How come Nintendo doesn't get flack for re-releasing games?

what i mean when i say building a new game entirely is the remake is a complete overhaul of the game ie. brand new engine, textures etc. making minor texture upgrades doesnt constitute a remake, its a remaster

u know what a remake looks like, watch this

now look at this shit: it looks like n64 version with better colours. this barely qualifies as a remaster, looks fukin garbage

Actually they've been rereleasing games for a long time and Nintendo haters have always called the out for it.

My personal opinion: so long as it's not at full price, a great port/remaster and not lazy/unfnished, and not released a year or less form the original then I don't have a problem. In other words, it's case by case.

EDIT: And not the Square-Enix method either where FFIV is ported over and over again.

I can't speak on the Star Wars special editions since I have no experience with it, but the King Kong analogy does not hold up whatsoever. King Kong 1993 and 2005 are different interpretations of the same story with completely different aesthetics whereas MGS: TTS is not a new interpretation but rather is a visual upgrade (not a change in overall aesthetics) that brings the dramatic refinements of a later game to the basic same content. The only way I would entertain this analogy is if the level design was altered considerably and there were significant plot changes.

And like I said, OoT3D might not be a proper remake, but it's not a typical remaster either.

Remakes are different games because they start from producing. Just because it's the same story doesn't mean it's same game.

Are you saying Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet (1996) is same movie as George Cukor's Romeo and Juliet (1936)?

Looks like I'm still the only person to prefer Twin Snakes over PS1 Metal Gear.

It's not just the same story tho. It has the same environments, the same level design, you do the same tasks, progress in the same way, etc.

Romeo and Juliet is not a good comparison. The Baz Lhurmann version is an entirely different interpretation; it brings the same basic plot but plays with the time period. It is the same basic story as its core with but with a dramatically different aesthetic and some plot changes. Twin Snakes is literally the same story.

Same here. A lot more fun to play, and the cutscenes kick ass.

With entirely different mechanics. When you change something so fundamental like basic mechanics, yeah, it's a different game.

And besides, iirc, none of the graphical assets were reused.

The MM upgrade is not just minor texture modifications and it doesn't look like the 64 version. If you want to have a serious discussion like these other guys are, I'm willing to but I'm going to tell you right now that I'm not here for your usual shitposting.

I have nothing against remasters. The only thing that would annoy me is if they try and price those games like they are new titles. A remaster should cost no more than $29.99 tops.

BTW, you also forgot Star Fox 643D. Really wished they would make a Wii U port.

Don't agree with this at all. Changing the mechanics does not make up for a game having the same content. Different games have different levels and different scenarios. MGS: TSS does not. Making big changes and essentially being the same game are not mutually exclusive. That's why I say it has been rebuilt as a way of acknowledging the dramatic changes.

I don't see that it matters that the assets were not reused. The overall aesthetic is the same. They didn't reinterpret it in a different time period like Romeo and Juliet did.

I had a feeling I was missing some. Thanks.

Yeah. I never understood the complaint about those cutscenes. I thought they were more inline with Metal Gear than the Original, but whatever.

Exactly. Resident Evil: Remake used a completely different engine. With OOT and MM they just took the original game code and added new effects.

If gameplay is the most important thing in a game, changing it drastically means it's a re-interpretation.

All the changes to the characters accents and cutscenes were all Kojima approved. Even he thought that the original needed to fit more with the rest of the games.

@GreySeal9 said:

Are we really going to act like this is just a fresh coat of paint:

if that's not a a fresh coat of paint then what exactly it is?

Your definition of a reboot it's a remake. You make the entire game from scratch. Everything from graphics to gameplay is improved or re-done. Everything.

-RE's for example is a substantially different game to the first part on PS1. But it still has the same story, characters, etc.

-Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes. Essentially an entirely new game, which is why so many fans hate it with a passion. A remake.

A reboot it's a completely different thing that just shares a premise with the old idea.

-DMC is a reboot because it shares a premise but are entire different games.

-Tomb Raider's reboot. Doesn't even feels like a TB game, more like an Uncharted spin-off.

I don't understand why Nintendo didn't bother to do a complete remake of OOT. It is only considered one of the greatest games of all time. It deserves it.

I don't think drastic changes always equals a reinterpretation tho. The changes were made more in the spirit of refining the game so that it met the standards of later entries. A reinterpretation ala Romeo and Juliet would have to have to include at least some significant content changes IMO.

Also, there's no set rule that gameplay mechanics are more important than other elements. I actually think the visual element of a game is just as important.

I can't agree to that. It's a game; if the interactive element isn't the most important, then it loses its identity as a medium.

@Gue1 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

Are we really going to act like this is just a fresh coat of paint:

if that's not a a fresh coat of paint then what exactly it is?

@GreySeal9 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

lmao at people still dont understanding the difference between a remake and a remaster.

visually enhancments or minor adjustments to game = remaster

building a new game entirely = remake

no fukin way in hell is majora mask a remake, its a remaster plain and simple.

A remake does not build a new game entirely. It rebuilds an old game. Building an entirely new game is called a sequel or a reboot.

Can't believe I'm having this discussion.

Also, I didn't say MM and OoT are full on remakes but they are not garden variety remasters either.

your definition of a reboot it's a remake. You make the entire game from scratch. Everything from graphics to gameplay is improved or re-done.

-Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes. New game entirely compared to the PS1 version.

No, it's not a new game entirely. It has the same content. In what universe does the same levels, the same tasks, the same story, the same story progression=a new game entirely. It doesn't matter if it was made from scratch. It is still old content that is rebuilt.

I don't know why you're insisting on ridiculous absolutes.

Also, a fresh coat of paint is more like Wind Waker HD.

Not true at all. Its identity is in the marriage of visual and interactive elements, so neither have to be seen as being more important. After all, without the visuals, it wouldn't be a video game. It would be a different kind of game.

I dunno why you are wasting your time arguing with these guys. Going by their logic Kingdom Hearts HD was a full blown new game because they lost the original assets to the game and had to make them from scratch. If that is their logic, just give it up.. They will never understand.

I'm a bit bewildered by this "MGS: TTS is an entirely new game" logic too (shit makes no sense to me) but there's been some interesting discussion in here.

Great rebuttal to the whole "it was made from scratch argument" tho.

Probably because they deem it to expensive. OoT 3D was good enough IMO; the visual upgrade alone justifies its existence IMO.

Perhaps because Nintendo does not do that much frequently as do the others.

It happens so rarely that we can't help but get excited.

"Why doesn't nintendo get enough flak"

Gonna have to stop you right there.

I'm going by more of the production, mostly comparing with remasters.

Remakes require pretty much same production phase as a new game.

@bldgirsh: @bldgirsh: what a stupid excuse. You don't think the games to mentioned also help boost nintendo 's current library? To has a point here.

I've been looking at some Twin Snake's footage and this seems like even more of an exaggeration. TSS has a rather isometric view as well and the original is a stealth/action hybrid like the others. It's just more limited. The idea that the entire genre of the game changed is such nonsense; pulling back the camera a little bit (again, it's still a largely isometric camera view) and giving Snake new moves and more flexible movement does not a new genre make. Like I said, what they basically did is bring MSG1 roughly up to the standards of MGS2. They did not make a new game or they did not alter the original game's genre.

We're not arguing that it's not a remake tho. Similarly, I'm not arguing that OoT3D is a proper remake in the way that TSS is. What we're arguing against is the notion that MGS: TSS is an entirely new game. It's an old game that has been rebuilt; that's why it is called a remake and not a sequel or a reboot.

this forum is filled with hipsters. darksoul/witcher/bayonetta loving hipsters

Most of the time fans beg for remakes/remasters of old classics. Look at MM3D. Sheep have been begging Nintendo for a remake for years, and now its here.

Its not like Sony releasing a remastered year old game on PS4, just to fluff up its library.

All Twin Snakes really did was add the "Hang from the ledge" mechanic and First Person Aiming.

Other than that it was pretty much the same game with updated visuals and cutscenes.

I think you could sneak up behind dudes and grab them as well but maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

But yeah, you're right. It's the same game with dramatically updated visuals and cutscenes and an updated move set. This is not some wild reinterpretation of the way the game plays. It's a refinement/impovement of the core action in the same way that MGS 2 was but without the new story and content, it cannot be a brand new game.

@jg4xchamp: I don't think re - releasing games is a bad thing. Sw has been using that for ammo for some reason. Companies did that all the time before Gen 6 all the way to snes, whether it was ports or game collections. Mind you, we have seen a lot of re - releases since gen 7, but people forget how expensive games have become to produce and advertise. If people don't like it then don't buy it.

Twin snakes was a pretty big overhaul. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Even things as insignificant as the voice work were redone. I'm not gonna turn this into an MGS vs. TTS debate, but the games were different enough to cause years of debate as to which was truly the better package. Personally, I'm on the original MGS side. I feel Twin Snakes killed the atmosphere and that the gameplay "improvements" only served to break the game. You can't go adding in superior mechanics while leaving the level design largely the same. The only thing I preferred about TTS were the Grayfox scenes.... ok, so I'm starting into it when I said I wouldn't lol.

Anyways, here is a really cool video about the making of TTS.

@LegatoSkyheart: no I'm actually in the same boat but the ps1 version has a higher nostalgic value for me too.

You can't be serious. Nintendo is crucified on a daily basis by people for their supposed milkage. Even though fans are still screaming for more remakes and remasters of Nintendo IPs they have shown amazing restraint.

@ConanTheStoner: I'd LOVE to debate with you over this, but We are getting WAY too off topic with Metal Gear.

Remember when this thread was about Nintendo Re-Releases?

@The_Power_of_X: really? You're going to go there? Enjoy your moderation

Well re-releasing games on handhelds once they become powerful enough to handle it seems like a good idea to me.

Some of the old games deserve to be played by new gamers. I just started replaying OoT and it's as good as I remember. I have no doubt gamers that missed it the first time will love it now.

What bothers me is when games get re-released too soon. Like a year after release or something, it's just seems like a cynical cash in to me.

@ConanTheStoner: you're right about the atmosphere comment when they created twin snakes. However to me it wasn't as big of a problem because they reused a lot of the elements of sons of liberties that were present from that game. I welcomed the changes and didn't reject the remake like a lot of people. To me the blend of the two games was brilliant.

Games aside, and not to split hairs, but isn't the words 'remake' and 'reboot' interchangeable?

I was under the impression that a reboot is a new title in a franchise designed to give a stale or dormant franchise new life.

Yeah bros, I mean I enjoy both games. I'm not so invested in one or the other to the point of going ape shit about it like some people I've seen lol.

And I do believe TTS has its pros, I just personally prefer the original.... tbh, I'm not that much into MGS1 to begin with. It's an iconic game and a classic, but I'm more of a MGS2/MGS3 kinda guy.

Anyways, this is getting far off topic, so I'll just leave it at that.

Though given the loose nature of this forum, I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal if one of you bros decided to start a topic about it.

It's because of the Nintendo Defense League who are happy to bash any one and anything but are so blind to the faults of Nintendo they'd defend them for clubbing baby seals to death.