Support NeoGAF

[Uncle Rupee]

The amount of time between a game's original release and its remaster is the most important factor. If the game came out last gen, chances are that it's too soon for a remaster. If the game came out more than one generation ago, then it might be time for a remaster. If the game came out more than two generations ago, then it should be remade from scratch.

 

[Biker19]

The more remasters the better, I say. The newer consoles have a much greater chance of being supported on future hardware imo, so its likely PS4 games will carry forward with x86 to PS5.

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.

 

[bigkurz]

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.

Umm yea, thats just plain false.

PS2 is like $50-60 bucks on ebay. That's not including the price of the games, shipping, etc. Then of course it's gonna look like crap with the AV connections going into your HDTV. Then you've gotta deal with wired controllers; what if your TV is far from your couch and you cant use those controllers.

now go with the remaster instead. you play it on your current system. you can use share features, earn trophies, etc. and when you're done with the $40-50 game (less with a 20% gamers club unlocked membership), you can sell the game.

If you buy a R&C remaster thats, say, $60. Get it for $48 with a gamers club unlocked. Play all of the games, sell it for $25-30. So you paid $25 total in the end. How exactly is that more expensive than buying a whole PS2 and the whole games?

And what about PS3 games? That PS3 is gonna run you 150-200 at least if you don't have one.

 

[FalconLorenzo]

I like remasters. For examples never had a PS3, so it was awesome to get to experience The Last Of Us on PS4 was a treat! Similarly with Pokemon Gen III, never got into them so I'm enjoying doing so with a new engine on 3DS. I wish they would do MORE, actually, like an uncharted collection, a GTA collection, gen I pokemon in the new engine. It would be awesome to get these games in nice new graphics. Would appreciate it a lot.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I like remasters. But let's not pretend that the lack of backwards compatibility is anything but just a way to re-sell games they already made. It's a nice side benefit, but remasters are 0% of why I would buy a next gen console.

I have Tomb Raider and the MCC. If Rockstar craps out RDR, I'm buying it, too. But I probably buy none of them if I could just play my last gen version.

This is not the reason for the lack of BC. Not even close. The reason for lack of BC is due to the radically different architectural designs. There is no way that these machines will ever be able to successfully emulate games from last gen. It's not something that can be patched in. It just wasn't possible. Sony went away from the cell tech because it was too difficult to use and too expensive in the long run to use.

Having said that, I DO think that if remasters sell real well that there will be less incentive to have BC in the next gen games. That is a concern I can agree with.

 

[TheSpoiler]

All those people have spotless designer kitchens and are not to be trusted.


What? If Sony releases a R&C Remaster Remaster, then I'm happy for this guy. But if they don't, and he is sitting around lamenting being unable to play R&C, then I have news for him and you.

If he's really dying to, he will play it. If it isn't and it's a passing dream, then it's up to Sony.

Trust in your fellow enthusiasts.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Good luck with that. If there's a PS5, then Sony would most likely have 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.

If it uses the same architecture I see no reason why it couldnt.

 

[ShinMaruku]

I've had that same argument countless time on other forums and used those same points lol.

Some people can't just understand that not every product is aimed at them or that they don't HAVE to buy things they don't want.

Exactly. I will never get some people's idea that you must buy every game.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

A remaster I want but am unlikely to get is the Resistance trilogy.

 

[Randam]

Facts: New AAA titles on PS4/X1 (I am only considering big titles. I left off titles like Lego and Dynasty Warriors): 17 - this number can go way up if we consider indies and lesser titles.
Remasters: 7 (Im only considering 1 sku)

you really dont see a problem with this?

btw.: I was shocked by the number "7".
didn't even think it were so many.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

No one cares if you don't like remasters. It's a stupid and petty thing to argue about. If someone missed out on a game last gen, it gives them a perfect opportunity to play a better version of it.

For example, my Xbox 360 broke last year and I didn't have a PS3 so I couldn't get any of the games that came on the final leg of its life (except for GTA V) and the exclusive PS3 games like Last of Us. Now that I have a PS4, I can play the Last of Us or Tomb Raider now. So moral of the story: There is an audience for remastered games and you don't have to buy them. So stop acting like children when it comes to this and stop complaining.

 

[Springy]

Umm yea, thats just plain false.

PS2 is like $50-60 bucks on ebay. That's not including the price of the games, shipping, etc. Then of course it's gonna look like crap with the AV connections going into your HDTV. Then you've gotta deal with wired controllers; what if your TV is far from your couch and you cant use those controllers.

now go with the remaster instead. you play it on your current system. you can use share features, earn trophies, etc. and when you're done with the $40-50 game (less with a 20% gamers club unlocked membership), you can sell the game.

If you buy a R&C remaster thats, say, $60. Get it for $48 with a gamers club unlocked. Play all of the games, sell it for $25-30. So you paid $25 total in the end. How exactly is that more expensive than buying a whole PS2 and the whole games?

And what about PS3 games? That PS3 is gonna run you 150-200 at least if you don't have one.

I bought a PS2 four years ago for £25 and the Ratchet and Clank games for £7-10 each. I can't account for region differences, but I certainly do not appreciate being called a liar.

 

[unapersson]

There's another plus for remasters in that they let various development teams get to grips with new hardware and APIs. Porting to a new platform means that by the time they start their new project they've already got a good distance up the learning curve.

 

[Flappy]

I want a Shadow of The Colossus Remaster Remaster.

 

[Zia]

To be fair, he did say at best possible settings, which would imply a good 600 to drop down, deals not included. A better way to put it would be maybe some wouldn't like to build their own out of personal preference?

Yeah, that's fine. It was specifically the monetary argument that irked me.

This is a dumb argument

A. Not everyone wants to build a computer. Some people might not know how do it, or have time or are afraid they might mess up, etc. It would be easier just to by a PS4 and get a similar experience

B. Most computers out there are lower end machines used to browse the web, watch videos, write documents, etc. Not for gaming

C. The car analogy is by far one of the stupidest things I've heard on Gaf. That assumes that all computers are primarily built for gaming (they aren't) and that people actually use a PC as their primary computing device in the age of iPads/laptops/smartphones and yes, game consoles.

You've typed a lot of stuff without actually addressing anything that I said.

 

[TheBlueBomber]

How about SE releasing FF Type 0, a PSP game, for $60?

How about the fact we weren't gonna get this game at all if they didn't do this?

 

[brandonh83]

Remasters are great especially for games that were released later in the last gen for consoles but had dramatically superior PC versions.

 

[Zukuu]

People want to play new games. Remasters are old games, which many people have already played. I can see why someone would complain about it, as it takes resources and time away from developing a new game.

 

[Leafhopper]

This is not the reason for the lack of BC. Not even close. The reason for lack of BC is due to the radically different architectural designs. There is no way that these machines will ever be able to successfully emulate games from last gen. It's not something that can be patched in. It just wasn't possible. Sony went away from the cell tech because it was too difficult to use and too expensive in the long run to use.

Having said that, I DO think that if remasters sell real well that there will be less incentive to have BC in the next gen games. That is a concern I can agree with.

In the case of the PS4 sure but isn't XB1 almost the same as the Xbox 360s? I don't own either one so I don't know.

People want to play new games. Remasters are old games, which many people have already played. I can see why someone would complain about it, as it takes resources and time away from developing a new game.

Thing is though that isn't always true, rarely if anything. Sometimes remasters come out to tide people over while that studio works on a new game.

 

[Springy]

People want to play new games. Remasters are old games, which many people have already played. I can see why someone would complain about it, as it takes resources and time away from developing a new game.

Didn't we already discuss how this isn't true?

 

[Love Deterrence]

I think that someone getting an opportunity to experience a game that is worthy of a remaster, alone, makes the process worth it. If one isn't a fan of the practice, then they should simply ignore the game in question and support something they are interested in (or save their money, which I know, is a radical concept). I can't tell you how many times I've seen "Vote with your wallet!" tossed around by people who belittle others for supporting a remaster. Anyways, by and large, I don't have a problem with remasters. Some of my most anticipated games of next year are remasters, including Resident Evil, Final Fantasy Type-0 HD, Dead or Alive 5: Last Round, and if you can consider it a "remaster" in the same sense of the term, Devil Survivor 2: Record Breaker.

 

[BlazeVoi]

How about that they dilute the total software lineup. A bunch of remasters is not incentive to buy a new machine, and makes their software lineup look stale. These aren't PS2 games; we already played these games in HD. The difference isn't nearly as big, and we are seeing these "remasters" a lot earlier in the generation this time.

It's making the software lineup look stale, especially when combined with the yearly franchise releases like CoD and AC which are clearly losing their power in the market due to franchise fatigue. As well as many games being cross gen already, so essentially it seems like you are already buying a remaster as it is.

When you combine cross gen games, yearly releases, and remasters, this gen's software support is looking very stale so far imo.

This. People always complain when its always the same shit releasing all the time. Now, IT REALLY IS the same shit releasing all the time. Literally.

This industry was not built on remasters and remakes, this industry was built on pushing the limits of what we knew possible in terms of narrative, gameplay, and graphics (engines).

As much as I hate to do this, I have to recommend you build yourself a PC if want your own personal remaster if games. You can get them to 1080p 60fps all day if you want. Done


I still dont get what possessed naughty dog to release tlou this gen. That game just came out lol. It was fine the way it was. Masterpiece.

 

[HC Luvva]

I like remasters. But let's not pretend that the lack of backwards compatibility is anything but just a way to re-sell games they already made.

That's a pretty bold claim. You're acting like there's some conspiracy to remaster games and sell them on newer consoles.

The actual reason there's no backwards compatibility is because the architectures of these newer systems are much more different than their predecessors.

 

[ShinMaruku]

The using resources thing is quite funny because the margins would not be there for a remaster if it was a massive seep on their money and time.

 

[Hiko]

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.

If they stick with the same architecture, they won't need to software emulate.

 

[Polioliolio]

I complain about remasters when they're shit or clearly a half assed effort.

A lot of these new remasters are just low res assets with sharpening or smudge filters. They look bad.

That's worth criticizing.. and then, yes, gullible people who don't hang out on internet message boards would assume the product they're about to buy is what one would think an HD version would be.

 

[Portugeezer]

Remasters are great if you didn't play the originals. I didn't play GTA5 and TLOU so I am happy for them on PS4, I didn't play Dark Souls 2 so a next gen edition is great for me.

 

[ShinMaruku]

Most of the shit remasters are from companies that a new game by them would be shit too.

 

[AuthenticM]

Preach it.

 

[RedRooster]

[/B]

Didn't we already discuss how this isn't true?

To be fair, if remasters get more popular, publishers could start throwing many more resources at remastering their old games.
We're still very early right now, so the demand is low enough that side teams can still do it.
Imagine the day where SE wants to remaster every FF? Or Rockstar wanted to release a GTA Anthology(which would be pretty awesome for the short term)?

 

[Wensih]

My problem isn't with the re-make. My problem is that when you combine these remakes with all the cross-gen software; publishers are not putting out original current generation AAA software. This is not good for the industry or my hobby.

Boohoo. Distributing games on as many platforms as possible isn't bad for the industry its how they finance the exorbitant cost of this industry. 'Next' gen exclusives will appear as soon as its justifiable/profitable for a company to make them. Stop with this sob story.

 

[Majanew]

A lot of these new remasters are just low res assets with sharpening or smudge filters. They look bad.

Which new remasters are these?

 

[Hiko]

Not having to keep around a ps3 or 360 around is good because then you can sell them and make way more money than the cost of a couple of remasters.

 

[Springy]

That's a pretty bold claim. You're acting like there's some conspiracy to remaster games and sell them on newer consoles.

The actual reason there's no backwards compatibility is because the architectures of these newer systems are much more different than their predecessors.

Was the 360 radically different to the Xbox? They used software emulation to provide BC for a ton of titles there (imperfectly, but still better than naught). Why won't Microsoft at least do the same on the XB1?

Edit: Missed how this was already discussed, sorry.

 

[RPGam3r]

I want more remasters. I have high hopes on the Mass Effect, Gears, and Borderlands rumors. Now I just need an Elder Scrolls and Fallout!

 

[lem0n]

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%

I don't usually reply with this, but here goes...

.


Also, this

I want more remasters. I have high hopes on the Mass Effect, Gears, and Borderlands rumors. Now I just need an Elder Scrolls and Fallout!

 

[Hiko]

This. People always complain when its always the same shit releasing all the time. Now, IT REALLY IS the same shit releasing all the time. Literally.

This industry was not built on remasters and remakes, this industry was built on pushing the limits of what we knew possible in terms of narrative, gameplay, and graphics (engines).

As much as I hate to do this, I have to recommend you build yourself a PC if want your own personal remaster if games. You can get them to 1080p 60fps all day if you want. Done


I still dont get what possessed naughty dog to release tlou this gen. That game just came out lol. It was fine the way it was. Masterpiece.

I remember buying Super Mario All Stars on the SNES. That was a remaster.

 

[ShinMaruku]

Remasters are great if you didn't play the originals. I didn't play GTA5 and TLOU so I am happy for them on PS4, I didn't play Dark Souls 2 so a next gen edition is great for me.

Exactly. The Dark Souls 2 and maybe the Borderlands remasters will be getting full use by me. I would try GTAV but I hate GTA.

 

[Lightning Count]

I'm not complaining one of my favourite all time games just got a remaster and I'm all over that shit.

Resident Evil REmake, baby.

 

[MilesTeg]

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.

 

[Leafhopper]

I remember buying Super Mario All Stars on the SNES. That was a remaster.

Kirby Super Star as well did some of that.

 

[Wensih]

For the record, I dont even think of games like TLoU, Dark Souls II, GTAV or Tomb Raider as being in the same category as say Jak and Daxter HD, Ratchet and clank HD, etc. collections. I considered them as timed exclusives much like BioShock was for PS3.

 

[Sub_Level]

The concept of "if you don't want it don't buy it" can be applied to 99% of the griping done on this board. The whole point of discussion is to voice how you feel about certain things, interact with others while listening to how they feel, and either reaching a new conclusion or staying the course with your own line of thinking.

I am definitely looking forward to a couple remasters down the pipeline but I have no problem if other people shit on them. In the same way that shitting on the ground can feed your lawn, so too can shitting on things cultivate good, if not entertaining discussion.

 

[kirby_fox]

I'm OK with remasters.

Not so OK with games that came out last generation, or worst- last year, getting upres'd ports to current gen systems with little added value sold at the price of a new game. If you're gonna port something over to the new systems, at the very least add some value and drop the price.

There's also a huge hatred for "quick buck mentality" in gaming. It's why a lot of mobile games are hated, DLC a lot of times is hated, and things like this is hated. A game that was just released last year being ported isn't a big deal, it's the "remaster" marketing strategy that puts people off. It reeks of quick buck mentality, especially when sold at the same price with little added value.

 

[Hiko]

The concept of "if you don't want it don't buy it" can be applied to 99% of the griping done on this board. The whole point of discussion is to voice how you feel about certain things, interact with others while listening to how they feel, and either reaching a new conclusion or staying the course with your own line of thinking.

I am definitely looking forward to a couple remasters down the pipeline but I have no problem if other people shit on them. In the same way that shitting on the ground can feed your lawn, so too can shitting on things cultivate good, if not entertaining discussion.

There's no rational reason to shit on them.

 

[Leafhopper]

For the record, I dont even think of games like TLoU, Dark Souls II, GTAV or Tomb Raider as being in the same category as say Jak and Daxter HD, Ratchet and clank HD, etc. collections. I considered them as timed exclusives much like BioShock was for PS3.

The only ones I have gripes with, are ones where the game came out less than 2 years ago. I get why they are made but, that doesn't mean one can't complain about it.

 

[Biker19]

Boohoo. Distributing games on as many platforms as possible isn't bad for the industry, its how they finance the exorbitant cost of this industry. 'Next' gen exclusives will appear as soon as its justifiable/profitable for a company to make them. Stop with this sob story.

This is exactly what most 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 exclusive on these platforms 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.

 

[Majanew]

GTAV is an example that surely can't be disputed in terms of affectin 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.

Rockstar North is the GTA devs. I'm sure Rockstar San Diego was still making the Red Dead sequel when GTAV was being ported.

 

[Visualante2]

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.

 

[Mogwai]

Rockstar North is the GTA devs. I'm sure Rockstar San Diego was still making the Red Dead sequel when GTAV was being ported.

I would be happy even with a remaster of the original RDR. That with fps mode.