics and development cycles, a lot of those old 60+ hour JRPGs like FF7 are a good example, I have serious doubts that SE is going to finish translating the original to the remake (although it's more a re-imaging or sequel). The recent Resident Evil remakes (1 & 2) are another example where they had to cut stuff to fit the budget/development time.
I've really been a fan of the Dragon Quest "rebuilds" over the years. They often times put a lot of effort of building them from the ground up using a more advanced game engine, adding extras, and balancing certain gameplay elements. This first started with their rebuild of DQ 1+2 for the SFC (SNES). Some highlights included DQ III for the SFC, DQ V for the PS2, and DQ VII for the 3DS. They do a such a good job with these rebuilds which is why I'm so excited for the upcoming DQ III for multiple platforms using the Octopath engine. I also appreciate that different teams are used to make these games while the main team will still put out new titles continuing the main line of games.
For the money part, it very much depends on if the game is already easily available on the console. The Prime remaster it not only a fresh sheet of paint, but also making a game more accessible by bringing it to a console it otherwise wouldn’t be on, where as the Deadpsace remake/master should definitely be cheaper, due to it being so similar to the original, and the original being so accessible.
Absolutely loved this video! Both the subject and the visuals. Great job! 👍 The excellent sense of humor is a plus. ❤️ The only remake I’ve bought to this day, was the Final Fantasy VII remake. An exception for me personally. Oddly enough, no other of my favourites games were ever ‘remade’. Is that a good or bad thing? I can’t decide. 😋
I think what bothers me most about discourse around remakes is people who say "Man, this game is awesome, I wish it got a remake." and that's a mindset I hate because why want a remake of a game you already adore (even without the new coat of paint a remake/rebuild would give it) instead of a new game in the series?
I mean in some cases like with the early Persona games, they haven't been accessible for so long, or both already existing versions have pros and cons that our Fandom wants to see the best elements from each version put together to make the definitive experience. With something like Persona 2 Innocent Sin, you are sacrificing thr PSP bonus content for better gameplay speeds on Ps1, and the speed for the bonus content on PSP since they made the menus less intuitive. A game like that to me needs a re-release to address the major flaw and make it more accessible to modern audiences since Persona 1 and both Persona 2s are the only mainline games in the series not available on all major modern consoles. When a game has multiple versions with different drawbacks and upsides, I think a remake is probably a good idea to take those best aspects and put them into a definitive version that can be easy to reccomend instead of asking my friends "so do you prefer presentation or gameplay enhancements" or something
I prefer the word “Reimagining” instead of “Remake,” which you proposed. That’s a far more accurate description of what those games are trying to accomplish.
I think 40$ is a good price to pay for faithful, well executed rewhatevers that are a best version to play something and 30 is more fair for ones that are just a new coat of paint or don't do as good a job reimagining or translated the original onto newer hardware. I too would instantly blow 70$ on a well excuted Bloodborne rebuild/remake for modern systems/pc with 60 fps and consistent performance.
I am also a bit split on the Re-thing. I was so excited for Spyro and Crash Bandicoot to be Rebuild because they were my most favorite games of my childhood. Also what they did with Nier was great as I was interested in this game for ages, but did not own it on PS3 and the controls especially for fighting was janky. The PS4 version was a blast to play. But I am totally on your side with the money grabbing. When Last of us was announced I was like, huh it's fine why would they rerelease that - but yeah it's a beloved franchise and they try to milk the cow as long as it is alive 🤷
I love the Darksiders remasters and their edition-different puns - Deathinitive and Warmastered sounds hilarious (also, conveys the adventure tone of the games quite well in my opinion). They are kind of niche but dear to me, and came out at the time of questionable dlc practises, so the remasters packing everything that came out into one game and resing textures a little higher was like a new year`s present. Alan Wake rebuild was also very welcome, I have my x360 and the disc but never experienced the game before (it was too scary for teen me), so I am currently going through the game as it originally was. But as a new Remedy fan (CONTROL my beloved) I would absolutely welcome Alan Wake on new consoles to experience the collective universe they are creating and to see the game that the AWE dlc was so heavily connected to! Your suggested terminology is very on-point, and I think it would be extremely useful if it became commonly adopted. Another great analysis as always! p.s. btw have you seen EDF? It`s a niche game but also THE Anime TM experience, absolute chaos and hilarity guaranteed.
The term "Rebuild" makes a lot more sense too, because "build" is a term often used for code. Where as "master" doesn't have the same meaning for videogames as it does for music (and film, film uses the term master too. The UHD version of Psycho is a remaster after all)
Without having watched the video yet I can already say the point of them is for a new generation to experience a game the previous one loved. The point is for those who have played it already to get to experience it again for the first time in a new way (if the remake is done right). The point is for fun, and that’s what video game are ultimately for.
Money!! But honestly I feel like it's because corporations have calculated that its financially beneficial for them to pander to you Nostalgia then take a chance on new ip. And the new ips that do get pushed put are soulless cash grabs that have been meddled with so much buy financial incentives there's no story to tell. It's all about monetization at this point. Because look at the games being remastered. The ones that made a bunch of money. And look how their doling it out to you or forcing remakes out under pay wall.
Metal Slug X? I found it the best demonstration of a remake or remastered as of how the original SNK Corporation and NAZCA developers decided to massively make the game as a remix of Metal Slug 2, which fixes some glitches, tone down the difficulty of specific missions and add in enemies from MS1 and MS3, including creatively redesigning many sections, and adding new weapons and equipment, with the addition of a much smoother engine and the refined of old music instruments. Its an arcade game but it is such a gem for game designers and developers in these modern days
adding onto your point about being able to easily watch old movies, i have a personal anecdote about exactly that: I watched The Thing (1982) on the internet archive. Didn't even know it was there until i looked up where to watch the movie and said archive was one of the first results. but you can't do that with games. You've got to find a ROM, then find an emulator that supports it, then spend hours getting shit set up only to play the game with no sound and insane input lag - so the vast majority of people just don't bother.
5:58 😂😂😂 I see so many youtubers praising tanking controls "for the atmosfere and feel that u cant control properly your character", but then, if they play the game and it has an option to play with modern controls, they ditch tank controls in a pinch
I actually have a term I like to use that functions exactly how "remake" is defined in this video; VIP. Funnily enough, it is also a term borrowed from the world of music. A VIP, which is an acronym standing for Variation In Production is basically when an artist releases a track that is a remix of one of their own songs. They just make the song again, but with some "variation in production" done to better flesh out or expand on the core idea of the original.
I personally think a good term for Remastered would be "Restored" or "Refurbished". its like taking a statue and polishing it and removing the rust and grafitti and dirt off of it. its the same thing but fixed up and looks new. a Restoration.
Call of duty 4 remastered was amazing! Same game but just smoother and better looking. Just the old game but if it was released today. That was good. A shame they put in behind a huge 100 dollar paywall. I bought it played the hell out of it and was teleported back to 2006 the whole time. The killingstreaks on shipment. And the gun fight in the streets and the helicopter. It had it all. Then I got banned, because of an in game feature that later was classified as a xp cheat. It was a one on one cagematch and we played many many hours, cause it was fun and they thought it was too much xd. 300 hours and rank 3 on the leadboards gone. I quit and never played a cod longer than 20 hours since.
First of all: The need of remakes/remasters would be much less, if we had more games on PC. Almost everyone has a PC at home, and even if you don't run a high end hardcore gaming rig, chances are, your PC is still good enough to run N64-era games, or even GCN/PS2. And even if you want to play something newer, upgrading your PC makes much more sense than trying to buy an ancient console that isn't even produced anymore. PC also comes with plenty of online-stores (GoG, Steam and that other one nobody should care about), so BUYING older games isn't going to be much of a problem either. Also, modding is a great thing. Changing topic though, one thing you didn't mention in your video is why making remakes/remasters is such a good deal for developers/publishers. Even if they remake the game from the ground up with entirely new assets etc, replacing every single asset in the game (including the code), it's still cheaper than making an entirely new game. Why? Because the game already exist. Unless they make a complete reboot of the game, there are always things they can already go back to. Story, characters, gameplay elements, level designs, enemies, mechanics, overall theme of the game, etc etc. Yes, they might want to revisiting some/many of these points and polish them up as well, but that's still less work than creating something entirely new. I don't know how much EXACTLY it would save a company, as game developement is still a very expensive undertaking. But it's definitely something they save money on. The second reason is also blends somewhat into the first one: They already know how popular the game is, and they probably don't need to rely so much on marketing. The game already has an established fanbase before it is being (re)made. They already have a much more grounded expectation of how well it might sell, with much less risk attached to it than creating something entirely new. They know there is a market for it, how big it is and the fanbase know what they can expect from this game. It also helps a lot in reviving a franchise, opening up a new opportunity to make it into a franchise or simply bring in new fans into it. So compared to making an entirely new game from scratch, a remake/remaster (and even reboots) are much less risky, with very high rewards.
I like your take, and that thrid thing youre looking for is Redux: it's as a process of doing a the same thing a remaster does and uses the orginal elements of the core idea but also mixes in improvements and changes to better suite the product. Like a Remix does in music.
Would you consider Mass Effect: Legendary Edition more of a redux then? Cause ME:1 definitely falls towards a remake but as a whole Redux by this definition fits better IMO than either remaster or Remake
One thing that doesn't get remade...or covered,more accurately....is albums. I wish there was one exception to this,however. I wish that the original members of Black Sabbath would remake/cover their Paranoid album with modern recording/production technology. It COULD still happen. To date,they're all still alive.
Yeah demakes are where it’s at. It’s not just that the old aesthetic looks cool, it’s that it’s so completely within our technical abilities that it can be made basically perfect from a mechanical and aesthetic standpoint, with a 1:1 relationship between artistic intent and product. No compromises need to be made whatsoever with gameplay or performance. The graphics are lower fidelity but they are so intentional and elegant that the end result is that they look fantastic, so what’s the difference? This is why Hyper Light Drifter, Celeste, and Stardew Valley were able to achieve their aims more or less perfectly. Also I’d love to see the Final Fantasy games de-made into the FFVI art style, or more realistically the Octopath style. FFVII looks much rougher than FFVI now because it was reaching so hard past its limitations.
idk about you, but i love remakes, it’s so fun to see places, people and things that look really bad that you’ve been looking at for years in full lifelike graphics. It’s like i was dreaming as a kid playing ff7 and just wondering what all these things would look like irl and now i kinda got it. Totally get why others don’t, but i just think it’s neat asl.
I think a great remaster/remake/re-do is the Spyro Reignited Trilogy. Here you're taking something that was beloved by so many kids who are now grown up and finally able to re-experience the games they grew up playing with much better graphics and better controls on modern hardware and share it with their kids. When I played through that remaster, it felt like I was a kid again and re-experiencing the same games with the exact same wonder I had as a kid. It's how it should be done.
The way that you defined things, I think one aspect about rebuilds that is potentially useful is to have an inexperienced team of artists and coders learn how to make games.
Not even discussing the quality of the games, I feel like pokemon having remakes was a necessity due to compatibility issues from gen 2 to gen 3. We needed those red and green remakes for kanto mons(along with the gamecube spin-offs for harder to obtain johto mons), then gold and silver got remakes during gen 4 for a similar reason red and green did but also to solve a major issue of cost for owning multiple games+systems+accessories. Anything beyond that was mainly for giving an old region a new look and possibly story with qol features from all the newer games. The "sister games" on the other hand really were just a "round 2" for extra money and aside from i'd say japanese blue, emerald, platinum and bw2, they didn't do too much that couldn't have been left as ideas for the next generation or saved for future remakes, but hey we got them and they are usually the ones to play when going back to that specific generation
A good argument in favor of doing things again, is that it brings those things to the attention of newer generations in that medium. For many people, the rebuilds are their first time experiencing these classics, which they were unlikely to experience before, because it's not something that has been brought up to their attention. Normally people don't make a list of classic, old things they should try experience, it happens organically, and a lot of those times it's because of those rebuilds and remakes coming out.
Last year Chrono Cross had a modern port called the Radical Dreamers edition. While SE really dropped the ball in terms of optimizing it, and didn't really do much in way of improvements, I was pretty happy with it in concept. I think all old console games need is a PC port that people can play it with a few optimizations. That assures the game can be enjoyed for as long as PC digital storefronts exist (which admittedly is not as secure as a physical copy but is a hell of a lot more than the console eco-system) Putting something on PC also gives fans the opportunity to make improvements that the developer never would. Chrono Cross, as I mentioned before, ran kind of shit until some modders got hold of it (I guess it runs better now that there's been an official patch recently) Now people might say that was originally SE's job (and I agree), but the modders didn't just stop at making the game work, they also made efforts to make the game better with things like AI upscale mods. Things that aren't possible via consoles unless they're hacked. Things the developers themselves wouldn't do, fans could.
Real talk, i love the idea of remakes. Especially remakes of old titles from PS3, PS2 and N64 era. There were so many hardwear limitations with those consoles that it was impossible to really create the developers artistic vision. There were so many amazing and ambitious game concepts that just couldn't be fully capitalised on because technology just wasnt there yet.
I differentiate Remaster and Remake for myself (because I had a really hard time remembering when I first heard the term Remaster) by thinking of Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver and Dark Souls Remastered. The Pokemon Remakes usually are not just new coats of paint, but change the games in question to the current Pokemon gameplay standard (HGSS took on the physical/special split DPPt introduced, among MANY other things) while also completely rebuilding the graphical assets and even the script sometimes. Dark Souls Remastered on the other hand, is just a visual overhaul and fixes a few issues (like the performance) while porting the game. I'm not deep enough into the topic, so there's probably issues with that though. One thing I will say, is that some of the collections released in the last 10 years were really nice for me specifically. I didn't get much pocket money, wasn't allowed a console until my brother and me were able to work for it and thus missed a lot of classics. The Mana collection and the Grandia collection are some of the best purchases I made in recent memory. I love the games on those collections but I wouldn't have been able to play them (legally) without those collections. The SaGa collection re-released the old Final Fantasy Legend titles I only knew through emulation, because iirc Europe didn't even get them.
I propose a more detailed and nuanced set of terms: Port - original game just higher resolution Reskin - remasters that replace textures or rebuild missing assets to match the original assets or fix broken visual elements of the original Restructure - remasters that augment controls and interface, the playability is overhauled for a better quality of life user experience, but the game's assets are still limited the originals Rebuild - remakes that rebuild all new assets from scratch to match the original experience with modern technology, to enhance that experience without interfering with the original vision, with minimal changes to presentation Revision - remakes that reimagine and repurpose content of the original to create an entirely new modern experience meant to adapt the original content to the mechanical advancements and design refinements made in the genre Reboot - same ip, completely new vision, completely new game, no original assets, marginally similar design motivations I just think if we need new categorical naming conventions to better reflect the actual content of these games we should start from scratch and not try to redefine any existing terms, just to avoid confusion. Ports and reboots wouldn't change meaning, so those still work, it's just everything in between that needs redefinition. Remakes and remasters are broad categories, like genres. It's become nuanced enough now that we need subcategories, like subgenres.
Your definitions still try to separate based on development style and discrete changes made, which is near impossible to track with modern game development. It still causes a massive overlap for tons of games that might sit on the line between two terms based on how much they changed
I think an interesting upside to re-releases is that even if you have emulators, there's so many classic games you should play that it causes a bit of analysis paralysis. A re-release gives you a reason go finally play something you've wanted to get around to for a while.
Thank you for the video and your opinion, but I'm more concerned about UA-cam videos, showing remakes of old games on the Unreal engine, and people believe that these games can released
Those are good definitions! Also, I actually kept my old consoles and games, so technically I wouldn't need ports or rebuilds, only I got rid of my old TVs so I still need an HDscaler and that can be a hassle. Love a good remake in any case; FFVIIR blew me away, and the original game is probably my all time favourite game.
Actually, that's not 3D, it's also pixel art but at a higher resolution (it's not even HD tho). If I'm not wrong that's one of the stages from SVC Chaos for the Neo Geo, that game was kinda weird and unbalanced as far as gameplay is concerned but it has amazing pixel art and a fairly unique roster of fighters, don't know any other game where you can play as Zero from Megaman Zero against one of the alien invaders from Metal Slug in a dilapidated gothic cathedral.
Well, I can't say anything about Darkstalkers Resurrection, but GoldenEye Reloaded plays less like the original and more like Call of Duty while Metro 2033 Redux uses the HUD layout and control scheme of Last Light. Also, Gears of War Ultimate Edition has levels that in the original game were exclusive to the PC version, and also many differences in cutscenes. In one cutscene in the original, if I remember correctly, Raam killed a Gear by shooting him with a Boltok, but in Ultimate Edition he instead snapped his neck. The final cutscene has a difference too. In Gears of War 1, we see a Theron riding a Hydra in the ending, but in Ultimate Edition we see Myrrah in her armor riding her Tempest from Gears of War 3.
I noticed that only the most popular games get remakes. It would be better to remake a mix of popular and obscure games in my opinion. The popular games can be the big money makers, but the obscure games can be tested to see if they manage to connect to a larger audience this time around. These obscure games can fulfill the demand for new and different content that players demand. For most new players, these games will be fresh and new to them.
One that I enjoyed that a felt was fully justified was Alex Kidd in Miracle World DX for the Switch. The original is a game that's well known enough that most players have probably at least heard of it, but likely don't own it and may have never gotten to play it because it was on the Sega Master System. The gameplay is pretty spot on, but with some minor quality of life improvements (like putting the story in cutscenes and dialog instead of relying on the manual) and it offers more modern graphics and sound with the ability to switch to retro mode, even for the new added levels.
While it is a nice concept that remaking games is one way to preserve and keep them fresh, it just really ticks me off whenever the game developers of the remake add in or change mechanics that would destroy the game's system or make it too easy for the new generation people. I do always appreciate whenever the game devs of the remake give options or toggles to turn new feature on or off to let the OG players re-experience the same game they played before with a new coat of paint and be there in their library for the new gen consoles whenever they get a craving of wanting to play it again.
Remakes also exists for people who have never played the game, especially since some will not play a game which graphics doesn't look good or at least okay, because they to some degree use it as a indicator of the quality of the game.
When a game has outdated graphics, controls, gameplay, story, audio and even replay value, some games need to be remade. Or if the game was decent, mediocre, or just very bad, it is an opportunity to make it a big improvement. One good example of remaking a bad game is Terminator 3: ROTM and just have Teyon develop it and make it look and play better and combine the game with Redemption levels to make it a complete game. Use the ROTM mission police cemetery shootout and the next stage is Redemption’s driving out of the cemetery police shootout and escaping the TX. A remake that’s needed is Metal Gear 1 and 2 and can be canon with the Solid series references events of the Big Boss prequels connecting them. And gameplay mechanics are outdated in the original.
I've been playing all the old Armored Core games across PS1 and PS2 and the controls really aren't that bad, the games were entirely developed around them. The 3 most recent PS2 Armored Core games have analog controls (AC: Nexus onwards) so if the controls are that much of an issue just play those. The "story" can be summarized in a few sentences or less so you're not missing anything on that front.
A really niche game that received a rebuild was Front Mission 1. The gameplay is exactly like the original with a few quality of life changes. It was a surprise to me since the franchise was abandoned by Square after the failure of the Xbox 360 game. I was glad to see that the game looks amazing in 3D since I always wanted to see it that way. By the way, the original game still looks great; the pixel art aged very well. As for RE 4, I played the original for the first time in 2013 by pirating it, but it was so amazing that I bought the remastered version for PC. I'm glad they ported the game because I don't want to risk filling my PC with malware from dubious sources. After that, I bought the Remake at full price because they seem to be doing an excellent job with it. It's a very special game that deserves all the praise it's getting.
Sometimes an upscaled game for the new console generation isn't bad. In fact it's not all that different from releasing the same game on the old and the new console at the same time. I played the first Last of Us on PS4, because I never got around to buying it on PS3 - I always wanted to play it, but never got around to it.
I'm old enough to remember when capcom kept re-releasing different versions of street fighter 2. The gaming industry hasn't changed one bit. Except capcom still refuses to do a darkstalkers/vampire saviour 4.
I remember how excited I was when it was announced that the KOTOR games were getting ported to the Switch because for so long the only way you could play those games were on PC or Xbox, Playstation it still left out of luck but it's still better than nothing
the real point of remakes (not the corporate answer of money) is that the old one is so inherently old to truly fix or do things for it that a remaster can't do - if a game is from too a system or coding that you need to redo it to actually create the fixes the problem of modern ones is using it for tech showcase or just to make a different game using its Brand name (FF7R) the bar remake is still RE1R for being mostly just refining of the original that very little needs to play the old cause it maintains its core
The idea that remasters are solely made to make money is an interesting point and one that I feel like has been disputed in the past. I can't remember where I read it but I remember reading that a majority of the remasters that are made have very low commercial success in terms of breaking even on the budget. I've heard that remasters are put out by companies to gauge interest in certain IPs to see if the development of new games is worth the risk. You definitely have some outliers like metroid prime but we still don't know if that even broke even for the budget. On a separate note, I do love the phrasing of rebuilds. It gets the point across better and doesn't use language that doesn't fit with the medium.
i wish we saw more "reimaginings" of games with potential to be so much more rather than just re releases of popular games, but ik the ladder makes more money. for example, devil may cry 4 is already a good game, and it did get the special edition, but i would love to see the dante portion of the game get expanded upon so that its not just backtracking through the first half again but backwards. even a newer game like shadow of the tomb raider has many good elements, but its less than the sum of its parts, and i think some form of re-imagining could make that game pretty great
mainly for the easy money and much less effort to produce and sell it, and then creating a game now takes much longer than usual so remakes would damage the release of new titles or diminish ideas because you have to add pieces that you could use for new games instead of modify old ones, while remastered ones take much less and would not slow down the release of new titles.
I don’t think I’m getting your videos presented on my feed even tho I have the bell icon turned on, thought I’d let you know because I look forward to your uploads
*I love Final Fantasy 6!* Final Fantasy 7 got a whole overhaul, while the oldest FF games got a "pixel remaster" that didn't do much but f*ck up the colours and fonts, while what we all thought they were going to do was do an Octopath Traveller style rebuild... They even remade an entire scene in the game in that 2D-HD style, which felt so misleading since they didn't do it for the rest of the game. They've re-released FF 1-6 so many times, without actually doing much to elevate the games, yet tweaking them enough to make it annoying to play the new version if you've played the old one. What I'd like is for them to keep the original version available on all platforms, only fixing bugs and obvious errors (no editing of fonts or language to fit modern norms), and only doing new re-releases that aren't ports if they have made significant changes, like turning the old FF games into an Octopath Traveller or FF7 remake style game.
a new idea I liked, when Red Dead Redemption (1) had that disc that was just a zombie apoclypse version of the game. What if we took a twist to games and just do something wild like that as a "remake".
Dead Space has more improvements than you give it credit. An intensity director, the peel system, breakers, remixed boss fights, new zero g mechanics, refinements from DS2, a better story, new engine, completely overhauled presentation. It's not just a 1-to-1 translation, there's a lot done to significantly improve the experience.
I’d argue that the Pokémon games you called rebuilds I would call remakes based on your definitions but the point you’re trying to make still stands. These re-Pokémon games have a lot of variation in how the old content was updated and added to anyway.
I honestly think one of the best things that a company can do is release an official emulator on their consoles and let you play the originals kinda like the virtual console... but obviously not full price.
As long as they don't lock it behind a SUBSCRIPTION service! I hate Nintendo sometimes fr
It's a shame that the big 3 decided to stop with backwards compatibility. Nintendo's handhelds could play the previous generation's games and do could the Wii and Wii U. PlayStation 2 and 3 could play PlayStation games and some PS3s could play PS2 as well. Xbox never had 100% compatibility with the previous generation (or even 50%) but they have stopped the backwards compatibility program in 2021. I'm glad that PS5 and Xbox Series S|X are compatible with (most) PS4 and One software, respectively.
having the script in the captions is such a W
that's actually all auto-generated captions. I am too lazy to transcribe the entire video. I'm glad it does a good job though!
As a Deaf person, this rocks how close it is to what you say.
@@deafengineer respectfully
How do u know captions are close to what he is saying? Just curious
@@Jescribano1 that's the joke
@Jescribano1 I'm part of the Deaf community, I'm Hard-of-Hearing, so I can hear, but it's easier for most to not have to deal with the comparison between the two conditions. I fit under the umbrella if Deaf, but I'm not completely deaf, you see?
Nice video, I'm personally a fan of these definitions:
- Remaster, a rerelease with the same assets (perhaps uncompressed) and higher resolution / frame rate e.g. Dark souls remastered.
- Remake, a recreation of the same game with new assets e.g. Demon's souls PS5.
- Reimagining, a recreation of the same idea from a new perspective e.g. FF7 remake (lol).
- Reboot, the same characters and/or world with different starting parameters e.g. Tomb Raider.
Exactly how I remember it.
One correction, a Reboot can have the same “starting parameters”, but can go in a very different direction from there
Which is weird, cause didn't Square Enix reboot Tomb Raider but didn't name it, Tomb Raider: Rebooted or something? Lol
Isn't a reboot and reimaging the same?
@@isaacduraes7685 not exactly, sometimes it could be the same thing but more often we see reboots such as Tomb Raider (2013). It is indeed a reboot of the franchise, but in no way it is a reimagining of the first game. In my mind a reimagining wants to tell the same story but differently, while a reboot takes existing characters and tries to tell a new story disregarding the events of the previous games except maybe for the character’s entry point let’s say in the story which could be similar
This was a great break down. The one addition I'd mention is that some games are remade as means of creating assets in a specific engine to be used in a future title, like how Crash N Sane led into Crash 4. In that case, I see it as a great way to port old games while building excitement for the new release. (Even if they're usually too expensive anyway)
Funny enough I bought into the excitement, got Crash 4 and was completely crushed by the absolutely absurd difficulty of the game. Now I hate Crash Bandicoot.
Funny thing is, Resident Evil is the perfect example for when it's the other way around, Village was just an excuse to make assets for RE4's REm4ke
I wouldn’t say Crash N Sane made assets for use in Crash 4, as Crash 4 is in a completely different style and I believe Crash 4 uses completely new assets. Now the REmakes on the other hand, those definitely use assets from the new RE games and the other REmakes.
My favourite kind of port is something like the Zelda Collectors edition for GameCube. At the moment it'll cost you £42 and you get Majora's Mask, Ocarina of Time and Zelda 2 all packaged into 1 disc. While I'm sure it's intention was to hype up the release of Wind Waker (as it has a playable demo) I thought it was a neat idea.
Re-releases that bundle up old games are some of the best
I had this as a kid. What a great deal! And I'll take the gamecube controller over n64 controller any day.
It had Master Quest on it too, right?
I understand why survival horror games moved away from tank controls, but I do miss the old fixed camera, pre-rendered backgrounds style. Is it partly just because of nostalgia? Yes. But I also feel like it did help add to the tension. It's also always fun watching someone who's never played any of those games stumble around trying to figure out how they work and getting super frustrated lol
I have absolutely no nostalgia for prerendered backgrounds or Tank controls but I genuinely think they are better for the genre. Picking up these games for the first time today, the lack of control created by Tank controls and the lack of ability to see where you are going adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere and sense of dread Within these titles. Modern camera and shooter controls completely strips these elements from modern versions of the games, turning them into action power fantasies and basically making them a completely different genre
I've played RE4 (original) for the first time and while I really struggle with the tank controls (I think mostly because I'm not used to it anymore) I really appreciate the inability to both move and aim/shoot. That adds a ton of tension to the gameplay for me and it's something I'd love to see return.
When it comes to the fixed camera I have more double feelings about it. I like how it looks and you can get some good atmospheric angles but it is a problem that you are sometimes unable to see things that the character you control would be able to see. It is also just a bit jarring to go from angle to angle in the same area.
What I find funny is that Luigi's Mansion still seems to stick to a static camera in a horror game and it works well to go around areas like that. I think a slightly more advanced camera than that could do wonders for horror games but I really find that in 3D games developers have pretty much given up on creating a good camera system that you as the player don't have to think about. I get it when it comes to more open-ended games as it becomes difficult to consider where a player might be looking at as well as the kinds of shooters where controlling the camera is basically just the gameplay, but in games taking place in tighter environments where aiming isn't part of the core gameplay I'd love to see the developers take control of the camera again, it could dynamically move around to positions that would be beneficial for that specific moment may it be gameplay or atmosphere.
It would also be nice to see that second stick on the controller get freed up to actually play the game with instead of constantly needing to be used on something you'd rather not have to think about.
i think the jnaky controls add to the tension, enabling you to trip essentially.
but then you get used to them and that stops being the case.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305tank controls aren’t really janky though. They make perfect sense when paired with the fixed cameras and don’t take that long to get used to. I say this as someone what got in resident evil through the remake of 2
people still read Shakespeare.
More games should do what Dragon Quest XI did where it just straight up included a 2D demake version because the devs felt like it, and you could freely switch between the 2D and 3D versions of the game.
Interestingly I'd actually describe remaster vs remake by intent, rather than by any technicality of the game's development, but I like "rebuild" too.
While "they make money" is a pretty good way to sum up why remakes get made, I think it's a very specific form of making money; we have a current environment of mass industry layoffs and squeezing players for every last microtransacted drop available, all in the name of being able to put "more profit than last year" on the shareholder report. Remasters and remakes combine known brands, nostalgia, and minimum development effort, which is pretty much a slam dunk if you're trying to maximise "growth".
The term “rebuild” could just have easily been a redefining of remaster. But I personally don’t like the word remaster and wanted to change the term so there’s less confusion. Great points about money and profit though.
Minimum developer effort for remakes? Sounds like you just made that up. With remasters it’s debatable but a quick search didn’t yield any definite answers.
Black mesa would probably be the biggest example of a well thought out reimagining.
I really enjoyed that but I think Resident Evil 2 and the Dead Space remake takes the cake.
I'd like to see em reimagine me some Half Life episode 3 LMAO! sorry, couldn't help it!
Hey Lextorias keep doing what you are doing man. UA-cam has stopped recommending me your content even though I am subbed, but your content is still some of the best out there for the genre of what you do.
Thank you so much! I appreciate that
0:56 Chainsaw Man opening demake.. demaster? Yeah the analogy doesen't work lol
Other reason is to why they re-release games is that those are recognized brands and icons by the gaming audience. Just like the movies, AAA game companies are playing “safe” and not risk tons of investment on a new IP.
You are the first UA-camr that made me become the member. I love your voice, topics and jokes. I would really love to see more in-depth game reviews. Keep it up ❤
Thank you so much! I appreciate it
one reason i've always thought devs might want to do a rebuild/make/master/fourth thing is to fully realize their original vision of the game. Like if you made an ambitious sci-fi game in the 90's and wanted to make it again with modern technology so you can fully build whatever you wanted.
but that does only apply if the original creators are involved in one way or another (even if it's just the guy who came up with the idea working with a new team), whereas a lot of remakes are started by companies because free money.
I think people forget that newer generations would never play some of the greatest games ever made if they don’t get rereleased for modern hardware. And most youths arent gonna choose to play games that look “bad” (to them) so a new lick of paint is necessary. Never understood the point of view that says remakes are lazy and companies should only make new games
Dead Space is definitely a remake. They changed the map, the characters, some gameplay mechanics and added new plot points. Something like Spyro is closer to being a remastered as it is only a graphical update, as far as I know. Even though the game was built from the ground up.
If sticking only to remake/remastered classification.
I'm loving the dead space remake so far mostly because I haven't played the original game but I still love it as my first time playing this game
Tbh i prefer what Spyro and Crash method for a remake. It really doesn't change much and more of a big graphical update with some QOL elements when it comes to controls.
Honestly my perspective is that I'm ok with these rer-eleases. I've only been a gamer since December 2021 and there's still so many classic games that I haven't had the time to play. For someone new like me, without the nostalgia goggles, having a newer coat of paint can reaally help me to have insight into why the games were so popular in the first place, where I might not have had the same appreciation for them otherwise.
An example would be Halo 2 Anniversary, where without the graphical improvements and phenomenal cutscenes it wouldn't have felt close to as epic to me as a new gamer who is used to modern graphics. Because of that game (as well as Reach's excellent campaign) I wouldn't be even close to as big a Halo fan as I am now.
I'm not defending that a lot of them are blatant cash-grabs. But as a newer gamer, I really appreciate being able to play and see classics as everyone else saw them at the time, without resorting to the expensive and complicated hobby that is retro gaming.
I absolutely agree with your argument that for people which only now started gaming, some old games might seam outdated in graphics and game design, so having them rebuild can be a great way to experience their magic. I for example would have never played Links awakening if not for the remake and now I love the game. Halo 2 anniversary is also a great rebuild because especially in the cutscenes you get a feeling of: Oh this is what the developers wanted to show while in the original I did not get some aspects.
@@doctorlauch6300 I dont have a switch so I haven’t played Links awakening, but I know several families who bought it that wouldn’t have if it never got a rerelease. That’s definitely another great example.
im so jealous you have so many great games to play im glad halo was among your first, id recommend cod 4 remastered and modern warfare 2 remastered if you have not gotten to them yet, genre defineing shooters for sure.
@@doctorlauch6300 I think that straight up remakes only make sense for the PS1/N64/Dreamcast era, and maybe/potentially for some original XBOX/PS2 games, because that was the era when developers were still experimenting with 3D graphics. Later generations can get away with just remasters, upping the polygon count and texture resolution, but with these games, a straight up remake is often the much better option.
On the other hand, you can still pick up SNES/Genesis games, and their pixel art will look perfectly serviceable today, with the only potential issue being the low resolution on modern monitors. The games themselves, however, are still going to look and play precisely as well as they did thirty years ago, which is pretty remarkable.
May i recommend the enhanced versions of bioware RPGs like baldurs gate and planescape torment
Some of our Hollywood classics are actually remakes, becoming more renowned than what they remade. The most famous version or Ben-Hur (1959) was a remake of a 1925 version (which almost nobody remembers).
I think this could also apply to games, tho I’m struggling to come up with an example (Black Mesa maybe being the closest).
Funnily enough, Ben-Hur also had a remake in 2016 that was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. In a similar vein, The Thing (1982) was a "remake" of The Thing From Another World (1951), and was followed up with remake/prequel The Thing (2011) that made history as one of the worst failures in cinema.
I think the difference is still that the good remakes had their own ideas in mind and took the original as inspiration. Whereas the bad remakes just tried to copy and profit off of an older work without any other reason to be made. And, of course, we can all still watch Ben-Hur (1959) and The Thing (1982) in remastered HD quality on Blu-Ray or streaming right now. So there's no point to checking out the remakes that do nothing new.
Sorry this comment is so late, but the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is *not* a remake of the '70s Gene Wilder film; its just another adaptation of the source material (the Roald Dahl book).@@Lextorias
@@Frostmourne86There’s also Wonka, but that’s a prequel
another great video, we appreciate all the effort!
id love to see another randomly selected anime video!
There's a term that I've seen in a Wikipedia page, I think, that nobody uses for some reason, and it describes that middle ground between remake and remaster: "enhanced port".
That's what I would call games like TLOZ Ocarina 3d, Sonic Adventure DX, Shadow of the collosus PS4 or Metroid Prime Remaster.
It's essentially a port of a game (same code, game design, maybe even the same game engine) with some remade assets (like 3d models or textures)
that’s a good term. it does still blur the lines a lot based on how much a game replaces though
one thing i like about remakes is how the game is most likely developed by fans who grew up playing the original game when they were young,
so there can be that level of passione put into it from those developers who recreate the game feel as to how they were experiencing it for the first time
Daggerfal Unity ❤😍
Great video again, my man! I like the idea of rebuild. It makes way more sense in context.
I like the idea of the term rebuild, it makes a lot of sense and makes everything much simpler
One other reason remakes get done is to train a new team for future games in a franchise or studio
I hated the DeS “Remake” precisely because it was just a glorified Remaster that took the skeleton of the old game and put a new one on which ruined the art direction and musical score.
BluePoint themselves said that they wanted to be faithful to the original, yet also said that they changed the designs because they wanted “creative freedom and make it more realistic (which misses the point of the Demons looking strange, which they acknowledged, but did anyway)”. This ended up with a game which fails at being a faithful upgrade, and fails a being it’s own thing.
The original DeS wasn’t perfect. It was incredibly flawed, but the art direction was amazing and didn’t need changing. It was the rest of the game that needed changing.
Honestly I would have been fine with them making it a full on reimagining, that allows the game to be judged more on it’s own terms, but that’s not the game that we got.
The System Shock Remake actually justifies it’s existence. The original game wasn’t intuitive even when it came out, and has gotten worse with time. The Remake stays faithful the 90’s retro futurism, keeps the OG voice for SHODAN, and the level design among other things, but changes the first person gameplay to be closer to modern contemporary games that have come out.
You don’t need to “modernize” the art direction, just the gameplay.
Man you really had to remind me of the pain of being a metal gear fan. My day is ruined but it's still okay because it was a great video. Thank you for another banger
You also mentioned loving demakes. That's something I loved about DQ XI S. It had it's normal 3D edition with modern graphics but you could also play the entire game in a 2D pixel art mode that was fun to play as well. It even had old school random battles instead of enemies on screen.
Anime reboots could be another topic to follow up this one. Those have been around for quite a while, albeit more often in recent times. Though aside from FMA Brotherhood, HxH 2011, Devilman Crybaby and arguably Rebuild of Evangelion, none have really reached the popularity and relevance of their respective originals iirc.
That's a good idea!
@@Lextorias Glad you found interest in this idea! The rabbit hole can get quite deep in a topic like this, also when comparing anime reboots over the years with the Hollywood / western media ones.
Overall, anime reboots tend to fall in either the "a new adaptation that is closer to the original manga" camp or the "a bold, contemporary reimagining with some notable changes" one, and I guess a few could even be in both too. Imo, the former can actually be a double edged sword, as even if the hardcore fans of the IP end up getting their more faithful adaptation and it sometimes might actually become the default series afterwards (like in HxH and FMA's cases), it could also lose some of the things that made the first series successful and appealing in the first place such as music, artstyle, tone, extended / tweaked character work, additional stories, etc; resulting in some fans and the general public still preferring the originals despite some deviating from the source quite a bit. So I think that trying something different with the latter style could be more interesting. I often heard the 2019 Dororo series being a major example of that.
Anyway, some random info I can recall about this topic is how the 2020 Digimon Adventure reboot came out very shortly after the movie that closed up the original series' story; how one of Toei's lesser known IPs in the west, Kitaro, got several adaptations between the 60s and 2010s; and that the early 2000s Yu-Gi-Oh show we're all familiar with is technically a "rebootquel" of the original 1998 one despite being from a different studio / production company, given it sort of picks up exactly where the first series left off story arc-wise.
I really love the term Rebuild for gaming and that is what I will use to describe many games that are confusingly stating they are remakes or remasters.
I think something worth noting is remakes can be the developers trying to build the game the way they originally intended back then but couldn't because of hardware limitations, lack of funding or other reasons. Sometimes it's about making the same game but how they envisioned it years ago.
I don't think it matter, limitations and low budgets force creativity. 90% of these remakes aren't even close to as good as the original games, so we're lucky they had those limitations
@@brya9681 Some games are impossible or very difficult to make with today's graphics and development cycles, a lot of those old 60+ hour JRPGs like FF7 are a good example, I have serious doubts that SE is going to finish translating the original to the remake (although it's more a re-imaging or sequel). The recent Resident Evil remakes (1 & 2) are another example where they had to cut stuff to fit the budget/development time.
Seriously keep making great videos. Always interesting :)
I've really been a fan of the Dragon Quest "rebuilds" over the years. They often times put a lot of effort of building them from the ground up using a more advanced game engine, adding extras, and balancing certain gameplay elements. This first started with their rebuild of DQ 1+2 for the SFC (SNES). Some highlights included DQ III for the SFC, DQ V for the PS2, and DQ VII for the 3DS. They do a such a good job with these rebuilds which is why I'm so excited for the upcoming DQ III for multiple platforms using the Octopath engine. I also appreciate that different teams are used to make these games while the main team will still put out new titles continuing the main line of games.
For the money part, it very much depends on if the game is already easily available on the console. The Prime remaster it not only a fresh sheet of paint, but also making a game more accessible by bringing it to a console it otherwise wouldn’t be on, where as the Deadpsace remake/master should definitely be cheaper, due to it being so similar to the original, and the original being so accessible.
Absolutely loved this video! Both the subject and the visuals. Great job! 👍
The excellent sense of humor is a plus. ❤️
The only remake I’ve bought to this day, was the Final Fantasy VII remake. An exception for me personally. Oddly enough, no other of my favourites games were ever ‘remade’. Is that a good or bad thing? I can’t decide. 😋
I think what bothers me most about discourse around remakes is people who say "Man, this game is awesome, I wish it got a remake." and that's a mindset I hate because why want a remake of a game you already adore (even without the new coat of paint a remake/rebuild would give it) instead of a new game in the series?
I mean in some cases like with the early Persona games, they haven't been accessible for so long, or both already existing versions have pros and cons that our Fandom wants to see the best elements from each version put together to make the definitive experience. With something like Persona 2 Innocent Sin, you are sacrificing thr PSP bonus content for better gameplay speeds on Ps1, and the speed for the bonus content on PSP since they made the menus less intuitive. A game like that to me needs a re-release to address the major flaw and make it more accessible to modern audiences since Persona 1 and both Persona 2s are the only mainline games in the series not available on all major modern consoles. When a game has multiple versions with different drawbacks and upsides, I think a remake is probably a good idea to take those best aspects and put them into a definitive version that can be easy to reccomend instead of asking my friends "so do you prefer presentation or gameplay enhancements" or something
@@lssjgaming1599 Okay yeah, that's fair
First time watching your channel and it's an instant sub. Well-thought commentary on interesting topic with nice editing
Like your videos mate, will try to remember to thumb them up and drop a few comments while I'm listening in the background.
you'ra my favorite channel right now :>
FF7Remke is the weirdest as it can be a reboot, reimagining and a sequel.
I prefer the word “Reimagining” instead of “Remake,” which you proposed. That’s a far more accurate description of what those games are trying to accomplish.
I think 40$ is a good price to pay for faithful, well executed rewhatevers that are a best version to play something and 30 is more fair for ones that are just a new coat of paint or don't do as good a job reimagining or translated the original onto newer hardware.
I too would instantly blow 70$ on a well excuted Bloodborne rebuild/remake for modern systems/pc with 60 fps and consistent performance.
I would prefer to pay less than 60 for any remakes/remasters
I am also a bit split on the Re-thing. I was so excited for Spyro and Crash Bandicoot to be Rebuild because they were my most favorite games of my childhood. Also what they did with Nier was great as I was interested in this game for ages, but did not own it on PS3 and the controls especially for fighting was janky. The PS4 version was a blast to play.
But I am totally on your side with the money grabbing. When Last of us was announced I was like, huh it's fine why would they rerelease that - but yeah it's a beloved franchise and they try to milk the cow as long as it is alive 🤷
I love the Darksiders remasters and their edition-different puns - Deathinitive and Warmastered sounds hilarious (also, conveys the adventure tone of the games quite well in my opinion). They are kind of niche but dear to me, and came out at the time of questionable dlc practises, so the remasters packing everything that came out into one game and resing textures a little higher was like a new year`s present.
Alan Wake rebuild was also very welcome, I have my x360 and the disc but never experienced the game before (it was too scary for teen me), so I am currently going through the game as it originally was. But as a new Remedy fan (CONTROL my beloved) I would absolutely welcome Alan Wake on new consoles to experience the collective universe they are creating and to see the game that the AWE dlc was so heavily connected to!
Your suggested terminology is very on-point, and I think it would be extremely useful if it became commonly adopted.
Another great analysis as always!
p.s. btw have you seen EDF? It`s a niche game but also THE Anime TM experience, absolute chaos and hilarity guaranteed.
I’ve heard a lot about EDF, but never played it myself. I’ve seen tons of videos of people playing through the series though
Any excuse to play and achievement-stack a Darksiders game, is a yes from me.
The term "Rebuild" makes a lot more sense too, because "build" is a term often used for code. Where as "master" doesn't have the same meaning for videogames as it does for music (and film, film uses the term master too. The UHD version of Psycho is a remaster after all)
Without having watched the video yet I can already say the point of them is for a new generation to experience a game the previous one loved. The point is for those who have played it already to get to experience it again for the first time in a new way (if the remake is done right). The point is for fun, and that’s what video game are ultimately for.
Money!!
But honestly I feel like it's because corporations have calculated that its financially beneficial for them to pander to you Nostalgia then take a chance on new ip. And the new ips that do get pushed put are soulless cash grabs that have been meddled with so much buy financial incentives there's no story to tell.
It's all about monetization at this point. Because look at the games being remastered. The ones that made a bunch of money. And look how their doling it out to you or forcing remakes out under pay wall.
Metal Slug X? I found it the best demonstration of a remake or remastered as of how the original SNK Corporation and NAZCA developers decided to massively make the game as a remix of Metal Slug 2, which fixes some glitches, tone down the difficulty of specific missions and add in enemies from MS1 and MS3, including creatively redesigning many sections, and adding new weapons and equipment, with the addition of a much smoother engine and the refined of old music instruments. Its an arcade game but it is such a gem for game designers and developers in these modern days
adding onto your point about being able to easily watch old movies, i have a personal anecdote about exactly that: I watched The Thing (1982) on the internet archive. Didn't even know it was there until i looked up where to watch the movie and said archive was one of the first results.
but you can't do that with games. You've got to find a ROM, then find an emulator that supports it, then spend hours getting shit set up only to play the game with no sound and insane input lag - so the vast majority of people just don't bother.
5:58 😂😂😂 I see so many youtubers praising tanking controls "for the atmosfere and feel that u cant control properly your character", but then, if they play the game and it has an option to play with modern controls, they ditch tank controls in a pinch
I actually have a term I like to use that functions exactly how "remake" is defined in this video; VIP. Funnily enough, it is also a term borrowed from the world of music. A VIP, which is an acronym standing for Variation In Production is basically when an artist releases a track that is a remix of one of their own songs. They just make the song again, but with some "variation in production" done to better flesh out or expand on the core idea of the original.
I personally think a good term for Remastered would be "Restored" or "Refurbished".
its like taking a statue and polishing it and removing the rust and grafitti and dirt off of it.
its the same thing but fixed up and looks new. a Restoration.
Call of duty 4 remastered was amazing! Same game but just smoother and better looking. Just the old game but if it was released today. That was good. A shame they put in behind a huge 100 dollar paywall. I bought it played the hell out of it and was teleported back to 2006 the whole time. The killingstreaks on shipment. And the gun fight in the streets and the helicopter. It had it all. Then I got banned, because of an in game feature that later was classified as a xp cheat. It was a one on one cagematch and we played many many hours, cause it was fun and they thought it was too much xd. 300 hours and rank 3 on the leadboards gone. I quit and never played a cod longer than 20 hours since.
First of all:
The need of remakes/remasters would be much less, if we had more games on PC. Almost everyone has a PC at home, and even if you don't run a high end hardcore gaming rig, chances are, your PC is still good enough to run N64-era games, or even GCN/PS2. And even if you want to play something newer, upgrading your PC makes much more sense than trying to buy an ancient console that isn't even produced anymore.
PC also comes with plenty of online-stores (GoG, Steam and that other one nobody should care about), so BUYING older games isn't going to be much of a problem either. Also, modding is a great thing.
Changing topic though, one thing you didn't mention in your video is why making remakes/remasters is such a good deal for developers/publishers.
Even if they remake the game from the ground up with entirely new assets etc, replacing every single asset in the game (including the code), it's still cheaper than making an entirely new game. Why? Because the game already exist.
Unless they make a complete reboot of the game, there are always things they can already go back to. Story, characters, gameplay elements, level designs, enemies, mechanics, overall theme of the game, etc etc. Yes, they might want to revisiting some/many of these points and polish them up as well, but that's still less work than creating something entirely new. I don't know how much EXACTLY it would save a company, as game developement is still a very expensive undertaking. But it's definitely something they save money on.
The second reason is also blends somewhat into the first one: They already know how popular the game is, and they probably don't need to rely so much on marketing. The game already has an established fanbase before it is being (re)made. They already have a much more grounded expectation of how well it might sell, with much less risk attached to it than creating something entirely new. They know there is a market for it, how big it is and the fanbase know what they can expect from this game. It also helps a lot in reviving a franchise, opening up a new opportunity to make it into a franchise or simply bring in new fans into it.
So compared to making an entirely new game from scratch, a remake/remaster (and even reboots) are much less risky, with very high rewards.
I like your take, and that thrid thing youre looking for is Redux: it's as a process of doing a the same thing a remaster does and uses the orginal elements of the core idea but also mixes in improvements and changes to better suite the product. Like a Remix does in music.
Would you consider Mass Effect: Legendary Edition more of a redux then? Cause ME:1 definitely falls towards a remake but as a whole Redux by this definition fits better IMO than either remaster or Remake
One thing that doesn't get remade...or covered,more accurately....is albums.
I wish there was one exception to this,however. I wish that the original members of Black Sabbath would remake/cover their Paranoid album with modern recording/production technology. It COULD still happen. To date,they're all still alive.
I'm only a minute in and I'm slamming the like button just for the 8-bit version of KICK BACK by Kenshi Yonezu alone. Well played, sir, I love CSM.
20:11 i wouldn't say it was a couple of changes. there we're enough that made me prefer the game over the OG
just watched your video about horror games and i genuinely think your videos are outstanding your a legend mate hope you keep making videos
Yeah demakes are where it’s at. It’s not just that the old aesthetic looks cool, it’s that it’s so completely within our technical abilities that it can be made basically perfect from a mechanical and aesthetic standpoint, with a 1:1 relationship between artistic intent and product. No compromises need to be made whatsoever with gameplay or performance. The graphics are lower fidelity but they are so intentional and elegant that the end result is that they look fantastic, so what’s the difference? This is why Hyper Light Drifter, Celeste, and Stardew Valley were able to achieve their aims more or less perfectly. Also I’d love to see the Final Fantasy games de-made into the FFVI art style, or more realistically the Octopath style. FFVII looks much rougher than FFVI now because it was reaching so hard past its limitations.
idk about you, but i love remakes, it’s so fun to see places, people and things that look really bad that you’ve been looking at for years in full lifelike graphics. It’s like i was dreaming as a kid playing ff7 and just wondering what all these things would look like irl and now i kinda got it. Totally get why others don’t, but i just think it’s neat asl.
I think a great remaster/remake/re-do is the Spyro Reignited Trilogy. Here you're taking something that was beloved by so many kids who are now grown up and finally able to re-experience the games they grew up playing with much better graphics and better controls on modern hardware and share it with their kids. When I played through that remaster, it felt like I was a kid again and re-experiencing the same games with the exact same wonder I had as a kid. It's how it should be done.
The way that you defined things, I think one aspect about rebuilds that is potentially useful is to have an inexperienced team of artists and coders learn how to make games.
Not even discussing the quality of the games, I feel like pokemon having remakes was a necessity due to compatibility issues from gen 2 to gen 3. We needed those red and green remakes for kanto mons(along with the gamecube spin-offs for harder to obtain johto mons), then gold and silver got remakes during gen 4 for a similar reason red and green did but also to solve a major issue of cost for owning multiple games+systems+accessories. Anything beyond that was mainly for giving an old region a new look and possibly story with qol features from all the newer games.
The "sister games" on the other hand really were just a "round 2" for extra money and aside from i'd say japanese blue, emerald, platinum and bw2, they didn't do too much that couldn't have been left as ideas for the next generation or saved for future remakes, but hey we got them and they are usually the ones to play when going back to that specific generation
A good argument in favor of doing things again, is that it brings those things to the attention of newer generations in that medium. For many people, the rebuilds are their first time experiencing these classics, which they were unlikely to experience before, because it's not something that has been brought up to their attention. Normally people don't make a list of classic, old things they should try experience, it happens organically, and a lot of those times it's because of those rebuilds and remakes coming out.
RE2 and FF7 remakes are some of my favorites. Like my favorite games got a modern glow up
Last year Chrono Cross had a modern port called the Radical Dreamers edition. While SE really dropped the ball in terms of optimizing it, and didn't really do much in way of improvements, I was pretty happy with it in concept. I think all old console games need is a PC port that people can play it with a few optimizations. That assures the game can be enjoyed for as long as PC digital storefronts exist (which admittedly is not as secure as a physical copy but is a hell of a lot more than the console eco-system)
Putting something on PC also gives fans the opportunity to make improvements that the developer never would. Chrono Cross, as I mentioned before, ran kind of shit until some modders got hold of it (I guess it runs better now that there's been an official patch recently) Now people might say that was originally SE's job (and I agree), but the modders didn't just stop at making the game work, they also made efforts to make the game better with things like AI upscale mods. Things that aren't possible via consoles unless they're hacked. Things the developers themselves wouldn't do, fans could.
Real talk, i love the idea of remakes. Especially remakes of old titles from PS3, PS2 and N64 era. There were so many hardwear limitations with those consoles that it was impossible to really create the developers artistic vision. There were so many amazing and ambitious game concepts that just couldn't be fully capitalised on because technology just wasnt there yet.
I differentiate Remaster and Remake for myself (because I had a really hard time remembering when I first heard the term Remaster) by thinking of Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver and Dark Souls Remastered. The Pokemon Remakes usually are not just new coats of paint, but change the games in question to the current Pokemon gameplay standard (HGSS took on the physical/special split DPPt introduced, among MANY other things) while also completely rebuilding the graphical assets and even the script sometimes. Dark Souls Remastered on the other hand, is just a visual overhaul and fixes a few issues (like the performance) while porting the game.
I'm not deep enough into the topic, so there's probably issues with that though.
One thing I will say, is that some of the collections released in the last 10 years were really nice for me specifically. I didn't get much pocket money, wasn't allowed a console until my brother and me were able to work for it and thus missed a lot of classics. The Mana collection and the Grandia collection are some of the best purchases I made in recent memory. I love the games on those collections but I wouldn't have been able to play them (legally) without those collections. The SaGa collection re-released the old Final Fantasy Legend titles I only knew through emulation, because iirc Europe didn't even get them.
I propose a more detailed and nuanced set of terms:
Port - original game just higher resolution
Reskin - remasters that replace textures or rebuild missing assets to match the original assets or fix broken visual elements of the original
Restructure - remasters that augment controls and interface, the playability is overhauled for a better quality of life user experience, but the game's assets are still limited the originals
Rebuild - remakes that rebuild all new assets from scratch to match the original experience with modern technology, to enhance that experience without interfering with the original vision, with minimal changes to presentation
Revision - remakes that reimagine and repurpose content of the original to create an entirely new modern experience meant to adapt the original content to the mechanical advancements and design refinements made in the genre
Reboot - same ip, completely new vision, completely new game, no original assets, marginally similar design motivations
I just think if we need new categorical naming conventions to better reflect the actual content of these games we should start from scratch and not try to redefine any existing terms, just to avoid confusion. Ports and reboots wouldn't change meaning, so those still work, it's just everything in between that needs redefinition. Remakes and remasters are broad categories, like genres. It's become nuanced enough now that we need subcategories, like subgenres.
Your definitions still try to separate based on development style and discrete changes made, which is near impossible to track with modern game development. It still causes a massive overlap for tons of games that might sit on the line between two terms based on how much they changed
I think an interesting upside to re-releases is that even if you have emulators, there's so many classic games you should play that it causes a bit of analysis paralysis. A re-release gives you a reason go finally play something you've wanted to get around to for a while.
Thank you for the video and your opinion, but I'm more concerned about UA-cam videos, showing remakes of old games on the Unreal engine, and people believe that these games can released
16:56 Gothic mention, like earned.
I like your grouping scheme better honestly. Good video.
Those are good definitions! Also, I actually kept my old consoles and games, so technically I wouldn't need ports or rebuilds, only I got rid of my old TVs so I still need an HDscaler and that can be a hassle. Love a good remake in any case; FFVIIR blew me away, and the original game is probably my all time favourite game.
Btw loved the transition at 0:59 from pixel art(aka old) to 3d(aka new). Nice touch.
Actually, that's not 3D, it's also pixel art but at a higher resolution (it's not even HD tho). If I'm not wrong that's one of the stages from SVC Chaos for the Neo Geo, that game was kinda weird and unbalanced as far as gameplay is concerned but it has amazing pixel art and a fairly unique roster of fighters, don't know any other game where you can play as Zero from Megaman Zero against one of the alien invaders from Metal Slug in a dilapidated gothic cathedral.
I want another Dark Cloud(Chronicles) game. I so love 1 and 2. I wish the developers had the rights to the franchise but Sony has a chokehold on it.
The introduction of Rebuild to the terms makes much more sense, but I've generally been treating Remasters with that definition.
Well, I can't say anything about Darkstalkers Resurrection, but GoldenEye Reloaded plays less like the original and more like Call of Duty while Metro 2033 Redux uses the HUD layout and control scheme of Last Light. Also, Gears of War Ultimate Edition has levels that in the original game were exclusive to the PC version, and also many differences in cutscenes. In one cutscene in the original, if I remember correctly, Raam killed a Gear by shooting him with a Boltok, but in Ultimate Edition he instead snapped his neck. The final cutscene has a difference too. In Gears of War 1, we see a Theron riding a Hydra in the ending, but in Ultimate Edition we see Myrrah in her armor riding her Tempest from Gears of War 3.
I noticed that only the most popular games get remakes. It would be better to remake a mix of popular and obscure games in my opinion. The popular games can be the big money makers, but the obscure games can be tested to see if they manage to connect to a larger audience this time around. These obscure games can fulfill the demand for new and different content that players demand. For most new players, these games will be fresh and new to them.
One that I enjoyed that a felt was fully justified was Alex Kidd in Miracle World DX for the Switch. The original is a game that's well known enough that most players have probably at least heard of it, but likely don't own it and may have never gotten to play it because it was on the Sega Master System. The gameplay is pretty spot on, but with some minor quality of life improvements (like putting the story in cutscenes and dialog instead of relying on the manual) and it offers more modern graphics and sound with the ability to switch to retro mode, even for the new added levels.
While it is a nice concept that remaking games is one way to preserve and keep them fresh, it just really ticks me off whenever the game developers of the remake add in or change mechanics that would destroy the game's system or make it too easy for the new generation people. I do always appreciate whenever the game devs of the remake give options or toggles to turn new feature on or off to let the OG players re-experience the same game they played before with a new coat of paint and be there in their library for the new gen consoles whenever they get a craving of wanting to play it again.
Remakes also exists for people who have never played the game, especially since some will not play a game which graphics doesn't look good or at least okay, because they to some degree use it as a indicator of the quality of the game.
When a game has outdated graphics, controls, gameplay, story, audio and even replay value, some games need to be remade. Or if the game was decent, mediocre, or just very bad, it is an opportunity to make it a big improvement. One good example of remaking a bad game is Terminator 3: ROTM and just have Teyon develop it and make it look and play better and combine the game with Redemption levels to make it a complete game. Use the ROTM mission police cemetery shootout and the next stage is Redemption’s driving out of the cemetery police shootout and escaping the TX. A remake that’s needed is Metal Gear 1 and 2 and can be canon with the Solid series references events of the Big Boss prequels connecting them. And gameplay mechanics are outdated in the original.
I've been playing all the old Armored Core games across PS1 and PS2 and the controls really aren't that bad, the games were entirely developed around them. The 3 most recent PS2 Armored Core games have analog controls (AC: Nexus onwards) so if the controls are that much of an issue just play those. The "story" can be summarized in a few sentences or less so you're not missing anything on that front.
I'm replayed all the old ac games and I just used steam community maps to play all of them with dual stick modern controls
A really niche game that received a rebuild was Front Mission 1. The gameplay is exactly like the original with a few quality of life changes. It was a surprise to me since the franchise was abandoned by Square after the failure of the Xbox 360 game. I was glad to see that the game looks amazing in 3D since I always wanted to see it that way. By the way, the original game still looks great; the pixel art aged very well. As for RE 4, I played the original for the first time in 2013 by pirating it, but it was so amazing that I bought the remastered version for PC. I'm glad they ported the game because I don't want to risk filling my PC with malware from dubious sources. After that, I bought the Remake at full price because they seem to be doing an excellent job with it. It's a very special game that deserves all the praise it's getting.
Sometimes an upscaled game for the new console generation isn't bad. In fact it's not all that different from releasing the same game on the old and the new console at the same time.
I played the first Last of Us on PS4, because I never got around to buying it on PS3 - I always wanted to play it, but never got around to it.
I'm old enough to remember when capcom kept re-releasing different versions of street fighter 2. The gaming industry hasn't changed one bit. Except capcom still refuses to do a darkstalkers/vampire saviour 4.
great points, always eagerly waiting for ur new videos!
I remember how excited I was when it was announced that the KOTOR games were getting ported to the Switch because for so long the only way you could play those games were on PC or Xbox, Playstation it still left out of luck but it's still better than nothing
the real point of remakes (not the corporate answer of money) is that the old one is so inherently old to truly fix or do things for it that a remaster can't do
- if a game is from too a system or coding that you need to redo it to actually create the fixes
the problem of modern ones is using it for tech showcase or just to make a different game using its Brand name (FF7R)
the bar remake is still RE1R for being mostly just refining of the original that very little needs to play the old cause it maintains its core
The idea that remasters are solely made to make money is an interesting point and one that I feel like has been disputed in the past. I can't remember where I read it but I remember reading that a majority of the remasters that are made have very low commercial success in terms of breaking even on the budget. I've heard that remasters are put out by companies to gauge interest in certain IPs to see if the development of new games is worth the risk. You definitely have some outliers like metroid prime but we still don't know if that even broke even for the budget. On a separate note, I do love the phrasing of rebuilds. It gets the point across better and doesn't use language that doesn't fit with the medium.
Yo so sick. Always there when you need that fresh new week content.
i wish we saw more "reimaginings" of games with potential to be so much more rather than just re releases of popular games, but ik the ladder makes more money. for example, devil may cry 4 is already a good game, and it did get the special edition, but i would love to see the dante portion of the game get expanded upon so that its not just backtracking through the first half again but backwards. even a newer game like shadow of the tomb raider has many good elements, but its less than the sum of its parts, and i think some form of re-imagining could make that game pretty great
mainly for the easy money and much less effort to produce and sell it, and then creating a game now takes much longer than usual so remakes would damage the release of new titles or diminish ideas because you have to add pieces that you could use for new games instead of modify old ones, while remastered ones take much less and would not slow down the release of new titles.
I don’t think I’m getting your videos presented on my feed even tho I have the bell icon turned on, thought I’d let you know because I look forward to your uploads
That’s not good. Though, unfortunately there’s not much I can do if UA-cam doesn’t show my videos to people
*I love Final Fantasy 6!*
Final Fantasy 7 got a whole overhaul, while the oldest FF games got a "pixel remaster" that didn't do much but f*ck up the colours and fonts, while what we all thought they were going to do was do an Octopath Traveller style rebuild...
They even remade an entire scene in the game in that 2D-HD style, which felt so misleading since they didn't do it for the rest of the game.
They've re-released FF 1-6 so many times, without actually doing much to elevate the games, yet tweaking them enough to make it annoying to play the new version if you've played the old one.
What I'd like is for them to keep the original version available on all platforms, only fixing bugs and obvious errors (no editing of fonts or language to fit modern norms), and only doing new re-releases that aren't ports if they have made significant changes, like turning the old FF games into an Octopath Traveller or FF7 remake style game.
My personal favorite is Re-Mars-tered for Red Faction
a new idea I liked, when Red Dead Redemption (1) had that disc that was just a zombie apoclypse version of the game. What if we took a twist to games and just do something wild like that as a "remake".
Dead Space has more improvements than you give it credit. An intensity director, the peel system, breakers, remixed boss fights, new zero g mechanics, refinements from DS2, a better story, new engine, completely overhauled presentation. It's not just a 1-to-1 translation, there's a lot done to significantly improve the experience.
I’d argue that the Pokémon games you called rebuilds I would call remakes based on your definitions but the point you’re trying to make still stands. These re-Pokémon games have a lot of variation in how the old content was updated and added to anyway.