Why The Last of Us Remastered Shouldn’t Really Exist

[starcraft]

JoeTheBro said:

starcraft said:

 You might consider the possibility that our history of misunderstanding oneanother is what led you to take offense at my post, rather than the actual content of said post.

Haha what?

I've debated point by point the actual content of your post and have never taken offense. You're very difficult to talk to starcraft when you keep trying to twist these type of things into your posts. They annoyingly get in the way of actual debate and at least to me come across as pretty childish. I have plenty of sly jabs in my posts too, but they're all responses to exact things you've written. I'm also certainly not throwing them in to try to descredit your points or what you've written, like you did above.

Lets consider that last sentence for a moment. You've repeatedly claimed that my posts, or sections of them, are weird. You've not actually managed to articulate (in my opinion) why that is, other than that you disagree with them. Indeed, such disparaging remarks are designed to do nothing but discredit what I've written.

The cake taker is your assessment below that I have 'forced my opinion on to others.' Aside from the fact that this would be difficult to do in person, let alone via the internet, I am in fact one of the few people in this thread who explicitely highlighted their opinion as just an opinion. Which, given I am the only person you're engaging with, makes it seem likely this is less about the post, and more about the poster. That is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach, particularly given your continued attempts to strawman me (the best example in this post, is my never having stated anything like there being a bias in Neilson ratings - where you suggest I have).

starcraft said:

Fair enough, if you took personal offense to my comment, then I apologise. I was evidently not as clear as I thought when I attempted to keep my post impersonal. Allow me to be fully clear in specifying that I, as an individual, find the near-to-full (and originally full) price of of a year old game with a higher resolution to be insulting.  Ultimately we need to keep the reader in mind - though I submit that my words were not meant to be personally insulting to anyone anymore than your calling my comments 'ignorantly wrong' is meant to be insulting to me.

I wasn't offened by anything you said, but that doesn't stop some of your comments from being insults. Redefining what you said doesn't change that either. It really wasn't a big issue, but your defflecting and denail have almost turned it into one.

I said your comment looked "ignorantly wrong" because that was propor use of the word and writing "that comment lookes like it's lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular because it is easily determined wrong" would have just seemed silly. That isn't even remotly close to calling people suckers.

I am glad you were not offended. Again, we'd have reached a resolution some time ago if we were both comfortable with disagreement. I would submit that it is you, and not me, that is unwilling to allow their own opinion to be challenged. For ultimately that is what we're each submitting, opinion.

starcraft said:

It = Immediate HD remasters, definitive versions and other full-priced releases of recent games with no new content. I admit that I used a generalism when I said 'no one likes it.' However, I would submit that whether people approve of the practice is predominently determined by whether they consider it to apply to the specific title being discussed. We, for example, clearly disagree on the nature of and value behind the re-release of TLOU:R.

I wouldn't classify those three groups in the same boat. Immediate HD remasters are hardly different than late next gen ports. Definitive versions almost always include new content as well so imo they also shouldn't fit in there.

It should depend on the game. TLOU:R is a unique case, being an end of gen new ip exclusive. It should not of course depend on a person's opinion of the game itself.

I feel this is the source of much of the disagreement in this thread - the misguided idea that TLOU:R is somehow a unique title, and not part of a wider industry trend.

starcraft said:

I think it is inaccurate to define an off-the-cuff retelling of unseen data, out of context, with no methodology and a clear bias, as 'scientific.' Indeed, I was just yesterday discussing the same source with Hynad via PM. That this is the only evidence to suggest the PS4 is selling enormously to non-PS3 owners (at this point in the cycle, I am confident it will in the future) is telling in itself. Even were that not the case however - and taking Sony at their word - we'd be looking at well under 3 million console owners...for a game that all in this thread agree would have taken substantial resources to remaster. I feel it is naive to believe Sony conducted this exercise with a view to selling exclusively to those people, rather than to fill a gap in their line-up where no new content exists. I believe it was in that same Kotaku interview Sony discussed (whilst openly acknowledging gamers might not like it) the opportunity to bring more PS3 content to PS4. Sony themselves have acknowledged one of the points I am trying to make about prefering releases to bring something original to the table - I do not think I have been unclear, but if I have, do not let it indicate that my opinion is somehow a rare one.

It is not the only evidence, just the most scientific. (Nielsen ratings have a clear PS bias?)

There is countless additional evidence as well. We have vgchartz game sales data showing huge shifts from xbox platforms to playstation platforms, we have polls with lots of people switching over, and we even have specific users all saying they switched from 360 to ps4. Off the top of my head, only stage and Aerys are vgchartz users that switched from playstation to XBOX. Of course there are more, but it's not even close to the opposite.

When people say TLOU:R took a lot of resources, they don't mean it cost as much as a new game. Selling half a million units to that "hypothetical" sub 3 million group would most likely be enough to make a profit, and that ignores the non financial rewards ND makes from making the game.

You're opinion isn't rare, it's just often unneccessary. HD ports usually do not decrease the amount of original content.

^
This is another way of saying they rarely produce new original content.
This brings us to the crux of this conversation's existence. I have an opinion, its different to yours, both are unprovable, but you're apparently uncomfortable with the difference. I feel it is inherently unlikely, and almost impossible (particularly in light of the new DLC announced yesterday and NOT included in this 'remaster') that Sony planned to market to the (as you said, hypothetically up to) 3 million console owners we're discussing.

But even if they were, it is my preference that their first parties focus on original content. This, more than anything, is why I cannot understand your taking issue with my post, above all others. Preferring a focus on original content, or at least content that is not easily accessible for today's gamers, is a clear, uncontroversial opinion. It is not weird. It is not lacking in clarity. It is not an unpopular opinion. It is not being forced on anyone else. And yet you take issue with it - because you disagree with it, or because I made it?

JoeTheBro said:

The only bad trend I could see coming out of this is future consoles once again lacking bc. That could be a bad thing, but there are many other factors that have a bigger influence on the systems including bc.

Plus there is good that comes out of buying HD ports and rereleases. Gamers get additional options when wanting to play their games, and pubs make money allowing them to invest in riskier titles. Stuff like this happens all the time and is very common within the industry.

Sources? There are lots of reports saying the opposite about it being a tiny market. Do you think Sony is lying? Also how much do you think the port cost to develop? I certainly don't know, but you seem to be assuming a lot of things.

That's not how development has to work. Again you're just making assumptions while Sony themselves are saying the opposite.

We've covered this elsewhere - in our agreement that the market cannot be more than 3 million users. I contend that it is likely much less, neither of us can produce data sufficient to definitively prove our points. But ultimately its moot, because the exact size of the market would further neither of our arguments.

I accept the existence of the externalities you describe - particularly the option to play games across multiple platforms. Our disagreement is on the relative value of new content versus rehashing old content. And I would submit that, in this situation in particular, providing additional options has greatly diminished utility given the game in question is barely a year old, and available on a similar form on a much cheaper platform.

You keep bringing in unrelated things (like this point about me only talking about you insulting people) so I have to keep discussing more things than just the merits of TLOU:R, but I've still given plenty of explanaition for the flaws in your assessment of the game.

I didn't take "issue" with your post. This is how forums are designed to work. You post your comment, and then other people respond to your comment.

Fair enough, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'll fully read your reply if you make one but at this point I'm done talking about anything but the game itself. I'm here to discuss video games, not discuss my video game discussion.

If you wish to respond only to posts relating to the game itself, I will rehash my oft-post thoughts:

- The game is brilliant. It is by all accounts still brilliant on the PS4 - and has a resolution (and in some, but not all cases, a framerate) bump.

- The game costs $50, and does not include all the content available for the title - more controversial paid DLC was just announced.

- I would have preferred that resources were focused on new content. I could also have preferred a focus on the externalities you laid out, which would have better been applied to a title older - one not so readily available in a near-identical form for a much cheaper price.