Remaking Old Games is a Fool's Errand

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Remaking Old Games is a Fool's Errand

Witness the inherent cognitive dissonance of reboots - games that attempt to sell themselves by evoking nostalgia for older games that they, by their very existence, are attempting to erase, or at the very least replace.

Read Full Article

A remade game should be treated as a sequel. That is, it should be the same game, but better. Star Fox Zero was not the same game as Star Fox 64, but better - they actively made it worse by shoehorning in gimmick garbage controls instead of enhancing and improving on the stuff people liked. Ratchet and Clank is basically the same EXACT game as the first one, with VERY minimal enhancements to weapon upgrades and a pointless trading card system.

The new Ratchet and Clank obviously has better graphics so if you never played the first one why not start here, but to anyone who already played the original it's a huge waste. Star Fox Zero on the other hand is a big fat failure, and yet another piece of evidence on the pile of how Nintendo is unable to properly make the games people like anymore without ruining them with their moronic "innovation." Worse, Nintendo can't even re-release it anywhere down the road because unlike Star Fox 64 it's tied to that terrible Gamepad brick that ruined the Wii U.

On another note, I don't think people are lauding Quantum Break's storytelling. Quite the opposite, people seem to be recognizing how terribly it cocked up the presentation by trying and failing to be a movie/TV show. So that's nice to see, at least.

At least PC has the re-releasing games covered. I've been playing Final Fantasy IX over the past week for the first time, and while they kept a lot of the dated elements, they've added an autosave feature to lessen the frustration when a random enemy gets the jump on you, and there are handicap options if you dislike the combat and just want to enjoy the story. It preserves the original while still updating it.

I'm reminded of Final Fantasy VII Remake. From what we've seen, it's so totally different from the original that "remake" might be a misnomer. A better name might be Final Fantasy VII Reimagined. But Square Enix took the smart route and rereleased the original on a bunch of current platforms. As such, the new one is definitely meant to play on nostalgia for the original, but they are making no effort to replace it. Rather, the new one will build on nostalgia for old fans and introduce the world to new fans. It really is a clever way of doing it. Further, by making sure the original stays in circulation, they've given themselves more freedom to experiment and potentially make more radical changes to the remake.

As worried as I am that the new game will suck, I've gotta respect their decision to have it complement the original rather than replacing it. That way, even if the new one turns out absolutely awful, there's still an option to play the good one. I wish more studios would do it this way.

P.S. Thanks

While major game retailers do focus entirely on what's new and shiny, it's not true in the slightest that older consoles and games are hard to get. The more obscure ones, maybe, but taking your example there, I had a quick look on ebay and found a ps2 going for €22, and a copy of silent hill 4 going for €19. The used game market is thriving, and it's not going away any time soon.

I also like Silent Hill 4, it had gameplay problems but its story and symbolism are on par with earlier titles, and far superior to later garbage. I doesn't matter that it wasn't included in the HD re-release since nobody should play that piece of shit anyway.

I just want to keep being able to play my games. Its why I buy old games on Steam, so I can keep them longer. I'm perfectly fine with simply porting the games to new systems, though Id prefer to permanently have them. Sure I have Pok?mon Yellow on my 3DS, but I would be even happier if the next Gameboy after it still let me play my downloaded Pok?mon Yellow.

Yeah, sometimes you get Ocarina of Time 3D, or Star Fox 64 3D, which improve the game while keeping it intact, but you also get Majora's Mask 3D, or the FF7 remake. Or even MGS Twin Snakes. I like definitive remakes that give no real reason to play the old version.

Movies aren't so comparable cause movies unlike games usually get updated for newer formats. I can buy Wizard of Oz on Blu-Ray. A film from the 40's. Hell, I can watch A Trip to the Moon on Netflix, a film over 100 years old!

Agree with the spirit of the article, but I can't help but point out a couple of minor quibbles. Firstly, the original Ratchet & Clank trilogy was rereleased on PS3 and PS Vita a couple years ago, so while they're not on anything truly current (unless you're still clinging to the notion of the Vita as a current gaming system), they haven't completely disappeared beneath the water.

Secondly, while it's obvious Yahtzee would use it as the example, from what I've seen the Silent Hill HD collection is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to rereleases. The similar rereleases of the Sands of Time and Metal Gear Solid trilogy were fine, and current rereleases like Last of Us PS4 and Gears of War Ultimate didn't change much beyond a 60 FPS upgrade, which is no bad thing.

Thanatos2k:
A remade game should be treated as a sequel. That is, it should be the same game, but better. Star Fox Zero was not the same game as Star Fox 64, but better - they actively made it worse by shoehorning in gimmick garbage controls instead of enhancing and improving on the stuff people liked. Ratchet and Clank is basically the same EXACT game as the first one, with VERY minimal enhancements to weapon upgrades and a pointless trading card system.

The new Ratchet and Clank obviously has better graphics so if you never played the first one why not start here, but to anyone who already played the original it's a huge waste. Star Fox Zero on the other hand is a big fat failure, and yet another piece of evidence on the pile of how Nintendo is unable to properly make the games people like anymore without ruining them with their moronic "innovation." Worse, Nintendo can't even re-release it anywhere down the road because unlike Star Fox 64 it's tied to that terrible Gamepad brick that ruined the Wii U.

On another note, I don't think people are lauding Quantum Break's storytelling. Quite the opposite, people seem to be recognizing how terribly it cocked up the presentation by trying and failing to be a movie/TV show. So that's nice to see, at least.

I felt so compelled to argue your points here, I went and dusted off this old account. As someone who has played pretty much every game in this series, I can happily say that I loved every second of this thing. This was forty bucks well spent for me, and I don't see where you're coming from here. All due respect, to say that this game is "the EXACT same" as the original is a near complete lie. The story is widely different, and there are almost no weapons from the original game. The cast is either populated with entirely new characters, characters who were already there being differently interpreted by some degree or another, and then there's the characters who are outright gone. Many of the areas from the first game are here, yes, but are done differently enough that any claim of them being the "exact same" is going to fall flat. And I could go on. It's up to you whether you liked the game or not, but don't go getting lazy with your critique.

Hell, have you played the original lately? Graphically, it's held up well enough. But gameplay wise, it's showing its age pretty badly. And yes, I know that most older games tend to be clunky and stiff when compared to their successors, but even so. And on a final note, while I will concede that there wasn't all that much done differently with weapon upgrades, I would hardly call the card system "pointless". There's no arguing that it's a gimmick, but at least it's a gimmick that does something useful. More bolts and raritanium may not be earth shattering, but it's not exactly detrimental, either.

I stopped reading after the opening statement. It's... There are no words to describe it.

In what universe are the remakes replacing the originals? The originals are still there. In fact, Nintendo has even made efforts to revive the older games by putting them on the Virtual console.

If you don't like a remake, it doesn't detract from the quality of the original product. If you enjoy the remakes, it doesn't mean that you'll never play the originals, since the originals are still different games.

Remakes are literally just games which are made using the core fundamental aspects of older games which people enjoyed, as well as the characters and personalities which people really liked. They're not replacements or destroyers of the original products.

And for the record, a lot of people really enjoyed the new Ratchet and Clank, and the new Starfox. They weren't failures in absolutely any sense.

Considering that Microsoft does now have backwards compatibility, i'd say they do give a fuck(Sony probably does as well, but they're fucked thanks to their brilliant idea to put an overly complex cell processor in the PS3 which was a nightmare to program for and made backwards compatibility with the PS4 impossible). I really don't give a shit why Ratchet and Clank was remade, it's a fun game so I find it very hard to be cynical about it. I'm also not upset about Star Fox Zero for why it was made, i'm upset because the controls are so fucking godawful(wonder if Yahtzee will hate these controls even more so then Kid Icarus Rising, which had pretty shit controls in it's own right) that it mars the overall experience I had, I don't blame people like Jim Sterling one bit for giving it a negative score.

Quantum Break has OK storytelling, but it would've better if the live-action scenes were done with CGI.

Has Yahtzee never heard of Ebay? You can easily get a PS2, original Xbox and Gamecube for only about 100 dollars each. Silent Hill 4 you can get on PC for about 20 dollars.

Agreed Yahtzee. That's why to me, it should all just end up on computer, remastered perfectly, with any type of controller support, since we know these pubs are never going to back them up.

Saelune:
Yeah, sometimes you get Ocarina of Time 3D, or Star Fox 64 3D, which improve the game while keeping it intact

I disagree with this entirely. They made model, lighting and voice actor changes that are fucking hideous compared to the originals. God damn they are so bad! It makes me feel like they don't give a shit about the original works. These are not good examples in the slightest. So while they may improve some bits and pieces, I usually find they kill the elegance and execution along with it, small things many people may not even notice.

Just looking at the Black Mesa remake of the original Half Life, I really can't see how it is an improvement over the original when the resonance cascade explosion feels nowhere near as chaotic. While spitting beams into you and taking you to one less location, it then props you down like an exhibit while aliens slowly and clumsy come to look at you. The original was fast, and it let you move around in-between scenes to add to the sense of being lost. Including, it becomes less interactive when some of the 'scenes' you triggered before now just happen when you come close. Then they add in music that describes the moment and takes away the sense of confusion too. Movie anyone?

Holy crap this standout is a bit of a bad logic bad case.

"Besides, the original creators of a game don't see any of the money from a second-hand sale, and I'm somewhat invested in the system wherein professional creatives get paid to do work."

Does this mean that used book stores should pay royalties to authors? Does this mean that people who sell paintings they bought from an artist should give royalties to an artist again? No?

Well what makes video game content creators so different that they feel entitled to doubledip when literally every OTHER artist respects First Sale Doctrine?

If I buy a copy of a new game, you should get your cut. Obviously. You deserve a cut for every copy in circulation. If 100 copies are in circulation, you should get 100 paychecks. If a million are, you get a million paychecks. This is fair and equitable. Any more or less is not.

So, if you sold 1000 copies and only got 300 paychecks... that's not right. If you sold 1000 copies and got 2000 paychecks, that's also not right.

So let's say those thousand people sell their copies. How many total paychecks do you deserve? Well, 1000 copies in circulation equals 1000 paychecks, so you should be paid a total of 1000 times. So, we take the 1000 times you already were paid, subtract 1000 from that... and look, you get paid zero times from secondary sales, because you were already paid for those copies.

See your sentence implies that professional creators were NOT paid to do work, but you were. Every used copy sold was originally a new copy sold, and that means that you have already BEEN paid.

I have yet to see a single justification for why video game artists are special cases where they are somehow different from all other artists, and I am waiting patiently for someone to actually explain this.

Nazulu:
Agreed Yahtzee. That's why to me, it should all just end up on computer, remastered perfectly, with any type of controller support, since we know these pubs are never going to back them up.

Saelune:
Yeah, sometimes you get Ocarina of Time 3D, or Star Fox 64 3D, which improve the game while keeping it intact

I disagree with this entirely. They made model, lighting and voice actor changes that are fucking hideous compared to the originals. God damn they are so bad! It makes me feel like they don't give a shit about the original works. These are not good examples in the slightest. So while they may improve some bits and pieces, I usually find they kill the elegance and execution along with it, small things many people may not even notice.

Just looking at the Black Mesa remake of the original Half Life, I really can't see how it is an improvement over the original when the resonance cascade explosion feels nowhere near as chaotic. While spitting beams into you and taking you to one less location, it then props you down like an exhibit while aliens slowly and clumsy come to look at you. The original was fast, and it let you move around in-between scenes to add to the sense of being lost. Including, it becomes less interactive when some of the 'scenes' you triggered before now just happen when you come close. Then they add in music that describes the moment and takes away the sense of confusion too. Movie anyone?

OoT 3D fixed the water temple. I remember finishing it and being surprised by how little pain there was. As for Star Fox, there are worse things than changing to less pleasant voices. Plus no N64 controller, and its portable. Both major pluses.

Saelune:
OoT 3D fixed the water temple. I remember finishing it and being surprised by how little pain there was. As for Star Fox, there are worse things than changing to less pleasant voices. Plus no N64 controller, and its portable. Both major pluses.

The water temple never bothered me, I easily finish it in around 20 to 30 minutes. I never understood why so many suffered through it. So sure, one improvement. Doesn't really make me forgot about the major flaws I brought up though. I mean, it really depends what you take issue with, doesn't it.

Same goes for Star Fox 64 on 3DS. It was not only a pain to listen to, but also play, because I hate the 3DS controls more the N64's.

Either way, you're missing the point. I clearly prefer the originals. As I said, they may make little improvements, but overall, the big changes disgust me.

Nazulu:

Saelune:
OoT 3D fixed the water temple. I remember finishing it and being surprised by how little pain there was. As for Star Fox, there are worse things than changing to less pleasant voices. Plus no N64 controller, and its portable. Both major pluses.

The water temple never bothered me, I easily finish it in around 20 to 30 minutes. I never understood why so many suffered through it. So sure, one improvement. Doesn't really make me forgot about the major flaws I brought up though. I mean, it really depends what you take issue with, doesn't it.

Same goes for Star Fox 64 on 3DS. It was not only a pain to listen to, but also play, because I hate the 3DS controls more the N64's.

Either way, you're missing the point. I clearly prefer the originals. As I said, they may make little improvements, but overall, the big changes disgust me.

What big changes? A belt to make Young Link look like Majora's Mask Link? The lack of big changes is why I like them, and why I don't like Majora's Mask 3D, since my previous knowledge of the game hinders me too often in that one.

Saelune:
What big changes? A belt to make Young Link look like Majora's Mask Link? The lack of big changes is why I like them, and why I don't like Majora's Mask 3D, since my previous knowledge of the game hinders me too often in that one.

Huh? Did my first response to you go right over your head or something? There is a big difference between them and originals, but like I said, you may not care about those certain things. I do though. This is why I disagree with what you said earlier, when you pointed to those remakes as improvements that keep it intact. I really didn't say more than this.

You have no chance of changing my mind, and I didn't want to change yours, just point out there are hardly any good examples. These Nintendo examples are not faithful to the originals in the slightest. Changing the models, lighting and voice acting (among other things) can completely alter the experience entirely, and they do.

I was never behind the idea of Star Fox Zero being a reboot/remaster/reimagining/re-whateverthehelltheywanttocallit. I kind of wanted to move past the point of fighting Andross again. Say what you want about Star Fox Assault, but at least it continued the story, and had a new villain that didn't tie back to Andross.

Oh well. I'm sure we'll here all those complaints and more tomorrow when you spend five minutes tearing into Nintendo Star Fox Zero.

While I sorta agree, maybe, Nintendo is making an effort to actually re-release old games via Virtual Console, something that neither of the other console makers are doing - hell, you can't even buy PS1 games on the PS4 despite it being available on both PS3 and Vita.

I don't think Nintendo intended to 'replace' Star Fox 64 (and by extension the original SNES game), since both 64 and 64 3D are available to buy on VC and 3DS respectively (I do like 64 3D, any negative changes are entirely aesthetics-based and not a big deal, same with OOT 3D and Majora's Mask 3D, which I honestly consider to the the definitive version of both games in pretty much every way, they're just so much more playable and better-looking while being faithful to the original games art style). Zero sorta follows the same premise as 64 and SNES, but the progression is considerably different and even has some major story changes.

Besides, I find it hilarious that people are up in arms about Star Fox Zero having a 'gimmick' when the entire series has been built on being tech demos for certain things - the original SNES game was for the 3D FX Chip, Star Fox 2 was supposed to be a sorta-strategy game with absolutely no on-rails sections and the chicken walker, 64 was for the Rumble Pak, Adventures was a graphical showcase that still holds up today, Assault had the ground combat (wasn't so great, but the multiplayer was absolutely incredible) and Command had stylus movement and the turn-based "RTS" mission structure. Zero is just continuing a series tradition. Zero's motion controls aren't even bad, they could be better and take time to get used to, sure, but I honestly can't go back to 64's control scheme when Zero provides a beautifully elegant control scheme that relies on just the sticks and triggers (and a single button from time to time to transform). So much more control and flexibility, while allowing the gameplay to be faster-paced and more interesting - Star Wolf dogfights are more aggressive and challenging since you no longer need to get directly behind an enemy to shoot at them, the challenge is keeping them in your sights. And the gamepad screen isn't even needed 80% of the time, you could probably tweak the gameplay a bit to not need the gamepad screen at all. The gyro takes a bit of practice, but at least it's way easier than inputs you see in traditional fighting games.

Do remember that people hated the dual-stick paradigm when it was first being used in FPS titles before Halo came along and popularized it, and non-gamers find modern controllers that don't use motion controls to be incredibly unintuitive. More games need to use gyro controls, really, it's a godsend in Splatoon and the Steam Controller would be much worse without it.

I'm not entirely sure what Yahtzee is trying to say here as he never really makes a point. It kinda just sounds like he's upset that he can't play old games on new systems.

Am,I missing something or is he just rambling?

Nazulu:

Saelune:
What big changes? A belt to make Young Link look like Majora's Mask Link? The lack of big changes is why I like them, and why I don't like Majora's Mask 3D, since my previous knowledge of the game hinders me too often in that one.

Huh? Did my first response to you go right over your head or something? There is a big difference between them and originals, but like I said, you may not care about those certain things. I do though. This is why I disagree with what you said earlier, when you pointed to those remakes as improvements that keep it intact. I really didn't say more than this.

You have no chance of changing my mind, and I didn't want to change yours, just point out there are hardly any good examples. These Nintendo examples are not faithful to the originals in the slightest. Changing the models, lighting and voice acting (among other things) can completely alter the experience entirely, and they do.

I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

Saelune:
I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

Nazulu:

Saelune:
I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

You said why you don't like the Black Mesa remake of HL1, which I never played. As for the 3DS remakes, those are minor ones, ones that I also disagree with since I think they made both games look much better.

Saelune:

Nazulu:

Saelune:
I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

You said why you don't like the Black Mesa remake of HL1, which I never played. As for the 3DS remakes, those are minor ones, ones that I also disagree with since I think they made both games look much better.

There is so much to be said, and I don't have time for it, which is why I never set up my comments to go into long explanations on certain topics. What I said about Black Mesa is just a crumb out of the whole problem cake.

Plus you're repeating your opinion on the 3DS remakes now, which I also stated, so I think we can end this now, but thanks for responding so quickly.

Candescence:
While I sorta agree, maybe, Nintendo is making an effort to actually re-release old games via Virtual Console, something that neither of the other console makers are doing - hell, you can't even buy PS1 games on the PS4 despite it being available on both PS3 and Vita.

I don't think Nintendo intended to 'replace' Star Fox 64 (and by extension the original SNES game), since both 64 and 64 3D are available to buy on VC and 3DS respectively (I do like 64 3D, any negative changes are entirely aesthetics-based and not a big deal, same with OOT 3D and Majora's Mask 3D, which I honestly consider to the the definitive version of both games in pretty much every way, they're just so much more playable and better-looking while being faithful to the original games art style). Zero sorta follows the same premise as 64 and SNES, but the progression is considerably different and even has some major story changes.

Besides, I find it hilarious that people are up in arms about Star Fox Zero having a 'gimmick' when the entire series has been built on being tech demos for certain things - the original SNES game was for the 3D FX Chip, Star Fox 2 was supposed to be a sorta-strategy game with absolutely no on-rails sections and the chicken walker, 64 was for the Rumble Pak, Adventures was a graphical showcase that still holds up today, Assault had the ground combat (wasn't so great, but the multiplayer was absolutely incredible) and Command had stylus movement and the turn-based "RTS" mission structure. Zero is just continuing a series tradition. Zero's motion controls aren't even bad, they could be better and take time to get used to, sure, but I honestly can't go back to 64's control scheme when Zero provides a beautifully elegant control scheme that relies on just the sticks and triggers (and a single button from time to time to transform). So much more control and flexibility, while allowing the gameplay to be faster-paced and more interesting - Star Wolf dogfights are more aggressive and challenging since you no longer need to get directly behind an enemy to shoot at them, the challenge is keeping them in your sights. And the gamepad screen isn't even needed 80% of the time, you could probably tweak the gameplay a bit to not need the gamepad screen at all. The gyro takes a bit of practice, but at least it's way easier than inputs you see in traditional fighting games.

Do remember that people hated the dual-stick paradigm when it was first being used in FPS titles before Halo came along and popularized it, and non-gamers find modern controllers that don't use motion controls to be incredibly unintuitive. More games need to use gyro controls, really, it's a godsend in Splatoon and the Steam Controller would be much worse without it.

the controls are awful

In my opinion, the best way one could use reboots to benefit the game industry would be by rebooting old games that had great ideas but bombed horribly thanks to development hell or technological limitations. I'd love to see reboots used as second chances for poorly executed ideas.

Before you can remake a game you have to understand what made the game great to begin with. THat is the step so often overstepped by those who would remake a game. There is too much desire to 'fix' or 'improve' without understanding what it is you are working on. The enjoyment of a game comes from the sum total of all its parts, good, bad and mediocre. Take TMNT for the NES or Battletoads.; can you honestly say these games would hold the same appeal if they were 'fixed'? If the dam stage was more lenient or the jetski sections more forgiving. No.

This is not to say a remake can't do things right and elevate the game, but in such a case the effort might well be wasted. How? The effort, dedication and time required to pull a remake off 'right' is no different from the time, care and dedication required to make a brand new game with a brand new IP.

Dane Tesston:
I felt so compelled to argue your points here, I went and dusted off this old account. As someone who has played pretty much every game in this series, I can happily say that I loved every second of this thing. This was forty bucks well spent for me, and I don't see where you're coming from here. All due respect, to say that this game is "the EXACT same" as the original is a near complete lie. The story is widely different,

I'm not sure you've really played the first game then. The story's exactly the same. Story's also about two sentences long.

and there are almost no weapons from the original game.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/561107-ratchet-and-clank/faqs/59212

Half the weapons are directly from the first game. All the gadgets are.

The cast is either populated with entirely new characters, characters who were already there being differently interpreted by some degree or another, and then there's the characters who are outright gone. Many of the areas from the first game are here, yes, but are done differently enough that any claim of them being the "exact same" is going to fall flat. And I could go on.

You really couldn't. There's shockingly actually less areas in the "remake" than the original game. It's SHORTER. But the area progression is still almost beat for beat the same. Saying "Well they changed the level design" is laughable. Of course they're going to change the level design. But the level itself is still basically the same. Each planet has two to three objective "paths" that lead to a shortcut back to the start. Just like before.

I would hardly call the card system "pointless". There's no arguing that it's a gimmick, but at least it's a gimmick that does something useful. More bolts and raritanium may not be earth shattering, but it's not exactly detrimental, either.

All it does is increase the percent rate of some stuff. That's useless. You have no idea what the drop rate is to start with, and increasing it makes no substantive change to gameplay at all. If you played the game without picking up a single card nothing would change. That's a pointless gameplay system.

The game doesn't even play differently. The controls are still pretty much identical. You avoid things by aim/lock strafing and double jumping back and forth while shooting enemies as fast as you can. Nothing has changed. At no point did I say the game was not good, but it's the same game we played a decade ago.

You can play the original Ratchet and Clank games through the PSnow streaming service. Admittidly, i'd certainly prefer a disc, but they aren't throwing away their past games. And like has already been mentioned, the remake has smoothly improved gameplay and movement. Sometimes it's nice to modernise classics with shiny chrome nitros injection fluff.

I'd agree most of the time, but there are definitely some remakes so teste-ticklingly wonderful that they're practically a new game altogether.

Consider the remake of the original Resident Evil for the Gamecube in like 2002. Most of the flaws of the PS1 original were tossed out- the awful live-action opening replaced with an animated cutscene, the horrific voice-acting replaced with... still kind of bad VA (since it was 2002) but considerably better, not cringe-worthy at least. A complete visual overhaul that made the game outright stunning (still is today, IMO), drastic audio changes to enhance the atmosphere, a new enemy type (Crimson heads) that brought survival to the forefront and making backtracking risky and dangerous, self-defense weapons and slightly tighter controls to balance for the new difficulty-

AND, to top all that off, massive amounts of gameplay segments were added, pushing about 1/3 extra content into the game, including the memorable Lisa Trevor. Oh, and the box art was changed from "Chris holding a huge gun and looking constipated while standing in front of an explosion" to "Jill being attacked by a single zombie in a dark, claustrophobic hallway."

REmake is practically a completely different game. It's one of my favorite games even today, but I doubt I could have played the PS1 original and felt any degree of tension.

What's the point in remaking something that was already good in the first place?

To take a highly flawed game with good ideas in it, then polishing it up in EVERY area and removing as many weaknesses as possible so people can enjoy the goodness without being dragged down by any shit that may be covering it.

Also, the PS3 had some "bundled" re-releases of game SERIES' (not just one game), 2-3 games together in HD harmony with bugs and frame-rate issues ironed out.

This is honestly one of the best articles I've read. I think people don't read enough of Yahtzee's articles and they really should should. Quite insightful. There's not really much for me to add here other then I simply agree with almost all of his points. I mean as bad as consoles are with their outdated technology lack of quality in construction and awful controls. It's the lack of backwards compatibility that really gets to me.

I don't see why it would be hard for modern consoles to include emulators for older ones. I've got an N64 emulator and a PS1 emulator on my computer that I've used to play old Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games perfectly successfully. I suspect the biggest problem isn't making the consoles backwards compatible but dealing with the horribly complicated rights issues involved.

Flatfrog:
I don't see why it would be hard for modern consoles to include emulators for older ones. I've got an N64 emulator and a PS1 emulator on my computer that I've used to play old Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games perfectly successfully. I suspect the biggest problem isn't making the consoles backwards compatible but dealing with the horribly complicated rights issues involved.

For downloads maybe but if you wanted to implement the software simply to play it from a disc you already own it shouldn't be a problem. With PS1 emulators if you want it to be 100% legal then you just need two things. 1 you must own a physical copy of the game you are running even if you're using an iso. 2. you must own a physical PlayStation with matching bios firmware as that used in the emulator. Then you're all green as far as copy right goes. This is to the best of my knowledge. I'm a not a lawyer

See this is one big reason why I'm so bitter against modern gamers. They're the ones responsible for this practice being done in the first place.

And yet Doom is still awesome. If a game is remade in the spirit of the original and isn't simply a retread of the same level design with updated graphics, I say go for it! As for Silent Hill 4, if they fix AI pathing issues, I might try it again. Never could get Eileen through a level unscathed so i got stuck with one of the bad endings.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here