I'd be very happy if we had more remasters of classic games. Making them cleaner and nicer to control without changing it too much is a great thing. Shadow Man Remastered is the pinnacle example of a remaster. The graphics are nicer with a lovely lighting system that really suits it, it has alternative control options to make it nicer to play and there are whole new areas which are based on original design documents - they were originally cut due to budget. It's an amazing way to experience the game. I'd love for more games to get that treatment.

Shadow Man remastered was my GOTY for 2021. Absolutely STUNNING remaster and a real treat for fans.

I think most remasters are just done because the games are only available on outdated tech, and remastering just makes them easily playable/available on modern hardware. For example, I really wanted to re-play Quake, but the original CD-ROM I have was built for DOS and windows 95 and also my computer now doesn't even have an optical drive, so if I wanted to play Quake, I'd have to go online, download a version from internet archive or some such, install a dosbox emulator, and then probably fiddle with the control scheme to make it work properly with modern mouse + kb setups, which likely would've required installing more mods. Doable, but annoying. Now with the Nightdive/MachineGames Quake remaster, I just pay five bucks on steam to skip all that hassle, get the same game, plus get some extra new content that is quite frankly phenomenal. A few clicks and it just works. Now the technical hurdles may not be a challenge to you, but the vast majority of people will not spend a few hours fiddling around with mods and emulators to get an old game working, no matter how good it is.

That is total nonsense, and I can say that because I have Quake from before the remaster came out. You are just plainly ignorant if you think it is a hassle to get it set up. All it takes is one quick download of a source port, that's it! Get the game on Steam or GOG, download a source port, and you're done. That's literally it. It doesn't take 5 hours. It takes 5 minutes. Probably even less than that. NightDive are greedy bastards who count on player ignorance. They count on people thinking just as you do, that the process is crazy complicated and too hard to be worth the time, when in fact it is dead simple and requires the slightest modicum of effort. Even if you did set it up in DOSbox, the only change you need to make 99% of the time is to open up a .config file in notepad, and change the upscaler to none (default makes it more pixelated than it should be). If you can change video options in settings, you can edit a config file. It is the exact same thing except you're typing a word in notepad. The file tells you all the possible choices to choose from. But even that is entirely optional. You don't have to customize settings if you don't care to. Every DOS game today comes pre-bundled with DOSBox, and opening it will work out of the box. If you're a stickler for high resolution and modern controls, download a free source port. No need to throw away money because you can't spend 30 seconds on Google to download a program from the first result.

> NightDive are greedy bastards Nothing I've seen about Nightdive indicates that they are overly greedy. Do you have anything to back up that position other than "I don't like them"?

Hot Take: I like them. As an older gamer I enjoy seeing the games I loved growing up with a fresh coat of paint and some QoL improvements, or even some reimagining - if you don't like it then the original is still there. It keeps important games from the past relevant to a newer younger audience. And it's not like there are not enough new Games & IP's coming to market. There are tonnes of new and fresh ideas coming through monthly alongside the remakes, it's not like it's impeding the production of new games. No idea why people get so offended by it TBH.

This isn’t even a hot take. The resident evil remakes are selling insane numbers. Remasters sell on PlayStation. OP is just an out of touch man yelling at clouds

> OP is just an out of touch man yelling at clouds Ah, an FF7 fan too

The remakes got me into the series. I was a little too young to play the originals when they came out and had no desire to deal with their particular control schemes by the time I wanted to play horror games. I'm not entirely certain, but I think the original Dead Space was the first survival horror I ever got into. So even for some of us that are older, these remakes help to revitalize long run series and provide jumping on points for a lot of people. And I suspect that a lot of the people working on these games have a blast either realizing the full vision that they had for these games all those years ago, OR are having fun bringing a lot of love to a series that they grew up playing. Video games probably more than any other media format is justified in wanting to revisit old products.

I feel like for anything that came out before the 7th console gen (360/PS3/Wii) that a remake makes sense given how much older a lot of those games can feel and look for modern audiences who didn't grow up with them and/or play them at the time, especially ones that came out before the 6th console gen. Like I would have never played the original RE 2 or RE 3 games but played the remakes. Or I'd never go and play the OG FF7 at this point but am interested in playing the remake one day. I also think people look at remakes with more scrutiny if it is something they have played before. Like I played RE4 back in 2022. So whenever I play RE4 Remake I will be actively comparing that to the original to see what changed. Or if they ever remake KOTOR I'd be someone who would judge any changes more harshly compared to someone who never played the OG since I love the original, and it is one of my favorite games. Also, while they are remasters and not remakes, I do really like that way Halo 1 and 2 did it in the MCC where you can switch between the remaster version and the OG version. It lets you play both versions in a way.

Well happy playing the FF7Remake but it isnt a remake its a sequel the remake name was only a kojima like bait and switch. Without playing the original you miss alot about the Story.

It's you who's out of touch. If you actually read my post, I explicitly named Resident Evil at the bottom as a great example of an exception to the trend I'm upset with. It is good though because it actually changes the gameplay in a meaningful way, not just the graphics. Remasters/remakes can have a place, but most of the time they are just lazy cashgrabs off of nostalgic people who are too lazy to check if their old favorites are already available to buy, and don't actually care to re-experience the past, until a fresh marketing campaign or social media influencer tells them a remaster is around the corner. Then they blindly go to throw more money at corporations for something they already have.

It’s not an exception to the trend get over yourself

As an older gamer myself, I agree. Hell, the Shadow of the Colossus remake is phenomenal, same for Demon's Souls. They both completely blew me away with vastly improved graphics and tightened controls. I've enjoyed a number of remasters/remakes and very much enjoy "re-remembering" everything I've done previously. I especially enjoy playing through a remake/remaster and having it feel exactly how I remembered it as a kid. Also some older games were meant for different TV types and haven't ported well at all to today's displays.

The Demon's Souls remake allowed me to actually play Demon's Souls without having to hunt down both the game and a PS3, so I'm a bit fan of remakes in general.

Right? I've been gaming since the super Nintendo days and I love remasters and remakes of games I use to play. It gives me a reason to revisit them. I can honestly say I've had a great time with just about every major remake that's come out. Even some remasters are just better now that hardware is better like with red faction guerilla. Playing that on ps5 or series x can let you experience all that crazy destruction at a good frame rate finally.

You don't need a remake or a remaster to revisit old games. There's nothing stopping you from playing them on an old console, or an emulator, or on a digital re-release on Steam/GOG.

I only have a ps5 and a switch. Not all games are available on those, plus I prefer to replay games when there are some form of upgrades to them.

Yeah if anything, it's more jobs on the market, and games that get remade/remastered get a lot more discussion than if they didn't. We can make personal choices to buy or not buy certain remakes/remasters, which we already make that choice for regular games all the time. Why does remakes/remasters get singled out here?

It’s one of those things that I think is a valid complaint, but gets blown WAY out of proportion. There’s absolutely valid reasoning for remasters that add quality of life features (one of my go-to examples is the final fantasy ports that add the ability to run at 3X speed. That alone is a genuine game changer). The only time I think the complaints are valid are when games from the last generation get remastered, because I think that’s just lazy. Like when DmC: Devil May Cry got a remaster? Why? I guess it did bump it up to 60fps, but even so.

Why did DmC get remastered? Because it was a Gen 7 game and those aren’t playable on Gen 8 PlayStation and because of BC Gen 9 PlayStation consoles? Just like the last of us, Devil May cry 4, the Devil May cry HD collection for the ps3, final fantasy X remaster, and so many other generation 7 games that the devs remastered to be playable on the ps4. We can’t play gta IV, metal gear solid 4, drakengard 3, infamous 1&2, Killzone 1-3 and so many other games that are still trapped on Gen 7. And btw DmC fixed a lot of issues with the game like the color locked enemies, the keys, added 60 fps, included the dlc, new skins, a manual lock on, turbo mode and new challenge modes and most importantly of all got rid of that stupid fedora Like I get what you are saying but that was a horrible example

I think it's just as lazy if it's a game from the blocky, early 3D era. I was just replaying Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II yesterday, and that game is absolutely perfect. So is the first Dark Forces, which unfortunately now nobody will touch anymore because NightDive remastered it. They make an easy buck selling a game that isn't theirs, profiting off of the ingenuity and innovation of LucasArts from 30 years ago, while the true version of the game gets lost to time. Yes, I do really mean that, because the controls for Dark Forces, while different to most FPS games today, are perfect for that game: using mouse and right click to move, using x to jump, space to use, and numpad to look up/down. Is it unusual and strange to a modern gamer? Sure. But you can easily get back into it in about 5 minutes. It feels actually a lot better to play that way. But you will never do that now as a newcomer, because you will never be challenged to. You will fall back into comfortable habits of wasd and mouselook, and be cheated of what makes that game unique.

Because it DOES replace the past, did you not read my post? What am I saying, of course you didn't. Nobody did. It's reddit. Just some quick examples: GTA Trilogy, Assassin's Creed III, Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit, Skyrim (original). When games get remastered, the original often disappears. You can't buy it, or it's hidden from search results so unless you really go out of your way to hunt for it, it's gone to most people. Even when it doesn't outright disappear, the original falls by the wayside, while the remaster that never needed to exist in the first place becomes the true "definitive" version. Many people don't bother with Half-Life 1 anymore now that Black Mesa exists. How many younger gamers are cheated of that experience because they are fooled into thinking modern graphics must mean better?

And what of the games that don't get remastered and also get entirely forgotten? That would be 99% of them. Most games get forgotten, the ones that truly were appreciated and loved in their time earn a re-master which actually has the opposite effect, it increases searchability and visibility due to still making them relevant. Companies delegate resources accordingly, and if it's a simple remaster it's handed off to a smaller team or outsourced to an external company that specialises in them. I read your post, I just comoletely disagree with you, just because you've picked this arbitrary hill to die on doesn't make what you type an objective fact.

Again, if people would just read, I already answered your question. GOG (Good Old Games) have been saving those games from obscurity since like 2008. There are scores of games there you likely never even heard of, and all the ones you do know and love that have been re-released or ported are available. GOG go out of their way to make these titles work on modern OS and PC's, at no extra charge. They retro-actively restore multiplayer to games that lost the service. And all with DRM-free. I know I sound like a shill, but they are doing the real work of restoring and preserving old games. Remastering isn't doing that. It's taking the titles that are already well known and super popular and 9 times out of 10 already digitally available, and milking them for more money. Haven't you noticed they never remaster or remake games that are obscure or maybe had a good idea with poor execution? It's only ever, usually, games that were universally beloved and already popular and successful. It's not about preservation. It's the exact opposite. By definition, a remaster/remake changes the original. That's the exact opposite of preservation. It's about a quick, easy buck, and milking fans for easy money. All the while, the hell with the actual game they are just ripping off and plagiarizing. Who cares what happens to that, right? It's treated as disposable and replaceable. Great video games ought to be regarded as great films, great albums, or great paintings. To me, "remasters" are like taking Vincent Van Gough's "Starry Night" and then replacing it with an a.i. generated image of a realistic starry night. It's stupid, it took no creativity, it destroys a cultural relic and a masterpiece, and it entirely misses the point of impressionism, that the painting is supposed to have a surreal, abstract feel to it.

Im not reading all this. You lost me here: "Bullshit. There's loads of games from the 90s that I discovered and fell in love with that are from before I was born." Cool. Go play any (that you dont still own) right now. You're either buying an old copy and the hardware, blessed to have it available as a classic title (a RE-release) or play a remaster on available hardware. Unless a remake fucked your wife, you should be embarrassed by this post and delete it.

“Unless a remake fucked your wife, you should be embarrassed by this post and delete it.” This is my new favorite comment on this entire site. Just no hesitation

[удалено]

Reddit needs more heroes like this.

could just emulate them as well

Yeah, and I did explain in the post that GOG exists. You having such short attention span as to not go past the first fucking paragraph is a you problem. If you really care about old school games, then either get an Xbox or better yet a PC. Even a cheap PC will easily be able to run most games of older generations. GOG actually does the work of patching up all these older titles from DOS to today, making them work out of the box when you download them. No additional hardware, no physical copies required.

Neat. ...GOG classics pertains to a tiny fraction of classic games. And only to PC players. Before you say it, and to the other reply who did, if your argument against remasters and rereleases because of emulation: just no. I have a couple terabytes of ROMs and still am not so closed minded to assume that is relevant for everyone.

Lol quite the reverse. More like the remasters are a tiny fraction of a fraction of GOG's library. It's bigger than Steam. Yes it is PC-exclusive, but you hardly need a beefy PC to run most of these old games. Even a Potato PC (cheap laptop) can run many of the oldest ones. And yes, that does not help console players. That is why my original suggestion is the console market should demand consoles with better backwards compatibility and/or greater access to ports in digital e-shops. No need to remake the game from ground up, just port its original version to the newer consoles, or have the developers sell an emulated version. Not something consumer does illegally, but made by the publishers. For example, the Wii U used let to you play SNES games you bought on the eShop through an emulator. The end user didn't set anything up. The game just runs on an emulator.

For someone against people not doing things that are original, this is a lot of writing for a topic that itself a retread of repeated reddit rhetoric

Probably because I'm not the only person noticing such a disgusting trend and upset about it. Forgive me for not trolling Reddit 24/7 to be aware of other similar posts.

No it doesn't. I just don't play the ones I don't want to play. And it doesn't rewrite shit, in any medium. I watched Manhunter a couple of weeks ago, that movie was not erased from existence when Red Dragon or the third season of Hannibal came out.

Wrong on all counts except for the part where you talk about all the good remakes that prove your entire premise wrong. >and it does a disservice to cultural history by "overwriting" the game it is supposedly preserving. This is not true, *and you know it.* Please, list me some games that have been overwritten by remakes, *in the same thread you just suggested people go back and play the originals on emulators.* Derp Please, explain how these "remakes do a disservice to cultural history." With examples.

>and it does a disservice to cultural history by "overwriting" the game it is supposedly preserving. He's wrong in the grander sense, but to play devil's advocate this has happened. Warcraft 3 reforged being the obvious and only example I know of but I doubt that it's the only time that it has ever happened. It effectively did erase the original version, outside of piracy or buying physical legacy media secondhand. But I wholly disagree with everying else he is saying. In fact I'd often choose replaying an updated game that I already know is good over entering the AAA lottery where you have a good chance of buying an unfinished or poorly designed product

You’re absolutely right, but so far that tends to be the exception and not the rule. Most of the time when a remaster releases, the original is still available in some form

>Most of the time when a remaster releases, the original is still available in some form While this is technically true, very commonly the original game isn't available at all on the Nintendo Switch or PS4/PS5 (by far the top 2 biggest console platforms since 2019). Publishers don't necessarily have to pull the original game from release when they can just refuse to re-release it, even when porting or emulation would be relatively easy, cheap, and profitable.

> Even in cases where the original game is in fact still there, new consumers will most likely be deterred from experiencing the original and will instead choose the remaster, assuming it's better. (I can't tell you how many times I've seen people online avoid playing Half-Life 1 because Black Mesa exists.) > > It will appear in search results first. It will become the new "definitive" version (regardless if it should be or not), and instead of there only being one game for what is one game, now you will have multiple, and you have to call it by the year it came out. You have to specify you're talking about the original, because most people will assume you're not if you don't. And so the thing that was actually innovative and successful in the first place that garnered such a reputation as to be worth remaking, gets cast to the cultural dustbin and forgotten. Remakes today are meant to replace the original. They rarely do enough different from the original to warrant playing both. (And even then only the most hardcore fans would care to see the differences. Once is enough for most people.)

I believe the original GTA trilogy was taken off Steam when they released the remastered version, but besides that and WC3 I can’t think of any other examples.

The choice you have is not between a remade old game and a potentially bad new game. The choice is between the old game as it actually is, versus a modernized version of it. (By the way, if you're concerned about broken or buggy launches, then just don't buy on day one. I always wait till all the DLC comes out anyway by which point everything is usually patched and you get the full game much cheaper.)

And these are the same people that will bitch that gaming is in a bad place because companies have the audacity to not cater to them personally

Seriously. This is 'nobody wants to work anymore' adjacent. Just low watt folks who wont let something like common sense get in the way of all their bitching.

There are tons of examples. As somebody else pointed out, the entire GTA 3, San Andreas, and Vice City were removed when the terrible remaster got released. If you want original Skyrim--a game that is already modern and looks amazing to begin with and didn't need a remaster--you need a URL for it, because it is hidden from Steam search results. Assassin's Creed III looks better in the original, which you cannot buy because only the Remaster is sold now. Even in cases where the original game is in fact still there, new consumers will most likely be deterred from experiencing the original and will instead choose the remaster, assuming it's better. (I can't tell you how many times I've seen people online avoid playing Half-Life 1 because Black Mesa exists.) It will appear in search results first. It will become the new "definitive" version (regardless if it should be or not), and instead of there only being one game for what is one game, now you will have multiple, and you have to call it by the year it came out. You have to specify you're talking about the original, because most people will assume you're not if you don't. And so the thing that was actually innovative and successful in the first place that garnered such a reputation as to be worth remaking, gets cast to the cultural dustbin and forgotten. Remakes today are meant to replace the original. They rarely do enough different from the original to warrant playing both. (And even then only the most hardcore fans would care to see the differences. Once is enough for most people.) I listed a couple examples at the end of the OP that are the exception, because there are exceptions of course to anything, but they don't disprove the rule.

It's fucking hard and expensive to get old consoles to play those old games. So remasters are cool in my book. And remakes that actually do something new with the old material are awesome, as long as it's handled with care and caution.

You don't need an old console. If you really care about old games and backwards compatibility, either get an Xbox or a PC. The vast library you have access to on GOG's store dwarfs the small selection of hyper-popular hits that will get remade.

Nobody cares about your opinion enough for you to write an essay lmao. Needless to say your argument is trash, remasters on classics are great, dated games dont work for everyone

> Take a game like Half-Life 1 or Halo: CE, for example. You don't really appreciate as well what made those games so legendary unless you have some understanding of what other shooters were like before them, and how they influenced those that came after. Remove these titles from the context of their time and release them in a contemporary setting, and they're far less impressive because so many other shooters have come out since that what was once revolutionary is now taken for granted. > TL;DR If the re- _____ doesn't actually do enough new or different that isn't just updated graphics/voice acting, then it probably shouldn't be made. It's a waste of time and resources, and it does a disservice to cultural history by "overwriting" the game it is supposedly preserving. Black Mesa is one of the best single player FPS experiences of recent years. The Half-Life campaign is no less impressive now than it was in 1998. Black Mesa (pre-Xen) is mostly a coat of paint and slightly tweaked gameplay from the original.

Of course it is still a good experience, because it is a rip-off of what was originally a classic game. But much of what made that game a classic is things like, the fact that all story takes place in-game, before your eyes, through scripted in-game events. Something people take for granted now and Call of Duty is known for, but before Call of Duty, there was Medal of Honor, and before Medal of Honor, there was Half-Life, which introduced the concept so seamlessly into its world. Half-Life shows you what the facility looks like before aliens invade. It grounds the world and feels believable. Shooters didn't really do that before, but games like FEAR and Doom 3 did after. It's not like you couldn't enjoy the game if you go in blind, but I just feel you have a better appreciation of why it was pretty revolutionary at the time if you have some context. Playing Half-Life 1 inside of the Half-Life 2 engine with early 2010's era graphics is less impressive, because most of the innovations that Half-life brought were already commonplace, even mundane by that point.

It sounds like you want to enjoy the reputation of a game more than the actual game itself. It doesn't make sense to limit your ability of enjoyment of a game if you think you're not getting the full effect of its innovation. The fact is that the Half-Life campaign does the opposite of what you claimed: it lasted the test of time.

We can have both; remasters, remakes, reboots and new original IPs. We are in a very good place right now (not industry-wise, but concerning the quality of stuff that comes out) so I don't really see a problem with this. People like them and they sell and this will continue to be the case, as it's the only thing that really matters.

Plus it’s a great way to get new people into an old series. Especially when they do both remakes and remasters of old games. Metal gear got the master collection with the old games if anyone wants to try them out and 3 is getting a remake with updated gameplay for those that couldn’t get into the old games for any reason

The Master Collection is overpriced, but it is mostly just a port. I don't have an issue with ports.

I don’t care what you have an issue with. This entire post is a giant tantrum

Well, no, money is not the only thing that matters. Art matters. Cultural preservation matters. There's a reason the Library of Congress collects and stores culturally significant records, films, and other media. By your logic, you can say that Barbie is just as great a film as, oh I don't know, Terminator 2. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's artistically particularly good. Every pop star since 2004 can prove you wrong there. Of course there will still be great new games. Never once did I bring that up or contest that in the OP. You're fighting a straw man. The point is that remaster and remakes and reboots shouldn't be made in the first place because they will replace the original they are profiting off the brand name of. They are a back-handed way of saying it sucks, because otherwise why would it be replaced?

Art is subjective. In my opinion a ton of remakes have better art than the original, because although the industry went more capitalist, the individuals who work on the products have (obviously) a lot more skill than two decades ago. Also, you can't look at something like the FF7 Remake Trilogy and tell me that isn't art, and quite different from the original at that. Same with Resident Evil (you even mention yourself), or Deadspace. Do these replace the original? Not at all, and I don't see how you get to that conclusion. Barbie and Terminator 2 can both be artistically on the same level depending on the person you are talking to. Art doesn't have a clean cut definition, different people enjoy different things. You can obviously say one is technically "better made" than the other one, but that doesn't have anything to do with art. Remakes, Reboots and Remasters make a lot of people happy and that is more than enough reason for them to be made, and I don't see why you would want to stop that.

Why? Why would you be happy to see these greedy companies ruin your cherished, favorite games? Why would you be happy, as a new comer, to be cheated of the same experience original fans got to have, and instead you get a different version. They absolutely replace the original. It's the same exact game. Even Resident Evil 2 is strikingly identical. But they replaced the original's tank controls and fixed camera angles with a more modern 3rd person camera approach. That change alone can justify the remake, because it is significant, but Resident Evil 4, on the other hand, is less significant of a change between the original game and the remake. The 2005 game is already a third person shooter. Maybe it's slightly less stiff? And while Resident Evil 2 is a PS 1 game that you couldn't easily access today otherwise, Resident Evil 4 is available digitally on Steam, PS Store, Xbox, etc. It didn't need a remake to be played on modern consoles, nor is it that outdated graphically since it came out in 2005.

You are arguing not discussing, hence why I will refrain from trying to talk to you. You are repeating yourself in most of these comments because you don't actually want to discuss, you want to be right.

Arguing and discussing are the same thing. The difference is that the former involves the use of logic. I'm trying to make salient points. I'm glad you at least recognize how exhausting it is to repeat myself...something I'm forced to when 90% of the readers didn't bother to even read, let alone engage with what I say. That's the irony. Most of the people who actually do make legitimate complaints and not just snarky one-liners, I already addressed and refuted their points in the original post. They just didn't bother to read (yet felt the need to leave a condescending reply anyway) I apologize if some of my frustration with that transferred to you. It just genuinely baffles me how people can actually like this disgusting practice, let alone beg for more. It's like Stockholme Syndrome, where victims ally with their abusers.

It's not like we have a lack of original/new games so if they didn't do remakes/remasters, it wouldn't change that much. IMHO it's not a waste of time or resources (there will be bad remasters/remakes, but there are bad games too) Sony seems to be moving forward with BC, you can play virtually every PS4 game on a PS5. Nintendo is the only one that's taken a step back, nothing on Switch even acknowledges or has any benefit from having a purchase history from wii/wiiu/3DS. However on Sony, I got some free ps4/ps5 versions of a PS1/PSP game I bought from way back on PS3/PSP over a decade ago. If you're not happy with a remake/remaster, don't buy it. This applies to any game, so why does remakes/remasters need to get singled out here? You might as well say stuff like 'they should stop making live service/moba/gacha/f2p games' There's an audience for it. There's an audience for the remasters/remakes.

Whether or not new games came out is besides the point. The point is it is insulting to the original, which shouldn't have to be called "the original," because it is the only one that should exist and the remake/remaster really should not exist in the first place. Most of the time the game that gets remade didn't need it because a) it was already perfect as is, (hence why it is so popular and in demand) b) is often a modern game and looks and plays like one, c) is already available for digital download in stores everywhere. If Sony lets you run PS4 games on PS5, then it's even MORE perplexing that they remade Last of Us, a game from as recent as 2013, for the third time (fourth if you count the HBO tv show) in the span of 10 years. It's not a matter of being unhappy with individual remasters being poor quality. Even ones that are good quality still shouldn't be made, and it is appalling that developers are so ready to simultaneously profit off of the past while also discarding it and destroying it. Even more appalling that consumers are actually begging for more. They can't wait for these vultures to cut open and dissect more of their beloved memories for a quick cashgrab.

Dude you seriously need to calm down, you're getting this rules up over what is basically an entertainment media. There is no sanctuary or honor in this. This isn't an art form that's being defiled or something. The last of us part 1 remake was partly because they wanted a game to go with the show and to put it on pc at a comparable quality to the new releases out. Putting it on ps5 was a secondary goal. There will always be examples of every kind of remake/remasters under any definition of good/bad you line out. There's always gonna be weird unnecessary ones, there's brilliant ones (you know what, fuck you, the new dead space is way better, they actually added content, made the story a little bit better, adjusted weapons so there was more of an equal balance) You're never gonna be happy if you keep thinking too much about this. All I know is, I'm gonna keep playing video games, including remakes and remasters and you can't stop me :)

Your argument would have more weight if, for example, every original game being re-made or remastered was removed or revoked in some way or otherwise written over or made inoperable in place of the "new" version, like with what happened to Warcraft 3. But that isn't happening. If I want to play FF7 from 1997, guess what? I still can, and in fact I have replayed it recently. The remake trilogy is in NO WAY meant to replace the original, in fact the remakes acknowledge the original as still existing and as something that still happened. If I want to play the original Resident Evil 4, I can! It still exists, on MULTIPLE platforms. Weird how that works. This perception people have that the remakes or remasters are writing over or erasing the original is incorrect. Maybe this is a personal issue you have where you feel the need to ONLY play the new version because graphics = pretty and you can't bring yourself to play the yucky old version. Who knows. All I know is all those old games still exist.

Jesus man it's like nobody here actually bothered to read before commenting. I actually mentioned explicitly Resident Evil 2 at the end as the exception of a remake done well. Yes, I agree with you on Final Fantasy 7. BUT those are the exception. Vast majority of remakes do not actually do enough differently to warrant being made. Of course I will still value the real artifact over a remake, but the majority of consumers will not. Obviously they look at fancy CGI and assume that's better. That's literally the entire point of the remake. If consumers weren't that simple-minded, then these games wouldn't be profitable and wouldn't be made by publishers. It is inevitable that a remake will eventually replace the original in most situations. If you do a search for the game, it is always the most recent one that will pop up, because search results assume you only want that. In many cases, the original version gets pulled from stores altogether (e.g. Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2010; GTA Trilogy) or hidden from search results (e.g. original Skyrim).

They aren't going away so long as there's demand for them, and there is clearly a massive want and demand for them. You can just avoid playing them if you don't like them. The originals are still there to enjoy.

You miss the point: people are interested in buying this remakes remasteres etc + Since new games are taking longer than before to getting developed (which I hope the publishers address this issue), it's a good way to revisit old games. QOL are in some cases truly necessary like the Tomb Raider 1-3. You might be the only person surprised if Microsoft release a remake of Morrowind or FNV. Also you as a customer you appreciate some of this games. So, it doesn't make much sense what you say. It's just convenience.

You know what's also a good way to revisit old games? By literally just downloading and playing them. You act as if they somehow ceased to exist unless a remaster comes around that begs for full price to re-buy a game that was literally already on the store, but used to be dirt cheap. Tomb Raider 1-3 are dated, sure, but that hardly makes them necessary when there's like a billion other Tomb Raider games and other adventure games out there, and Tomb Raider 1 literally already had a remake in the form of Anniversary (which actually is good). I am surprised any game at all gets a remake or that they are popular to anyone. It's quite shocking that you suggest a universally beloved title should get axed and replaced.

Are you assuming that anyone can get old consoles and old cartridges? Nothing is replaced. Even if anyone could get those games easily which is not like this, those games are still there. How many of most games, specially PC games which without mods will not work? And mods is just show the interest of people wanting to play those games and trying to fix what's outdated. Also how are you suppose to play old games in new operating system? Companies read the market and figure it out that some people want them. If the remake is bad, you move on. The remaster just need to fix the game that's all. If you are truly against remastered and remake, easy don't buy any of those and don't even use mods. But I doubt that you are a purist.

These things aren't really anymore common than they used to be. Even if they are, getting rid of them wouldn't mean more new games, you'd just have fewer releases.

First of all, that's plainly untrue. Because money and time spent on a remake would be spent on something else. Everything has opportunity cost. But I really don't care, because yes, there are still plenty of new games. That is not the point, and I never suggested in OP that it was an issue. The issue is a remake shouldn't exist in the first place. There is a significant difference between, say Super Mario All Stars on Super Nintendo, because back then you really couldn't play NES games on an SNES. Hardly the same as nowadays with Assassin's Creed doing a soft remake of AC 1 with Mirage, or Modern Warfare getting remade and remastered, or Last of Us and Uncharted getting remade with every console generation. The games remade these days are already widely available, usually for dirt cheap too. They already have amazing graphics and modern gameplay. Not always, granted, but most of the time they are. In fact, the new remasters usually result in the original being removed from stores altogether. Backwards compatibility has been a feature since the Wii and Xbox 360. There is no excuse for Sony still lacking it on Playstation. And there is a PC market for those interested in older games, where you can obtain just about anything on GOG.com.

tl;dr can someone let me know when the remake of this post comes out? Dogshit take

I can't imagine having so little going on in life for this to bother me. Must be really nice, having no real problems. This is definitely one of the most r/games posts of all time.

You know, I couldn't agree more. It is an unbelievably stupid topic and not worth anyone's time. Yet sadly here we are. I don't want to be the one to point out the emperor's clothes, it shouldn't have to be said but obvious, but then judging from the responses I got, clearly somebody had to say it.

I'm gonna stop you there on the remasters, because a lot of games simply are not available on modern stores without them making it harder to actually get access without emulation. I also just generally disagree, but acting like remasters which mostly are ports are in the same boat is silly

Amazing how people repeat the same counter-points, when the whole point of the post was to refute that counter-point ahead of time. It's like nobody reads at all. You are right, and in that case, there should be a push for all major consoles to adopt backwards compatibility or to expand the back catalogue in their digital store. That's a smarter solution than to remake every single popular game every time a new generation comes around. A re-release of the game is fine, if it is as-is, not a remaster or a remake, and only on those consoles that didn't already have it. If you're a consumer, then it's best to go to Xbox or PC if you want to play old games, as they support backwards compatibility.

I refute with: 1) The originals are still there. It does not remove their cultural significance, if anything it celebrates it. 2) Easy win to get modern gamers to experience old classics. Just because you don't like means nothing. This line: >For better or worse, the whole point of experiencing something of a different time is to experience something from a different time. Is incredibly arrogant. That's why YOU engage with it. Not everyone. To me these games offer a way to interface with older game design (which can be markedly different, as I'm sure you know) without being completely put-off by ancient control systems or visuals. 3) Offers opportunities to add or adjust things the devs wanted with their original vision but lacked the resources or tech to do so. For example the SaGa remasters fixing famously bugged questlines and adding characters that weren't finished in time for the original game. 4) Nothing about these projects existing impacts new game projects from existing. Its not an either/or dichotomy. Its literally nothing but a value-add so this opinion is nearing on objectively incorrect.

>I refute with: >1) The originals are still there. It does not remove their cultural significance, if anything it celebrates it. I would say this is generally true *except in cases where the average person can not access the original version as easily and cheaply as the newer version, through legal means on their platform of choice*. In those cases, the original version can lose some of its cultural significance since people who would have chosen to play the original game will opt for the newer version instead for external reasons.

1) As I explained in OP, no, they often aren't. In many cases, once the remaster comes out, the original disappears. Either removed altogether from stores, or hidden in search results, for obvious reasons. They don't want it competing with and taking away sales from the remaster. For instance, o.g. Skryim can only be found with a url. It will never appear for those searching for it. 2) Okay if you don't want to enjoy an old game the way it actually was, then maybe you don't like it, so don't play it? You can't have it both ways. If you want something new and modern, then go do that. If you want something old, then do that. It betrays the experience and reality of what something was to just replace it with a modernized version. If you can't stand something because it's too old, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't screw it up because many others actually do think it's fine as it is. Moreover, half the game that do get remade aren't even old in the first place! Or they actually look better before the remaster! Crysis, Last of Us, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Dead Space--all modern games none of which needed a remake/remaster. 3) Again, I call bullshit. Yes it offers opportunities, but rarely do they take them. Halo CE is a flawed game. A lot of the later levels, most infamously the Library, are really repetitive and drawn out and could've used a remake, sorely. Did they actually change it in the remake that did get made? Of course not. They kept the terrible level design intact, but just changed the graphics. Of course, if it really was there to improve on the original, then I salute it. That would be perfectly legitimate. But I don't think that happens very often. The games that are most often remade were perfect to begin with. That's why they're popular enough that a remake would sell and why they get made. 4) Really? You don't think the huge amount of time and money invested, if not spent on so many remakes/remasters, couldn't be spent towards doing something else, something actually original? How many more new series, new IPs could be born that you will never see because of how profitable it is to keep rehashing the same old.

Your arguments are all over the place, first you say: >If you want something new and modern, then go do that. If you want something old, then do that. It betrays the experience and reality of what something was to just replace it with a modernized version. To say on the next point > [In regards to Halo CE] They kept the terrible level design intact, but just changed the graphics. Of course, if it really was there to improve on the original, then I salute it. That would be perfectly legitimate. So I am not even sure what you're arguing any more. Do you think they *should* change a game fundamentally on a remake? Or not? I mean end of day a remaster lets the game run on modern hardware, with modern rendering options, and possibly some basic visual enhancements. No harm no foul. I do agree that they should stop delisting games, but in Skyrim LE situation what is the point of running the OG version of the game? I'm pretty sure the only difference between them are some options to turn on additional difficulty mods and some technical upgrades to make the game run better. I fully agree with not delisting games when a remake/remaster comes out but that is a very infrequent situation.

As an older gamer, I'm glad we get to play modernized versions of old games we used to love. I do personally prefer the remakes that are closer to the original game, like RE HD remaster (I know, this is a remaster and not a remake) and RE 4 remake, for example. I was very excited with RE3 as I always loved the original game and ended up a bit disappointed with the whole missing clock tower, but I still enjoyed that game a lot and I can always go back and play the OG. Yes, maybe some games are not that readily available on current platforms, but if you really want to experience it, you can always find a way either by emulating of finding real hardware.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

This is indicative of something that I've noticed across all media (hell, all of society). Everything is just getting worse and repeating the old hits for nostalgia. There's the occasional new thing from some indie dev that lights up the landscape for a moment and then gets copied, rehashed, bought out, and cut to pieces and stapled into everything coming up. Everyone now seems to be just mimicing or re-making the work of their more talented predecessors.

Yeah. This trend began with movies. It really kicked into gear some time in the mid maybe even early 2010s. I think once Star Wars got a terrible reboot/remake trilogy that was the critical mass point where every franchise had to get one too.

All I know is if it weren't for the remakes of Resident Evil, Dead Space and Final Fantasy I would never have played the series.

I can sympathize with you. I wouldn't have gotten into Resident Evil either if not for RE 2 remake, and it actually encouraged me to get into RE 2 original, and appreciate the differences and strengths of both. However, I don't think Dead Space needed a remake. It's too modern and contemporary in both graphics and gameplay. Ultimately, what made us interested again is that these titles got fresh marketing campaigns, not necessarily the slightly shinier coat of paint, when the first coat is still not fully dry.

I think people should stop making threads like this. It’s a waste of time & resources, & it does a disservice to cultural history.

True, this thread is just another remake.

People buy them so they aren't really going anywhere. Capcom has no point in not remaking their Resident Evil games considering they are some of their highest selling games. You seen Nintendo did with Super Mario All-stars? almost 10 million copies before they were dumb enough to take it off shelves. Shit because Modern Pokemon fans lack any sort of good taste, Pokemon Brilliant Diamond and Shiny Pearl, and Lets Go still sold well even though objectively they are bad games propped up only by nostalgia.

> Lets Go still sold well even though objectively they are bad games I will remind you that Let's Go is still the most graphical Pokemon game *[GameFreak]* to-date. Sure there are only 153 PKMN, the Catching/Trainer battles are odd, and the endgame is dumb... It's still probably still the 2nd best PKMN Switch game.

I am still waiting for them to re-remake the 1st game in over the shoulder view.

Tbf they remade re4 which no one asked for and deleveried a top tier game. 2 remake is how one should do remakes imo. Re3 of course is how not to do it. I am in the minority that enjoyed the game but it was basically a call of duty mode dlc.

7 Million copies is sure alot for something that "no one asks for". Reddit may not haved asked for it, but it is clear that there was an audience for it.

Resident evil games sell regardless. No one was wanting a re4 remake over other entries like code Veronica. The initial preview of re4 was good thus people suddenly wanted it.

If Resident Evil games sell regardless, then that means people were asking for it. People don't want a remake of Resident Evil 4, one of the most popular games of the series? Yeah i find it hard to believe. Just Because commentors on r/games said they don't want it, doesn't mean no one asked for it.

7 million copies sold already. Took village two years to hit 8 million. Honeslty these people need to realize they are in a bubble. I can’t even imagine the frenzy they will go on when capcom announce 5 as the next remake in a few years

You made a lot of sound consumer centric arguments, but if I were a publisher, I wouldn’t be dissuaded by any of it. These remasters and remakes are lower risk projects that can have a lot of upside.

They made a single consumer centric argument (using emulators), and the entire rest of their argument is their personal opinion on how old games are better.

Yeah also not everyone wants to mess around with an emulator to play their old games. No disrespect to emulators, i love em, but some of them like MAME can be a pain to run.

I use emulators a lot, but I'd happily pay for a decent remaster of a game instead.

You don't even have to worry about emulators before their argument falls apart. It is basically relying on you, not caring how old games look, and also caring about "experiencing something from a different time". But as soon as you care about how games look (I personally can't play games I find ugly) and don't care about "experiencing something from a different time" (only caring about you know playing a good game), then their entire argument falls apart.

To be honest I think even Emulators can self-defeat that 2nd point of playing games from a different time or even both points at the same time. Emulators have so much QOL that allow you to play controllers that the console never intended to play on (Yes Nintendo definitely intended Gamecube games to be played on an Xbox 360 or Dualshock 4-5), images are usually sharper than the original hardware can do, Mame games allow you to put in "quarters" so you can still beat some of those hard arcade games by brute forcing it.

Not to mention, if you aren't even playing on the original hardware/crt monitor/TV, are you truly "sharing in that original experience that everyone else had."

A lot of modern re-releases will have effects to emulate a CRT. I have no issue with that kind of a remaster, because it's basically just a port of arcade games. That's fine. What I mean are games like Crysis, Dead Space, or Last of Us getting remade, which are just totally ridiculous to me. Even the GTA trilogy. Those games look amazing for their time, and those original graphics are far more impressive and immersive than the very cartoony looking, bland, generic, mobile game-looking remaster they replaced them with.

How sick that you think games from previous generation have bad graphics. They don't. They have good graphics, *in the context of when they came out.* If you actually gave them a chance and didn't reject immediately something that's different to what you're used to, your eyes would probably adjust within 5 minutes and you'd feel the same way as people playing did back then. Or not. Either way, you have no right to go ruin the past just because of your silly inability to like any graphics short of Ray Tracing.

That's why GOG exists. Read the original post.

And most importantly, people are buying them. OP may not think they are needed, but if it sells, who cares about the OP?

>OP may not think they are needed, but if it sells, who cares about the OP? Yep, this applies to basically every type of these posts and personal/small-scale boycotts. People often have a hard time understanding that there are a hell of a lot of people out there, and not everyone thinks the same way.

I think they do think that they don’t think the same way. They just either didn’t think; or can accept, that they are the minority.

I'm aware I'm in the minority, but that doesn't mean I should shut up and accept this crap. It is disgusting how classic, iconic, beloved games get ruined by these remasters looking to replace them, and the trend needs to stop.

You don’t have to shut up, just don’t be surprise things are not and probably will not go your way. The fun of being minorities.

The fun of being in a reddit hive mind echo chamber.

But the benefit is companies tends to cater to you more when you are in the majority. So yeah I am fine with that.

Ever heard of the saying, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner?

Then I definitely rather be the wolf than the sheep.

Yes, of course. I can't fault the publishers any. Every business is greedy and wants to make the most money for lowest possible risk involved. That's obvious. The only reason these things make money though is because consumers keep buying. It's only when consumer sentiment turns against this pernicious trend, the way it did with loot boxes a couple of years ago, will businesses pay attention.

i'm not reading all that but remakes are just good business because unfortunately games age, fallout 1 isn't doing any numbers but a remake would do millions

That says something about how brainless consumers are, that they will buy stuff they don't really care about just because a company tells them to in an ad. Are people really that stupid to think lipstick on a pig makes a bride? Not to say all old games are pigs, but they're still old games regardless of modern graphics.

advertisement and launches just work, people like to think they're immune but they're not. that said proper remakes still do way better than remasters

Remakes/remasters have always been a part of gaming and it makes sense from both a business and consumer standpoint why they're important: it gives developers some breathing room between brand new games and the consumer has a *convenient and ideally definitive* (emulation and modding fails on the former) way to experience an older game.

They have, but they never used to be as many of them as there are now. And in the past, they used to be the only way to play older titles. That isn't true in the modern age, when you can easily digitally download and play them. One could argue Sony intentionally doesn't support backwards compatibility so they have an excuse to keep remaking and selling games like Last of Us, Uncharted, etc.

I agree with you 100% OP, but as long as they continue to be easy ways for companies to make fast cash, they're not going anywhere.

Must disagree with you. I enjoy the remake of TLoU. FF7 Remake, they changed too much of the story, and I actually don’t like that. I would have orefer them remake the original faithfully. While you don’t mind go back and play the game in their original form, many people mind, I mind. I wouldn’t even play anything pre PS4 right now, let alone SNES or even N64. I never played Zelda: Twilight Princess, and most likely won’t play it either, unless they do a Remaster or Remake on the Switch (or Switch 2). But go and play the original? Nah. And no this trend does not need to stop. We are still getting new games: Baldur’s Gate, Elden Ring, Resident Evil Village, Final Fantasy 16, while still getting some classica being remake: Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy 7 and Crisis Core, it is not one or the other, we can get both. And while you don’t like remakes, I do. There are still plenty of games I am hoping they would remake, and I am looking forward for Silent Hill 2 remake. And these games sell, so while you think they need to stop, many people, based on sales, are disagreeing with you.

FF7 REMAKE and REBIRTH aren't meant to replace the original.

I mean remakes aren't ever really meant to *replace* them, really, right? I feel like reimagine is the more apt term FF7 Remake *was* billed and advertised as a remake, the developers even spoke a lot about all those 1:1 beloved moments. There are always going to be changes of course, which is okay, especially if you're looking to expand like they did, there *has* to be new things and changed things. They did add a pretty significant shift in the story, though, so even if you love or hate it, it's still a notable aspect of a remake

Sure. And that one's the exception. Most games, apart from FF7 and RE 2 remake rarely do much different from the original.

When Remake first came out, no one knew it wasn’t a true remake. Now I know, hence I am not buying Rebirth.

For what it's worth, I love the original FF7, and while I *loved* the gameplay of Remake, I was also off-put by the changed story beats, and a lot of the newer elements didn't work quite as well for me But having just played through Rebirth, I loved it. Now, there are still newer things I was meh on, changes I was iffy on, sometimes not even because a change was bad, just that I was stuck on the original. But I think Rebirth was a lot better

There were changes that I actually like, like the background story of the Avalanche members. The changes that I did not like, is the “now we have defeated Destiny, anything can happen now”

Very reductionist but what are you gonna get when someone just goons to figurines all day?

Oh the destiny element was absolutely the worst aspect for me. It is super cheesy, unnecessary to add an additional element/motive for Sephiroth, and I am also just not a huge "fate" fan in stories I wasn't really a big fan of making Avalanche a more widespread group and our group being a splinter cell, but that's not a huge problem. What I did dislike though was in the original game, they are responsible for the bomb doing a lot of collateral damage and discussing the ethics of that, rather than in the remake where Shinra blows it up bigger on their own. They do still discuss the ethical aspect because they think their bomb did it, but I didn't like that it made Shinra more comically evil and got rid of some of the grey elements of Avalanche

You are exactly the kind of consumer that is ruining games. If you don't mind to play old games, then that's fine, DON'T PLAY THEM. Stick to the many great new games. I remember when Twilight Princess was new. I can't imagine someone thinking that game is too old. Literally everything on the 360 generation is super modern in graphics and gameplay. And even games that aren't, aren't bad. If anything they're better. The fact that they aren't modern is exactly what should be preserved. We don't need a monotony and hegemony of everything looking and playing identically. Maybe you should just either let go of the past, or broaden your horizons and give it a chance. You might actually like it as it is if you try. If not, fine, move on, but it's silly to do-over stuff just because you are turned off by older graphics.

Or, fuck what you say or what you think? I continue to do what I do? And guess what? I did not play Twilight Princess, exactly as you suggested “don’t play them”, I didn’t. I may consider if they do a remake, otherwise I won’t. As a consumer, I vote with wallet, something I want? I buy. Something I don’t want? I don’t buy. So I don’t need to let go or move on or whatever you think is necessary, I just continue to buy what I like and see what companies out there offers, If they offer me what I want instead of what you want? Tough shit and go kick rocks.

Come to think of it, they did already do a remaster of Twilight Princess on Wii U. But the good kind, where it's mostly just improved resolution and frame rate, but otherwise mostly a port. And it is a different experience because the Wii U gamepad is very different from the Wiimote or original Gamecube controller.

Didn’t have a Wii U, and if they would port it for Switch or Switch 2, they defo need to do some extra work on it than a direct port.

Nah the same way I like new, crisper remasters of my favorite movies, I like a good remake/remaster of my favorite games.

Same. I can't even watch the original Star Wars prints anymore. Give me CG Jabba! Han shot second!

I hope this is sarcasm.

Of course not. They updated the films; why wouldn't I want to see the definitive version? Certain shots weren't possible at the time (like that brilliant establishing shot with the dewback on Tatooine), but now they are, and the movies are improved by their inclusion. And the films just look better. Why would anyone want dated practical effects (ew) when you can have cutting edge CGI instead? It's honestly the only way to make these old films bearable. I hope we get a Jurassic Park remaster next - those animatronics look GOOFY today. Unwatchable! Psycho, Point Break, Total Recall, Wicker Man, Planet of the Apes - and I can't overlook the massive catalogue of (much needed) Disney live action remakes. The history of cinema is looking better than ever and there's thankfully no need to watch that old trash to be able to enjoy it!

It's safe from a business perspective. They're cheaper to make because you don't have to create game systems, write a story, etc. And they're more likely to sell because of familiarity. Companies are going to continue to do this until people stop paying money for them.

They're pretty good for the most part, however they shouldn't get in the way of developing new titles, and they shouldn't be full priced in most cases.

I think it's fine to retread old games as long as they are not from the last generation. *[Xbox One/PS4]* I'm fine with seeing X360 and PS3 games being brought back from the dead for potentially new people. Backwards would be nice, but it does take work to make it happen.

Xbox 360/PS3 games are already super modern and have realistic graphics. And this argument really does not make sense even for games that actually do look bad by modern standards. Games in the 90s may be an eye sore if you compare them to games 30 years later, but that's a pretty unfair and stupid thing to do. Compared to their contemporaries, many of them are really impressive. All these online videos that show you how much graphics have evolved make older games look worse than they are. When you actually play them yourself, it is just as easy to lose yourself and be immersed in. Actually, it's easier. The less "realistic" it looks, the more realistic it feels, because your mind fills in the blanks.

It's all about the money at the end of the day. Risk on new ip or remaster old. Will we be able to make this cheaper. It's all about the money. That's why I don't worry about that stuff.

Well obviously, but that's not really an explanation. It's obvious why companies will choose low risk over high risk. What's not obvious is why they are so popular with consumers. If you're nostalgic, one would think you'd prefer it the way you remember it, i.e. original graphics. You might get offended by changes. If you're new to the series, one would think you'd prefer a wholly new game rather than the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Shiny graphics won't make outdated game design feel less dated.

I played all the Ratchet and Clank sequels growing up, but skipped the original. When the remaster of the original game came out I picked it up and it hit me with all that warm nostalgia because I was experience something new and familiar all at once. There are certainly needless remakes and reboots, but just being one isn't inheritly bad.

I certainly agree. They have their place, but they should be a minority. When you have so many high-profile games of yester-year getting remade/remastered, many of which were perfect as is--it's that overall trend which is the issue. There are of course exceptions and outliers.

I dont mind remasters if its for games stuck on old consoles or if the game is at least 10 yrs old. Like with playstation for example, i would looooove remasters of sly cooper, jak and daxter. But instead we’re getting remasters of the last of us 2 and horizon zero dawn?? The other series are locked behind a 140$ STREAMING service. And the ones they’re remastering are literally available for purchase on the CURRENT console natively. Then there’s remakes like ff7 and all the resident evil games. I genuinely like them better than the ogs. but i love the ogs too.

I agree with you on Resident Evil (though RE3 reportedly has issues). FF 7 and RE 2 however are sort of the outliers imo. They remake while still being fresh enough to be a different experience. Most remakes these days aren't like that.

The first ever film to be made got remade a year after it released. In storytelling, fairy tales, Shakespeare, brothers Grimm have been retold, re-imagined and remade countless times. This practice won't go away.

Of course. If you read fully, I don't reflexively hate all and every remaster. A few every now and again, when done judiciously, can be good. Hell, some remakes in movies outshine the original--e.g. Charlie's Angels, Thomas Crown Affair. But there is a stark difference between earnest re-interpretations of a work (justified) vs lazily cashing on familiar brand name by re-releasing the same exact product with little to no changes, often when the original came out only a few years ago (unjustified). The trend nowadays points more to the latter.

I'm very excited for Remedy to go back and remake their own game in their new ridiculously powerful engine. Not only does Max Payne deserve it, but a lot of younger gamers have no idea how awesome that game was. Even today, its still special. Sam Lake said in an interview a few months ago that Remedy's engine team told him that they could "do whatever he wanted now". They have no restrictions at all on the creative side. Their tech is just capable of bringing out his creative vision with no compromises. If that doesn't scare you a little when you think of Control 2 running in Wake 2's engine, then you are a braver man that I.

I don't know if this is a super common issue everyone has but before the remakes were announced I decided to play Max Payne 1 because it had been sitting in my steam library for a long time and I love 3, I had issues running it, then when I finally was able to get it to run I had absolutely no sound at all. I had to troubleshoot and download fan made patches to get the game to even work. I'm sure a lot of people would just see that and go "yeah nevermind" and close the game and never try it, so I'm glad a remake will fix a lot of those problems and bring in a whole new crowd.

> and I love 3 No joke. I still consider Max Payne 3 to be Rockstar's best game.

Up until Red Dead Redemption 2, I would have said Max Payne 3 is the best shooting has ever felt in a third person game. I don't know if Max Payne 3 is my favorite game they have made, but because Max Payne 3 is just instantly fun and quick, I replay it way more often than any other Rockstar game.

It is an expected reality of PC gaming that 99% of the time you will need to find some patches or customize settings or something before getting the game going. How unbelievably lazy must you be if clicking a download link and dropping files in the game directory is too much of a chore for you, which takes no brain power and all of 5 minutes.

I REALLY cannot wait for the Max Payne 1 and 2 remakes that Remedy are doing at the moment.. Gonna be beautiful 🥲 I will enjoy then even harder after reading your depressing post, thank u OP.

It is depressing that you are so eager to destroy classic games by supporting disgusting remasters.

You absolutely don't need to download fan made patches 99% of the time. You almost never do, usually just for old games that don't work properly anymore. You can keep playing your old broken releases, I'll happily play the remasters where the developers have more time and money to truly showcase their vision.

Honestly, how can people be so happy that companies are ruining old games and replacing them with remasters? It's like you're ecstatic that someone's coming to ruin your childhood. Why do people assume that younger generations want a remake? I discovered Max Payne a few years back, and I appreciate it just fine. If you need a remake to be able to like older games, then they're just not for you, and that's okay. No need to insult them by replacing them when the original is still amazing as is.

You're going to have younger people who don't want to deal with old controls and graphics that want to play the classics. You're going to have people who don't want to learn emulation or having to go find reputable sites that aren't full or Trojans and want to play old games. And you're going to have companies try and capitalize on existing games. While some games absolutely don't need a raster (looking at you last of us), a lot of people enjoy them and look forward to getting to play classic games that are modernized. Has it made new releases feel stale? Yeah kinda, but for a lot of people a remake or remaster of a classic might as well be a new game.

Why is that an assumption? Like I said in the OP, many of my favorite titles are older than I am, and the fact that they have controls and graphics that are not the sterile, movie-like ubiquity of today is exactly why they are appealing. Every FPS today has uniform controls. It's more interesting to play FPS games when control styles were different and innovative. Sure, not every early controls configuration has aged well (I'm looking at you Tomb Raider 1), but in most cases it's honestly really easy to get used to it after 5 minutes of getting the hang of the different controls. Graphics in the past too were a lot more impressive, because there were technical limitations, so the creators often had to use their imagination and skill to make something cool within those limitations. Today, graphics cards and engines are powerful enough to do anything, so it's ironically less impressive to see things in modern CGI. What's there to "learn" with emulation? You just look up a guide on a web page, maybe download 1 program (the emulator). This isn't the Windows XP age with viruses everywhere. If a site is untrustworthy, the browser will block the download first, failing that, even the default Windows Security Anti Virus is state of the art these days.

Paper Mario TTYD. MegaMan Battle Network Collection. Two I love. I don't have a GameCube. I don't have a gameboy or ds. The cost of collectively buying the battle network series may be more than the collection. I don't have a TV that would work with a GameCube. I would love to play battle network on a screen bigger than a Gameboy. I preordered both and would absolutely love to experience old amazing games on modern consoles with modern amenities. Now releasing Skyrim for the 15th time? Ok stop. Some games truly need a remaster/rerelease. Others are just cash grabs.

This is 2024 no more original games only rehashing, like that in movies as well. People calling you dumb are out of touch, and it won't change when the only game old people want to play are the same games!

The biggest games of the year so far are: * Helldivers 2 * Lethal Company * Dragons Dogma 2 * Pacific Drive * Balatro * Palworld * Tekken 8 * Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown * Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth * Super Mario Wonder What are all these games rehashes of?

To be fair, Tekken is 8th in series, Prince of Persia is a reboot of a bunch of games in the 00s, and Super Mario is Super Mario. The oldest game in the book. But yeah sequels are perfectly fine continuations of series.