What Makes a Definitive Version of a Game? (And Why Remakes Suck)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 гру 2024
- Full stream: • Jak 2 deathless, then ...
Consider supporting this content on Patreon: / powercellzeke
You can make a 1 time donation on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/powe...
You can join our Discord server: / discord
Follow me on Twitter: / powercellzeke
You made a lot of great points and a valid arguments👍. I don’t mind remakes AS LONG as it perhaps fix outdated mechanics and controls for new people to get into which is what Crash 1 did. I think one of the reasons why a lot of remakes happen nowadays then ports from companies is I think some games will have outdated stuff as I said and yes you might not get the definitive experiences as you did back in the day but the problem is too that if you port a game that has outdated controls/mechanics that’s considered to have in modern era, it might be off putting to the casual market which are people that might be interested in trying these games that they never played before in today’s world. At that point I can see why a Reboot or Soft Reboot might be necessary. Like I think Jak & Daxter would definitely need a Reboot mainly because I think it has a identity issue which is what my personal opinion is and I think the Jak games nowadays can cause an off putting experience to anyone new who may try them out. The Sly Cooper games don’t “need” a remake but I think it’s more necessary for the first game considering it’s outdated in comparison to 2 and 3 which were the best way to experience a Sly game or just “soft” reboot Sly. For SpongeBob BFBB I was alright with them remaking it but I was expecting more of a sequel or spiritual successor (which is already what we’re getting).
Me own personal belief on the matter of remakes in general(and this is coming from someone that'd be all in on a Sly or Jak remake regardless); bad games or games that were never good to begin with are more deserving of being remade than games that are already good or just great in general. Cause when remaking already good games; there's a whole lot of potential for them to get worse via remaking them. But with bad games, you're basically giving them the chance they never had, the chance of actually making them the games they should've been, the games they never were, that the original devs wanted them to be. N.Sane and Reignited were good enough, don't get me wrong, but a simple remaster would've been fine enough for me personally, plus, now that we did get these remakes, the well has run dry for the need for more of them.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'd only be on board if the original Devs are the ones remaking it. "Bad" games with potential are more often than not restricted by budget and time, which leaves them in a bad state. An example I can think of is Crash Twinsanity. Obviously talented people worked on it, they just needed more time. Having the original developers finish their game would be great. Having others come in and do their own thing feels like a betrayal to me. Like, we've given this game a second chance, but not the artists that brought it to life in the first place, they've just been replaced
@@powercellzekestreams1295 True, they'd outright require the original team members in order to even grasp the original vision for these kinds of games. Regardless though, there's no denying that remakes of any bad game at all in this day and age, especially when looking at how the original holds up would no doubt still end up better than before which honestly is what I ever ask for when it comes to remakes, N.Sane, Reignited and so on have always left me more so interested in going back to the original work over them which has always been unfortunate for me as when looking at them on their own, they're great enough Crash and Spyro games, but as remakes, they just fall short for me in a lot of areas.
Remakes are for dumb ppl really...i mean i dont mind some games being rebooted like from the 90s okay... but the whole atmosphere and mechanics need to change and its a completley new game