By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
teigaga on 28 December 2014
Edit Thread
Blob said:
kljesta64 said:
teigaga said:
kljesta64 said:

because for me its not really a big improvement as I would like it to be unless the game really sucked..

This doesn't account for the fact that current sysetms are not backwards compatible. What we're seeing currently is actually very comparable with nintendo releasing Zelda OOT Master quest on the gamecube and virtual console. It wasn't considered a remaster but was infact a remaster the graphics were better and so was the performance. The difference is it priced appropriately, something a lot of current remasters are not. 

graphics werent better the resolution and frame rate was.

And you know, the game was given out for free on the gamecube so it wasn't exactly a cash grab.

I like remasters but I think treating games being rereleased a year later like new releases is counterproductive to the industry and shows that some games need multiple releases just to break even.

Yeah, thats kind of the point I was trying to make. Most of these remasters should be released without fanfair, and sold no where near full price. Developers should not treat them like a brand new releases unless significant work has gone into them and said title deserves that treatement (Windwaker HD). Also comparable to the zelda example is Banjo on Xbox live. Looks much better then the N64 counterpart but they didn't make a fuss and rename it Banjo HD, they simply put it on the store for a fair price ($15). This is how most should be treated.