• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Can we stop griping about remasters?

J

John Harker

Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
CozMick said:
I'm pretty sure the people who complain about remasters are the same people that say indies aren't real games.

You're fighting a losing battle. However I do agree with you 100%
Click to expand...

I disagree, indies are great for the industry and remasters are bad for it. Simple as that.

I've already waxed on the subject before so I don't really feel like diving back in, but indies drive innovation and foster growth while remasters stifle it. They suck up resources and consumer dollars away from games that may attempt to try something new and are known quantities that show publishers that graphics really are what sell so repackaging with shiny new hat is a safer bet for revenue then say producing A or AA games
 
M

MilesTeg

Banned
Majanew said:
Rockstar North is the GTA devs. I'm sure Rockstar San Diego was still making the Red Dead sequel when GTAV was being ported.
Click to expand...

If you look at the credits, nearly every Rockstar studio is credited in the development of GTAV. The idea that "Rockstar North developed this game" is just factually not true, and it's obvious by Rockstar's future release plans (or lack thereof).

I agree that Rockstar San Diego is developing a new Red Dead, however saying GTAV and the remaster had no affect on the development timeline of RD3 is dubious at best.
 
L

Leafhopper

Banned
Biker19 said:
This is exactly what people on this thread aren't getting.

Neither the install bases on Xbox One or PS4 are large enough to justify making brand new titles on these consoles without having to take a very large risk in profitability. That's one of the very reasons why we keep seeing tons of remastered games on these consoles as well as games being cross-gen with PS3 & Xbox 360 right now.
Click to expand...
You got to remember people are comparing this to previous generations, when the economy was better, when new games just happened. People aren't complaining about remasters but, probably the number of them out in a short number of time.

That and increased development costs.
 
A

ArcaneFreeze

Member
I dont have a problem with most remasters. Remasters like Windwaker HD and GTA San Andreas which were games from over a decade ago are fine. Only remasters that literally came out last year and are pretty much just being milked at this point for more money. "hey you bought the same exact game last year, well your buying it again but this time with more pixels!" But just like with DLC and Microtransactions people have spoken and they're okay with it so meh. If they remastered more games from the PS2/Xbox/GCube era im all for it, but don't try to sell "HD Game: Only HDer"
 
T

Tempesta di Fuoco

Banned
I have no problem with remasters are long as it is priced accordingly in terms of how much improvements there are.

Wind Waker HD, for example, fully deserved to be $50.

Meanwhile, I have no fucking clue why Sleeping Dogs: "Definitive Edition" is $50 when it's an extremely lazy port that should be $20.

I do have a problem with remasters of games that just came out in the last year or two, though.
 
L

Le_Samourai

Banned
Agree, I do have a great pc, but i prefer remasters for ps4 of games like Mass Effect, Dead Space, Red Dead Redemption, Batman Arkham, Bioshock over the pc versions, and of course exclusives like Uncharted, God of War, etc.

And i own all of the hd collections for ps3 with the exception of Silent Hill, great way to replay games that you love and enjoy for the first time games that could not play when they first come out.
 
M

MilesTeg

Banned
Majanew said:
You're pulling that from nothing.
Click to expand...

Not really. If every studio worked on GTAV, that means time was spent away from new projects. Look at the credits. You are the one completely disregarding factual information. "It was just Rockstar North". Ok buddy. That's why they have only released one game in over two years with currently nothing new announced. Sure.
 
Nameless

Nameless

Member
Remasters are great, give me more. Gorgeous 1080p versions of proven classics are a great way to supplement next-gen must haves , and are preferable to the mid-to-lower tier crap that generally fills out a console's catalog.
 
J

Jado

Banned
No.

Remasters are becoming problematic. Charging full price for minor enhancements to a game that came out 2 years ago is not good practice. This is the equivalent of the dreaded double dip with movies on disc. The devs are stifling innovation and wasting time and resources not creating new titles. This, in fact, is an easy cash grab and it's becoming more popular because publishers tested the waters and identified that a sizable video game-playing population is receptive to these middling rehashes.

It's oversaturation and unfortunately it works. It used to be that the rare remake was substantial and came years later (Resident Evil remake), or ported titles made sense because the game was originally on long-obsolote hardware that hardly anyone owns anymore. We've got people across GAF proudly stating they're going to get X copy of game that they just bought about 1-2 yeara ago on another platform and didn't even finish. And each time the forum goes into a stupor of overhype frenzy for nothing of substance added to the game. Then again, these (you) are the same people who made lacking, overpriced DLC possible.

Edit: see above. The person there is completely wrong. Mid-tier games were what made consoles like the PS1 and PS2 so fantastic with their massive libraries. Lots of quality titles to play in between the AAA stuff.
 
D

Dr Dogg

Member
The thing is not everything needs to be remastered. Did Sleeping Dogs need one? Did the Metro series? I do find it hard to belive that if this trend is as openly embraced as it is right now and with subscription and on demand streaming serivces only round the corner that come PS5 and the next Xbox are going to feature anything in relation to playing old software. The message is being sent out that some are happy to buy and rebuy, even rent the same games again and again and again. "What's that you want backwards compatability? Well we've got a reremastered edition coming out next year, you love those don't you".

Zia said:
This argument always grates. You can build a "gaming PC" for a little more than the price of a PlayStation 4, and it's so much more than a proprietary games box with Netflix support. It's like saying, "Not everyone has money to blow on a vehicle to commute to and from work!" when you own a pair of jet skis.
Click to expand...

Theres been some quite intresting benchmarks of current gen games where even low level CPUs and GPUs can keep up with the current consoles in certain games and that's only going to improve as time and tech moves on. Part of the arguement I find funny is that by contrast hardly any of these multiplat remasters are running on "max" settings on console tech but built appropriate for the hardware where as a PC equivalent it has to be scalable to cover a wide range of hardware. It's not like there's a mandate that everything must be maxed or GabeN will murder your firstborn.

If someone wants to game on a console, cool there's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it works out better for the individual but some of the arguements against I find focus on some odd non-issues.
 
M

Majanew

Banned
MilesTeg said:
Not really. If every studio worked on GTAV, that means time was spent away from new projects. Look at the credits. You are the one completely disregarding factual information. "It was just Rockstar North". Ok buddy. That's why they have only released one game in over two years with currently nothing new announced. Sure.
Click to expand...

You think they pulled every single employee from every Rockstar studio to port GTAV to PS4 and XB1? Ok, pal.
 
U

unapersson

Member
MilesTeg said:
GTAV is an example that surely can't be disputed in terms of affecting future software releases. Rockstar has now released a grand total of one game since May 2012 (Max Payne 3), and they currently have a total of zero new games announced or scheduled to release. Obviously GTAV was a massive game and took much manpower to complete, but consider this:

They had to get GTA Online working on the new consoles as well as PC; surely that was no small undertaking. There were also a lot of added features and graphics. And now they will be developing new GTAV content that they plan to release on 5 different machines moving forward. You can't be serious telling me this has no impact on Rockstar's future development pipeline. We will be lucky if they release a new game by 2017.
Click to expand...

A huge development team does not start work on a new game all at once, there will be a smaller team in pre-production and a larger team waiting to be brought in once the game enters full production. You could easily have part of that larger team on a remaster while waiting for the main project to enter full production. It's better than letting them go or having them sat twiddling their thumbs.
 
g.r.e.

g.r.e.

Member
Remasters are the reason I still don't own any current gen console(barring wiiu). If I hadn't bought a game on a past generation console, no chance I'll buy it on the newest. Furthermore, I prefer buying a console for its signature games, not because it has a remaster/collection...but that's my opinion: you all made your valid points, and I respect them, but I can't agree with you.

adamantypants said:
To be fair this is more indicative of the state of current gen games. Those ports are pretty good and their last gen versions left a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...
I don't remember people left with disappointment by TLOU when it came out on PS3, but maybe I remember wrong.
 
N

NahaNago

Member
i honestly feel like these large third party companies should have a dedicated crew to simply porting their games to next gen. These games don't really need a massive upgrade just put them on next gen with a slight bump in quality with trophies and a really really nice price and i'm good to go. Or Sony could create their own porting studio that can be pretty much used to port games that are wanted by the community and their own games.
 
OmegaDL50

OmegaDL50

Member
Majanew said:
You're pulling that from nothing.
Click to expand...

If you look at the credits, nearly every Rockstar studio is credited in the development of GTAV. The idea that "Rockstar North developed this game" is just factually not true, and it's obvious by Rockstar's future release plans (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

So what WAS Rockstar San Diego actually doing if they were accredited with helping Rockstar North get GTAV out the door, than?

There has be a form of overlap somewhere. Still it wouldn't prevent a potential RD3 from coming out, it just means R:SD helped with R:N in some way with GTAV.
 
M

MilesTeg

Banned
Majanew said:
You think they pulled every single employee from every Rockstar studio to port GTAV to PS4 and XB1? Ok, pal.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I ever say that. They did however pull employees from every studio to create the original game, and the remaster only exacerbates that fact. Also, the PC version exists too. That's three new platforms, developing GTA Online for three new platforms, and now they are creating new single player and online content for 5 platforms total. I highly doubt the remaster was a small undetaking and will continue to sap resources form Rockstar for quite some time.

At the very least, instead of making the remaster, Rockstar North could have assisted in the development RD3 (they probably will regardless).
 
H

HC Luvva

Neo Member
NahaNago said:
i honestly feel like these large third party companies should have a dedicated crew to simply porting their games to next gen. These games don't really need a massive upgrade just put them on next gen with a slight bump in quality with trophies and a really really nice price and i'm good to go. Or Sony could create their own porting studio that can be pretty much used to port games that are wanted by the community and their own games.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that most of these companies have teams dedicated to porting and aren't dedicating their entire staff to working solely on remasters.
 
P

P44

Member
I think it let's studios get to work on toolsets and optimisations whilst allowing them to produce something they can sell. Seems win-win.
 
J

Jado

Banned
Biker19 said:
Good luck with that. If there's a PS5, then Sony will most likely use a better CPU for games that are CPU heavy/CPU intensive, eliminating BC.

Not to mention that it won't be powerful enough to properly emulate PS4 BC, anyway.
Click to expand...

Nothing in this post makes any sense. X86 console to x86 future console means easy BC.

BC means no need for emulation.
 
JohnnyFootball

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Visualante2 said:
When I buy a game I want the decision about where to play it be as simple as possible. I think OP makes some leaky arguments and even admits as much in some cases but tries to smooth it over.

I believe it takes time and money away from new games. Not just from a developer perspective but consumer too.

Similarly I'm not the one calling for this unsustainable AAA business.
Click to expand...
Leaky arguments? Really. Please elaborate. I started this thread to get real arguments against because I am tired of the "just because..."
 
A

axisofweevils

Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
John Harker said:
I disagree, indies are great for the industry and remasters are bad for it. Simple as that.

I've already waxed on the subject before so I don't really feel like diving back in, but indies drive innovation and foster growth while remasters stifle it. They suck up resources and consumer dollars away from games that may attempt to try something new and are known quantities that show publishers that graphics really are what sell so repackaging with shiny new hat is a safer bet for revenue then say producing A or AA games
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't mind the odd remaster when a significant amount of time has passed (New Majora's Mask will be mine Day 1), but there does seem to be something cynical about the current practice.

New games > old games, every time, especially if you're wanting a reason to buy a XBO/PS4. The fact that the most sustained hype I've seen for any PS4 game has been for TLoU - a game I could already experience on PS3, says it all.
 
P

Polioliolio

Member
Majanew said:
Which new remasters are these?
Click to expand...

Well, Resident Evil Remake remaster, for one.


r100_bgz-0000000001ckube.jpg

r10000_000_bm_nomip1vuoe.png
Click to expand...
 
OmegaDL50

OmegaDL50

Member
HC Luvva said:
I'm sure that most of these companies have teams dedicated to porting and aren't dedicating their entire staff to working solely on remasters.
Click to expand...

That's a generally a misconception a lot of people that have little information on the developer process, thinks most of the time unfortunately.

Look at some Driveclub threads were you have people complaining about Evolution releasing scheduled DLC and not getting the Netcode Fixed or PS+ version released.

It's like some people expect the artists and gameplay engine coders to completely drop fuck all what they were hired for and learn networking at the drop of a dime and provide unqualified assistance to the Network staff.

Different people do different things in a development environment. In the case of a Remaster and an original game, there is staff for both the Remaster and the New game. Not everyone in the entire studio works on single game at a time. It doesn't necessarily mean resources are diluted. Each person has their own task to get whatever their job may be done.
 
M

MilesTeg

Banned
unapersson said:
A huge development team does not start work on a new game all at once, there will be a smaller team in pre-production and a larger team waiting to be brought in once the game enters full production. You could easily have part of that larger team on a remaster while waiting for the main project to enter full production. It's better than letting them go or having them sat twiddling their thumbs.
Click to expand...

It's been over 4 years since RDR released, including the zombie DLC. Rockstar San Diego should be well into development of a sequel by now. It's clear imo that GTAV was a significant burden on Rockstar's pipeline. If RD3 isn't even officially announced, that means there will most likely be a wait of around two years even after the game is publicly announced because that's how Rockstar rolls usually.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
Depends on what you consider a remaster. Porting the PC version to current gen consoles of last gen games isn't really much of a remaster. Does anyone really want to pay $60 for better resolution/frame-rate of a game they've probably already invested a large amount of time into?

The issue I take with remasters is they do take a significant portion of a studio's time (not as much as creating a new game). But if we look at the current "remasters" we've been getting, right now its just games from last gen that suffered from the generation being abnormally long and the hardware not keeping up. When we get games like OOT 3DS I think that's a win for the consumer as loads of people missed out on one of the defining RPGs of videogaming. When we get "remaster" like Sleeping Dogs which is basically the PC version on next gen consoles; they charge full price as if it were a new game
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MA5TSFQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20
 
M

Majanew

Banned
MilesTeg said:
Nowhere did I ever say that. They did however pull employees from every studio to create the original game, and the remaster only exacerbates that fact. Also, the PC version exists too. That's three new platforms, developing GTA Online for three new platforms, and now they are creating new single player and online content for 5 platforms total. I highly doubt the remaster was a small undetaking and will continue to sap resources form Rockstar for quite some time.

At the very least, instead of making the remaster, Rockstar North could have assisted in the development RD3 (they probably will regardless).
Click to expand...

PC version of GTAV is being handled by the Max Payne 3 team. But I'm sure other studios will be credited because they actually made the game and had a hand in it, even if they only helped on PS3/360. Thinking development halted just so some staff could help GTAV come out, is just a guess either way.

OmegaDL50 said:
So what WAS Rockstar San Diego actually doing if they were accredited with helping Rockstar North get GTAV out the door, than?

There has be a form of overlap somewhere. Still it wouldn't prevent a potential RD3 from coming out, it just means R:SD helped with R:N in some way with GTAV.
Click to expand...

Helping? That doesn't mean they suspended development of their game. 343i didn't stop dev on Halo 5, but you'll sure see them credited on The MCC.


MilesTeg said:
It's been over 4 years since RDR released, including the zombie DLC. Rockstar San Diego should be well into development of a sequel by now. It's clear imo that GTAV was a significant burden on Rockstar's pipeline. If RD3 isn't even officially announced, that means there will most likely be a wait of around two years even after the game is publicly announced because that's how Rockstar rolls usually.
Click to expand...
That's how long it usually takes Rockstar. GTAIV to GTAV was 5 years. These are large, open world games that are well polished when they release.
 
U

unapersson

Member
MilesTeg said:
It's been over 4 years since RDR released, including the zombie DLC. Rockstar San Diego should be well into development of a sequel by now. It's clear imo that GTAV was a significant burden on Rockstar's pipeline. If RD3 isn't even officially announced, that means there will most likely be a wait of around two years even after the game is publicly announced because that's how Rockstar rolls usually.
Click to expand...

But the GTAV drain has little to do with its remaster. It's the creation of the original content that will have taken the time. It could well have put a strain on their pipeline. I'm just not convinced the remaster has been a significant strain.

We just don't much about the state of their internal projects, who knows where RD3 is in its production phase
or Agent :)
.
 
R

RedRooster

Member
Yoda said:
Depends on what you consider a remaster. Porting the PC version to current gen consoles of last gen games isn't really much of a remaster. Does anyone really want to pay $60 for better resolution/frame-rate of a game they've probably already invested a large amount of time into?

The issue I take with remasters is they do take a significant portion of a studio's time (not as much as creating a new game). But if we look at the current "remasters" we've been getting, right now its just games from last gen that suffered from the generation being abnormally long and the hardware not keeping up. When we get games like OOT 3DS I think that's a win for the consumer as loads of people missed out on one of the defining RPGs of videogaming. When we get "remaster" like Sleeping Dogs which is basically the PC version on next gen consoles; they charge full price as if it were a new game
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MA5TSFQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Click to expand...

I think you're thinking of "re-makes" or "re-envisionings", rather than remasters. I thought it was this forum that decided remasters are just higher resolution versions of old games, and re-makes are actually significantly changing the game? I'm ALL for re-makes, heck ya!
But a "remaster" of a 15 old game, based on the definition above, would be absolutely miserable.
 
JohnnyFootball

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jado said:
No.

Remasters are becoming problematic. Charging full price for minor enhancements to a game that came out 2 years ago is not good practice. This is the equivalent of the dreaded double dip with movies on disc. The devs are stifling innovation and wasting time and resources not creating new titles. This, in fact, is an easy cash grab and it's becoming more popular because publishers tested the waters and identified that a sizable video game-playing population is receptive to these middling rehashes.
Click to expand...

Congratulations.
You did what every single anti-remaster person does. Spew BS with nothing to back it up. You don't even bother to make any effort to refute the points I make.
You just repeat the same typical anti-remaster drivel that we see time and time again. Well done.

If there ever was a single post that explains exactly why the anti-remaster crowd gets on my nerves this is it.
 
JohnnyFootball

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Dr Dogg said:
The thing is not everything needs to be remastered. Did Sleeping Dogs need one? Did the Metro series? I do find it hard to belive that if this trend is as openly embraced as it is right now and with subscription and on demand streaming serivces only round the corner that come PS5 and the next Xbox are going to feature anything in relation to playing old software. The message is being sent out that some are happy to buy and rebuy, even rent the same games again and again and again. "What's that you want backwards compatability? Well we've got a reremastered edition coming out next year, you love those don't you".
Click to expand...

Who are YOU to decide what needs to get remastered? Another argument I get tired of. I can't think of anyone who actually played the Metro remasters felt that it was a waste of resources.

Having said that I DO agree slightly with the notion that a willingness to buy remasters does leave little incentive to include BC in next gen systems.
 
M

Michanical

Member
Springy said:
I can't understand the argument of wanting a remaster because it's otherwise eluded you. I could buy a PS2 and all three R&C games for the price of a new PS4 game today.
Click to expand...

I don't want to have another console (with the controllers and cords) in my house just to play these older games. I want to play R&C, but not enough to track down and old system and controllers, the games, and hook them up to my TV. I will, though, pay for a game that has been remastered into HD, is compatible with the consoles I already own, and offers a good value (usually, three exceptional games for cheaper than one full retail game).

Older games don't bug me that much in terms of graphics. I want a remaster of Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 because those are some of my favorite games, but if they don't happen, I'm more than content with playing my old copies because my Wii U is BC.

Edit:
Jado said:
No.

Remasters are becoming problematic. Charging full price for minor enhancements to a game that came out 2 years ago is not good practice. This is the equivalent of the dreaded double dip with movies on disc. The devs are stifling innovation and wasting time and resources not creating new titles. This, in fact, is an easy cash grab and it's becoming more popular because publishers tested the waters and identified that a sizable video game-playing population is receptive to these middling rehashes.
Click to expand...

Are they full price? Every remaster I've ever purchased comes with several games (so, the per price cost is lower than full price) and/or they are discounted (usually to $50 or $40 instead of $60)
 
brickarts295

brickarts295

Member
I'm all for first party remasters, like Wind Waker HD and The Last of Us. These games will probably never come out on PC, so to make them available to newer console and exposing them to probably a newer audience is good in opinion.

Metro Redux was surprise, because they pretty much recreate 2099 with Last Light graphics and gameplay. So this is definitely a good third party remaster.

GTA V gets a bit of a pass because it's GTA, also the PC version hasn't come out yet, so no one can claim that it's just a port of the PC version (which it could be, IDK) also they added First Person Mode and no the cheap kind like Third Person mode in MW2.

Honestly, Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs are the only questionable remasters. As much as I love Sleeping Dogs (Owned version on PS3/PC) they didn't do much in remaster to guarantee a buy, specially at $60! Same goes for Tomb Raider, pretty much the same as the PC ports with slight changes to the character models, fine I could've payed $40 at the very least but nope it was $60.

So yeah I think remasters are great and they keep going, but they need chill with the prices unless they bundle game like Metro which was only $50 btw.
 
JohnnyFootball

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
brickarts295 said:
I'm all for first party remasters, like Wind Waker HD and The Last of Us. These games will probably never come out on PC, so to make them available to newer console and exposing them to probably a newer audience is good in opinion.

Metro Redux was surprise, because they pretty much recreate 2099 with Last Light graphics and gameplay. So this is definitely a good third party remaster.

GTA V gets a bit of a pass because it's GTA, also the PC version hasn't come out yet, so no one can claim that it's just a port of the PC version (which it could be, IDK) also they added First Person Mode and no the cheap kind like Third Person mode in MW2.

Honestly, Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs are the only questionable remasters. As much as I love Sleeping Dogs (Owned version on PS3/PC) they didn't do much in remaster to guarantee a buy, specially at $60! Same goes for Tomb Raider, pretty much the same as the PC ports with slight changes to the character models, fine I could've payed $40 at the very least but nope it was $60.

So yeah I think remasters are great and they keep going, but they need chill with the prices unless they bundle game like Metro which was only $50 btw.
Click to expand...

Thankfully only Square Enix has been the ones ripping people off. $60 with mediocre DLC that really honestly doesnt enhance the package. I didn't pay for price for either of them thankfully.
 
J

Jado

Banned
JohnnyFootball said:
Congratulations you did what every single anti-remaster person does. Spew BS with nothing to back it up. You don't even bother to make any effort to refute the points I make you just repeat the same typical anti-remaster drivel that we see time and time again. Well done.

If there ever was a single post that explains exactly why the anti-remaster crowd gets on my nerves this is it.
Click to expand...

Your post is constricted in view and doesn't at all address the main jist of my post. I'm not anti-remaster. I'm against poorly justified ones released at full price and very recently from the original game. There's a strong element of greed to put studios to work on enhanced ports vs financing them to create original content. We've had multiple threads on the "death" of mid-tier games (they're actually on PC, but dead on consoles). Your post sidesteps this problem by assuming that the only viable option for B-level studios is "work on crappy remasters or nothing." They should be working on padding a console's library with quality titles built around realistic (even modest) budgets.

I'm glad you're so angry and raising your blood pressure tho. Thrilled to have affected you so deeply.
 
S

smik

Member
Agree with OP

I definitely want to see more, Ubisoft has a ton of great games that came out late that i never played or didnt perform well (sales or graphical performance)

Im waiting to see these Remasters with all DLC


Ghost Recon Future Soldier
Splinter Cell Blacklist
Far Cry 3


and the obvious collections i would buy

Uncharted
Gears of War
Mass Effect
 
U

useyourfist

Member
I would rather a studio spend all of its money on new games.

I want new innovative experiences.

I want to play the complete experience and don't have time to play games loads so I feel slightly annoyed when a better versions comes out not too long after e.g. gta tlou ffxhd(ps4)
 
B

Beatrix

Member
Great points OP. Agreed completely. I personally love remasters and I think they're great for gamers. My only issue with them is the pricing in some circumstances. For example, FFX/X-2 HD Remaster on the PS4 should not be $50....maybe $30 or $40.
 
L

llehuty

Member
axisofweevils said:
I agree with this. I don't mind the odd remaster when a significant amount of time has passed (New Majora's Mask will be mine Day 1), but there does seem to be something cynical about the current practice.

New games > old games, every time, especially if you're wanting a reason to buy a XBO/PS4. The fact that the most sustained hype I've seen for any PS4 game has been for TLoU - a game I could already experience on PS3, says it all.
Click to expand...

This. Not all remasters are ok and I think it should be a legitimate reason behind a remaster like for example a big gap of time. If making a remaster of every good game becomes the trend (which I could see happening since all the profits they are generating) companies are going to rely too much on them, and we have enough repeated experiences with annual franchises IMO.
 
H

haloxk9

Neo Member
Personally, I don't mind the remasters such as TLOU. It just made an already beautiful game better and it helps me consolidate the best games from my PS3 onto my PS4. What I REALLY want, however, is more PS2 remasters. Considering the fact that they never update the PS2 section of PSN, I have to keep my PS2 around for the few games I still like replaying on it, like Dark Cloud I and II.
 
D

Dr Dogg

Member
JohnnyFootball said:
Who are YOU to decide what needs to get remastered? Another argument I get tired of. I can't think of anyone who actually played the Metro remasters felt that it was a waste of resources.

Having said that I DO agree slightly with the notion that a willingness to buy remasters does leave little incentive to include BC in next gen systems.
Click to expand...

Blimey that was a bit abrasive. It's not like I'm legislating that no game company should be able to make a remake, remaster, port or collection without my seal of approval let alone posing an argument just that I see worth in some and not in others. So I'll just ask you this directly do you think Sleeping Dogs needed a rerelease? Did Metro Redux? Because from hands on experience with both the originals and subsequent rereleases of these 3 games they certainly were not worth purchasing again.

I'm not a fan of metacritic as a barometer of quality but this is not a good advertisement for you new 'next gen' console.
W8M9pNt.png
Click to expand...
2 out of the top 10 highest scoring games so far for PS4 are new releases.
 
U

useyourfist

Member
JohnnyFootball said:
Congratulations.
You did what every single anti-remaster person does. Spew BS with nothing to back it up. You don't even bother to make any effort to refute the points I make.
You just repeat the same typical anti-remaster drivel that we see time and time again. Well done.

If there ever was a single post that explains exactly why the anti-remaster crowd gets on my nerves this is it.
Click to expand...


And the "evidence" and facts you use are "proof" remasters are good for the industry. The pro vs no thing all boils down to simply what you prefer or don't prefer, you seem to be putting too much emotions into it. I could easily state all the pro remake rhetoric is drivel. But in all honestly who cares, buy what you want and the majority will then drive the market towards producing products it wants. Nothing much else an individual can do about it.
 
D

DBT85

Member
I agree. I have TLOU and Tomb Raider to play and would buy others that interest me. Those two I never played.

If the remasters stop being profitable then they'll stop doing them. In the meantime the platform gets a larger library which people are entirely free to NOT buy.

If Rocksteady released Batman AA and AC on PS4 I'd be right there, and I finished both on PS3.

BC on next gen consoles will be easier than n ever going forward, as neither Sony or MS will use anything other than x86 type components again. Regardless I don't actually care for BC, I actually prefer the remasters because of the better IQ, resolution, framerate etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Best time to remake a video game? Between 10 and 20 years later | Study also reveals that remasters perform best when the game is under 5 years old
Business Game Dev
2
311
Tsaki replied
  • Poll
Burnout Paradise Remastered studio teases series revival
2
64
2K
Hudo replied
Akitoshi Kawazu on SaGa Frontier 2 Remastered: ‘You won’t be disappointed if you wait’
News
7
339
kunonabi replied
Alan Wake Remastered recoups development and marketing costs after two years
3
409
Sushi_Combo replied
Another Command & Conquer Remastered Collection Hinted By EA’s Lead Producer
Rumor 2
62
3K
Krathoon replied
Top Bottom