Seeing how i never owned a ps3 and never will, I was very please to have gotten the chance to play The Last of Us on Ps4. It is now one of my favorite games. I also was able to get both metro games which i also never played for 50 bucks. There are tons of people out there who have not played these games the first time around. I hope they release an uncharted box set for ps4 as well since i have not played any of them, and a demons souls(wishful thinking) This will stop eventually, its just that these new gen systems are selling at an incredible pace and developers need to release "something" until the other games are finished. Don't feel so entitled. This is the best generation to be a gamer.
-
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?
- Thread starter JohnnyFootball
- Start date
fuzzyreactor
Banned
They are absolutely using resources that could be spent on something else, like a new game.
Logic and a cursory understanding of limited resources and a finite budget aren't evidence enough?
I just think there should be a threshold for a remaster candidate. There are games that make sense and have a justification for a port outside of (1) existing and (2) not being playable on a new platform now. There should be something gained in the transition that goes beyond simple convenience.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Nope. The intelligence to understand that the resource cost is so minimum and very low to the bottom line.
It's reasonable to expect all DLC and 1080p/60fps. That's gain enough for most.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
This makes no sense and I would argue completely the opposite in that is the perfect time to release a remaster. If a game gets delayed they can't just magically fill that spot with a new game but they can fill it with a remaster if need be. Would you rather them release nothing?
fuzzyreactor
Banned
can you prove this?
All I'm looking for in a rerelease of a game:
-Change the experience of seeing, hearing, and playing the game as little as possible
-Be marketed to a new audience rather than just to people who already played the game
The cases of a "remaster" that actually improves upon the original in ANY medium is so incredibly rare. Ocarina of Time 3DS is the only example in videogames I can think of, there are a handful of director's cuts of movies that are improvements, but vastly more that are not, I was impressed by The Orb's remastered electronic albums and a few remastered classical recordings but never any other remastered album, etc. etc.
-Change the experience of seeing, hearing, and playing the game as little as possible
-Be marketed to a new audience rather than just to people who already played the game
The cases of a "remaster" that actually improves upon the original in ANY medium is so incredibly rare. Ocarina of Time 3DS is the only example in videogames I can think of, there are a handful of director's cuts of movies that are improvements, but vastly more that are not, I was impressed by The Orb's remastered electronic albums and a few remastered classical recordings but never any other remastered album, etc. etc.
I like the idea of remasters. To me they're a good way to update an older game, they allow for newer generations of gamers to experience classic games and they're also a good way to gauge interest in a game series. I can see why people don't really like remasters (especially if they are done poorly) but it's a win win to me.
Spiritreaver
Member
lol I would like to see this thread. That's all the OT feels like sometimes. Oh look another silly grammar thread. Ah, I see, standing on escalators such a peeve! Now you hate drunk threads too? I'm sorry you don't like your roommate's music. Please, tell me more about how you hate the Star Wars prequels.
Anyway, on topic. My only gripe with remasters is they are never games I care about. Most of the shit I want to see remastered no one will buy except me.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Erm, there isn't any remaster stuffs previously, because earlier gens has got true backward compatibility. You are able to put in your Ps1 disc to play in your Ps2.
I will be fine if remaster is only for games that are 2gens ago, rather than previous gen (unless it is bundled with at least one game). Will rather they put out the extra stuffs as dlc and disregard the shinier graphics.
FFx/x2 and wind Waker HD are fine
Mcc and god of war collections are fine
Tlos and gtav remaster, nope.
Choppasmith
Member
Yeah, this is how I feel. I hate when we have a thread discussing what games we would like to see and there's always that one guy who says "None. I'd rather play new games." I HATE those kind of posts.
chancellor
Member
My only gripe is that most remasters are not decent value. It's great to go back and enjoy an old game with upgraded visuals but £40 for a game that came out a year ago on last gen is ridiculous. £25/£30 would be much fairer.
SphericalCrusher
Member
My only complaint is if it's too soon to remake a game. HD remakes of HD games is kind of a waste especially when there are much better games to remake. That and current gen (PS4 and X1) are full of remakes and indie games... needs more exclusives. I do love the remakes and LOVE indie games tho.
The Real Napsta
Member
So play them one by one.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Prove it.
Teletraan1
Banned
I was baffled when I saw some reactions to X/X-2 coming to PS4. Pure hate. I have never played the remasters since I don't own a Vita or a PS3 any longer. Will definitely pick those up when they release. Yet some people are calling SE the worst company ever and telling them to fuck off for releasing something that at this point is probably a low effort release that they don't have to buy. Hardly a reason to get upset.
Profit from remasters is probably greater than the cost to make them allowing a larger budget for future projects, so yes, while resources are being spent to make remastered games, those resources are being increased because of making the game.
EDIT: Re-releasing games also increases awareness to brands and preserves the shelf-life of games in stores where the series/games can reach the widest new audience that may not have had the means to play them in the past.
Another reason I like remasters: oftentimes they're better than the new games in those franchises publishers make.
People want a SOCOM 2 remaster because it's generally agreed the franchise never got better than that. I'm probably going to end up playing and enjoying Resident Evil 4 Ultimate HD Edition more than RE5 and RE6. If EA had just done an HD remaster of SSX 3 or something, I probably would have just picked that up instead of the new SSX. There will probably be people who don't like Halo 5 when it comes out, and those people will be able to play Halo 2 on Xbox One now that Master Chief Collection is out.
Sometimes a franchise just reaches its peak with one really great game that can't be meaningfully improved upon. The need to have our favorite franchises on on the new machines we buy is in my opinion the main reason a lot of popular game franchises go on for so long. If the quality of a game franchises reaches its peak or logical conclusion, is it really bad to just keep that game available on the latest hardware? There's a reason a lot of people still play the original Counter-Strike after 15 years.
People want a SOCOM 2 remaster because it's generally agreed the franchise never got better than that. I'm probably going to end up playing and enjoying Resident Evil 4 Ultimate HD Edition more than RE5 and RE6. If EA had just done an HD remaster of SSX 3 or something, I probably would have just picked that up instead of the new SSX. There will probably be people who don't like Halo 5 when it comes out, and those people will be able to play Halo 2 on Xbox One now that Master Chief Collection is out.
Sometimes a franchise just reaches its peak with one really great game that can't be meaningfully improved upon. The need to have our favorite franchises on on the new machines we buy is in my opinion the main reason a lot of popular game franchises go on for so long. If the quality of a game franchises reaches its peak or logical conclusion, is it really bad to just keep that game available on the latest hardware? There's a reason a lot of people still play the original Counter-Strike after 15 years.
I am also one of those guys who never play MGS, Ratchet, Sly etc until I got my PS3. I don't want to hunt for them and my PS2 died so I welcome remasters / remakes.
Teletraan1
Banned
It is probably a lot easier to remake a modern game since most of them are just IQ upgrades overtop lower geometry than what the current gen offers. They swap in the cutscene model from the old game for the in game version. Doing the same for a really low geometry game isn't going to yield any sort of impressive results so those games need to be re-imagined or spruced up to a current standard. Which costs way more money. For example if they did a FFVII remake and just retextured the existing terrible character models or used the standard battle model while traversing I can't imagine the results being impressive at all. All of the character models in the game would need to be brought up to a better standard to match the rest of the game. I think they can get away with PS2 and forward for this stuff. PS1 is the generation that it is the most necessary since that stuff looked like shit but also it is the least likely because it will involve the most money to get right.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I would triple dip for a Mass Effect Trilogy remaster on PS4.
There are some games that I feel deserve to be brought forward into a new generation. So I'll gladly support them. I'd love to see the Prince of Persia trilogy from back in the PS2 days brought forward again. It won't happen because nobody would buy it, I'm sure. But I think there's value in preserving some of these older games.
There are some games that I feel deserve to be brought forward into a new generation. So I'll gladly support them. I'd love to see the Prince of Persia trilogy from back in the PS2 days brought forward again. It won't happen because nobody would buy it, I'm sure. But I think there's value in preserving some of these older games.
You're not the demographic then. Just because you've played these games before doesn't mean that others have. Remasters makes it convenient to discover old games.
disastermouse
Banned
I would already own Sleeping Dogs on PS4 if the price wasn't so high. I SO want to go back to Hong Kong, beat up enemies and jump over cars with mah bad-ass motorcycle.
Yeah the complaints are annoying and as op pointed out pretty baseless. I love remasters.
Games like The Last of Us or FFX are games I will be playing for years to come. Might as well be on a system I currently play and is even better on with the new tech. Now if I can get a Mass Effect and Uncharted collections on PS4 I will be satisfied.
Games like The Last of Us or FFX are games I will be playing for years to come. Might as well be on a system I currently play and is even better on with the new tech. Now if I can get a Mass Effect and Uncharted collections on PS4 I will be satisfied.
eyeball_kid
Member
The only time I'd say remasters are questionable is when the studio/director decides to mess with the game in some way, in the same way that George Lucas futzed with Star Wars when he did the Special Editions. I know there's been some sloppiness in terms of redoing the assets (I think FFX suffered from that?), but I'm not aware of any intentional changes...yet. I'm sure it'll happen. Other than that, I have no real problem with them. I think it's a bit silly to remaster a game from one generation ago, but if it sells, it sells.
"Indie trash"
"Looks like a flash game"
Expand your mind, indies have some of the most progressive gameplay elements and take take risks that AAA publishers won't.
The problem with buying a console this early is they haven't had a chance to build up a compelling library.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Yeah. We've had 7 this past year.
Plus I know a thing or two about porting and programming. It's not labor intensive.
But believe what you want to believe.
hotnheavyload
Banned
Remasters are great when they're actual remasters and not just a resolution bump (Capcom).
There ought to be a decent time frame though between the initial release and the remaster imo.
There ought to be a decent time frame though between the initial release and the remaster imo.
Because I think games are released in a certain environement and timeset and it matters. To each its own opinion.
Wolfgang Jr
Banned
I'll keep bitching about them until Nintendo starts doing them.
old manatee
Banned
Haha sure.
Actually, think of remasters as a cash flow to fund new projects. if the remaster sells well, the money will be invested to produce new games.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
Certain remakes are good but I'm quite annoyed at the PS4 FFX/X2 remaster. If there's no limited edition I'll pass on it and actually open the PS3 limited edition I bought and play that. If there is a limited edition I will have to buy it 
cripterion
Member
You're free to like remasters but most of them do feel like a way of cashing more money to me.
If it doesn't divert resources from other games why aren't these remasters free for people that already own the original?
Don't get me wrong I buy some of them but the pricing isn't right at all imo and no amount of extra details or enhanced graphics will not have me believe I'm essentially playing the same thing I was before.
Also if they remaster something go dig other stuff that was out before previous gen. Why not remake Syphon Philter? Parasite Eve or Shenmue?
Would love to have a fighting force or a bad dude remake with today's tech.
If it doesn't divert resources from other games why aren't these remasters free for people that already own the original?
Don't get me wrong I buy some of them but the pricing isn't right at all imo and no amount of extra details or enhanced graphics will not have me believe I'm essentially playing the same thing I was before.
Also if they remaster something go dig other stuff that was out before previous gen. Why not remake Syphon Philter? Parasite Eve or Shenmue?
Would love to have a fighting force or a bad dude remake with today's tech.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
It's because remasters despite having a low cost aren't free to make.
I simply do not understand the level of entitlement that goes with people. Just because a game gets re-released on a better system does not mean you should get the new game for free. When I buy a game on PS3/360, I am getting the game on PS3/360. That's what I paid for and that's what you paid for. You did not pay for the right to get subsequent re-releases or any other system. There are not many industries that regularly offers free upgrades to things. Gaming is no different.
And yes, you ARE paying for the same thing as before. When you buy a remaster its game that has already been released just prettier. For me if its a game I love its a worthy upgrade that I am more than happy to pay for at the right price.
Acting like you are owed something you didn't pay for. That's entitlement.
Having said that, I will be very grateful and consider it a nice gesture if a company offers me an upgrade option for a game I previously owned.
Two Pikachus
Member
It's a sense of entitlement. If you're actually entitled it means you have a right to it. It's owed to you.
People seem to forget that without the people buying the original game, the remaster wouldn't have the resources to be made. I don't think it's having a sense of entitlement to expect that, unless significant effort is being put into remaking the game or adding significant extra content, previous buyers should be able to upgrade at a discounted price.
REmake? Essentially a new game at that level. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect to get a discount.
GTA V a year later with just an uprez, DLC, and a few new missions? Especially when the originals came out when the new consoles were just about to, yet they held off on releasing them to get people to double dip? Yeah, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a little give-back if you bought GTA V last year.
Do the companies HAVE to throw us a bone? Absolutely not. Is the practice kind of ridiculous from a fairness standpoint? Oh yeah.
However, I have no issues with remasters that are priced fairly, given the (perceived) effort involved. If you ask for double the revenue, you've got to deliver more than 1.1x the content.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
It's a sign that the gaming industry is crazy. There's brand new hardware out there and all we're getting is remasters.
Did Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider really need remasters? FFX/X2 is a remaster of a remaster FFS!!!
Did Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider really need remasters? FFX/X2 is a remaster of a remaster FFS!!!
GAF's complaints about remasters are bafflingly dumb. I don't understand it at all.
For one, no, a remaster isn't using resources that a new game should get.... Unless it completely and utterly bombs, a remaster will make profit. That, by definition, is not using resources. That's gaining them. Remasters also keep fan interest high, and even gain new fans, which raises the profit potential on said new game in a series.
The other thing about resources is that a remaster by its very nature doesn't really require a creative staff. At least compared to an original game or a new sequel, a remaster requires almost none of that. That means that the creative staff (i.e. the top level important people expressing the visions we want to see) is still free to work on the next new thing, while programmers will work on the port at the same time. It also requires less than a new game, because, again, you're not building it from the ground up.
Second, no one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't want to buy the remaster? Don't. It's there for people who DO want to, of which there are apparently plenty since the remasters are making money. Not everyone played nearly as many games as you might have. Even sometimes when people play a lot of games, they might miss a series. But these people still buy a new console before consuming everything in a previous generation. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity to play some of these games, in a better form. For example, I played a lot of games last gen, but I mostly missed out on Borderlands. Other games got in the way, and I just never had time for them. Now if things do come true and there's a collection for all 3 games, I'd be ecstatic. And no one's forcing me to buy it right off the bat at a high price, either. The neat thing is that whenever I feel like playing them there will be a better version out for me to play... simply because it exists. Why is this a bad thing? You don't have to play the FFX PS4 remaster. You don't have to play GTA V remaster. You don't have to play The Last of Us Remaster. You don't have to play the potential Borderlands remaster. But, if you ever want to go back and play them you have the option of playing an even better version. Where's the bad in this?
I also think it's funny that people bitch and moan about console exclusive games and then also bitch and moan about ports to new consoles. Shouldn't more people have access to great games?
For one, no, a remaster isn't using resources that a new game should get.... Unless it completely and utterly bombs, a remaster will make profit. That, by definition, is not using resources. That's gaining them. Remasters also keep fan interest high, and even gain new fans, which raises the profit potential on said new game in a series.
The other thing about resources is that a remaster by its very nature doesn't really require a creative staff. At least compared to an original game or a new sequel, a remaster requires almost none of that. That means that the creative staff (i.e. the top level important people expressing the visions we want to see) is still free to work on the next new thing, while programmers will work on the port at the same time. It also requires less than a new game, because, again, you're not building it from the ground up.
Second, no one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't want to buy the remaster? Don't. It's there for people who DO want to, of which there are apparently plenty since the remasters are making money. Not everyone played nearly as many games as you might have. Even sometimes when people play a lot of games, they might miss a series. But these people still buy a new console before consuming everything in a previous generation. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity to play some of these games, in a better form. For example, I played a lot of games last gen, but I mostly missed out on Borderlands. Other games got in the way, and I just never had time for them. Now if things do come true and there's a collection for all 3 games, I'd be ecstatic. And no one's forcing me to buy it right off the bat at a high price, either. The neat thing is that whenever I feel like playing them there will be a better version out for me to play... simply because it exists. Why is this a bad thing? You don't have to play the FFX PS4 remaster. You don't have to play GTA V remaster. You don't have to play The Last of Us Remaster. You don't have to play the potential Borderlands remaster. But, if you ever want to go back and play them you have the option of playing an even better version. Where's the bad in this?
I also think it's funny that people bitch and moan about console exclusive games and then also bitch and moan about ports to new consoles. Shouldn't more people have access to great games?
protomouse
Member
When I buy a game on App Store, I know that it will be compatible with my next iPhone. When I buy a game on Steam, I know that it will be compatible with my next PC. When I buy a game on PlayStation, I know that not only will I not be able to play it on future hardware, but that there might be a financial incentive for that not being the case.
The proliferation of re-releases sends further signals to platform holders that their audience is OK with the fact that each generation of devices brings about a hard reset - all notion of prior products is swiftly forgotten, all support lost. "What, you thought you could play the games you already own on the new hardware you bought? Preposterous! However, we DO offer these slightly updated versions of a select few of your favourite games... just so you know". Think about how that would work for phones. Say I bought Muffin Knight on my iPhone 4S. Imagine that, when I upgraded to 5S, I was presented with only two options: either buying "Muffin Knight Remastered", or carrying both phones with me just in case.
This is nothing new, of course. I was miffed when MS/Sony nixed backwards compatibility, but there was always a technological motivation for it. Both companies had been flip-flopping between estoteric system designs that their successors weren't powerful enough to emulate. Fair enough. But now, when both companies seemingly are set to build subsidized x86 PCs going forward, one would hope that they are taking additional cues from the PC platform on the software side, bringing backwards compatibility back for as long as there is hardware on the market. If the prospect of re-releases is indeed an incentive for this not to happen, then I guess that's something I have gripes with.
The proliferation of re-releases sends further signals to platform holders that their audience is OK with the fact that each generation of devices brings about a hard reset - all notion of prior products is swiftly forgotten, all support lost. "What, you thought you could play the games you already own on the new hardware you bought? Preposterous! However, we DO offer these slightly updated versions of a select few of your favourite games... just so you know". Think about how that would work for phones. Say I bought Muffin Knight on my iPhone 4S. Imagine that, when I upgraded to 5S, I was presented with only two options: either buying "Muffin Knight Remastered", or carrying both phones with me just in case.
This is nothing new, of course. I was miffed when MS/Sony nixed backwards compatibility, but there was always a technological motivation for it. Both companies had been flip-flopping between estoteric system designs that their successors weren't powerful enough to emulate. Fair enough. But now, when both companies seemingly are set to build subsidized x86 PCs going forward, one would hope that they are taking additional cues from the PC platform on the software side, bringing backwards compatibility back for as long as there is hardware on the market. If the prospect of re-releases is indeed an incentive for this not to happen, then I guess that's something I have gripes with.
cripterion
Member
I didn't say we should get the game for free, my point was it was diverting ressources (as in time to do something else) from the devs or else the game would indeed be free.
And sorry to say but there was a time when games got graphical updates on pc and we got those for free and they weren't called remasters, they were simply called patches.
My issue is with the price, yes call me entitled if you want but games are expensive here (up to 69.99), so I was pretty pissed getting a shoddy experience with GTA V on 360, I thought the remaster would at least have a stable framerate and a decent online component but it's as bad as before.
Except most of the remasters aren't on PC and the ones that are probably don't have all the new effects, graphics and features the remasters do.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Ok. Let me know where I can find Red Dead Redemption and the Last of Us on PC.
Extra Sauce
Member
Complaining about remasters is like complaining about old movies being re-released in high definition.