I was thinking about Silent Hill and Gears of War Ultimate edition. I also read some opinions on this. Would you rather the foggy feel of the originals, or the new and improved clear graphics with great lighting of the remaster or remake.
I was thinking about Silent Hill and Gears of War Ultimate edition. I also read some opinions on this. Would you rather the foggy feel of the originals, or the new and improved clear graphics with great lighting of the remaster or remake.
Depends on the execution.
Resident Evil (1) remake I think not only captured it, but greatly improves upon it to the point, only play the OG game for nostalgia. Completely superceeds it.
And then have something like Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes, which lacks the atmosphere, visuals tone, music score and adds a bunch of gameplay that it wasn't designed for. The PS1 OG is better, by alot.
Remasters I think tend to be more successful as they are restructures rather than from scratch.
Quake II: Remaster is how you remember Quake in your head. It's the original game with everything on every level, improved, with additional content on top.
Likewise the Tomb Raider: Remastered Collection attains the same game to a slightly lesser degree, opting to keep in brain dead AI.
Long bla bla bla bla
Depends on execution.
Gears UE is like a brand-new game with new levels and missions not seen in any other Gears game so, just sayin. :P
I like having both options. Sometimes I prefer the newer one, sometimes the old one. There were some games where the remaster was missing certain effects and bonus content (Ninja Gaiden), or the remake made the art style worse on some 2D sprite based games (many early XBLA games). Sometimes a remake can ruin the controls and playability of a game (Sonic Origins).
Sometimes the remake/remaster can become the definitive version of the game with many quality of life improvements too, such as overcoming a limited save system, eliminating load times, allowing you to map controls and preference for invert Y or not, important bug fixes or fail state fixes, and sometimes they can look drastically better.
I don't think I've ever had any gripes with a remake or remaster. RE4make was excellent. Bluepoints glorious day in corp Demon Souls Remake was *Chefs kiss* beautiful. Spyro: Reignited trilogy was just a fresh coat of paint, but I liked the updated look. No problems on my end. :)
They certainly can. Easier to do so with a remaster then a remake though. Some remakes that definitely did it for me were:
- Resident Evil 1, 2, 4 remakes
- Gears of War Ultimate Edition
- Final Fantasy VII Remake, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth
RE4 remake nott only capture but also improve the game in literally every way making it one of the greatest Third person action game of all time.
It really depends on the game. The biggest thing for me is art style, if it's lost completely then it's a loss. ie: Halo CE vs CEA. But if it's a fresh take ala RE '96 to REmake, I can accept it as its own thing. TLOU to TLOU Part I is something a lot more faithful, also welcomed.
99% of the time I prefer the originals. When a game is remade it loses most/all of the appeal of the originals.
There is only 1 remake I have seen that I would actually buy and it's a fan made game where the guy hopes it will be noticed by the original publisher of the game so he can call it its original name, and be published by them, so it becomes an official remake.
Can't really expound further upon what people have already said. Certain games certainly nail the feel (remakes less so), but it's always a case-by-case basis. For example, the new MGS3 remake looks a bit off and sterile in the new version, but supposedly has a feature with the "old" visual filter (works with both control schemes).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment