By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Puppyroach said:
DonFerrari said:
Puppyroach said:
I think the reason behind all hate, which is unjustified indeed, is because this is a 1st party game with the name "remastered" in it. Had it been a 3rd party release, noone would react. I do think a game needs to be a few years older to justify the term "remastered", but those are just small details. I am quite sure this hate won't affect the sales one bit, just buy the game and enjoy it :).


Anything that works the original master to a different media or retouch the quality is a remaster since it reddo the master... actually all ports are remasters in a way even if they keep everything equal.

Yes, and by that reasoning COD on PS4 and X1 would be called COD:Remastered :).

The terms "Remastered" or "Anniversary" is used to signal a return to an older game where the graphics have been updated significantly (think Halo:Anniversary) or altered in other significant ways. Using it on a year old game, even though you are technically right, send the signal that ii is more of a cashgrab than a fan service. I believe it to be both, just like with every rerelease of a game, but using the words "remastered" hasn´t elped them one bit, especially on such a recent game.

I still find the negative reaction silly, but I can see where the perspecitive of the cashgrabbing has been emphasized when they use the word "remastered".

Not sure about the term remastered since I don't remember seeing it used for games, just HD collection and anniversary edition (altough 1y make a anniversary and we celebrate our kids 1st brithday in fanfare I agree use it for something less 10years is silly). Do you remember a game using remastered in the name? I remember a lot of movies being remastered but they never put remaster in the name, maybe director's cut (as if the old one wasn't cut according to directors instructions)...

But maybe if Sony hadn't used the term it would get less flack... and in the end all sequels are cashgrabs, most games are (or should) be made to be self-contained and when you end it you are satisfied. Then when it sell alot publishers greedly put sequels, rare are the cases you can see a true trilogy is in effect from the conception of the game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."