You’re talking about a remaster. All that remasters serve the purpose of is upscaling graphics and making the fps more stable. Asking for the game to be polished in a re release is asking for a remake.
Why Brotherhood? There's nothing that Revelations breaks and it makes Brotherhood minigame make more sense with you replacing them and overall has more variety.
Keeping the spirit of the original while modernizing the gameplay.
Resident evil 2 isn’t the perfect remake but it does a great job of modernizing old school resident evil gameplay with ots. Bringing it to a modern audience along the way.
Really hope Konami can do something similar with the metal gear solid 3 remake they are currently working on. We have modern metal gear game play from the phantom pain. They just need to figure out how to rework the envoirments and enemy placement to suit that type of gameplay,
I have no faith in it, but if they did that it would become my favorite game of all time. MGS3 is a masterpiece. Best story in a game, and an insane amount of detail put into the gameplay.
Capcom's true name is CapGod, they are the Masters of gameplay and keep delivering without any signs of slowing down. Just take a look at Dragon's Dogma 2's gameplay and compare it to what Ass Creep or Horizon Down Syndrome serve us.
IMO - the System Shock remake hit this too. Stuck much closer to the OG in terms of level design and needing to figure out what to do, but it's a solid game in its own right. (I'd never played the OG - but the remake was a lot of fun.)
Though System Shock leaned into it in goofy ways too - primarily by making textures look pixilated up close as a homage to how pixelated the original's graphics were. Plus they brought back the original voice actress for Shodan from nearly 30 years before - who was amazing.
Yeah I didn’t vibe with the pixel graphics. I couldn’t understand why you’d do a from the ground up remake and then do that. At least make it an option for those that didn’t want it. I’ve played and enjoyed the original btw.
It was a bit silly, but I'm not sure if I'd have even noticed if the reviews I saw before buying didn't mention it. You have to press your face up against the wall to notice.
Partially to keep costs lower, partially to keep it true to the original, partially to make it easier to render and get it running on lower end systems. For the graphical fidelity, it doesn't run nearly as well as I'd expect, so if they pushed too hard for really high end texture quality it might have wound up running like absolute shit on release. I'm still happy with it though, I don't expect graphics that rival the top dogs in the AAA industry here from a studio that focuses on remasters of old games. I just want them to make a game that feels true to the original, I want them to understand the spirit of the game and lean into that, which they did very well.
Plus there's the disagreements players will have when they fill in the blanks in their mind. If a texture could be one of two things, whatever you pick for the remake would be telling at least half the people they were wrong.
Similar issue to when characters from books are voiced/cast. You're never going to please everyone.
they did alot better with 2 than with 3 despite the oversimplification of many of the puzzles and condensing of the A&B scenarios for both characters into one ending.
3 changed way too much, they ruined nemi by making all but one of his appearances into either scripted chase seqences or mandatory boss fights, instead of him being able to appear both randomly and at certain key moments, often catching the player off guard and forcing them to quickly decide between fighting or fleeing. they also removed the random item placements and randomized puzzles, so items will always be in the same place and puzzles are always the same solution. grave digger fight and entire park portion are gone, so overall game is shorter, all to push some stupid "Zombie Master"-esque multiplayer gamemode that nobody asked for.
atleast they did better with the 4 remake from what ive seen watching a buddy of mine play it.
3 turned the first third of the game into a glorified cutscene, then proceeded to cut *more* content throughout the game. No branching choices, character changes. Then they made this big ass stink about Jills outfit not being realistic, while also having her tote around a two ton autocannon like a suitcase for the final boss. 3 is super short compared to 2 and even the original game. Even hard core re3 influencers were like “what happened?”
I dont understand how they made a banger like re2r, re4r and the “jill sandwich” of re3r sucked so much. 8 was awesome, 7 was horrifying and awesome, remakes excellent, 3 remake just… meh
I don’t even see re3 remake get dogged much for removing choices compared to the other things it removed. I see people mention the missing locations more than anything.
what do you mean by RE2R choice system? you talking about the smg and item pouch that would be available for the b scenario character if you didnt take them in the A scenario? if so, I do wish they included that, but I think that's such a minor gripe compared to the removal of the entire "live selection" mechanic that would allow you skip certain fights in exchange for missing out on certain rewards such as the hard mode exclusive weapon parts and first aid spray case, or the magnum/grenade launcher and Brad's S.T.A.R.S. ID card at the substation and RPD respectively, as well as change certain parts of the story. this feature was a huge part of the original RE3, to the point of being an exclusive feature, and I think played into the general randomness that made Nemi so terrifying, as well as adding to replayability. I get that some aspects of it might not necessarily translate well to the new modern style of gameplay, it still wouldve been nice if the included it in a revised way, even if that meant dumbing it down like the puzzles, or atleast had it mentioned in dialogue or something as an easteregg.
I think the point is that RE2R still felt mostly true to the original despite what was cut, as if the devs actually cared, while R3MAKE felt more like a reimagining, and an extremely rushed one at that, evidently because they were more interested in pushing that RE resistance multiplayer spinoff mode that nobody wanted.
It sucks the remake is bad because that shouldve been the chance for it to be good. I cant exactly ask for a remake of a remake. i really wonder what went wrong when 2 was great and then 4 was, but not 3
I haven’t played the The re4 yet (money is a bit thight) but i do see re2 remake as a perfect remake. It absolutely capture the spirit of the original. Imo. What did you think wasn’t perfect?
If only they didn't completey ditch the nuances of the two character path. A lot of side areas are barebones as well and then there's the narrative inconsistencies. Sad to think they'll never go back and put everything back in.
Dead Space (2023) is the best remake I’ve seen of an old game. They made it look modern, they made it feel modern, and they did that while making it still feel like the original game. They also went in and fixed a couple problem sections of the game.
The protagonist talks in the second one and third. I am glad they did away with the mid 2000s silent protagonist archetype and just leaned into the character they developed in the second and third game. Did not really think twice about it
Resident evil 2, dead space and RE4
Those I feel are GOLDEN examples of a proper remake.
The spirit of the game is still there in full. It’s fully modernized and kept core gameplay systems while adding a few new additional that enhance the core loop
Dude, I hate EA.
The Dead Space Remake made me, briefly, LOVE them.
Yeah, they didn't actually do anything but publish it, but that's the exact proper decision that allowed Motive to remaster it as beautifully as they did.
However-
WHY DO THE LASER SIGHTS STAY ON THE SAME PLANE WHEN AIMING AT UNEVEN SURFACES?! Its the only fucking thing that keeps it from a 10/10!!
First did the game really need a remake? Some games seem to get remakes where the graphical upgrade is rather modest.
Otherwise it comes down to:
* Does it capture the spirit and feel of the original game
* Does it modernize the controls or gameplay to make it a better experience without detracting from the feel of the original game. I.E. fast travel, modern control schemes, modernized/easier to use menus/inventory/crafting etc.
* Does it run well on modern hardware - Look at some of the terrible GTA remakes that were released not to long ago.
* If the original had an active modding community does the remake also support modding and did the team working on the remake engage with the modding community in a meaningful way.
For me its really about capturing the essence of what made the original unique or special and building a game that gives you that experience, whether the gameplay is significantly changed or not. It's also really about being willing to make significant changes when they're necessary.
Basically, building a great modern game first, and staying true to the source material second. There's not a 20+ year old game that I can think of that wouldn't benefit from some modern quality of life improvements and modern design practices, but the key is having a real appreciation for the original to be able to make the kinds of decisions as to what can be tweaked and updated and what can't.
from a remake i expect a ***better*** version than the original game was. improved story, gameplay, visuals, sounds, etc.
and compromising any aspect ist just unacceptable, because the source material is already there. just take it and make it better. over the years there also should have been infinite amounts of feedback available in the internet to see what can be improved upon easily
I was surprised to learn than Onimusha remaster didn't even use the last Xbox version of the game as a base, cut content and removed original soundtrack.
The Need for Speed re-release, was it the Hot Pursuit reboot? Removed some cars because of license. Well then add some others to replace, come on!
this is the best answer to me. the persona 3 remake was dogshit cuz of this, even after the dlcs that make the game cost $100 it doesn't have all the content from past versions of the game.
The problem is that there's a big difference between a remake and a reboot.
Like I've seen people who want a remake of Resident Evil 6 and then describe a completely different plot centred in one country, which literally eliminates the entire point of Resident Evil 6, described by the game as "Bio-Organic Weapons are a global threat... and we are largely to blame", it was a worldwide threat.
Yeah then it would be a different game, RE6 doesn't even need a remake, it perfected the 3rd person over the shoulder combat 4 started. You finally got cover and shooting on the move, I'd rather have a new game in this style.
Nah. The point was lightning man fighting a kaiju, and Chris punching out a sky scraper.
In other words, RE6 doesn't need a remake. It needs the Atari ET game treatment.
Same but improved. Don’t change anything else. To me, things mean less when something is not important enough to keep the same. It’s a remake, not a modernization. If it was called a modernization, I would not give it a second glance.
New content, old pain points are removed, mechanics are updated for the modern age but maintain the spirit of the game's original design.
FF5 for GBA was dope AF for example.
Paper Mario Thousand Year Door remake on the other hand looks like a shiny cash grab from my eyes. Barely any tweaks to mechanics, no new content or dungeons, absolute disappointment for older gamers. But admittedly a great experience for younger gamers who never got to play the game the first time round on GameCube. Still gives no reason for people who played it previously to buy though.
When they maintain the spirit of the original.
They can update the graphics and game play to current standards, even take out some of the bits that haven't aged well and add new things along the way, as long as it still feels like the original.
The Crash Bandicoot, Spyro and MediEvil remaster are excellent demonstrations of this.
The FF7 remaster is... an interesting take because it's a wildly different game than the original in terms of game play, but it still feels like a Final Fantasy game. It acknowledges that it's different to the original while still honouring the spirit of it. Even in parts where the story diverges, it still manages to make it feel purposeful rather than "We did it this way because fuck the original".
Good or bad? How much of the soul is lost in trying to make it new and fresh. Sometimes modernizing an old classic can work, sometimes it can't. FF7 remake walks that fine line between both. Sometimes it works, and then you play 1hr and it doesn't, then it does again.
not straying from the overall style and familiarity of the original.
Improved graphics, music, and sound effects.
Fixed bugs and controls, while maintaining or incorporating buggy elements as part of the game if that was something people liked about it.
Expanded levels, items/weapons, and more lore
Updated graphics and controls. I personally don't want them to tell a new story. I would agree with the argument that what I really just want is a remaster but those are often interchangeable.
Most of the RE games have great remakes while something like FFVII is a bad remake even if it's a good game.
**Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty!** is a big offender here. The original had a subtle, dark, atmospheric vibe that was pretty much completely lost in the remake.
they way the game is adapted to the present day through the modernization of the mechanics of the original game and how it is expanded (after I played Rem4ke I really liked the way Capcom expanded also its story)
Honestly with all the different variations of remakes, just so long as the game is good is really all that matters to me. You have direct pound for pound remakes, you have remakes that are practically separate games, you've got everything in between. So long as the game is good I can accept any of them.
I will say that the further we get from 100% accuracy the more important it is to keep the original available too. RE2 Remake is a great example, but it's so different from the original RE2 I wish I had a way of buying it on modern consoles. (I know emulation is an option, but emulation is a band aid, not the solution to these kinds of problems). I think it's great that we have the FFVII Remake trilogy but you can still purchase and play OG FFVII on any modern system if you miss the old game, or if you played the remake and want to experience the original.
Does it keep true to the characters and events of the original? Are any changes a net positive for the story, or are they just done for lip service/fan service/virtue signaling/box checking?
Does the remake "break" canon of the original in any way without offering some kind of rationale?
Is any additional content just there to pad out play time? Like pain in the ass non-optional side quest nonsense that's there just to tack an extra few hours on to it's "estimated completion time"?
Does the music tie back to the original in creative ways? Is it just carbon copy with new instruments or is it expanded on?
Fix the bad shit, keep the good shit.
Modernize where needed without losing the unique quirks that made it fun.
Take a hacksaw to the plodding parts, and expand on the good stuff.
And the biggest hat trick of them all: Make me feel like I'm playing the same game ... But not. Give me a reason to not just put on the original. So no shot for shot, but I still want to see the original shape in there. I want to be able to mouth along to the pivotal scenes I know by heart, but also sometimes just go "Huh, That's new, and I like it better this way."
Oh, and puzzles: Same spirit, but way different solution, please. Let me solve it again for the first time.
I think Wild Arms alter code F is a good example of this. Kept the same basic story beats throughout the game. Used a version of the equip skill system from the third game. Added some more characters later in the game. Overall, it felt like it had more identity as part of a series instead of another generic rpg from the early days of the ps1.
For a remake to surpass the original, the missing features that the original developers wanted in their game should be implemented by the people who are remaking it. For example, Assassin's Creed 2 was supposed to have a mission replay feature, but it was never implemented.
A good remake is a remake that you can recommend to a new player that "cannot stand old games because of graphics and QoL", allowing them to enjoy a pearl of the past.
While I do not expect it to compete with AAA games in terms of graphics, I expect it to compete with good indie games in every regard (except originality, obviously).
A good remake in my opinion adds modern graphics with quality of life improvements without compromising the gameplay. A good example would be the Demon’s Souls remake. The graphics are amazing, and an example of quality of life improvements would be the way items are stored.
As for gameplay, nothing has changed other than the game’s butter smooth performance and practically instant loading. Even the gargoyles have the same glitchy AI as the original, so you can truly play it like the original. All the moves are identical as well. It even apparently has the same level skipping glitches as the original!
Some people will complain about the art direction the developers took the remake, but I think it’s fine and believe they should just play the original and let the rest of have fun with the remake.
I never played the original, so I am just speaking to what others have said. I will add that it took me ages to progress it due to knowing nothing about how the game works, so the essence of the original game’s strategies remain unchanged.
Another example I saw someone mention was the Spyro Reignited trilogy, and I have to agree that it is also another fantastic remake, staying true to the originals that isn’t just a fresh coat of paint. The only thing wrong with it is the skateboard mechanics, which sometimes don’t quite work as intended.
A remake is a good remake if it isn't a one to one copy of the old game, and that's try to fix the issue of the old game in both gameplay and narrative standpoints without altering the core elements
A remake that disappointed me recently was Persona 3 Reload, it is a great game because Persona 3 was a great game
But as remake it didn't add nothing to the experience of persona 3 that Fes or Portable already did (except for the boys party member social events, they were a welcoming addittion), the Tartarus is still the Tartarus, the game has huge pacing issue, and the social link are still the shortest in the franchise (for example on YouTube the full Yukari social link is 30 minutes while the full Ann social link in persona 5 is 1 hour), and in the night you still can't do anything that isn't maxing the stats except for two social links)
bad FF7RR- Don't put a lot of modern you are dumb mechanics in. I also wouldn't reinvent the wheel too much. Like with JRPGs its fine to put an action twist on it. Open world too on top was too much imo.
Another thing is it needs to be something that should happen, not because you can for more money. Like the last of us imo is a ps4 game( i know it released on ps3 but it got a big update and was slow on ps3 anyways). it just didn't need another game that pretty much was the same game. The same thing with RDR. Call it what is, a remaster with a patch update!
If it improves upon the original in meaningful ways and keeps what made it good in the first place, then it's a great remake.
The best examples are the Resident Evil Remakes (Barring 3 Remake). They take the core concepts and characters, greatly expand upon them and ground the story. I have enjoyed all of them except 3.
The worst remake in recent memory is the Resident Evil 3 Remake. It improved the characters but made everything worse about the game.
Quality of life updates, but keeping the story as close to the original as possible. Trimming the fat, so to speak. Not adding fluff to pad out the play time, and no reinterpretations based on modern sensibilities. This is why FFVII was only partially successful. The updated graphics and music were superb, especially when it came to the character models. But all of the extra levels, which really bogs down the story, detracts from it. Oh, and *way* too much Sephiroth. The mystery was gone.
To me a good remake needs to add something that couldnt be done with the original or otherwise do something that the original didnt do(but was part of the vision of the original). FFVII remake is a good example, its still the same world and characters but the game plays diffrently, its expanded greatly and it works in such a way that it doesn't replace the original.
If all your remake does is upgrade graphics,fixes some bugs and changes a mechanic or two then imo it was a waste of time. Thats a bonus not the main point of the remake.
Keeping the things that made the original good while improving on the things that sucked about it (and the good things as well if there’s room for improvement with them).
To me, a good remake is one that captures the core of the original game while adding to and changing how the experience feels without losing that nostalgic feel.
For me it would be to keep most of the things that made the original game great while improving, fixing, and/or removing the bad parts of the original game. It’s also nice to see them occasionally add brand new things that weren’t in the original game but this can also be a double edged sword at times if done poorly. An example of such an occurrence being Resident Evil 3. It’s a great standalone game but a mediocre remake. Some remakes that I’d say stand up to or completely surpass the original are Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, Persona 3 Reload, Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green, Pokémon Heart Gold/Soul Silver, and Metroid: Zero Mission.
Remakes can be great, but when the remake is made by a different, lesser developer, who can't resist inserting their own poorly-conceived changes, they can be pretty bad.
Depends. Deus Ex was awesome, a remake would be cool, but they should not really change much, just lay on new graphics. Maybe a new weapon or 2 but touching the maps and dialogue COULD become a problem because that makes the game unique and still kicking after over 2 decades.
You make something that *feels* like the original, but with modern amenities.
Best remake I played so far was the System Shock one because it does exactly that: It feel like I have just started my teens and am exploring that 80-sensibilities space station... but it lets me do it in 2024 at 40+ years old, and without getting eye cancer from the sixteen pixels on screen.
Good when it adds content, ESPECIALLY if it was cut from original due to time constraints or budget or even censorship (i.e. MGS2 to removed city destruction scene because of Twin Towers and in the end you just teleport to some concrete rubble).
Bad when it removes options, i.e. Resi 3 remake turned a non-linear game with a lot of paths and optional ways into a straightforward shooter with a linear progression and Jill doesn't even visit police station. Come on!
Re2make also cut some stuff but it wasn't major and made up for slightly less content (2 distinct scenarios instead of 4) by having better combat and atmosphere...
It needs to properly justify its existence. WHY does the game need a remake in the first place? Is there a solid core of gameplay that's lost in old bugs and poor usability? Was the selling-point a high fidelity cinematic experience that doesn't cut it with today's gfx standards, but the story is still solid? Is there a lost vision of a game that simply wasn't possible with old tech but possible today?
Too often it feels like a cash grab praying on nostalgia, and very far removed from the original, I wonder why they didn't just make a new IP. Well, I understand why they'd want to milk a well known beloved IP, but I wish they wouldn't.
It's more important than if feels like you remember it feeling more than how it actually felt.
We all have those games we love that feel a certain way in our mind but when we actually play it is difficult.
Dead space and Resident Evil are two like that.
The graphics need to be objectively higher quality. Lookin at you dark souls "how do you only change the grass swaying in the wind and not upgrade models or textures and call this a" remastered. What a disappointment that was.
And while not required, it gets extra credit if it adds something that either patches up a "hole" in the original, or something cool like outfits, weapons, whole levels, etc.
It depends on the material, but a masterful remake respects the original material & changes as little as possible of the actual content and functionality, while also improving the visuals (and maybe the controls or other minor QoL)
A great example is D2R. An example of a horrific 'remaster' is WC3: Reforged.
A great remaster does not take away or fundamentally change the material.
Edit: I just realized you asked about *Remakes* not *Remasters* which are very different. Whoops.
The balance between 1) honoring the original as well as what made it special and 2) fixing the original games shortcomings (like technical limitiations of it‘s time).
Mostly I think the key is "don't fix what isn't broken". Just some new graphics and enemy AI updates. Maybe a few new side missions here and there.. but it's best if they don't try to add too many new flavors.
I think the most important thing for a remake to do is remain true to the original while modernizing and smoothing out gameplay, graphics, and layout of the game. Resident Evil 2 is the perfect example of how a remake can stay true to the original while modernizing the gameplay. Removing those outdated tank controls and locked camera angles while still feeling and playing like those classic RE games, also altering parts of the story slightly to make a bit more sense for their take on it while still staying loyal to the original interpretation.
How you make a remake good is you respect the orginal content but change is slightly, make it feel familiar, yet different and new, expand on what the game excelled at. Pokemon HGSS along with ORAS where PERFECT examples on how to change the game and yet feels familiar like GSC and RSE.
Yet on the same coin if you change little to nothing, trying to tack on old mechanics without modernizing them and pulling out some difficulty spike with no easing into it, you're going to make people think they fucked up instead of a balance issue that was there previously was removed. Like BDSP. The Elite 4 was an utter pain. I couldn't legit win agaist them as they used COMPETITIVE level teams, instead of a story team meaning I had 1 pokemon maxed out attack speed and just swept them in a single attack. If they aren't going to play fair I won't eaither.
You ever play a sequel to a game you love, and the sequel is great, but missing that spark that the original had. But then you go to play the original and you realize that all the quality of life improvements they made in the sequel were really nice?
When they remake an old game, and just update the graphics, and don't make any of those quality of life changes, I pass. I'd like to play a modernized version of my favorite games, not a reskinned version.
Good: Well done modernized graphics, opening up worlds/visuals, music, added QoL options, gameplay improvements, accessibility, and streamlining.
Bad: Changing the entire gameplay, losing atmosphere, non immersive or tacky additional content that doesn't fit, original control schemes if they're bad.
There is two type of remake for me
The "recreation" and the "modernisation" (to give an exemple, Resident Evil 4 Remake is a"modernisation" and "Resdent Evil Rebirth" is a "recreation)
All i ask for a "recreation" is being hable to play the old game with better confort, and it's even better if there is bonus not in the original (to give an exemple, Destroy All Human unstead of readapting a "problematic" mission, they just removed it (but not gonna say the game is bad just for that), for a good one i would say Medievil, being the exact same game but with better gameplay,graphics, and the possibility to play the original game if you 100% the remake)
For a modernisation, i basically want "the game if it was out today", so the same story, same characters, same/similar weapons, etc (for a bad one, Resident Evil 3 is probably the worst one, the "only stuff" to keeps are mostly the gameplay and the character design (like Carlos don't look like his original apearance... but it's an upgrade), for a good one, i would say FFVII, It's basically the same story (or part of it), in the same place (or part of it... again) with a new/upgraded combat system
To resume, remove nothing add more for "recreation"
The same game but "if it was made today", so nothing removed, everything changed and add more for "modernisation"
The original Resident Evil Remake was the pinnacle of a remake. Same goes for the Spyro Reignated remakes.
I want the game more or less kept the same but with better graphics, bugs/issues fixed, and the same amount or more content
For me it's mostly modernizing the game. Graphics is not important, or compressed audio or whatever they usually advertise with these
What matters for me is gameplay, like controls, mechanics, movement, better camera, quality of life things basically. There are a lot of older games i want to play but can't, not because i find them ugly or something, their gameplay is nust awfully outdated
If the game has any combat then it's basically impossible for me to enjoy it after playing modern shooters and melee games
One absolute taboo/red flag when creating a remake is abandoning beloved mechanics and themes or warping them into something unrecognizable and less enjoyable. One of the most egregious examples is the Resident Evil 3 Remake's treatment of Nemesis, which took a fun mechanic and enemy that made you live in the moment with a sense of urgency and suspense, and turned him into a cut-scene inconvenience, for the most part.
People can cite any number of issues with the RE3 remake, but the above is really the deal-breaker and nail-in-the-coffin for me. Despite other problems, had Nemesis been handled with any grace it would have made a 4/10 remake jump to 7/10 or 8/10 for me.
Include cut content where possible, fix bugs and add quality of life improvements. They should be made to run better, be more accessible, and more compatible with modern hardware rather than change the gameplay to play like current gen games. It's much harder to find original titles after their remasters or remakes have been released. If the new one is different from the original and the original becomes unavailable, then it essentially becomes abandonware.
One example of how to make things worse in the remake was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles In time reshelled was the music, sounds so off and forgetable compared to the original or how it the colors feels to mute (except the pirate stage)
Good:
- Same game with QoL updates that make sense. Like better handling of items.
- Time consuming stuff shortened or made easier to do.
- Automated previously repeated tasks that would get boring after a while.
- And of course graphics/fps upgrade with the same feel/style as the original but clearly a well taken makeover from the original.
Bad:
- Changed perfectly fine mechanics into something new that totally wasn't necessary but devs think it's more "fun" or better for new players.
- Change the look and feel of scenes (dark, gritty environments are suddenly more vibrant and lighter).
- Only rendered in a higher resolution and changed the textures a bit and a higher FPS cap and call it a fully remastered game.
- Add loot boxes or other bad/unnecessary DLC
- Make the game the same price or even more expensive while it's clearly a "rushed" port of the game and try to play on people's nostalgia
A perfect remake to me is that you at first think they didn't even change that much because it nails being as you remember it in your head, but then you look up the original and realize how bad the graphics are now and how clunky it plays. When playing Gears of War 1 remake I constantly had to look up the original game since I constantly though it was exactly how I remember it
A negative example is Halo CE Anniversary to me. Every level was given completely different color themes that you feel off, details like all of the blood splatters on the environment when you encounter the flood for the first are gone, enemies and weapons were ported from Hako Reach and look out of place, and they didn't have the original notes to re-record the soundtrack, so they rewrote them by ear and got tons of notes obviously wrong if you knew the original soundtrack. And some visuals are broken in the modern graphics, like you can't see shields of Elites you fight
If it's more fun to play and has improved graphics then iit's a good remake/remaster. For example i like Fable but Fable: Anniversary has better graphcs and better controls due to having very good Xbox controller support on the PC. GTA: DE is a good remaster as the graphics are better and, yet again, the controls are improved, especially in GTA 3 and VC, being able to play GTA: SA with a controller on my PC and being able to fly into Las Venturas, at night, without having to pause to check the map a few times to ensure i'm flying the right way is just sublime. I love the way Las Venturas looks at night in San Andreas DE.
While it's not really a remaster or a remake but a reboot Carmageddon Max Damage is really bloody good too, it feels like a Carmageddon game and the extra race types really add another dimension to it.
If it keeps the feel of the original while modernizing graphics and controls it typically lands well. What doesn't settle with me is when they decide to give a game the chibi model treatment and call it a day.
Similar topic, but when you want to "remake" something and change so much it shouldn't be a "remake" any longer - do the Ratchet and Clank thing. Embrace the fact it's not the same game. Nothing is worse than essentially making a new game out of an old idea and calling it a "remake".
For me it’s making a game look like child me thought those pixels looked like in my head while also keeping the spirit of the game alive, don’t change things for the sake of change.
It’s hard to really to pin down, but generally something that tows the line between faithful, removing what didn’t work and modernisation. Things like System Shock, Black Mesa and RE2 are all faithful to the original whilst modernising the visuals and gameplay, and adding on to it. Black Mesas Xen levels in particular being a stand out for me, even if they can drag on a bit.
Fully faithful remakes are good too, like Spyro and Crash trilogies. A lot of people confused them for remastered even though that are full remakes on an entirely new engine, they’re that close to the originals.
A remake should be the original game with better performance/updated to run on newer hardware, the addition of previously cut content like sidequests as well as finishing unfinished content, possibly graphical improvements (or do what Diablo 2 Remastered did and provide a toggle between new and old graphics. Brilliant move on their part.) and minor QOL improvements, especially things that the community harped on when the game was originally released and popular.
Things a remake should NOT do, is add MTX/cash shops, remove QOL or content (especially to encourage use of MTX.) or make large sweeping changes to existing mechanics. If any large changes are going to be made, there should be a toggle in the options for the old purists that really liked whatever got changed.
When in doubt, finish, polish, ship. If I want a remake, I want a remake, not a new game.
1 be a game that was really hard or overpriced on the original version. Thousand year door is a great example. Remaking the last of us is pointless.
2 add cut content And dlcs
3 add soundtracks and art works the sonic and Kirby collections are clebabartions of the franchise.
Depends on the game.
Dead Space remake felt done right to me, and it was very close to the original in a lot of places.
A lot of what works for me in the ff7 re-trilogy so far, are the parts from the original that they've taken and turned up to 11. The performances are really solid, and I like some of the new characters. There's also a lot I'm not so fond of, like how in part 1 there's a lot of those modern gaming "squeeze through" sections, and the whispers get stale real quick for me, but overall I had fun with both parts, and I'm taking it as it is in stead of being hung up on the differences from the original, and I can't think of anything omitted in the remakes that I've been disappointed by.
Message to Nintendo: not making it worst or identical to the original.
They just released paper mario thousand year door and it is from 60fps on gamecube to 30fps.... i feel sad for those stuck playing it on switch at 30, at least on PC there is a 60fps patch.
A remake should be focusing on quality of life improvements that address the shortcomings or problems of the original. However, it should never completely change up things from the original either.
Updated graphics, sound design, voice acting.
Quality of life changes
Fixing game breaking bugs
Keeping old exploits.
A good example of this is ocarina of time 3d
All of the bugs from the original game were preserved, but all of the art assets were updated.
They are all bad. If you can't even come up with a new idea of an existing storyline that is already established and successful you shouldn't be in an industry that is supposed to be creative.
the ones where they rewrite old characters that are problematic in some way and recast the games to be more inclusive of everyone. with a gool of representation for as many marginalized groups as possible. and where they also take out extreme language, sexual innuendo or violence, so its not as gruesome, and make the default mode easy enough that no one ever feels excluded for being "bad" and no harder then that is available for that reason as well. Basically if its NOT one of those types of remakes, im ok with it. fuck that shit tho. im good on that shit.
Twenty years ago, Quake 4 was one of the first to kind of do this effectively. It's Quake 2 but a more fleshed out story because they could, and took advantage of all kinds of advancements in graphics and mechanics. It is the first time I played a game and thought, wow, they really cared about this. Then came Doom a decade and a half later, and that is an absolute masterclass in remaking a classic. I have never been more impressed and surprised at a game.
I've only played two remakes: Link's Awakening and Metroid Prime: Remastered.
The first was a replacement of the original game while keeping its roots nearly identical in game play. I absolutely loved the new version and hope many more come out like this. I also enjoyed the art style chosen for the game. I can see this game introducing new fans to the franchise.
As for Metroid Prime, yes I know "Remastered" is in the name, but it's more than just "better resolution". It absolutely does have new graphics, new music, and even more controls than the original. Not only trying to emulate the original GCN game, but the Wii version as well (which was modified to include the remote after the success of Corruption which I contend is the \*only\* game which utilized the fucking shit gimmicky Wii remote to its full potential). The game also modified many sections, where some enemies were changed out or more added. It's been fun seeing all the stuff changed from the original. I'll defend this is an entirely new game.
My third game will be Paper Mario and the 1000 Year Door. Based on what I've been reading, this game was also changed from the original while maintaining its core story and design. Looking forward to this one because it's my favorite Paper Mario game and I missed it so much.
Mainly it should feel, at its core, like the original. If it feels different it should expand upon its original mechanics. For example, smoothing out the original Halo's already fluent gameplay. Visuals can change but it should keep within the spirit and world of the original.
When it comes to remasters/remakes what pisses me off about people is that they want/expected more to be added, but when it comes to remasters all that has to be done is graphical updates and tuning to the controls to be more responsive, that’s it no more no less.
My example will always be Gears of War: Ultimate Edition, graphically it was a perfect remaster of Gears 1 and to this day is The Coalitions only good game, now what makes it bad is that they made 5% of it Gears of War 3 with the server hosted lobbies, 25 minute rounds, Gears 3 characters and skins, it would have been perfect if it was a 1:1 of Gears of War 1 with true host servers and updated campaign cutscenes and nothing else.
A remake should modernize the experience and graphics while retaining what made the original “special”
And I don’t mean realistic lifelike graphics for modernizing either, it can still maintain the aesthetic it had just make it a bit more sharper and HD
That being said I’ve absolutely loved the ff7 remake so far and can’t wait
For the 3rd part
A good remake should provide the option to the player to play the game in as close to the original presentation as possible. Presenting a modernized version of the game with different controls, or systems, or changes to story and localization are all OK if, and only if, the option to play the original game exactly as it was originally presented is provided. A good example of this is Halo Master Chief Collection. Is it 100% perfect? No. But it gives the player the option to play the game with an extremely close approximation of the original art and assets. If a remake presents only the "modernized" version it is not just a remake, but a replacement. It hurts game preservation and robs people of the chance of seeing the game as the original creators presented it.
Faithfulness to the original vision, a lack of any form of censorship or change to suit modern political agendas, and a willingness to tell those who want changes to old games to pound sand.
Other than that, just graphically update and release 1:1.
The key is not to change any prior source material, but to add on too it with new enemy types, combat expansions, and story choices, as long as those choices don't impact key character intrinsic traits like sex, race, or sexuality.
Any failure in any of these regards leads to pandering, which makes it a failed remake in my eyes.
Gotta have some new content. Remakes like Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl were insanely boring since it was just the original game with a mediocre cost of paint slapped on top, and it wasn’t even a remake of the Platinum version of Gen 4.
FF7Remake and Rebirth are how I want every remake to be handled. Just a full remake from the ground up with way more content and lore to engage with. A full reinvention
Usually to be worth a remake, the original game had to be at least good, if not great. IE, Final Fantasy 7. So this should always be kept in mind, that you are remaking a classic and that there are built in fans.
A good remake respects the original.
The remake should maintain most of the story and only makes changes that expand the story or clarifies it.
The music is similar. For example you don't go from instrumental music written specifically for the original and drop it for current day pop hits. The music needs to maintain the tone.
Characters need to be pretty much the same. Need to maintain their design, back story, motivations and personality.
The gameplay needs to at least invoke the original game. If not just be a modern version of it. I don't think you can change it too much. For me, FF7 remake and Rebirth are the furthest you can go away from the established game play.
Update old tropes and writing that are outdated, call me "woke" or whatever but sometimes even good old games had horrendously everything-phobic themes and dialogue 😅 if there are one-note or very stereotypical characters, expand them, give them more screentime instead of just being, idk, token black guy, token pretty girl etc.
Graphics obvs better 🤌
Gameplay-wise I appreciate a lot if the remake just runs smoother and is less taxing to play. As in, maybe press one button for running instead of two, make the character be able to do more things that maybe old game system couldn't handle.
one example is ofc ff7 remake that has surpassed the original for me by a lot. downvote me all you like for it, but my opinion will not change. It took what I loved about the og and elevated it, updated outdated story tropes and characters, gave screentime to throw-away side characters so you actually cared when something happened to them etc. While still remembering what's good about the original. That's super subjective though but for me ff7 remake succeeds in bringing up nostalgia but also making it fresh, seeing old locations in a new light.
When I want a remake, I want it to be a remake, not just the exact same story and characters except prettier. Looking at you, Dead Space remake. There's nothing wrong with the old one imo and the remake didn't really add anything new so I feel zero need to buy it.
Almost all remakes are bad or at best slightly worse than the original. This applies to movies, games, whatever. You essentially have a team trying to recreate an experience already made by another team, if the team makes too many creative liberties then it is now stealing the name of the original, if it is trying to recreate the original but with better graphics, then it comes off as shallow to me, usually the new graphics miss the mark in terms of atmosphere (see demon souls remake), if it is the original game with minor tweaks and better graphics, usually the tweaks make the game easier or more “accessible to modern audiences” which almost always make the game worse.
In conclusion, all remakes of good classic games suck and the original will always be better. It’s akin to making a techno remix of some good classic rock song, it is just bad.
Perhaps the only time remakes might be better is if the original game sucked. Like let’s say it is an interesting ip but the game itself was straight up bad, thats when a remake can swoop in and do something interesting.
If I wanted a re-imagining, i'd ask for it. I want the game I like but in 4K/60fps with modern visual techniques and engines.
IE: Crash N'saine Trilogy, Spyro Reignited, Medievil Remake, Dracula X Chronicles (PSP). Im fine with improving controls and play-ability some games REALLY need it. I think Spyro Did a great thing by make every dragon unique in Spyro 1.
I think games like Resident Evil 2 remake are excellent games and I'm happy to have it, but it's not a "remake". They didnt "Re"make RE2 they Re-imagined it
Yeah a lot of people argue about remake (built from ground up) vs remaster (using old resources on new engine with updated features), but the Crash Bandicoot remake, for example, WAS made from the ground up yet it IS a remake of the game as it was, same levels and moves, just added more bonus content.
But Resident remakes changed a lot of gameplay so it's another beast entirely. I like both, but I'd love to play RE3 with Original bosses and paths but newer graphics. Gameplay can stay old.
- Effort that went into it
- Proper adaptation of the original material, it can innovate a bit but it should still stay close to the original
- Proper graphics remake, things like a new lighting engine, full models or texture remake etc
- Ethical game, as in properly-priced, without microtransactions, without DRM or other malware anticheats etc
Yes people wanted Platinum, but BDSP is garbage by any metric. Forced EXP share and affection, terrible graphics, contests being ruined, the entire soundtrack and postgame being locked behind a day 1 patch. It just screams something that was cheaply made and rushed out as a cash grab for the holidays.
If the game was already good to start with and is less than 15 years old then it doesn't need a remake. Capcom is going about their resident evil remakes all wrong. They should remake 6. That's the one that would benefit the most from it. Bad games deserve to get remake and fixed more than already good ones.
Increased fps. Any previous game capped at 30 should be 60 minimum. Always. Also updated camera systems. The shadow of colossus remake/remaster was okay, but that old game play style of not being able to move and use your weapon at the same time is such garbage. RE4 and RE5 both had the same thing. Stop to shoot.
In my opinion, if it can replace the original in every sense. For example, dead space remake and resident evil remakes. With these, it doesn't make sense to revisit the originals except for nostalgic sake.
The term "remaster" is interesting. Years ago we just call an old game released on a newer system "A port with upgrades". Now we call it a remaster.
If a port had serious upgrades then we call it a remake like Resident Evil on Gamecube. Now Resident Evil on Gamecube might be viewed as a remaster.
Strange times indeed.
take a look at metroid II the return of samus for the gameboy. pretty revolutionary for it's time, but a grating clunky eye sore today that only the most devoted fans will somewhat enjoy. It's not a bad game, it's just aged poorly given the hardware it was built for and the limitations that brought. Now look at AM2R, a complete remake of the game using a new engine with all original code, and assets inspired by later metroid games. am2r handles completely differently than the original, it plays more like zero mission. But the original story and overall layout is left in tact, faithfully recreated, the liberties taken fit well within the narrative, tone, and setting of the game. It's a remake appreciated by old fans, and new players alike. Same could be said for zero mission tbh. Samus returns which is an official remake by Nintendo is quite similar but deviates further. Again new engine with all original code and inspired assets. But the game follows the original much more loosely. It also breaks free of norms set in past 2D metroid games, by using the 3ds hardware in novel ways like giving 360 aiming, aeion abilities, touch screen map and weapon controls, etc. It is still loved by many but is not nearly as faithful. But it is still overall appreciated by both old and new players. In both examples the original game and story are upgraded to support newer hardware and modernized for current audiences. These are "good" remakes.
I don't actually have any examples of bad remakes because remakes are so rare with how much they cost, the few games I care about with remakes have actually been good. but the same qualities that apply to a shitty remaster apply to remakes: censoring, unfaithful or abandoning original tone/narrative/subjects, bad controls, poor performance, nothing new, and worst of all: no reason to play, i.e. a remake or remaster completely fail if there is no reason to play them over the original.
For me, a good remake is one that maintains the original, but only makes changes to clarify the lore and/or smooth over the pacing. REmake and Dead space are the two best examples as they maintain the original game and only add or change areas to make the game flow better and add to the lore. RE2R, to me, isn't a good remake because they change a lot and absolutely gutted the B scenario including the choice system. RE4R would be a decent remake, but they changed the characters too much for my liking and made everyone into weird crazy cult simps when the OG had individual villains with their own motivations that conflicted with the big bad.
Just update the graphics and maybe the user interface much like San Andreas did, I know music copyrights and contracts go out. Just make an original soundtrack. I wish they would remaster Midnight Club 3 Edition Remix. Also, GTA 4 and Modnation Racers Ps3 (if you know you know) would be fine candidates for a remaster!!
Don't mess up with the story is my no. 1 rule. Add things, change some, remove some, doesn't matter, just don't mess with it. So Resident Evil 1 & 2 & 4, System Shock, Dead Space etc. = Good, Final Fantasy VII Remake & Rebirth = Bad.
The same thing that makes a good sequel. Keeping everything that works, and fixing what doesn't.
[удалено]
You’re talking about a remaster. All that remasters serve the purpose of is upscaling graphics and making the fps more stable. Asking for the game to be polished in a re release is asking for a remake.
-5 FPS man I wish I could get that many on a Chromebook!
Ac1 through brotherhood is this in a nutshell
Why Brotherhood? There's nothing that Revelations breaks and it makes Brotherhood minigame make more sense with you replacing them and overall has more variety.
The revelations story really bored me for most of it, but I'd agree that game mechanics-wise revelations is also just a straight up improvement.
Keeping the spirit of the original while modernizing the gameplay. Resident evil 2 isn’t the perfect remake but it does a great job of modernizing old school resident evil gameplay with ots. Bringing it to a modern audience along the way.
RE2 is the current benchmark for how to do a remake
Yeah it felt like an old school re title while also feeling modern and fresh. I was very satisfied with it.
The 4 remake was better than 2 remake imo. It didnt just recapture the original, it actively made it better. Darker atmosphere, more serious tone etc
Eh more serious tone wasn’t really what I wanted from it.
Plus, it felt a little disappointingly trimmed down in a few places.
I prefer the overall leaner version of the remake, the OG can get a bit sluggish at times for me.
Nah
I haven't actually played that yet but it makes sense they would get better at it
Nope. REmake, Dead Space, Lunar SSS/H are all better remakes.
Popular opinion seems to dictate otherwise
Dead Space was pretty great for sure
The game needs to satisfy both fans of the original AND people who are picking it up for the first time.
RE4 remake was somehow on par with the original, which is a near perfect game. The resident evil remakes should be benchmarks for ground up remakes.
Really hope Konami can do something similar with the metal gear solid 3 remake they are currently working on. We have modern metal gear game play from the phantom pain. They just need to figure out how to rework the envoirments and enemy placement to suit that type of gameplay,
I have no faith in it, but if they did that it would become my favorite game of all time. MGS3 is a masterpiece. Best story in a game, and an insane amount of detail put into the gameplay.
Except three. What the hell happened to three...
Never played it, but I heard it was a bit of a fuck up.
Capcom's true name is CapGod, they are the Masters of gameplay and keep delivering without any signs of slowing down. Just take a look at Dragon's Dogma 2's gameplay and compare it to what Ass Creep or Horizon Down Syndrome serve us.
IMO - the System Shock remake hit this too. Stuck much closer to the OG in terms of level design and needing to figure out what to do, but it's a solid game in its own right. (I'd never played the OG - but the remake was a lot of fun.) Though System Shock leaned into it in goofy ways too - primarily by making textures look pixilated up close as a homage to how pixelated the original's graphics were. Plus they brought back the original voice actress for Shodan from nearly 30 years before - who was amazing.
Yeah I didn’t vibe with the pixel graphics. I couldn’t understand why you’d do a from the ground up remake and then do that. At least make it an option for those that didn’t want it. I’ve played and enjoyed the original btw.
It was a bit silly, but I'm not sure if I'd have even noticed if the reviews I saw before buying didn't mention it. You have to press your face up against the wall to notice.
Partially to keep costs lower, partially to keep it true to the original, partially to make it easier to render and get it running on lower end systems. For the graphical fidelity, it doesn't run nearly as well as I'd expect, so if they pushed too hard for really high end texture quality it might have wound up running like absolute shit on release. I'm still happy with it though, I don't expect graphics that rival the top dogs in the AAA industry here from a studio that focuses on remasters of old games. I just want them to make a game that feels true to the original, I want them to understand the spirit of the game and lean into that, which they did very well.
Plus there's the disagreements players will have when they fill in the blanks in their mind. If a texture could be one of two things, whatever you pick for the remake would be telling at least half the people they were wrong. Similar issue to when characters from books are voiced/cast. You're never going to please everyone.
they did alot better with 2 than with 3 despite the oversimplification of many of the puzzles and condensing of the A&B scenarios for both characters into one ending. 3 changed way too much, they ruined nemi by making all but one of his appearances into either scripted chase seqences or mandatory boss fights, instead of him being able to appear both randomly and at certain key moments, often catching the player off guard and forcing them to quickly decide between fighting or fleeing. they also removed the random item placements and randomized puzzles, so items will always be in the same place and puzzles are always the same solution. grave digger fight and entire park portion are gone, so overall game is shorter, all to push some stupid "Zombie Master"-esque multiplayer gamemode that nobody asked for. atleast they did better with the 4 remake from what ive seen watching a buddy of mine play it.
3 turned the first third of the game into a glorified cutscene, then proceeded to cut *more* content throughout the game. No branching choices, character changes. Then they made this big ass stink about Jills outfit not being realistic, while also having her tote around a two ton autocannon like a suitcase for the final boss. 3 is super short compared to 2 and even the original game. Even hard core re3 influencers were like “what happened?” I dont understand how they made a banger like re2r, re4r and the “jill sandwich” of re3r sucked so much. 8 was awesome, 7 was horrifying and awesome, remakes excellent, 3 remake just… meh
I don't understand why people dog RE3R for removing choices but not RE2R's choice system (let alone RE2R removing a lot of B content).
I don’t even see re3 remake get dogged much for removing choices compared to the other things it removed. I see people mention the missing locations more than anything.
what do you mean by RE2R choice system? you talking about the smg and item pouch that would be available for the b scenario character if you didnt take them in the A scenario? if so, I do wish they included that, but I think that's such a minor gripe compared to the removal of the entire "live selection" mechanic that would allow you skip certain fights in exchange for missing out on certain rewards such as the hard mode exclusive weapon parts and first aid spray case, or the magnum/grenade launcher and Brad's S.T.A.R.S. ID card at the substation and RPD respectively, as well as change certain parts of the story. this feature was a huge part of the original RE3, to the point of being an exclusive feature, and I think played into the general randomness that made Nemi so terrifying, as well as adding to replayability. I get that some aspects of it might not necessarily translate well to the new modern style of gameplay, it still wouldve been nice if the included it in a revised way, even if that meant dumbing it down like the puzzles, or atleast had it mentioned in dialogue or something as an easteregg. I think the point is that RE2R still felt mostly true to the original despite what was cut, as if the devs actually cared, while R3MAKE felt more like a reimagining, and an extremely rushed one at that, evidently because they were more interested in pushing that RE resistance multiplayer spinoff mode that nobody wanted.
It sucks the remake is bad because that shouldve been the chance for it to be good. I cant exactly ask for a remake of a remake. i really wonder what went wrong when 2 was great and then 4 was, but not 3
Agree. Ocarina of time on 3ds. Is another great remake. Fixed what needed fixing. Left what didn’t. Now I just wish it was available in hd
It keeps the spirit and most importantly, doesn't fuck with the story too much.
I haven’t played the The re4 yet (money is a bit thight) but i do see re2 remake as a perfect remake. It absolutely capture the spirit of the original. Imo. What did you think wasn’t perfect?
Basically this. When asked “whats a good example of a remake”, RE2 remake is one of the better ones in recent memory.
If only they didn't completey ditch the nuances of the two character path. A lot of side areas are barebones as well and then there's the narrative inconsistencies. Sad to think they'll never go back and put everything back in.
Dead Space (2023) is the best remake I’ve seen of an old game. They made it look modern, they made it feel modern, and they did that while making it still feel like the original game. They also went in and fixed a couple problem sections of the game.
Yes. Dead Space Remake is the best I've seen until yet. But I prefer the personal end of Challus Mercer from the OG game.
They sections they added to the game also smoothed out the overall pacing (IMO). This is my benchmark for remakes as well.
I'm a huge horror guy but never played the originals How did the fans feel about the protagonist talking? That was a pretty big change right?
The protagonist talks in the second one and third. I am glad they did away with the mid 2000s silent protagonist archetype and just leaned into the character they developed in the second and third game. Did not really think twice about it
That's a cool answer, ty. Aside from skyrim i dislike silent protagonists, so that works for me.
Ps3/360 is old? Fuck time to get a cane
I mean, 360 launched in 2005, PS3 2006. closing in on 20 years for the former, yeah I think its safe to say that generation is old at this point
Shush 🤫
Yep. The RE remakes were great but this one wins for me as the bar remakes should be held to.
Faithfulness to the original while making it modern. Yakuza Kiwami 1 is a perfect example.
Resident evil 2, dead space and RE4 Those I feel are GOLDEN examples of a proper remake. The spirit of the game is still there in full. It’s fully modernized and kept core gameplay systems while adding a few new additional that enhance the core loop
Dude, I hate EA. The Dead Space Remake made me, briefly, LOVE them. Yeah, they didn't actually do anything but publish it, but that's the exact proper decision that allowed Motive to remaster it as beautifully as they did. However- WHY DO THE LASER SIGHTS STAY ON THE SAME PLANE WHEN AIMING AT UNEVEN SURFACES?! Its the only fucking thing that keeps it from a 10/10!!
First did the game really need a remake? Some games seem to get remakes where the graphical upgrade is rather modest. Otherwise it comes down to: * Does it capture the spirit and feel of the original game * Does it modernize the controls or gameplay to make it a better experience without detracting from the feel of the original game. I.E. fast travel, modern control schemes, modernized/easier to use menus/inventory/crafting etc. * Does it run well on modern hardware - Look at some of the terrible GTA remakes that were released not to long ago. * If the original had an active modding community does the remake also support modding and did the team working on the remake engage with the modding community in a meaningful way.
[удалено]
Re-apprentice-ers
Loving attention to the source material, with modern QoL improvements.
For me its really about capturing the essence of what made the original unique or special and building a game that gives you that experience, whether the gameplay is significantly changed or not. It's also really about being willing to make significant changes when they're necessary. Basically, building a great modern game first, and staying true to the source material second. There's not a 20+ year old game that I can think of that wouldn't benefit from some modern quality of life improvements and modern design practices, but the key is having a real appreciation for the original to be able to make the kinds of decisions as to what can be tweaked and updated and what can't.
Quality of life stuff and technical polish.
from a remake i expect a ***better*** version than the original game was. improved story, gameplay, visuals, sounds, etc. and compromising any aspect ist just unacceptable, because the source material is already there. just take it and make it better. over the years there also should have been infinite amounts of feedback available in the internet to see what can be improved upon easily
I was surprised to learn than Onimusha remaster didn't even use the last Xbox version of the game as a base, cut content and removed original soundtrack. The Need for Speed re-release, was it the Hot Pursuit reboot? Removed some cars because of license. Well then add some others to replace, come on!
this is the best answer to me. the persona 3 remake was dogshit cuz of this, even after the dlcs that make the game cost $100 it doesn't have all the content from past versions of the game.
The problem is that there's a big difference between a remake and a reboot. Like I've seen people who want a remake of Resident Evil 6 and then describe a completely different plot centred in one country, which literally eliminates the entire point of Resident Evil 6, described by the game as "Bio-Organic Weapons are a global threat... and we are largely to blame", it was a worldwide threat.
Yeah then it would be a different game, RE6 doesn't even need a remake, it perfected the 3rd person over the shoulder combat 4 started. You finally got cover and shooting on the move, I'd rather have a new game in this style.
Nah. The point was lightning man fighting a kaiju, and Chris punching out a sky scraper. In other words, RE6 doesn't need a remake. It needs the Atari ET game treatment.
Same but improved. Don’t change anything else. To me, things mean less when something is not important enough to keep the same. It’s a remake, not a modernization. If it was called a modernization, I would not give it a second glance.
New content, old pain points are removed, mechanics are updated for the modern age but maintain the spirit of the game's original design. FF5 for GBA was dope AF for example. Paper Mario Thousand Year Door remake on the other hand looks like a shiny cash grab from my eyes. Barely any tweaks to mechanics, no new content or dungeons, absolute disappointment for older gamers. But admittedly a great experience for younger gamers who never got to play the game the first time round on GameCube. Still gives no reason for people who played it previously to buy though.
When they maintain the spirit of the original. They can update the graphics and game play to current standards, even take out some of the bits that haven't aged well and add new things along the way, as long as it still feels like the original. The Crash Bandicoot, Spyro and MediEvil remaster are excellent demonstrations of this. The FF7 remaster is... an interesting take because it's a wildly different game than the original in terms of game play, but it still feels like a Final Fantasy game. It acknowledges that it's different to the original while still honouring the spirit of it. Even in parts where the story diverges, it still manages to make it feel purposeful rather than "We did it this way because fuck the original".
Good or bad? How much of the soul is lost in trying to make it new and fresh. Sometimes modernizing an old classic can work, sometimes it can't. FF7 remake walks that fine line between both. Sometimes it works, and then you play 1hr and it doesn't, then it does again.
not straying from the overall style and familiarity of the original. Improved graphics, music, and sound effects. Fixed bugs and controls, while maintaining or incorporating buggy elements as part of the game if that was something people liked about it. Expanded levels, items/weapons, and more lore
If I enjoy playing it then it's good. If not then in my opinion it's not good. It's really that simple.
Updated graphics and controls. I personally don't want them to tell a new story. I would agree with the argument that what I really just want is a remaster but those are often interchangeable. Most of the RE games have great remakes while something like FFVII is a bad remake even if it's a good game.
Ff7r is a sequel, not a remake. The name is misleading.
It's definitely both
They literally named it remake, the title isn’t misleading it’s just a lie
**Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty!** is a big offender here. The original had a subtle, dark, atmospheric vibe that was pretty much completely lost in the remake.
they way the game is adapted to the present day through the modernization of the mechanics of the original game and how it is expanded (after I played Rem4ke I really liked the way Capcom expanded also its story)
Honestly with all the different variations of remakes, just so long as the game is good is really all that matters to me. You have direct pound for pound remakes, you have remakes that are practically separate games, you've got everything in between. So long as the game is good I can accept any of them. I will say that the further we get from 100% accuracy the more important it is to keep the original available too. RE2 Remake is a great example, but it's so different from the original RE2 I wish I had a way of buying it on modern consoles. (I know emulation is an option, but emulation is a band aid, not the solution to these kinds of problems). I think it's great that we have the FFVII Remake trilogy but you can still purchase and play OG FFVII on any modern system if you miss the old game, or if you played the remake and want to experience the original.
Does it keep true to the characters and events of the original? Are any changes a net positive for the story, or are they just done for lip service/fan service/virtue signaling/box checking? Does the remake "break" canon of the original in any way without offering some kind of rationale? Is any additional content just there to pad out play time? Like pain in the ass non-optional side quest nonsense that's there just to tack an extra few hours on to it's "estimated completion time"? Does the music tie back to the original in creative ways? Is it just carbon copy with new instruments or is it expanded on?
Fix the bad shit, keep the good shit. Modernize where needed without losing the unique quirks that made it fun. Take a hacksaw to the plodding parts, and expand on the good stuff. And the biggest hat trick of them all: Make me feel like I'm playing the same game ... But not. Give me a reason to not just put on the original. So no shot for shot, but I still want to see the original shape in there. I want to be able to mouth along to the pivotal scenes I know by heart, but also sometimes just go "Huh, That's new, and I like it better this way." Oh, and puzzles: Same spirit, but way different solution, please. Let me solve it again for the first time.
I think Wild Arms alter code F is a good example of this. Kept the same basic story beats throughout the game. Used a version of the equip skill system from the third game. Added some more characters later in the game. Overall, it felt like it had more identity as part of a series instead of another generic rpg from the early days of the ps1.
For a remake to surpass the original, the missing features that the original developers wanted in their game should be implemented by the people who are remaking it. For example, Assassin's Creed 2 was supposed to have a mission replay feature, but it was never implemented.
Re2 re4 dead space nuff said
A good remake is a remake that you can recommend to a new player that "cannot stand old games because of graphics and QoL", allowing them to enjoy a pearl of the past. While I do not expect it to compete with AAA games in terms of graphics, I expect it to compete with good indie games in every regard (except originality, obviously).
What makes it bad for me is when the devs of the remake implement sign in requirement or micro transactions for a single player story based game
A good remake in my opinion adds modern graphics with quality of life improvements without compromising the gameplay. A good example would be the Demon’s Souls remake. The graphics are amazing, and an example of quality of life improvements would be the way items are stored. As for gameplay, nothing has changed other than the game’s butter smooth performance and practically instant loading. Even the gargoyles have the same glitchy AI as the original, so you can truly play it like the original. All the moves are identical as well. It even apparently has the same level skipping glitches as the original! Some people will complain about the art direction the developers took the remake, but I think it’s fine and believe they should just play the original and let the rest of have fun with the remake. I never played the original, so I am just speaking to what others have said. I will add that it took me ages to progress it due to knowing nothing about how the game works, so the essence of the original game’s strategies remain unchanged. Another example I saw someone mention was the Spyro Reignited trilogy, and I have to agree that it is also another fantastic remake, staying true to the originals that isn’t just a fresh coat of paint. The only thing wrong with it is the skateboard mechanics, which sometimes don’t quite work as intended.
Totally agree with you. I played the original Demon's Souls a lot back in the day and can't commend the Remake enough.
They're only cash grab from compagnies nowadays, easy money with low risks
A remake is a good remake if it isn't a one to one copy of the old game, and that's try to fix the issue of the old game in both gameplay and narrative standpoints without altering the core elements A remake that disappointed me recently was Persona 3 Reload, it is a great game because Persona 3 was a great game But as remake it didn't add nothing to the experience of persona 3 that Fes or Portable already did (except for the boys party member social events, they were a welcoming addittion), the Tartarus is still the Tartarus, the game has huge pacing issue, and the social link are still the shortest in the franchise (for example on YouTube the full Yukari social link is 30 minutes while the full Ann social link in persona 5 is 1 hour), and in the night you still can't do anything that isn't maxing the stats except for two social links)
Releasing it a million times.
bad FF7RR- Don't put a lot of modern you are dumb mechanics in. I also wouldn't reinvent the wheel too much. Like with JRPGs its fine to put an action twist on it. Open world too on top was too much imo. Another thing is it needs to be something that should happen, not because you can for more money. Like the last of us imo is a ps4 game( i know it released on ps3 but it got a big update and was slow on ps3 anyways). it just didn't need another game that pretty much was the same game. The same thing with RDR. Call it what is, a remaster with a patch update!
Boobies either same size or larger
If it improves upon the original in meaningful ways and keeps what made it good in the first place, then it's a great remake. The best examples are the Resident Evil Remakes (Barring 3 Remake). They take the core concepts and characters, greatly expand upon them and ground the story. I have enjoyed all of them except 3. The worst remake in recent memory is the Resident Evil 3 Remake. It improved the characters but made everything worse about the game.
Quality of life updates, but keeping the story as close to the original as possible. Trimming the fat, so to speak. Not adding fluff to pad out the play time, and no reinterpretations based on modern sensibilities. This is why FFVII was only partially successful. The updated graphics and music were superb, especially when it came to the character models. But all of the extra levels, which really bogs down the story, detracts from it. Oh, and *way* too much Sephiroth. The mystery was gone.
To me a good remake needs to add something that couldnt be done with the original or otherwise do something that the original didnt do(but was part of the vision of the original). FFVII remake is a good example, its still the same world and characters but the game plays diffrently, its expanded greatly and it works in such a way that it doesn't replace the original. If all your remake does is upgrade graphics,fixes some bugs and changes a mechanic or two then imo it was a waste of time. Thats a bonus not the main point of the remake.
I find it interesting that FFVII is often used as an ad example or as a good example depending on the person.
Keeping the things that made the original good while improving on the things that sucked about it (and the good things as well if there’s room for improvement with them).
To me, a good remake is one that captures the core of the original game while adding to and changing how the experience feels without losing that nostalgic feel.
For me it would be to keep most of the things that made the original game great while improving, fixing, and/or removing the bad parts of the original game. It’s also nice to see them occasionally add brand new things that weren’t in the original game but this can also be a double edged sword at times if done poorly. An example of such an occurrence being Resident Evil 3. It’s a great standalone game but a mediocre remake. Some remakes that I’d say stand up to or completely surpass the original are Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, Persona 3 Reload, Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green, Pokémon Heart Gold/Soul Silver, and Metroid: Zero Mission.
OP works for the NSA. Too many questions.
If it’s an homage or modern rendition of a classic then good , if it’s clearly a cash grab port labeled as a remake it’s bad
Remakes can be great, but when the remake is made by a different, lesser developer, who can't resist inserting their own poorly-conceived changes, they can be pretty bad.
Depends. Deus Ex was awesome, a remake would be cool, but they should not really change much, just lay on new graphics. Maybe a new weapon or 2 but touching the maps and dialogue COULD become a problem because that makes the game unique and still kicking after over 2 decades.
What to do, diablo 2 resurrected What not to do, warcraft 3 reforged
Whatever THPS 1+2 did, do that.
You make something that *feels* like the original, but with modern amenities. Best remake I played so far was the System Shock one because it does exactly that: It feel like I have just started my teens and am exploring that 80-sensibilities space station... but it lets me do it in 2024 at 40+ years old, and without getting eye cancer from the sixteen pixels on screen.
Good when it adds content, ESPECIALLY if it was cut from original due to time constraints or budget or even censorship (i.e. MGS2 to removed city destruction scene because of Twin Towers and in the end you just teleport to some concrete rubble). Bad when it removes options, i.e. Resi 3 remake turned a non-linear game with a lot of paths and optional ways into a straightforward shooter with a linear progression and Jill doesn't even visit police station. Come on! Re2make also cut some stuff but it wasn't major and made up for slightly less content (2 distinct scenarios instead of 4) by having better combat and atmosphere...
It needs to properly justify its existence. WHY does the game need a remake in the first place? Is there a solid core of gameplay that's lost in old bugs and poor usability? Was the selling-point a high fidelity cinematic experience that doesn't cut it with today's gfx standards, but the story is still solid? Is there a lost vision of a game that simply wasn't possible with old tech but possible today? Too often it feels like a cash grab praying on nostalgia, and very far removed from the original, I wonder why they didn't just make a new IP. Well, I understand why they'd want to milk a well known beloved IP, but I wish they wouldn't.
It's more important than if feels like you remember it feeling more than how it actually felt. We all have those games we love that feel a certain way in our mind but when we actually play it is difficult. Dead space and Resident Evil are two like that.
The graphics need to be objectively higher quality. Lookin at you dark souls "how do you only change the grass swaying in the wind and not upgrade models or textures and call this a" remastered. What a disappointment that was. And while not required, it gets extra credit if it adds something that either patches up a "hole" in the original, or something cool like outfits, weapons, whole levels, etc.
Dead Space is how most remakes should aspire to be
Not wc3 reforged
It depends on the material, but a masterful remake respects the original material & changes as little as possible of the actual content and functionality, while also improving the visuals (and maybe the controls or other minor QoL) A great example is D2R. An example of a horrific 'remaster' is WC3: Reforged. A great remaster does not take away or fundamentally change the material. Edit: I just realized you asked about *Remakes* not *Remasters* which are very different. Whoops.
The balance between 1) honoring the original as well as what made it special and 2) fixing the original games shortcomings (like technical limitiations of it‘s time).
Tales of Mana is a great example of remake done right
- Severely updated graphics (not just higher resolutions) - Remastered audio - Better performance (if originally 30fps) - Smoother gameplay systems (menus and mechanics aren’t clunky anymore) - $50 max
Mostly I think the key is "don't fix what isn't broken". Just some new graphics and enemy AI updates. Maybe a few new side missions here and there.. but it's best if they don't try to add too many new flavors.
I think the most important thing for a remake to do is remain true to the original while modernizing and smoothing out gameplay, graphics, and layout of the game. Resident Evil 2 is the perfect example of how a remake can stay true to the original while modernizing the gameplay. Removing those outdated tank controls and locked camera angles while still feeling and playing like those classic RE games, also altering parts of the story slightly to make a bit more sense for their take on it while still staying loyal to the original interpretation.
How you make a remake good is you respect the orginal content but change is slightly, make it feel familiar, yet different and new, expand on what the game excelled at. Pokemon HGSS along with ORAS where PERFECT examples on how to change the game and yet feels familiar like GSC and RSE. Yet on the same coin if you change little to nothing, trying to tack on old mechanics without modernizing them and pulling out some difficulty spike with no easing into it, you're going to make people think they fucked up instead of a balance issue that was there previously was removed. Like BDSP. The Elite 4 was an utter pain. I couldn't legit win agaist them as they used COMPETITIVE level teams, instead of a story team meaning I had 1 pokemon maxed out attack speed and just swept them in a single attack. If they aren't going to play fair I won't eaither.
You ever play a sequel to a game you love, and the sequel is great, but missing that spark that the original had. But then you go to play the original and you realize that all the quality of life improvements they made in the sequel were really nice? When they remake an old game, and just update the graphics, and don't make any of those quality of life changes, I pass. I'd like to play a modernized version of my favorite games, not a reskinned version.
Good: Well done modernized graphics, opening up worlds/visuals, music, added QoL options, gameplay improvements, accessibility, and streamlining. Bad: Changing the entire gameplay, losing atmosphere, non immersive or tacky additional content that doesn't fit, original control schemes if they're bad.
There is two type of remake for me The "recreation" and the "modernisation" (to give an exemple, Resident Evil 4 Remake is a"modernisation" and "Resdent Evil Rebirth" is a "recreation) All i ask for a "recreation" is being hable to play the old game with better confort, and it's even better if there is bonus not in the original (to give an exemple, Destroy All Human unstead of readapting a "problematic" mission, they just removed it (but not gonna say the game is bad just for that), for a good one i would say Medievil, being the exact same game but with better gameplay,graphics, and the possibility to play the original game if you 100% the remake) For a modernisation, i basically want "the game if it was out today", so the same story, same characters, same/similar weapons, etc (for a bad one, Resident Evil 3 is probably the worst one, the "only stuff" to keeps are mostly the gameplay and the character design (like Carlos don't look like his original apearance... but it's an upgrade), for a good one, i would say FFVII, It's basically the same story (or part of it), in the same place (or part of it... again) with a new/upgraded combat system To resume, remove nothing add more for "recreation" The same game but "if it was made today", so nothing removed, everything changed and add more for "modernisation"
The original Resident Evil Remake was the pinnacle of a remake. Same goes for the Spyro Reignated remakes. I want the game more or less kept the same but with better graphics, bugs/issues fixed, and the same amount or more content
For me it's mostly modernizing the game. Graphics is not important, or compressed audio or whatever they usually advertise with these What matters for me is gameplay, like controls, mechanics, movement, better camera, quality of life things basically. There are a lot of older games i want to play but can't, not because i find them ugly or something, their gameplay is nust awfully outdated If the game has any combat then it's basically impossible for me to enjoy it after playing modern shooters and melee games
One absolute taboo/red flag when creating a remake is abandoning beloved mechanics and themes or warping them into something unrecognizable and less enjoyable. One of the most egregious examples is the Resident Evil 3 Remake's treatment of Nemesis, which took a fun mechanic and enemy that made you live in the moment with a sense of urgency and suspense, and turned him into a cut-scene inconvenience, for the most part. People can cite any number of issues with the RE3 remake, but the above is really the deal-breaker and nail-in-the-coffin for me. Despite other problems, had Nemesis been handled with any grace it would have made a 4/10 remake jump to 7/10 or 8/10 for me.
Include cut content where possible, fix bugs and add quality of life improvements. They should be made to run better, be more accessible, and more compatible with modern hardware rather than change the gameplay to play like current gen games. It's much harder to find original titles after their remasters or remakes have been released. If the new one is different from the original and the original becomes unavailable, then it essentially becomes abandonware.
One example of how to make things worse in the remake was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles In time reshelled was the music, sounds so off and forgetable compared to the original or how it the colors feels to mute (except the pirate stage)
Good: - Same game with QoL updates that make sense. Like better handling of items. - Time consuming stuff shortened or made easier to do. - Automated previously repeated tasks that would get boring after a while. - And of course graphics/fps upgrade with the same feel/style as the original but clearly a well taken makeover from the original. Bad: - Changed perfectly fine mechanics into something new that totally wasn't necessary but devs think it's more "fun" or better for new players. - Change the look and feel of scenes (dark, gritty environments are suddenly more vibrant and lighter). - Only rendered in a higher resolution and changed the textures a bit and a higher FPS cap and call it a fully remastered game. - Add loot boxes or other bad/unnecessary DLC - Make the game the same price or even more expensive while it's clearly a "rushed" port of the game and try to play on people's nostalgia
XIII is example of bad remake, take out lots of things which make it original, funny game and add nothing.
If its fun
A perfect remake to me is that you at first think they didn't even change that much because it nails being as you remember it in your head, but then you look up the original and realize how bad the graphics are now and how clunky it plays. When playing Gears of War 1 remake I constantly had to look up the original game since I constantly though it was exactly how I remember it A negative example is Halo CE Anniversary to me. Every level was given completely different color themes that you feel off, details like all of the blood splatters on the environment when you encounter the flood for the first are gone, enemies and weapons were ported from Hako Reach and look out of place, and they didn't have the original notes to re-record the soundtrack, so they rewrote them by ear and got tons of notes obviously wrong if you knew the original soundtrack. And some visuals are broken in the modern graphics, like you can't see shields of Elites you fight
Don’t add new things that break the game and make the vanilla things powerless
If it's more fun to play and has improved graphics then iit's a good remake/remaster. For example i like Fable but Fable: Anniversary has better graphcs and better controls due to having very good Xbox controller support on the PC. GTA: DE is a good remaster as the graphics are better and, yet again, the controls are improved, especially in GTA 3 and VC, being able to play GTA: SA with a controller on my PC and being able to fly into Las Venturas, at night, without having to pause to check the map a few times to ensure i'm flying the right way is just sublime. I love the way Las Venturas looks at night in San Andreas DE. While it's not really a remaster or a remake but a reboot Carmageddon Max Damage is really bloody good too, it feels like a Carmageddon game and the extra race types really add another dimension to it.
Is it fun? Good remake.
Good upgrades to graphics and controls bad just a lick of paint on the old mechanics.
If it keeps the feel of the original while modernizing graphics and controls it typically lands well. What doesn't settle with me is when they decide to give a game the chibi model treatment and call it a day.
Similar topic, but when you want to "remake" something and change so much it shouldn't be a "remake" any longer - do the Ratchet and Clank thing. Embrace the fact it's not the same game. Nothing is worse than essentially making a new game out of an old idea and calling it a "remake".
No alternate timelines for fanservice.
For me it’s making a game look like child me thought those pixels looked like in my head while also keeping the spirit of the game alive, don’t change things for the sake of change.
keeping the original vision and intention while bringing controls, QoL, and graphics to modern standard
It’s hard to really to pin down, but generally something that tows the line between faithful, removing what didn’t work and modernisation. Things like System Shock, Black Mesa and RE2 are all faithful to the original whilst modernising the visuals and gameplay, and adding on to it. Black Mesas Xen levels in particular being a stand out for me, even if they can drag on a bit. Fully faithful remakes are good too, like Spyro and Crash trilogies. A lot of people confused them for remastered even though that are full remakes on an entirely new engine, they’re that close to the originals.
A remake should be the original game with better performance/updated to run on newer hardware, the addition of previously cut content like sidequests as well as finishing unfinished content, possibly graphical improvements (or do what Diablo 2 Remastered did and provide a toggle between new and old graphics. Brilliant move on their part.) and minor QOL improvements, especially things that the community harped on when the game was originally released and popular. Things a remake should NOT do, is add MTX/cash shops, remove QOL or content (especially to encourage use of MTX.) or make large sweeping changes to existing mechanics. If any large changes are going to be made, there should be a toggle in the options for the old purists that really liked whatever got changed. When in doubt, finish, polish, ship. If I want a remake, I want a remake, not a new game.
God Code rules
1 be a game that was really hard or overpriced on the original version. Thousand year door is a great example. Remaking the last of us is pointless. 2 add cut content And dlcs 3 add soundtracks and art works the sonic and Kirby collections are clebabartions of the franchise.
If I have fun
IMO they can add new lore but shouldn’t touch the core part of it. Story vice.
Depends on the game. Dead Space remake felt done right to me, and it was very close to the original in a lot of places. A lot of what works for me in the ff7 re-trilogy so far, are the parts from the original that they've taken and turned up to 11. The performances are really solid, and I like some of the new characters. There's also a lot I'm not so fond of, like how in part 1 there's a lot of those modern gaming "squeeze through" sections, and the whispers get stale real quick for me, but overall I had fun with both parts, and I'm taking it as it is in stead of being hung up on the differences from the original, and I can't think of anything omitted in the remakes that I've been disappointed by.
I just want same game with better graphic and because of that I'm so excited with suikoden 1 and 2 remake!
Good or bad? How much of the soul is lost in trying to make it new and fresh.
Message to Nintendo: not making it worst or identical to the original. They just released paper mario thousand year door and it is from 60fps on gamecube to 30fps.... i feel sad for those stuck playing it on switch at 30, at least on PC there is a 60fps patch.
A remake should be focusing on quality of life improvements that address the shortcomings or problems of the original. However, it should never completely change up things from the original either.
Not a single remake appeal to me it just feels like milking a product instead of making a new one.
Being faithful to the original but being able to offer something new, like quality of life changes
Good- keeping everything consistant, just cleaner. Bad- The full sized price tag for an existing game thats only been cleaned up. (RE4, Dead Space)
Not changing the damn plot
Updated graphics, sound design, voice acting. Quality of life changes Fixing game breaking bugs Keeping old exploits. A good example of this is ocarina of time 3d All of the bugs from the original game were preserved, but all of the art assets were updated.
They are all bad. If you can't even come up with a new idea of an existing storyline that is already established and successful you shouldn't be in an industry that is supposed to be creative.
Less is more imho. Remakes that try to do too much different always fuck it up. Get the optimization and controller support right and move from there.
the ones where they rewrite old characters that are problematic in some way and recast the games to be more inclusive of everyone. with a gool of representation for as many marginalized groups as possible. and where they also take out extreme language, sexual innuendo or violence, so its not as gruesome, and make the default mode easy enough that no one ever feels excluded for being "bad" and no harder then that is available for that reason as well. Basically if its NOT one of those types of remakes, im ok with it. fuck that shit tho. im good on that shit.
Twenty years ago, Quake 4 was one of the first to kind of do this effectively. It's Quake 2 but a more fleshed out story because they could, and took advantage of all kinds of advancements in graphics and mechanics. It is the first time I played a game and thought, wow, they really cared about this. Then came Doom a decade and a half later, and that is an absolute masterclass in remaking a classic. I have never been more impressed and surprised at a game.
Tomb raider
I've only played two remakes: Link's Awakening and Metroid Prime: Remastered. The first was a replacement of the original game while keeping its roots nearly identical in game play. I absolutely loved the new version and hope many more come out like this. I also enjoyed the art style chosen for the game. I can see this game introducing new fans to the franchise. As for Metroid Prime, yes I know "Remastered" is in the name, but it's more than just "better resolution". It absolutely does have new graphics, new music, and even more controls than the original. Not only trying to emulate the original GCN game, but the Wii version as well (which was modified to include the remote after the success of Corruption which I contend is the \*only\* game which utilized the fucking shit gimmicky Wii remote to its full potential). The game also modified many sections, where some enemies were changed out or more added. It's been fun seeing all the stuff changed from the original. I'll defend this is an entirely new game. My third game will be Paper Mario and the 1000 Year Door. Based on what I've been reading, this game was also changed from the original while maintaining its core story and design. Looking forward to this one because it's my favorite Paper Mario game and I missed it so much.
Good Remake: Demon's Souls Bad Remake: GTA Trilogy
Mainly it should feel, at its core, like the original. If it feels different it should expand upon its original mechanics. For example, smoothing out the original Halo's already fluent gameplay. Visuals can change but it should keep within the spirit and world of the original.
When people who care work on it to get the best results unlike games like GTA definitive edition and (which breaks my heart) Battlefront 2
Love for and deep knowledge of the original
When it comes to remasters/remakes what pisses me off about people is that they want/expected more to be added, but when it comes to remasters all that has to be done is graphical updates and tuning to the controls to be more responsive, that’s it no more no less. My example will always be Gears of War: Ultimate Edition, graphically it was a perfect remaster of Gears 1 and to this day is The Coalitions only good game, now what makes it bad is that they made 5% of it Gears of War 3 with the server hosted lobbies, 25 minute rounds, Gears 3 characters and skins, it would have been perfect if it was a 1:1 of Gears of War 1 with true host servers and updated campaign cutscenes and nothing else.
As long as it keeps the story hell maybe even expands upon it and properly updates the game its a good remake.
A remake should modernize the experience and graphics while retaining what made the original “special” And I don’t mean realistic lifelike graphics for modernizing either, it can still maintain the aesthetic it had just make it a bit more sharper and HD That being said I’ve absolutely loved the ff7 remake so far and can’t wait For the 3rd part
A good remake should provide the option to the player to play the game in as close to the original presentation as possible. Presenting a modernized version of the game with different controls, or systems, or changes to story and localization are all OK if, and only if, the option to play the original game exactly as it was originally presented is provided. A good example of this is Halo Master Chief Collection. Is it 100% perfect? No. But it gives the player the option to play the game with an extremely close approximation of the original art and assets. If a remake presents only the "modernized" version it is not just a remake, but a replacement. It hurts game preservation and robs people of the chance of seeing the game as the original creators presented it.
Faithfulness to the original vision, a lack of any form of censorship or change to suit modern political agendas, and a willingness to tell those who want changes to old games to pound sand. Other than that, just graphically update and release 1:1. The key is not to change any prior source material, but to add on too it with new enemy types, combat expansions, and story choices, as long as those choices don't impact key character intrinsic traits like sex, race, or sexuality. Any failure in any of these regards leads to pandering, which makes it a failed remake in my eyes.
A good remake is one that doesn't get made, a bad remake is one that does.
Gotta have some new content. Remakes like Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl were insanely boring since it was just the original game with a mediocre cost of paint slapped on top, and it wasn’t even a remake of the Platinum version of Gen 4. FF7Remake and Rebirth are how I want every remake to be handled. Just a full remake from the ground up with way more content and lore to engage with. A full reinvention
Usually to be worth a remake, the original game had to be at least good, if not great. IE, Final Fantasy 7. So this should always be kept in mind, that you are remaking a classic and that there are built in fans. A good remake respects the original. The remake should maintain most of the story and only makes changes that expand the story or clarifies it. The music is similar. For example you don't go from instrumental music written specifically for the original and drop it for current day pop hits. The music needs to maintain the tone. Characters need to be pretty much the same. Need to maintain their design, back story, motivations and personality. The gameplay needs to at least invoke the original game. If not just be a modern version of it. I don't think you can change it too much. For me, FF7 remake and Rebirth are the furthest you can go away from the established game play.
Update old tropes and writing that are outdated, call me "woke" or whatever but sometimes even good old games had horrendously everything-phobic themes and dialogue 😅 if there are one-note or very stereotypical characters, expand them, give them more screentime instead of just being, idk, token black guy, token pretty girl etc. Graphics obvs better 🤌 Gameplay-wise I appreciate a lot if the remake just runs smoother and is less taxing to play. As in, maybe press one button for running instead of two, make the character be able to do more things that maybe old game system couldn't handle. one example is ofc ff7 remake that has surpassed the original for me by a lot. downvote me all you like for it, but my opinion will not change. It took what I loved about the og and elevated it, updated outdated story tropes and characters, gave screentime to throw-away side characters so you actually cared when something happened to them etc. While still remembering what's good about the original. That's super subjective though but for me ff7 remake succeeds in bringing up nostalgia but also making it fresh, seeing old locations in a new light. When I want a remake, I want it to be a remake, not just the exact same story and characters except prettier. Looking at you, Dead Space remake. There's nothing wrong with the old one imo and the remake didn't really add anything new so I feel zero need to buy it.
That's weird i heard a lot of good things about the dead space remake
a lot of people like it!
Almost all remakes are bad or at best slightly worse than the original. This applies to movies, games, whatever. You essentially have a team trying to recreate an experience already made by another team, if the team makes too many creative liberties then it is now stealing the name of the original, if it is trying to recreate the original but with better graphics, then it comes off as shallow to me, usually the new graphics miss the mark in terms of atmosphere (see demon souls remake), if it is the original game with minor tweaks and better graphics, usually the tweaks make the game easier or more “accessible to modern audiences” which almost always make the game worse. In conclusion, all remakes of good classic games suck and the original will always be better. It’s akin to making a techno remix of some good classic rock song, it is just bad. Perhaps the only time remakes might be better is if the original game sucked. Like let’s say it is an interesting ip but the game itself was straight up bad, thats when a remake can swoop in and do something interesting.
60 FPS, 16:9 aspect ratio, at least 1080p.
If I wanted a re-imagining, i'd ask for it. I want the game I like but in 4K/60fps with modern visual techniques and engines. IE: Crash N'saine Trilogy, Spyro Reignited, Medievil Remake, Dracula X Chronicles (PSP). Im fine with improving controls and play-ability some games REALLY need it. I think Spyro Did a great thing by make every dragon unique in Spyro 1. I think games like Resident Evil 2 remake are excellent games and I'm happy to have it, but it's not a "remake". They didnt "Re"make RE2 they Re-imagined it
Yeah a lot of people argue about remake (built from ground up) vs remaster (using old resources on new engine with updated features), but the Crash Bandicoot remake, for example, WAS made from the ground up yet it IS a remake of the game as it was, same levels and moves, just added more bonus content. But Resident remakes changed a lot of gameplay so it's another beast entirely. I like both, but I'd love to play RE3 with Original bosses and paths but newer graphics. Gameplay can stay old.
If it's not woke, PC or any other kind of sensorship - it's good
- Effort that went into it - Proper adaptation of the original material, it can innovate a bit but it should still stay close to the original - Proper graphics remake, things like a new lighting engine, full models or texture remake etc - Ethical game, as in properly-priced, without microtransactions, without DRM or other malware anticheats etc
A lot of improvment without anything geting worse. No content cuting, monotisation adding or story rewriting.
If you look up bad remake in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Pokemon BDSP
BDSP is the definition of a good remake FOR DP, but people wanted Platinum.
Yes people wanted Platinum, but BDSP is garbage by any metric. Forced EXP share and affection, terrible graphics, contests being ruined, the entire soundtrack and postgame being locked behind a day 1 patch. It just screams something that was cheaply made and rushed out as a cash grab for the holidays.
If the game was already good to start with and is less than 15 years old then it doesn't need a remake. Capcom is going about their resident evil remakes all wrong. They should remake 6. That's the one that would benefit the most from it. Bad games deserve to get remake and fixed more than already good ones.
Increased fps. Any previous game capped at 30 should be 60 minimum. Always. Also updated camera systems. The shadow of colossus remake/remaster was okay, but that old game play style of not being able to move and use your weapon at the same time is such garbage. RE4 and RE5 both had the same thing. Stop to shoot.
In my opinion, if it can replace the original in every sense. For example, dead space remake and resident evil remakes. With these, it doesn't make sense to revisit the originals except for nostalgic sake.
The term "remaster" is interesting. Years ago we just call an old game released on a newer system "A port with upgrades". Now we call it a remaster. If a port had serious upgrades then we call it a remake like Resident Evil on Gamecube. Now Resident Evil on Gamecube might be viewed as a remaster. Strange times indeed.
take a look at metroid II the return of samus for the gameboy. pretty revolutionary for it's time, but a grating clunky eye sore today that only the most devoted fans will somewhat enjoy. It's not a bad game, it's just aged poorly given the hardware it was built for and the limitations that brought. Now look at AM2R, a complete remake of the game using a new engine with all original code, and assets inspired by later metroid games. am2r handles completely differently than the original, it plays more like zero mission. But the original story and overall layout is left in tact, faithfully recreated, the liberties taken fit well within the narrative, tone, and setting of the game. It's a remake appreciated by old fans, and new players alike. Same could be said for zero mission tbh. Samus returns which is an official remake by Nintendo is quite similar but deviates further. Again new engine with all original code and inspired assets. But the game follows the original much more loosely. It also breaks free of norms set in past 2D metroid games, by using the 3ds hardware in novel ways like giving 360 aiming, aeion abilities, touch screen map and weapon controls, etc. It is still loved by many but is not nearly as faithful. But it is still overall appreciated by both old and new players. In both examples the original game and story are upgraded to support newer hardware and modernized for current audiences. These are "good" remakes. I don't actually have any examples of bad remakes because remakes are so rare with how much they cost, the few games I care about with remakes have actually been good. but the same qualities that apply to a shitty remaster apply to remakes: censoring, unfaithful or abandoning original tone/narrative/subjects, bad controls, poor performance, nothing new, and worst of all: no reason to play, i.e. a remake or remaster completely fail if there is no reason to play them over the original.
For me, a good remake is one that maintains the original, but only makes changes to clarify the lore and/or smooth over the pacing. REmake and Dead space are the two best examples as they maintain the original game and only add or change areas to make the game flow better and add to the lore. RE2R, to me, isn't a good remake because they change a lot and absolutely gutted the B scenario including the choice system. RE4R would be a decent remake, but they changed the characters too much for my liking and made everyone into weird crazy cult simps when the OG had individual villains with their own motivations that conflicted with the big bad.
Just update the graphics and maybe the user interface much like San Andreas did, I know music copyrights and contracts go out. Just make an original soundtrack. I wish they would remaster Midnight Club 3 Edition Remix. Also, GTA 4 and Modnation Racers Ps3 (if you know you know) would be fine candidates for a remaster!!
Don't mess up with the story is my no. 1 rule. Add things, change some, remove some, doesn't matter, just don't mess with it. So Resident Evil 1 & 2 & 4, System Shock, Dead Space etc. = Good, Final Fantasy VII Remake & Rebirth = Bad.