Nintendo gets HD remakes

[Matthew Jabour]

If there's one thing I really despise about triple-A games these days, it's HD remakes. Increase the polygon count a bit, and suddenly you've got a whole new meal ticket. And all the big name software companies seem to do this. A few years back, Microsoft released Halo: Anniversary Edition for the Xbox 360, despite the fact that a) the original was still fully playable on 360, and b) it still didn't look that good. At least Sony had the good grace to package multiple games together, but no matter how many God of War games you put in the same box, it still barely requires any work. Like a famous singer in a career slump, who sings a few Christmas Carols, and then puts them in an album and expects you to pay full price.

And what bothers me so much is that these remakes don't add anything. (In the case of the Silent Hill remakes, in fact, they actually detract a few things.) Your entire net gain from the purchase of a High Definition Remake is measured in pixels. And yet you're still expected to pay top dollar. Tomb Raider, in particular - a game that came out about a year ago, and whose memories went stale in record time for me - is expecting a full $60 just to see slightly better graphics. After 1 year. Despicable.

And yet, Nintendo is the one company that I allow to get away with remakes. You want to know why? Because they add things. They fix things. They make their products better. The recent Wind Waker game is only one example of this. Another case: Mario 64 DS. They could've just fine-tuned the character models and called it a day, but instead they put in way more work than they had to. 30 extra stars. 3 new playable characters. Multiplayer. Minigames. And they even had the courtesy to remove some of the game's worse levels. A remake that improves on everything, not just graphics? What sorcery is this?

Even when it's not overt, they still have a way of making you feel like you got your money's worth. Take the GBA port of Super Mario World. From a purely aesthetic point of view, they didn't add much. Same levels, same system, not much new. But this avoids being a simple exercise in repackaging for a few major reasons:
1. The re-release came out almost ten years later than the original, so it had a reason to exist; namely, to educate a new batch of youngsters (myself included) about all things Mario.
2. It came with a port of the original Mario Bros. game, with some completely new levels and enemies, right on the cartridge.
3. It was for a handheld system, so not only was it offered in a whole new manner, but it also asserts that it is not a full-on console game and not worth a full-on console price.

I'm sure you all have your opinions on HD remakes. Please leave them below, I love discussion. I'm just calling it the way I see it. While most other companies are perfectly okay with releasing the same game in three-year intervals, Nintendo is willing to put in some effort. It's almost like the producer makes things that the consumer would want to buy, instead of the other way around.

 

[Roxas1359]

So...obviously you've not played the Kingdom Hearts HD collection and seen how much work was put into it I assume? While yes, there are companies that will put out lazy HD remakes, just thinking that no work is done on them is completely false, especially in the case of PS2 HD collections for the PS3 since PS3 uses a retarded Cell processing system. Sure you can port just the graphics, but you must also code the game correctly for the new system.
In Kingdom Hearts Final Mix HD for example, nearly the entire game had to be completely rebuilt since the developer data for Kingsom Hearts Final Mix was almost entirely lost, believe it was a sever fire or something that happened ages ago. The 1.5 HD ReMix had entirely new models, a redone soundtrack, and gameplay tweaks done for it in the terms of Kingdom Hearts Final Mix HD. Then you have the fact that 358/2 Days HD, while not a full game per say, had to have a lot of work done because not only is it a remake, it's a remake of a Nintendo DS game so everything from sound, to the models, to the voice acting had to be redone.

And to defend Halo Anniversary, have you even played an original Xbox game on the 360? They suffer from terrible drops in frame rate that can make some games damn near unplayable, plus had it's weapons rebalanced, sound and music redone, hidden in-game collectables to be found, and supported online multiplayer which the original Halo did not support. Plus the option to go back to how the games original graphics were was a nice little touch.

I also find it funny how you go against the Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition, despite it being purposely made for being the 10th anniversary of Halo 1, and later say it's a good thing that Nintendo did it for a Mario game because it'd been 10 years? The point of HD remakes generally are to have the games survive because they aren't going to be playable in the future by chance. I mean if it weren't for Wind Waker HD then you'd never be able to play Wind Waker on your Wii U unless you modify it because the Wii U doesn't support GameCube games. If you look at Mario 64 DS, it was released for the DS because at the time the VC wasn't even in existence and you can't play a cartridge on your GameCube (unless you have that badass modified GameBoy Player) or your Wii. Heck, Zelda OoT on the GameCube was made because you can't play cartridges on the GameCube and Nintendo wanted OoT to live on (albeit there are frame rate issues and known crashing bugs in the Forest Temple).

All in all, Nintendo aren't the only ones who know how to put time into an HD port, and GD ports aren't as simple as just tweaking graphics a bit and then releasing it. Often times some games have to be completely reworked to include the new styles of controls or have to be reworked because the system doesn't recognize the old ways how games used to run. This is especially the case with the PS2 because it had many parts of it simultaneously running while having the game go, and many of those parts do not exist in the PS3. How good an HD remake depends on how long and how much work is put into it, and Nintendo isn't the only company that puts time into HD remakes like how your OP tries to convey. Before they were called HD collections, they were simply called ports, and just as always a port is only good depending on how much time is spent on it by the company. Was MediEvil Ressurection a terrible port for the PSP, no not by a long shot as it redid many things well. Now if we were to talk about lazy ports for HD then the Sonic Adventure games are a great example of a lazy port, or the initial port of FF VII to PC last year that was botched because PCs no longer read .MIDI files anymore with needing assistance unlike in the 90's. Hell in modern day gaming all systems can stream music now, so they don't have to rely on bit-crunched .MIDI files anymore, which is why I was disappointed that Wind Waker HD decided to not update it's sound quality to not be .MIDI files. Bierce me, there is a huge difference between streamed music and .MIDI files.

 

[Casual Shinji]

While most other companies are perfectly okay with releasing the same game in three-year intervals, Nintendo is willing to put in some effort.

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

 

[josemlopes]

Did you seriously call Halo Anniversary a bad remake? It offered HD, it offered new visuals, kept the same exact gameplay and it offered the ability to play with the same old visuals. The only problem really was the multiplayer but the singleplayer was the best example of a good remake by keeping everything of the old and adding new optional stuff.

Wind Waker HD was visually terrible with all that bloom, the option to switch it off in the press of a button would be nice, no?

If a remake doesnt let you play the game as it was originally I dont really think that its a good remake, its cool to have new stuff but keep all that optional in case the player wants the original experience (wich one is better is subjective)

 

[lapan]

While most other companies are perfectly okay with releasing the same game in three-year intervals, Nintendo is willing to put in some effort.

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

He was talking about HD-remakes specifically, don't just quote him out of context

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Not every HD remake requires that you pay out $60 for it. Both Final Fantasy X | X-2 and Tales of Symphonia Chronicles are priced at $40 and they both offer two games. To be more accurate, Final Fantasy X | X-2 is a remaster with completely redrawn textures for the entirety of both games. X |X-2 may not be everyone's favorite titles in the series, but I think they're being pretty awesome about it. Tales of Symphonia Chronicles is even adding new costumes for everyone. Guy for Lloyd, Luke for Genis, Alvin for Zelos, Ludger for Kratos, Elize for Presea, Judith for Sheena, Malik for Regal and Pascal for Raine. Nintenderp isn't the only one releasing some pretty awesome remakes.

As for Silent Hill HD Collection, that was created from unfinished beta builds. As evidenced by Kingdom Hearts Final Mix HD, HD remakes can be done from scratch. SHHD was just done with a slough of terrible decisions.

And to defend Halo Anniversary, have you even played an original Xbox game on the 360? They suffer from terrible drops in frame rate that can make some games damn near unplayable, plus had it's weapons rebalanced, sound and music redone, hidden in-game collectables to be found, and supported online multiplayer which the original Halo did not support. Plus the option to go back to how the games original graphics were was a nice little touch.

You sure the weapons were rebalanced? As I understood it, the game was left entirely untouched, barring a graphical update. I even played it, myself, and weapons seemed to work identical to the original version(which made me happy because I love pistols and the original Halo is the only one where pistols are worth a damn). Though I agree in defense of Halo Anniversary. It ran really well and the updated graphics were gorgeous, in my book.

 

[default]

Agreed with most here in regards to Halo Anniversary. I fucking loved that thing. Excellently remixed punchy sound and music, wonderful visuals that captured (mostly) the feel of the original levels and designs, tons of detail added to the environments and effects, hidden skulls on every level and an unshamedly massive dollop of nostalgia really brought that game home for me. True, it wasn't perfect. Some of the animation in the remade cutscenes was god awful and there were some very cheesy gestures (The Flood is spreading, but we can wipe them out! *while making a gesture like he's wiping off a window*) but apart from that I had a good time.

True there are some bad eggs in the HD remake basket, but Nintendo is far from the only one who does it well.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Can you really say that the market for HD remakes is made up of a majority that played the games when they first came out?

I bought the HD remakes of the Serious Sam games on Xbox Live; hadn't played the games before, the remade graphics are *really* good (judging by screenshots I've seen of the originals), and not too expensive either. I'd say I'm right in the target market.

 

[xPixelatedx]

And what bothers me so much is that these remakes don't add anything.

I have not played my copy of WindWaker HD yet, but if I remember reading correctly, they added a higher difficulty setting. This is something every Zelda game desperately needs. I would consider that "adding something". I really hope we get another version of Twilight Princess with this.

 

[The_Echo]

I'm sure you all have your opinions on HD remakes.

Here's the thing; they aren't remakes.

Super Mario 64 DS is a remake. Its graphics were modified to make use of the new hardware, and added new content to show what the DS was capable of (the touchscreen minigames, making a big game bigger, etc.). It's practically an entirely different game. Another notable game remake is Cave Story+, which added enhanced graphics, a remastered soundtrack and additional content in the form of challenges and time trials.

Devil May Cry HD is a rerelease with some upscaling and an aspect ratio which make it look better on HD televisions. The original game is left intact.

Wind Waker HD is a weird in-between I can only compare to Kingdom Hearts Final Mix HD; updated visuals while also modifying the game to iron out certain issues the original release had.

Anyway, that's what an HD "remake" is. A rerelease. And you are not expected to buy it; I'm thoroughly convinced these games are rereleased so that people who didn't play them before can do so now, on the modern consoles they're more likely to own. The same concept is behind the PSone and PS2 Classics section of the PSN store.

I was a kid during the previous generation, and as such I didn't have a lot of money with which to buy games or even gaming magazines. So I missed out on a lot. I never got to play the third Jak or Sly games, never touched Devil May Cry or God of War.

Then we have HD rereleases like God of War Origins Collection, which released those games on a platform people were more likely to own, or Kingdom Hearts HD I.5 ReMIX and the upcoming II.5 which consolidate a franchise notorious for platform-hopping and finally release the definitive editions of each game in all territories.

If you think the Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection was released for the fans, you're looking at it the wrong way.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I actually liked Final Fantasy's two remakes.

The game looked beautiful, the soundtrack was amazing, and the FMVs were breath-taking, especially that one near the end of 2 (which didn't make me cry).

Do I like the game?

No, they're two wastes of time spotted with a few good moments. I wanted to be able to play as Yuna in the remakes; that's pretty much what everyone wanted. That, and these two versions are the only ones available on the VITA, which is handheld. And Okami, which was also a really good remake, perhaps by virtue of being on the VITA.

the console it's ported on can make a huge difference, to both audience, and how the game generally works.

 

[Drummodino]

So...obviously you've not played the Kingdom Hearts HD collection and seen how much work was put into it I assume?

This sums up my thoughts rather nicely. Not all HD re-releases are soulless cash-ins, some of them have real heart and effort put into them. Kingdom Hearts 1.5 gives you an insane amount of value for your dollar, giving you two full PS2 games upgraded into glorious HD plus a DS game movie.

I love HD remakes for two reasons:

1) A chance to play my favorite nostalgiac titles with tighter controls and much-improved visuals (seriously check Kingdom Hearts out it is GORGEOUS). Also since I sold my previous consoles I can't even play the originals anymore, so getting my hands on them again is great.

2) It gives me the chance to play critically acclaimed titles that I missed in the past. I had never played Shadow of the Colussus until 2012 but it is now one of my favorite games thanks to the HD re-release. Similarly I am looking forward to playing Final Fantasy X, X-2 and Kingdom Hearts 2.5 since I never did back in the day.

Sure there are some bad examples of HD re-releases (Silent Hill, Ratchet Deadlocked) but on the whole I am a huge fan of the concept and I hope they continue.

 

[Roxas1359]

You sure the weapons were rebalanced? As I understood it, the game was left entirely untouched, barring a graphical update. I even played it, myself, and weapons seemed to work identical to the original version(which made me happy because I love pistols and the original Halo is the only one where pistols are worth a damn). Though I agree in defense of Halo Anniversary. It ran really well and the updated graphics were gorgeous, in my book.

Eh to me it felt like some of the things were less powerful, but that's probably me forgetting things, but my other points still stand. Plus, wasn't Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary always only $40? I don't know where the OP lives, but I don't think I've every seen and HD remake cost $60. At most I've seen one cost $50, and that's Wind Waker HD. Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 ReMix cost only $40 from the get-go, as will the Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Collection. Ratchet and Clank HD, while having some annoying bugs at times, was $30 at launch as was the Sly Cooper HD Collection and the Jak and Daxter HD Collection. The Metal Gear Solid HD Collection was $50 at launch, and the HD Collections of God of War have never topped $40 to my knowledge.

I also find it funny that the OP has a picture from God of War as his avatar, yet he calls out the HD collections of those games as being "cheap" as in not being good. Has the OP ever played a PSP on an HDTV and forcefully stretched the PSP to go full screen all together, since no PSP game can do that? It looks terriblewith a capital T. Luckily for the HD collection of the handheld games they could just reuse a model from on of the other collections, but even then the price has never been $60 for one of those remakes. This is also not mentioning the fact that in many of these collections you are getting 1-3 completely different games in these collections as well.

 

[Andy Shandy]

You let Nintendo "get away" with things you don't let Microsoft or Sony? What a shock!

Anyway, I love HD remakes for the most part. They're competitively priced (I've never seen a full price HD Collection) versions of games I loved or never got to try out from previous generations, without giving me the massive fucking headaches I would get if I tried to play the originals on the TV I have now.

Tomb Raider, in my opinion, is the shitty exception, not the rule when it comes to remakes.

 

[shrekfan246]

While most other companies are perfectly okay with releasing the same game in three-year intervals, Nintendo is willing to put in some effort.

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

He was talking about HD-remakes specifically, don't just quote him out of context

Of course, the problem with that being that only one company in question has ever released "the same game" within a "three-year interval", and that's a pretty debatable position because it's Tomb Raider and it's just a port to new systems, not an "HD remake".

I actually liked Final Fantasy's two remakes.

The game looked beautiful, the soundtrack was amazing, and the FMVs were breath-taking, especially that one near the end of 2 (which didn't make me cry).

Do I like the game?

No, they're two wastes of time spotted with a few good moments. I wanted to be able to play as Yuna in the remakes; that's pretty much what everyone wanted. That, and these two versions are the only ones available on the VITA, which is handheld. And Okami, which was also a really good remake, perhaps by virtue of being on the VITA.

the console it's ported on can make a huge difference, to both audience, and how the game generally works.

Wait what?

I'll assume you're talking about Final Fantasy X, given your mention of Yuna and the Vita, but... you do play as her in X-2 and the virtue of Final Fantasy games means you basically play as her in X as well. Lord knows she's one of the few actual main characters of the game.

And Okami HD isn't on the Vita. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it on the Vita, but it's not as of right now.

Anyway...

OT: You know a primary difference between the HD rereleases other companies release compared to Nintendo's as well?

They're a lot cheaper.

Okami HD costs $15 to buy right now.

Metal Gear Solid HD Collection cost about $40 on release (maybe $50, I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure I got it for $40) for three (five if you count the original two Metal Gear games) games, one of which had to be redone to use a second control stick because it was originally on the PSP.

Kingdom Hearts HD cost $40 for two games and the story from a third, at least two of which had to be redone because of unusable assets.

As good as Wind Waker is, it's one game. Same with Super Mario 64. And Nintendo is too hard-assed to let their games ever go far under $30.

If you think the Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection was released for the fans, you're looking at it the wrong way.

Honestly, I'd say it's about half and half.

I bought Okami HD despite still owning a working PS2 and copy of the PS2 game. Same with Shadow of the Colossus. Because it's just more convenient for me to not have to mess with cables and the PS3 looks better on my HD TV. I bought the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection because I had never played those games and really wanted to.

Obviously I'm not indicative of everyone, but while I agree with the notion that these remakes aren't being done for the express purpose of getting more money out of people who already own the games, I disagree with the belief that they aren't made for fans at all.

 

[Pixelspeech]

I really liked your explanation here and I agree almost completely, though I would argue some other companies have done it right too. Nicalis remade Cave Story as Cave Story+ seven years after the original game, for example, which is now one of my favorite games ever.

 

[michael87cn]

The only reason to buy a remake is if you can't find a way to play the original, or its less expensive to.

Or you have too much money, in which case I don't think you have to care about anything that you buy.

 

[stroopwafel]

If you think the Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection was released for the fans, you're looking at it the wrong way.

Many/most of the games re-released in HD have either archaic controls or gameplay that is simply outdated(Silent Hill, DMC, MGS etc.). That is not to say they are 'bad' games(hence many were brilliant and remain popular for good reasons), it's just that they are usually a step back in controls and/or design philosophy. As such these titles are usually less accessible for new players accustomed to modern games. They may have gotten an HD facelift but they still play like they did 10+ years ago, and with games being an evolving medium..

So yeah I think these HD re-releases are made with a good portion of the 'old' players in mind. That is not to say 'modern' gamers can't enjoy these games, and they should, but the actual age of the game is something to be considered when playing it. I do think gamers or even developers can learn a thing or two from these games espescially when it comes to compensating for technical limitations with something else, such as the kick-ass haunting atmosphere of SH2(one of the most atmospheric games ever made of which the dumbasses at Konami lost the original code for which is what in large part led to the bothched HD re-release).

If anything these old games also prove it doesn't necessarily take a 100 million dollars to produce a classic. But anyways with HD re-releases I tend to only enjoy the games I played when they originally came out, b/c despite popular opinion and as far as gameplay is concerned games have gotten better. Espescially with action games you just notice how much better they have gotten over the years.