mZuzek said:
| UnderwaterFunktown said: While it's nice to have it available I'm also not fully won over by it. It does look better than I would have expected from a "remaster", but to get only the first game feels a bit underwhelming when both Wii and Wii U had the whole trilogy (digitally on the latter). Visually it looks more like a remake than a remaster, but that also just makes me wish that it was a full remake and not a faithful recreation of the same game. I would almost say I prefer "recreations" of games to either be the equivalent of enhanced ports where they shine up what they already have or full on remakes like the RE ones that are essentially whole new games, because the inbetween stuff just feels like a ton of work went into creating something we already have in a nicer packaging. |
I'm the opposite, I really don't like remakes that change the original dramatically, always disliked it in movies and am not a fan of games adopting that trend too. It just creates a mess, is my problem with it. Like as someone who's never played a Resident Evil game, RE2 seems like the most appealing one, but both the original and the remake are highly regarded by fans, so which one should I play? Normally I'd go with the newer version, but in this case it's weird because the new one is basically a different game altogether, so maybe I should just go with the original, but then I'm missing out on the nicer presentation and quality of life. So I guess I have to play both of them because they're different games, but they're not different games, they literally have the same name. It's a confused name at that point. I'd rather each game be what it is, if it's gonna be remade, it's still the same but better. Something we already have in a nicer packaging, like you put it. Besides, if you're gonna go through the whole trouble of making essentially a new game, you might as well make it actually an original game instead of a remake. The ideal remake/remaster for me is one that completely preserves the essence of the original, but with improved presentation, and additional options or quality of life features. Occasionally some gameplay changes can be okay, but only if really necessary, to improve things that needed improving. Metroid Prime Remastered hits that golden standard for me (outside of a few nitpicks), I'm really happy with it, and while I definitely want Prime 4 news and hopefully a release not too far away, I'd love to see Retro remaster the rest of the original trilogy with this level of care. |
I can definitely relate to that dilemma, but for me it's kind of the exact point that we end up with two different games, if you're gonna put a ton of effort into something I'd prefer if an actual new experience comes out of it. I can't really get too excited for simply a better looking version of something I've played before and probably could still boot up and replay now (of course if I haven't played the original as with you and RE then that doesn't apply though). But yeah it also boils down to the fact that even with games I like a lot, it very often feels like there's room for improvement and a purely visual remake feels like a wasted opportunity to do that, especially when it's built from the ground up. Of course there are some games where I might feel differently and think preserving the game as is would be best, but in that case I probably don't really feel like there's much reason to remake the game in the first place.
So yeah to me I guess I mostly see remakes as opportunities to take a game that's a "diamond in the rough" and keep the good elements while ironing out or completely changing the "rough". It's also why the games I most want to see remade aren't necessarily my absolute favorites, but instead games that I do like, but which I feel could have been better in some regards, Golden Sun and Persona 3 for example.
