Nintendo gets HD remakes

[st0pnsw0p]

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.

Except none of the HD remakes that I've heard of, from Sony or otherwise, expect you to pay full price for the game(s). Pretty much all of them have been priced at $40. Only Wind Waker HD has a full $60 price, which is bullshit because most of the work was already done for them. Sure they may have added some stuff and fixed some problems with the original, but you're still paying a full $60 for a game that's more than 10 years old. Paying $40 for two 7-year-old games is a better value by far, even if they don't have extra levels or fix every issue the original had.

 

[Roxas1359]

Well, fair enough. I mean, I have explained exactly why I don't feel a Halo remake makes any sense, but if the explanation doesn't work for you, I suppose I can't really change that. Good day to you, sir.

Saying it's bad because of backwards compatibility is like saying Super Mario 64 DS is bad because you still own a Nintendo 64. Or, perhaps more relevantly, like saying the Metroid Prime Trilogy for the Wii was a bad idea because you still had the Gamecube versions of the first two Metroid Prime games, which could be played perfectly well on a Wii.

Either side can make the argument and it doesn't become more legitimate just because you happen to be on a particular side.

I would disagree there. Your point about Mario 64 DS is illogical; its purpose is that you can play it if you have a DS, but not an N64. I'll give you some more points for the Metroid Prime Trilogy, but it's still significant because the control scheme was entirely different and, arguably, much better. Sounds a little petty, I know, but with the Halo game, you could literally put the old Halo in your Xbox 360, pick up an Xbox 360 controller, and play it. That is what I mean when I say it serves no purpose.

But again, you have your convictions, and I have mine. Neither of us will likely convince the other.

And if you were to actually put Halo 1 in your 360 then you'd get terrible frame rate, have to stretch the screen since it only supports 4:3, and it doesn't have online for it. Giving Nintendo a pass even though all the Prime Teilogy has is 16:9 support, added graphics, and uses the Wiimote, but not the Halo Anniversary Collection does indeed make you seem like a Nintendo fanboy.
Remember, and HD collection/remake is nothing more than a port, and from your posts you're basically saying "Nintendo are the only ones who make good ports" which is completely false. Even if you were only talking the Tomb Raider port to the PS4 and Xbox One, that isn't an "HD remake" and even if it was it is the only instance of being charged full-price for the same game but with added effects, because as both I and others in this thread have pointed out, no other HD collection has ever cost $60 at launch.

 

[wolfehound22]

Most of the HD remakes come out at a cheaper price point. You got God of War 1 & 2 for $40, Sly 1,2 & 3 for $40, Ratchet 1-4 $40. The graphics were better, but there wasn't much else. That said getting multiple games for that price point is awesome. Plus to those who owned a PS3, and didn't have a PS2 anymore, this was the only way you could play these games anymore. Yes some are cash grabs, but not all.

As far as the new Tomb Raider, yes it is troubling, but I also look at this as any other "Game of the Year" release. You see it all the time. 1-2 years later, they release the "Game of the Year" game with all of the dlc, and the $60 price point, and this is no different, other than they are actually doing some touch up to the graphics. Too I love this idea, not entirely, but at least those that missed Tomb Raider the first time around, and no longer have a PS3 or 360, will have the opportunity to play them on the new consoles.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Dare I say it, but I think you are clutching at straws and biased in selecting which ones you deem fit. Either HD updates are bunk cash grabs or they are valid means of re-selling a game. Can't have it both ways, sir. And for you to suggest that no other dev puts in as much as Nintendo in HD remakes is also reaching. Nintendo also got to the HD game party really late, how easily Nintendo fans seem to forget.

Some people seem to be doing this same rubbish with stuff like micro-transactions, claiming that they were a MS idea first and thus are bunk (poppycock). But when Nintendo start doing them (if you look closely, you'll see traces of this), they somehow get a pass, because their sugary dick taste sweeter. Round of applause. While I have Wind Waker already on GC, I'd be a sucker to buy it again at a high Nintendo price.

With regards to Tomb Raider, Square (and other developers) get a pass because whenever games cross from this gen to next gen, some games will naturally straddle both gens in order to spread a game more. If you look at the PS2/Xbox era, a game like King Kong appeared on those systems, and also 360/PS3/PC. Cross gen games are nothing new and I can understand a developer/publisher wanting to take advantage of that angle. As well as Tomb Raider Definitive, you might also see this with GTAV on PC/Xbone/PS4 in the new year.

Lastly, have a look at that Nintendo NES collection that Jim recently reviewed. Not very original is it, for 14.99? Sorry, but I'd rather give that money to a small developer making original games, than Nintendo dragging these classics out again.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Only Wind Waker HD has a full $60 price, which is bullshit because most of the work was already done for them. Sure they may have added some stuff and fixed some problems with the original, but you're still paying a full $60 for a game that's more than 10 years old. Paying $40 for two 7-year-old games is a better value by far, even if they don't have extra levels or fix every issue the original had.

I'm not sure where you're buying your games from, but I paid $50 when I pre-ordered my copy. In fact, GameStop still sells it for $50.

 

[Roxas1359]

I'm not sure where you're buying your games from, but I paid $50 when I pre-ordered my copy. In fact, GameStop still sells it for $50.

I did happen to find one place that is selling it for $60, and that's Play-Asia, which is odd because they are normally good with their prices. :/
Although, you also have to keep in mind that the user you quoted is from Mexico, and games tend to be more expensive there depending on what region, so while in the US for us it is only $50, in Mexico is possibly can be more. Now I'm kinda curious about the price of it in Brazil...>.>

Edit: Didn't find Brazil's price, but in Australia the price of Wind Waker HD is $79.95, and the price of say Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 is $59.95 for the regular version and $68.00 for the limited edition...now I see why Australians import most of their games. 0_0

 

[st0pnsw0p]

Only Wind Waker HD has a full $60 price, which is bullshit because most of the work was already done for them. Sure they may have added some stuff and fixed some problems with the original, but you're still paying a full $60 for a game that's more than 10 years old. Paying $40 for two 7-year-old games is a better value by far, even if they don't have extra levels or fix every issue the original had.

I'm not sure where you're buying your games from, but I paid $50 when I pre-ordered my copy. In fact, GameStop still sells it for $50.

My bad, it seems I should have looked up the price before writing that. Regardless, $50 is still too much to pay for an HD remake of a 10-year-old game when HD remakes/re-releases of games that are just as old or even newer are sold for $40 and have multiple games included in them.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Although, you also have to keep in mind that the user you quoted is from Mexico, and games tend to be more expensive there depending on what region, so while in the US for us it is only $50, in Mexico is possibly can be more.

Edit: Didn't find Brazil's price, but in Australia the price of Wind Waker HD is $79.95, and the price of say Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 is $59.95 for the regular version and $68.00 for the limited edition...now I see why Australians import most of their games. 0_0

I did say "I don't know where you're buying your games from" did I not? I'm not going to know the user I quoted is from Mexico, unless I check their profile. I don't check to profile of every user I quote, before quoting them. Though I already knew Australia would have ridiculous prices. They always have had ridiculous prices.

My bad, it seems I should have looked up the price before writing that. Regardless, $50 is still too much to pay for an HD remake of a 10-year-old game when HD remakes/re-releases of games that are just as old or even newer are sold for $40 and have multiple games included in them.

While I don't disagree that $50 is a lot of money for a remade game, I can't say I'm able to complain as I don't regret it. Wind Waker HD isn't just a graphical update. Several tweaks were made and even some content shifted around. For example, where you obtain the Hero's Mask has changed, as well as a Hero Mode being added to the game. They made enough tweaks that speed runners have to change up their strategies because the old methods don't work anymore. I'm pretty sure there are a couple more examples, though I can't honestly recall them off the top of my head.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

The thing I like most about HD remakes is getting the chance to play games that are too hard to find nowadays. The reason I got the Shadow of the Colossus and Ico collection was mainly just to get a chance to play Ico.

However, I find that the HD really doesn't add that much to the experience for me, and there's been some games where I've preferred the original version in both look and play. An example being SotC. I thought they added some really weird lighting effects that weren't present in the original game and made it look kind of weird. The lighting would instantly shift from light to dark by taking a step forward. As well I really dislike a lot of the gameplay changes they made. They increased the amount of time it takes to steady yourself after the Colossi stops shaking, as well as increasing the amount you flop around when it does. With some of the colossi, like the bearded one, I've found that unless you get the absolute perfect spot on it, you can only sometimes get a single uncharged stab in before your stamina runs out and you fall off. If I get the perfect spot I can get a half charged stab.

In my opinion the HD version is kind of lacking if you'd rather play the original than it.

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.

And damn, I just realized how incredible this would be. The vita would actually be the perfect platform for that game

 

[Raggedstar]

Also was Master Quest released with OoT 3D? If so I need to hop on that!

Yep, but you need to beat the original quest first. It's available at the start-up screen after that.
(just in case you haven't looked it up by now)

OT: To toss in some other opinions:

-Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 had some HIDEOUS drops in frame rate during combat to the point that some people got frustrated or refused to even complete it (I know someone like that). The PS3 version does have it's issues (Wander is less steady and makes time trials nigh impossible, plus some tearing issues) but considering it fixed a HUGE problem with the original, I think that's a plus.

-While being from a different issue, Ico HD is the only way North American players can experience the European (ie the COMPLETE) version of the game with an NTSC device.

-A lot of people already pitched in their support for Kingdom Hearts 1.5 HD (which is perhaps my favourite remastering as it works absolutely FLAWLESS in my experience), another thing to keep in mind is that like with Ico, this gave them motivation to give people outside of Japan have a fully translated Final Mix (again, COMPLTETE) version of the original Kingdom Hearts. They're also going to release the Final Mixes of Kingdom Hearts 2 and Birth By Sleep (a PSP game that I'm sure a decent chunk of the fanbase hasn't even played, myself included). Then, as mentioned by others, you have the remake (I use the word REMAKE, yes) of 358/2 Days. The game perhaps isn't meaty enough for it's own title (the gameplay of Kingdom Hearts has always been a bit repetitive, but here it's especially bad) so they redid the cutscenes to at least give the player story and replaces most of the text boxes and blocky models with new voice acting and visuals more like the console Kingdom Hearts games. I say it's worth it and far from lazy (especially considering the amount of work they put into it).

-This is a bit of a stretch, but let's look at Sanzaru Games. Sanzaru Games had NOTHING of merit, and they wanted to make a new Sly game. Naturally Sony said no. What did they do? Remake the first Sly Cooper in HD, which eventually got them permission to do the other two games in HD, which eventually led to them making the not-spectacular-but-still-solid Sly Cooper: Thieves In Time this year. They earned that IP.

-Okami was in an awkward release date, and perhaps because of the PS3 maybe lost a lot of it's thunder. Giving it another shot on an HD console (one that also allows for non-mandatory Move support and is more visually similar the PS2 version) for a price and availability cheaper than the PS2 original is fine to me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

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.

Pretty much this. I actually wish more companies would release some games once a system or so. Especially the franchises that have been around since the NES and 16 bit eras where a lot of us don't have working systems from that time anymore or in some cases (I'm looking at you Final Fantasy) they were rare or re-releases when we first saw them.

I don't need an HD release, but I would love to get something like the Mario All-Stars from a few years back for say Contra, Ninja Gaiden, Zelda (especially since the Gameboy ones are near impossible to find) Donkey Kong Country (do what you gotta do Rare/Nintendo. Hug it out and get me DKC1-3 on a disc or DL if you must.) Resident Evil is another franchise that half the kids playing 6 started with 4 and don't really have a clue about the first 3/4 games. And due to a combination of it being old when it was released and Saturn I can't claim to know anybody who's beaten Code Name Veronica.

So screw the HD, screw the remake, but please re-release. If you insist on remake and HD I don't mind but I'd like to play those games.

 

[lacktheknack]

And yet, Nintendo is the one company that I allow to get away with remakes. You want to know why?

Because you're a dedicated fan.

Say all you want about how Nintendo does it "better", but based off your posts here, I'm 100% sure you wouldn't give a remake from Microsoft the same shake if they were to do the same damn thing.

 

[WeepingAngels]

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)

Very few people buy remakes to play with the original graphics.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

And yet, Nintendo is the one company that I allow to get away with remakes. You want to know why?

Because you're a dedicated fan.

Say all you want about how Nintendo does it "better", but based off your posts here, I'm 100% sure you wouldn't give a remake from Microsoft the same shake if they were to do the same damn thing.

Were Microsoft to make a remake of a reasonably old game, yet add a significant amount of content, I would trumpet that from the rooftops. Indeed, if they have already done so, then calling attention to that instance would be your best bet for winning this argument.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I believe the only HD remake I have found to be not worth its pricetag (or a buy at all for that matter) was the Silent Hill collection, and that only because they absolutely dropped the ball on it. Otherwise every other re-release/remake I've bought has been worth it. And none of them are Nintendo. I didn't buy the Halo Anniversary one but I may given how much praise it has here, and I did love the original and still own it.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Most of the HD remakes come out at a cheaper price point. You got God of War 1 & 2 for $40, Sly 1,2 & 3 for $40, Ratchet 1-4 $40. The graphics were better, but there wasn't much else. That said getting multiple games for that price point is awesome. Plus to those who owned a PS3, and didn't have a PS2 anymore, this was the only way you could play these games anymore. Yes some are cash grabs, but not all.

As far as the new Tomb Raider, yes it is troubling, but I also look at this as any other "Game of the Year" release. You see it all the time. 1-2 years later, they release the "Game of the Year" game with all of the dlc, and the $60 price point, and this is no different, other than they are actually doing some touch up to the graphics. Too I love this idea, not entirely, but at least those that missed Tomb Raider the first time around, and no longer have a PS3 or 360, will have the opportunity to play them on the new consoles.

If there was trouble with the framerate, then that is a flaw that Microsoft should have fixed for free, not for $40. When you put in backwards compatibility, you have be prepared for some technical difficulties and repair them.

And for most Game Of The Year Editions, the game isn't at full price and was, in fact, the Game Of The Year, meaning it was good enough to warrant another release. And I still don't like GOTYEs, but this is an evolution in the wrong direction.

 

[Roxas1359]

If there was trouble with the framerate, then that is a flaw that Microsoft should have fixed for free, not for $40. When you put in backwards compatibility, you have be prepared for some technical difficulties and repair them.

So you want them to spend more money on their systems to try and fix them? The only reason Nintendo's backwards compatibility works so well is because the Nintendo Optical Drive is only slightly modified for each of their disc-based systems, which is why it's so easy to pirate on Nintendo's systems, because they never update their technology. We've seen how much true backwards compatibility can cost with the PS3 initially as the launch PS3's had basically an entire PS2 built into them now, and it would have driven the console prices up even higher before. Why do you think Microsoft gave up on it, and even then backwards compatibility can still have problems with not all games working well. Fixing a framerate problem isn't always a simple fix and it is honestly cheaper to fix it in that case. Hell even the Playstation 2 Classics on Sony's systems have frame rate issues, as do some Virtual Console games. Hell the reason why Donkey Kong 64 has never seen a Virtual Console release is because glitches they have just barely managed to try to iron out would mess with the console entirely.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

If there was trouble with the framerate, then that is a flaw that Microsoft should have fixed for free, not for $40. When you put in backwards compatibility, you have be prepared for some technical difficulties and repair them.

And instead of working on Wind Waker HD, Nintendo should have gotten to work on putting the original Gamecube version on the Wii U Virtual Console (along with several other Gamecube games), but they didn't because an HD remake would get people more hyped up and sell more consoles.

 

[Snotnarok]

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?

Nintendo put effort in for their remakes? They selectively graphically touched up Zelda for the 3DS, that's it. They added some bloom and tweaked Wind Waker to have a less annoying quest, that's not a lot for them asking $50-$60 bucks vs what you can find the original for.

But God of War doesn't qualify because they just made it work for PS3? They have the collection with the PSP titles with the controls adjusted for PS3 along with, for all games: 60fps, better res textures, so it's all the God of War games together for like 30 bucks, launched for $40-50 or so I think but Wind Waker, a game that looks great today on GCN gets minor tweaks and some graphical updates for $50-$60 bucks is okay?

The PS3 HD rereleases all run better, have AA applied, often have new features and are bundled titles for cheaper than you could get the original titles often.

Yeah there's cash in ones, or broken one like the Silent Hill collection but they didn't have the original game code to work with, but there's been many good HD rereleases especially the collections that I consider to be far above the effort Nintendo's ever put in.

For instance how about that Mario All Stars collection eh? They could have packed in the original NES versions, Mario World and maybe Yoshi's Island. Instead they included a rom of the inferior bare-bones Mario All Stars version that didn't even include Mario World, because there was a version that had that built in, but then no one would DL that from the VC, including the original NES games. So you pay 50 bucks for a nice box, a rom and some videos, the games you could have gotten for cheaper on the VC.

Compare that to SEGA. who put out the Ultimate Genesis Collection for $20, which had over 40 games including every Sonic game for the Genesis and just about every other series, Phantasy Star, Shining Force, Shinobi, Streets of Rage, Vector Man, Golden Axe, including some bonuses like arcade versions and dev videos. This one seems like a much better bargain.

Mind you I don't own the collections I mentioned as I have the originals so it didn't make sense to jump out and get them, but overall they're better to get if you're looking into getting a series.

Maybe this is just me because I never had the nintendo childhood where it made me happy every day, just every day I went to my cousins or friends house. Really I'm not trying to be an ass here but this is something I see very often, Nintendo somehow did it better when they did the least amount of effort they could and slapped a large price tag on it, and their games DON'T DROP in price, so you can't ever get these things for a bargain. New Mario Bros for DS is still $35 bucks, same with Mario Kart DS, Kirby, etc.

Edit: Let me further drive this home by countering you saying it's okay they re-released Super Mario World for GBA, okay it's 10 years later but is it okay they separated Mario 1,2 & 3 and put them on their own separate carts? And again Mario 1,2,3 & world were all put on 1 collection on SNES and being the GBA is more powerful than the SNES with far more capacity for cheaper than the SNES you'd think if they got how re-releases they'd do something nice like that for fans. You can't be selective with picking what they did well, because while they were really nice ports, especially Mario 2 with extra stuff, they still ripped apart what was a full collection and put them out separately, I think they even put the original NES titles on GBA carts to really rub it in.
Metroid Zero Mission a GREAT remake of a old game with updated controls, mechanics, new powerups new area and more AND it included the original Metroid title for comparison. Then they put NES Metroid out on GBA...kay.