"Remasters" are nothing but double-dipping from publishers too lazy to come up with something new.

[HextarVigar]

Prove me wrong.

 

[The Catboy]

How is anyone expected to debate facts? The simple reality is that ”remastering” a game really only serves to do a few things
Bring an old game to a new system
Get the super fans to buy the same games multiple times
Hold onto a copyright
And maybe get new fans
Regardless, there’s double dipping involved

 

[Xzi]

Depends on a few factors I think, mostly age of the game and whether it was good enough in the first place to be worth remastering. FromSoft releases nothing but bangers, but Bluepoint's Demon's Souls remaster is brilliant nonetheless. I'm also glad we had Vicarious Visions to do THPS 1+2 and Diablo 2 remasters while they were still independent. The current ActiBlizz would never produce games of that quality.

Actually then, the main determining factor would be whether it's the same developer attempting the remake, or an outside developer with more expertise in remasters. Blizzard's WC3 Reforged was a dumpster fire, as an example.

 

[KingVamp]

Also, delaying while they make a new game.

 

[Veho]

”remastering” a game really only serves to do a few things
Bring an old game to a new system
And maybe get new fans

Well yeah. Old systems are getting rarer and less supported, backwards compatibility on most consoles is ass, and let's face it, most old games looked like crap. Remasters can look like crap too, don't get me wrong. But emulators have upscaling and filtering and other neat tricks for a reason.

Yes, it's double dipping, the same way re-releasing movies on VHS and then DVD and then Blu-Ray is double dipping (although the Star Wars "Special Editions" are indefensible).

 

[odeontrance]

I will say that I would strongly prefer a new addition to a series, rather than a remake for sure. Or something that would take place in the same universe (if possible?) I believe the only remake I ever was interested in seeing was Pokemon Diamond and Pearl and I was sorely disappointed with that. No more remakes for me. However, I do get that some enjoy them, and that is good for them

 

[PacBunnyXV07]

I rather have them remake a game to fix the problems the original had instead of them making something "new" that is nothing but rehashing.

 

[RedColoredStars]

Depends on a few factors I think, mostly age of the game and whether it was good enough in the first place to be worth remastering. FromSoft releases nothing but bangers, but Bluepoint's Demon's Souls remaster is brilliant nonetheless. I'm also glad we had Vicarious Visions to do THPS 1+2 and Diablo 2 remasters while they were still independent. The current ActiBlizz would never produce games of that quality.

Actually then, the main determining factor would be whether it's the same developer attempting the remake, or an outside developer with more expertise in remasters. Blizzard's WC3 Reforged was a dumpster fire, as an example.

These reasons. There is also the fact that there is a big difference between a full remake and a basic upscaled "Remaster", and that many people incorrectly interchange the two terms. There is also usually more than one team for a studio and it's likely one team is working on the remake/remaster, while another is working on a new project. Naturally there is double dipping involved, but it being purely for reasons of laziness isn't an accurate statement imo.

 

[mightymuffy]

Another thing to note is that games are now taking YEARS to make, and from the recent MS-Activision buyout we also got a look at the numbers it's taking to make them, alongside the time involved: recent Sony AAA titles costing $100s of millions to create (and market), and GTA VI rumoured to top $1 Billion... gotta appease the suits in those investor meetings y'know!
If a few remasters of select golden oldies are the only option to fill in the gaps between these games on our shiny new machines, then fair do's in my opinion..

 

[M7L7NK7]

Not everyone has access to the original console or knows about emulation.. if you're not a fan just ignore it

 

[Latiodile]

i'd rather a remaster of an older game in a series than a new entry/reboot that was so bad that it killed the company entirely
volition/saints row

 

[karma7]

The general population does not own retro game consoles.
It is therefore important to be able to play on the latest hardware.

 

[JasonT2]

I personally like good remasters if only for the purpose of game preservation. Not all are created equal though, like the MGS remasters. I'll be really happy if they actually succeed in getting MGS4 ported in a good way though.

 

[rcpd]

Not everyone has access to the original console or knows about emulation.. if you're not a fan just ignore it

Honestly, I think this is the correct answer and I'll explain why:

Until very recently, I was not into emulation on anything other than a video game console. I told my wife to purchase me a new laptop, so she bought me a MacBook Pro. I've never used one, so I had to get used to it before going into the things I would normally do in Windows or Linux. Once that happened, I figured it was time to get into emulation on my laptop.

So, I started with Retroarch. That allowed me to install a BUNCH of games I already had on different devices and have a front end to run emulators in one software launcher. I own a Switch and play it frequently, but it is not hacked and I have zero interest in hacking it. Nintendo games aren't cheap, so I looked into Ryujinx and installed that. I will not describe what I did after that because it probably breaks rules here, but needless to point out that Ryujinx is better hooked up than my Switch. Also now I can "try a game" before I buy it on the Nintendo eShop. Why Nintendo doesn't allow this is ignorant. Developers should make a "trial" version so players can see if they will purchase it based on how it plays.

Basically, only very recently am I getting into how emulation works and its been a very interesting project I enjoy a lot. If you don't know how emulation works, Google can help you especially with things you'll need for your Operating System.

Many consoles I no longer have access to. Not because I'm cheap, but because I owned them since they were released and played them a lot, and sadly they just didnt survive. They're now gone. NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, Xbox..... All dead and impossible to fix, so removed.

Which also brings me to "remasterd" games. Its very possible that the code used for the original game either doesn't exist anymore and the people creating the game do not have access to it. As far as this game is, I do not know that to be true or false. But it is possible and would change how developers remake the game. No point getting crappy about it. Just think "Well crap" and move along,

Thanks for making it easy for the people who like to make it hard, @M7L7NK7.

 

[Marc_LFD]

I played the MediEvil demo earlier today and I enjoyed it, but it felt like it's the PS1 game with HD graphics. Okay.

On the bright side, this helps introducing new generations to old games.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Regarding game preservation:

(Almost) anything that comes out today in the age of DRM and 0-day-patches is more likely the opposite of "game preservation". And that includes remasters.

The only real way of doing game preservation in this day and age is piracy/cracking/DRM removal, and you know that. Quite illegal to try to preserve your games.

 

[BORTZ]

Some games genuinely need a remake or remaster. Others... sure. Its an easy trap to fall into a lazy, double dipping mentality.

I would really like to see "bad" games get remakes. Ones that fix previous issues.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Some games genuinely need a remake or remaster. Others... sure. Its an easy trap to fall into a lazy, double dipping mentality.

I would really like to see "bad" games get remakes. Ones that fix previous issues.

It's kinda funny seeing TLoU being remastered/remade multiple times and that's also so lazy.

 

[Taleweaver]

Though it's technically correct, I don't see the 'too lazy' as fair. I mean... I don't think it's an exaggeration that it's a hundred times easier to make a remaster than a new game (presuming we're not talking indies or something), and the chances of breaking even is, as such, much more likely as well. At that point, saying they're'lazy'sounds a bit like calling an athlete lazy because they only break a world record once in their lifetime.

 

[pojes]

Honestly, I think this is the correct answer and I'll explain why:

Until very recently, I was not into emulation on anything other than a video game console. I told my wife to purchase me a new laptop, so she bought me a MacBook Pro. I've never used one, so I had to get used to it before going into the things I would normally do in Windows or Linux. Once that happened, I figured it was time to get into emulation on my laptop.

So, I started with Retroarch. That allowed me to install a BUNCH of games I already had on different devices and have a front end to run emulators in one software launcher. I own a Switch and play it frequently, but it is not hacked and I have zero interest in hacking it. Nintendo games aren't cheap, so I looked into Ryujinx and installed that. I will not describe what I did after that because it probably breaks rules here, but needless to point out that Ryujinx is better hooked up than my Switch. Also now I can "try a game" before I buy it on the Nintendo eShop. Why Nintendo doesn't allow this is ignorant. Developers should make a "trial" version so players can see if they will purchase it based on how it plays.

Basically, only very recently am I getting into how emulation works and its been a very interesting project I enjoy a lot. If you don't know how emulation works, Google can help you especially with things you'll need for your Operating System.

Many consoles I no longer have access to. Not because I'm cheap, but because I owned them since they were released and played them a lot, and sadly they just didnt survive. They're now gone. NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, Xbox..... All dead and impossible to fix, so removed.

Which also brings me to "remasterd" games. Its very possible that the code used for the original game either doesn't exist anymore and the people creating the game do not have access to it. As far as this game is, I do not know that to be true or false. But it is possible and would change how developers remake the game rummy satta apk. No point getting crappy about it. Just think "Well crap" and move along,

Thanks for making it easy for the people who like to make it hard, @M7L7NK7.

I personally think that ports are currently the way to go. There are a lot of people who skipped the Wii U, and missed out on all the amazing games it had to offer. Because of that, this makes the Switch Nintendo's first HD console with a large install base, making it perfect for remasters of some of their best games, such as SMG and SS. I know it would be nice to have new experiences, I get the point. My belief of what Nintendo should, but won't, do is create a "Nintendo Classics" line of Remasters/Ports and price them at 40-50 dollars, rather than the full 60, since its not a brand new game that required tons of new dev work. This will probably be downvoted or removed by bots for violating the mysterious rule 4, but I don't care. EDIT: R