By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How old does a game need to be to warrant a remake?

So I was reading the news about a Dead Space remake and much like the rumored The Last of Us remake before it, my initial reaction was: "This game isn't old enough to get a remake!". To me PS3/360 games still look and play fine today. Maybe it's because I've never been that much of a graphics whore but I don't see the appeal in remakes of 10-12 year old games. 

On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the Resident Evil 2 and Final Fantasy VII remakes and never doubted their relevance. From reference the gap between these games and their remakes was 21 and 23 years respectively, so it seems that for me 20 years is sort of a sweet spot to consider remakes "worth it".

What's your idea of the perfect gap between original and remake?



Signature goes here!

Around the Network

Well none of the early 360 games aged well (2005-2007ish) so I'd be happy with an Oblivion or Bioshock remake.
Dead Space on the other hand released in 2008 and has aged much better since devs had more time with the console tech. When the remake releases, it will be 14 - with delays maybe 15 years old. That doesn't seem so bad but not really necessary. I guess they just wanted to get away from DS3 and make a fresh start.

A The Last of Us remake sounds idiotic though when the sequel released just a year ago.



No specific time frame. The original just has to be outdated in gameplay and/or graphics so that a remake can bring the game into the modern age of games.

Both the original versions of RE2 and FF VII look and feel archaic and outdated.
The Last of Us and Dead Space still look great (can't comment on how they play, never did so), they don't seem to need a modernised version because they didn't age enough for that.



Well, not many remakes are ever "warranted".
I would say most remakes need a bare minimum of a console generation (5-8 years), but two console generations (10-14 years) is usually a better idea.
If The Last of Us didn't get a PS4 remaster in 2014 (only a year after its PS3 release), I could understand remaking it already in the early 2020s. But the PS4 release in particularly has aged very well, especially when you play it on a PS4 Pro or PS5.
Xenoblade Chronicles got a remake 10 years after its initial Japanese release, 9 years after the European release, and 8 years after the North American release. Considering that game was so held back graphically by the Wii, more than enough time had passed.
A lot of Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii U titles don't really "warrant" remakes yet. But the Wii, 6th generation consoles and earlier? Go for it. I'd like to see more fifth generation remakes in particular.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 125 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 122 mil (was 100 then 130 million) Xbox One: 50 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

The only thing a game needs to be remade or remastered is research indicating there is a big enough crowd out there that will buy it if it is remade/remastered. There are entire studios that focus entirely on remaking old games so the teams that made those games can continue making new content. It gives them work/pay, gives the gamers who want those games remastered/remade satisfaction, and allows more money to go into development of new games by whoever publishes it. Win-Win-Win



Around the Network

It needs to be at least 20 years old, and it needs to stay as true to the original as possible.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

It needs to be at least 20 years old, and it needs to stay as true to the original as possible.

Do you dislike Final Fantasy VII Remake? 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Metallox said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

It needs to be at least 20 years old, and it needs to stay as true to the original as possible.

Do you dislike Final Fantasy VII Remake? 

I dislike it in the sense that, if you wanna play Final Fantasy VII, you can't do it by playing the remake. They're basically two completely different games. I haven't played either, to be honest, and the remake interests me more than the original. But it's annoying to me when there's a game I wanna play, but it's massively outdated, and it does have a remake/remaster but that new version changes key things to the point where it's not really the same game anymore.

Personally I always want remakes to stay as true to the original as possible. Though if you're gonna change it, honestly I'd rather they take the FFVIIR route and just make it entirely different, rather than something like Pokémon OR/AS where it's still generally the same game but with enough changes that it just feels... uncanny.



I don't think there is any specific age.

But a game does warrant a remake when there are tangible benefits to doing so, not just from a visuals perspective but quality of life gameplay updates thanks to new technology.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

mZuzek said:
Metallox said:

Do you dislike Final Fantasy VII Remake? 

I dislike it in the sense that, if you wanna play Final Fantasy VII, you can't do it by playing the remake.

Alright, you got me with that sentence, it's a nice way to put it. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.