Good: Can give a new demographic a chance to play a game they haven't before in best possible shape. Can give previous players a chance to enjoy it again if they so please. Can revive games that are older so that they may not be forgotten so easily. Nobody is obligated to buy them.

Bad: A bunch of them are done unnecessarily, whether that be super early, or released/"remastered" more than once. Could argue that the attention given to them would be better spent on other projects (if they are not outsourced), PS Now is replacing the need for many remasters. How many iterations of one game, and remasters of other games can you have before it gets ridiculous?

What does that even mean?

The fact is that last gen there were many new games coming out and I knew about them. I was excited and hyped. Bioshock, The Orange Box, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, Resistance, Motorstorm etc...

Now youre just telling me "What? Pweurgfpuhu got a 9/10 by ign! You should know that"  Well I dont. If the games were so great, then a gamer like me would take notice.

They're horrible because timeless masterpieces as Silent Hill 2 are extremely spoiled in remastered versions.

Without mentioning the glitchiness of the game, I decided not to go near it after I knew they replaced the original voice actors. Preservation should be the key, it's a bad alternative to the original otherwise imo. I love the unesiness of the classic badly localized voice acting. I'm not calling the actors' performance bad, but I'm sure nothing like this would pass today, unless they want something campy.

Remakes though are not that bad imo. I don't care unless it's a game I want and publishers see them as a proper investment because the market clearly wants them.

Edited. 

Nicely worded.

Its mostly an easy cash grab, I'm not saying the games aren't good but its mostly the same game with better graphics and sometimes its not that much better like in the Last of Us.

If it was an older classic, like Final Fantasy 7 or another game I would be more incline to buy it.

As I said, they're quick, cheap, and often just outsourced anyway. They don't halt other projects for the sake of remasters. At most they might take away a small team (delaying a current project by a couple of months), and in exchange make easy money that can be used to either fund new projects or speed up development of existing ones (negating the initial down side). It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned, for both developers and gamers.

Remasters that are basically like Halo Anniversary Edition (the "press select for retro look" stuff is awesome) or Wind Waker HD are good. (even tho Nintendo fucked up with all the bloom that destroys the visuals)


Remasters like GOW collection or any other kind of cheap cashgrab "upress port" is bullshit.

Remasters of games that are only 2 years old or so are bad. They devalue the original product.

You think sony are targetting someone who regards indie-developed games as all 'meh'?

Stick to your cod and uncharteds, thats fine. But new '3d' games from 'non-shit-indies' arent all targeted at gamers 'like you'

Well I disagree. We dont know how much each remaster takes away from the development of a new game.

TLOUR wasnt going to hinder Naughty Dog from their other projects, but Uncharted 4 just got delayed...

The thing is that a remaster doesnt add anything to a consoles library. If a company cant make money without re-releasing last years games, then maybe its time to rethink your strategies.