Would you give up all remakes and remasters for more new games?
Chocobop last edited by Chocobop
The hypothetical choice is as follows: all remakes and remasters are retroactively removed from existence, and for each one that is removed a new game is released that would never had existed. Straight ports still exist, perhaps moreso in this timeline given the circumstances.
The purpose of the question is to honestly self-evalute how much remakes and remasters haved "mattered" to you -- beyond just being nice -- by trying to imagine what you would trade for them. If there is something else you would trade, feel free to offer.
Personally, I would make the trade. The vast majority of the time I feel the original would be an acceptable substitute if the remake or remaster didn't exist. "Acceptable" here meaning I expect to gain something by trading the (often) better version away, but it is small difference in the grand scheme of things. The original captured people's hearts in the first place, no?
A variant question: would you trade all remakes and remasters going forward, for something else you'd rather have ...? (i.e., do you feel remakes/remasters matter far less for games created after a certain date?)
E_Zed_Eh_Intern last edited by E_Zed_Eh_Intern
100% yes. I first thought about how good Link’s Awakening and Final Fantasy 7 remakes look (haven’t played either) but realized those could have been just as good if they were sequels.
Remasters can disappear. I know people sometimes say the remaster makes the older version of whatever amazing game it is unplayable but that’s just because a slightly improved version has been provided. Without that version, we would still play the original if it’s a game we love.
Twilight Princess, for example, the no-pause transform makes rhe GC version unplayable which may be fair but the pause transform doesn’t make the GC version unplayable on its own.
Also, as time goes on, we will get more and more remasters of the online-enabled generations where QoL changes could just be patched into the original so I feel like my opinion here will only become stronger.
Ringedwithtile last edited by
Absolutely. Creators and consumers are both super risk averse, it's one of the worst feedback loops in popular art.
Oscillator last edited by
Of course. I don't think I've even seen a remake/remaster that did not make unnecessary changes and lose some of its heart in the process.
bam541 last edited by bam541
I'm personally fine with the way things are right now, so I don't think I would take the trade. I like remake and remasters because I think it's beneficial for more people to be able to easily play games from the past, and I don't think straight ports are enough since they can lack a few quality of life features that would ease the experience. From my personal experience, even if it turns out that I didn't like the game, I usually can take away something else from it. Most importantly I like seeing how game design trends have changed from time to time. I especially advocate for remake or remasters of lesser known titles. New games and experiences will always be number 1, of course, but I enjoy taking a trip to the past every once in a while. I don't think the market is too saturated with remakes/remaster yet.
JDINCINERATOR last edited by
I would be happy giving up all remakes and remasters for new videogame experiences yes-but that's provided that they are actually new videogame experiences and not games that ride on the coattails of other great games. We don't need more games set in New York, London or any other city or place we've been to a thousand times before in videogames. I don't want to see more looter shooters with numbers and health bars or open-world games with boring repetitive objectives and tasks. Of course keep the staple franchises that work and are brilliant, but those milked franchises can go do one.
Phbz last edited by Phbz
Theoretically yes, but the market is where's at because people love familiarity. Be it through remakes, known franchises or at best something new that uses a familiar formula.
I got a couple of friends who game but are very casual. They simply can not play something that's not one of the big Sony exclusives or whatever is the new Assassin's Creed. I honestly try, occasionally I buy them a game I love, that's not a 3rd person adventure, and they always give up fairly quickly. Even Death Stranding and Shadow of the Colossus were "too much" for them. There are a few exceptions, they loved Inside but that's about it. Ah and Zelda BotW, I gave them a Switch (I had one that didn't function as a portable due to a water incident) and lend them my copy and it became their favourite game of all time.
That is to say that I would love to see companies investing 100 millions in the next Outer Wilds, but we gamers, as a whole, love familiarity. And for the companies is great if they can build stuff on top of old code, or have the narrative already sorted out for them. It's easy money and low risk.
I'm more in favour of remasters personally, keep the game as close as possible to the original, make small tweaks if needed. But on the other hand, I played Shadow of the Colossus through the remake and I probably wouldn't otherwise, and it became one of my favourite games ever.
My answer is no. There are enough games as-is and I don’t need more new games or even new revolutionary experiences when there is so much out there ready to be played.
I kinda wish there were more remasters and remakes tbh. Give me the whole PlayStation library on one system. I’ll take that over getting any new games for like 3 years.
Scotty last edited by Scotty
Nope. I would take the remakes of my beloved games with the current technology over new risky thing that I don't know if I will love. Of course, I'm talking about really old games(10+ years) not The Last of Us kind of ridiculous attempts.
DMCMaster last edited by
One the one hand getting more resources put towards new projects is great.
On the other I love seeing remakes of beloved games as a sorta "see how far we've come " type mentality. Not to mention we would miss out on remakes that surpass the original, REmake, Nier Replicant 1.2, Typing of the Dead (It's sorta a remake), Bluepoint's Shadow of the Colsus, FF7R and others I'm probably forgetting.
That said I do wish the remakes included the original in some form or another.
New games are going to get made regardless. Give me the updated classics.
Chocobop last edited by
For those that don't want to make the hypothetical trade, does that mean you would accept the reverse trade? Meaning: Would you retroactively remove from existence a number of new games that you've played, and for each one that is removed you gain a remake or remaster that would not have existed otherwise? I think if you answer 'yes', but where you are only willing to give up mediocre and so-so new games, it would say something about the value of remakes in a different way.
I can safely say that I would give up every PS4 exclusive except for maybe Uncharted 4, Bloodborne, and Yakuza 0 in order to get a remaster or remake of my PS2/PS3/PS1 library of favourites.
It's not even a hard question for me. I'll trade Dark Souls 3 and Sekiro for Smackdown vs Raw and Smackdown! Here Comes The Pain playable on PS5.
I'll trade Spider-Man, Lost Legacy, The Last Guardian, AND God of War for SOCOM II Remastered on PS5. Hell I'd trade those for Sony to just flip the switch so I can play online on PS2 again.
Scotty last edited by
I would agree to delete every game that I don't love for the older games' remakes that I love so dearly.
bam541 last edited by bam541
For those that don't want to make the hypothetical trade, does that mean you would accept the reverse trade?
I might accept individual trades, but generally I would say no. I love looking back every once in a while, but I would not let myself stumble on something and fall down to do so, y'know. Also, I don't really want to give up only mediocre new games, because like I said before I can take away many things from a game even if I don't really care for it.
Mbun last edited by
As long as the new games don't have to be new IP, then yes. There's lots of games I'm waiting to come back, and very few of them do I want in a Remaster / Remake format. Just give me a new entry.
I would trade every game in the Games as a Service/Live Service "genre" for full HD remakes of Treasure's entire back catalog.
On the note of remakes and remasters; I wish sports games got remastered too. Don't touch it up too much cause I want that PS2 medium-low poly model of Allen Iverson, but I'm so over NBA2K, Madden, and NHL. I'd love to just freshen up NHL 2001 with the stacked Colorado Avalanche, or NBA Live 2004 with Kobe, Shaq, AI, Tim Duncan, etc in their prime.
The gameplay was actually better in many ways back then. The pace of those early NBA games were so fast and fun. I'll trade the entire NBA2K series from 2013-present to get a remaster of NBA Live 2004 or 2005.
@dipset You don't want to know what I'd do for a proper NFL Blitz remake.
If I recall correctly, EA purchased the Blitz IP then made a shitty PSN version of NFL Blitz that completely misses the point. I don't think NFL would allow it in this post-CTE world.
I would die for a spiritual successor with legally different enough "NFL" franchises and a lot of that RPG stuff from Blitz The League where I can choose to give a player steroid injections in his knee or not lmao.
Hot off the presses but my partner's workplace is getting rid of some old CRT's in June so I might FINALLY be able to get a CRT so I can play my old games (NFL Blitz being one of them). I can't wait. Might not want all of these remasters if I can just play them as god intended on the CRT.
BrawlMan last edited by
@el-shmiablo Ding, ding! This thread over! I'd trade in for that or, nearly every Western-lootbox-live-service garbage for more quality AA and smaller/indie games. Those games get physical versions too, unless they have them already.