I want Pong remastered... Preferably published by Ubisoft.

*I don't mind remasters because we all have the option to buy it or not buy it.

I am only against bad remasters, and also bad remasters. Did I mention bad remasters?

I think remasters are good when done correctly. I think they should wait a good while until doing it. Look at MM it took 13 years for it to be remastered but then look at something like The Last Of Us to me that just seems like a kick in the balls when they are remade not even a year after the game came out

I don't think anyone is against remaster, but only against a great number of them

That's a pretty bad comparison tbh...

My latest game purchase was TLoU Remastered. Never finished it on PS3 so I'm looking forward to finally experiencing the story on PS4.

My first PS4 game was Tomb Raider Definitive Edition. Loved it. But then again, I loved that game and I'm always looking for a reason to play it again. I even made a thread on this site called "Games so nice, you bought them twice". I've bought a TON of games multiple times. Hell, in the past, I bought Tomb Raider Anniversary and Legend on PS2 and then bought both again for Xbox 360 for dat HD experience.

I'm not opposed to remasters/HD editions/ports or whatever. Having a new version doesn't mean the old version is obsolete. It just means there's a better version out there for those who want it. I would LOVE to always experience new games instead of replaying the old familiar but some journeys are worth a second or even a third look.

Well, I am not against remasters from the ps3/360 gen, I am just against remastering games thats 1 years old... Cause to me, one of the main points of the remaster is if you played the original and then you play the remaster, the visual difference should be different enough to make you notice it at first glance and say wow! That is quite a difference! The issue with one year old remasters is that, that is very hard to do and people really have to look into it in order to notice it! But if the game has enough of a visual difference for people to notice it at first sight in the screenshots, thats fine

But again, thats my own personal gripe with it. Yes, with a remaster, anyone that hasn't played it gets to play it but that logic goes for all remasters and the difference between a great remaster and a cheap remaster is that a great remaster rewards the players that played the original but showing them noticably improved visuals at first glance (regardless of the resolution its shown in) vs cheap remasters are there just for the new players and puts minimal effort into showing the players that have already played the game much of a visual difference

I don't mind them at all. It's not like you're forced to buy them and they can fill in the gaps between games.

I'd just love to see all the slowdown and glitches Ubisoft could put into one of the world's simplest video games. Those fools could ruin Candy Land.

OT: Depends on how much labor is put into a remaster and whether or not I have the game already. I've bought remastered versions of games I already own because the remasters were a sufficient improvement. Wind Waker HD comes to mind. It was an improvement but it didn't change shit to the point where it bastardized the game. And then, it was nice to play the game on a current console I owned. I'll also occasionally buy remasters just to support future development of a series I liked.

I like remasters that make sense, for example I thought the Kingdom Hearts re-releases on the PS3 were justified but some of the recent ones, not so much. If the game originally came out 2-3 years ago, why bother?