Forums - Gaming Discussion - Can we talk about The Wonderful 101 laughable Demaster?

Aside from the use of the term remaster, I don't recall anything they said which would have lead one to expect a significant graphical overhaul. It's also being sold at $40, which is a bit cheaper than most "remasters" from that era IIRC.

So, I'd agree that they would have used another word in the title, but on the whole, anyone who does even a slight amount of research will be getting what they expect, so I'm not seeing a problem in that regard.

Like, taking myself as an example, I loved the game on Wii U, and I might have purchased it again if it had significant upgrades.  I had more than enough information to determine that it didn't have enough new content to warrant purchasing again.  Since I had enough info to make an informed decision, I don't really see the harm done by using the wrong term.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 17 May 2020

Around the Network

There are people in this thread saying this isn't a big deal, and I think that's true in the grand scheme of things as it doesn't appear to ruin the game itself other than being a minor inconvenience compared to the original version. That being said, the whole way they've handled this port has been awful, from running a kickstarter campaign that they themselves admitted to not actually needing at all (The game was complete and they basically said it was just used as a marketing campaign even though people actually had to donate money to make it happen...) and being generally unclear on all aspects of it. On top of that they provided no control scheme alternative to the Wii U Gamepad, meaning there is no easy way to control this game when they could have retooled the controls at least somewhat.

I don't necessarily wish commercial failure on this or anything but I sincerely hope they realize that they need to put their full effort into products in the future. I like Platinum quite a bit and do buy most of their releases, but I can't support this.



JWeinCom said:

Aside from the use of the term remaster, I don't recall anything they said which would have lead one to expect a significant graphical overhaul. It's also being sold at $40, which is a bit cheaper than most "remasters" from that era IIRC.

So, I'd agree that they would have used another word in the title, but on the whole, anyone who does even a slight amount of research will be getting what they expect, so I'm not seeing a problem in that regard.

Like, taking myself as an example, I loved the game on Wii U, and I might have purchased it again if it had significant upgrades.  I had more than enough information to determine that it didn't have enough new content to warrant purchasing again.  Since I had enough info to make an informed decision, I don't really see the harm done by using the wrong term.

Not really. Many remasters were cheaper than $60 and included all DLCs for the game. Some others were part of a collection and therefore a little more pricey.

$40 for a lazy port of a single game that doesn't include any DLC (because there wasn't any as far as I could find) is pretty poor. But hey, by spending that amount of money you're elegible to buy the upcoming DLCs from the Kickstarter stretch goals.



So much for all the defending given to Platinum over the years.
At least I wasn't wanting to buy this game. It is worse than just a port. The name demastering is good for it.



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

Maybe they will fix it through a patch. I do think they would have added a performance mode on the switch that lowers the res while docked to 720p and have it be 60fps assuming the gpu is the bottleneck.



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Around the Network

Is the basic complaint that the game isn't better than the original? Can't say I particularly care.



Barozi said:
JWeinCom said:

Aside from the use of the term remaster, I don't recall anything they said which would have lead one to expect a significant graphical overhaul. It's also being sold at $40, which is a bit cheaper than most "remasters" from that era IIRC.

So, I'd agree that they would have used another word in the title, but on the whole, anyone who does even a slight amount of research will be getting what they expect, so I'm not seeing a problem in that regard.

Like, taking myself as an example, I loved the game on Wii U, and I might have purchased it again if it had significant upgrades.  I had more than enough information to determine that it didn't have enough new content to warrant purchasing again.  Since I had enough info to make an informed decision, I don't really see the harm done by using the wrong term.

Not really. Many remasters were cheaper than $60 and included all DLCs for the game. Some others were part of a collection and therefore a little more pricey.

$40 for a lazy port of a single game that doesn't include any DLC (because there wasn't any as far as I could find) is pretty poor. But hey, by spending that amount of money you're elegible to buy the upcoming DLCs from the Kickstarter stretch goals.

Pretty much every Wii U port to Switch has been at least 50.  I'm pretty sure all of Sony's PS3 to PS4 ports have launched at full price.  Aside from games that are significantly older, I can't recall many remasters launching for cheaper.  I'm sure there are some, but that's the exception.  



I'd rather not



JWeinCom said:
Barozi said:

Not really. Many remasters were cheaper than $60 and included all DLCs for the game. Some others were part of a collection and therefore a little more pricey.

$40 for a lazy port of a single game that doesn't include any DLC (because there wasn't any as far as I could find) is pretty poor. But hey, by spending that amount of money you're elegible to buy the upcoming DLCs from the Kickstarter stretch goals.

Pretty much every Wii U port to Switch has been at least 50.  I'm pretty sure all of Sony's PS3 to PS4 ports have launched at full price.  Aside from games that are significantly older, I can't recall many remasters launching for cheaper.  I'm sure there are some, but that's the exception.  

You couldn't be more wrong.

Nathan Drake Collection was $60 for 3 games.
God of War III Remastered was $40.
MediEvil was $30.
The Last of Us Remastered was $50 (1 year old port with all DLCs included).
Quantic Dream Collection was $40 for 3 games.

3rd party remasters were cheaper as well.

Collections of Spyro, Crash, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed Ezio Collection included 3 games each for a maximum of $60 ($20 a game).
Metro, Batman Arkham, Assassin's Creed III, Borderlands, FFX/X-2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance included 2 games often below $60.

Single remasters were usually between $20 and $40 but pretty much every one of them had meaty DLCs that were included.



Heres my take:

This is an upscaled port, not a remaster and if this was CAPCOM... This thread would be 250 and replies long.

Ultimately ... who cares. I watched the video in its entirety (Dont think ive ever done that) I saw nothing "scumm" for a lack of a better world. Looks wonderful everywhere.