So, recently there have been a lot of remakes announced, Halo CE, Metal Gear, those games from Team Ico, and the recently launched Zelda: OoT. And I think to myself, "WHY?".
Look, these games are still perfectly playable, and even if they werent these remakes arent fixing those issues. They are just releasing the same exact thing with a visual upgrade (well, some of them) and unless they look ugly enough to ruin the experience I dont see the point of doing a remake.
Lets take Halo for a moment now, the original game still looks great, it has those simple graphics that never try to be incredibly realistic, its like the Unreal games, even though they are old they still manage to look good. Its like most Nintendo games, their visuals are simple but yet they manage to not look ugly.
What is the point of this remake? This particular remake only has one strong point, and even then it could be solved with DLC. Playing the original multiplayer maps online is the only strong point that I see on this particular remake. The original game didnt had online (the console version at least).
And now the Zelda remake, it got a lot of positive reviews and a good reception but I dont know why. Should we praise the work of a team that basicly only copied a game that was made a long time ago.
Should we really like the fact that instead of having people come up with new things (even if they are from the same franchise) we have them doing things that were already made.
Maybe its just me but it seems that remakes are starting to become famous nowadays and I just dont see the point of such things.
Remakes should be about turning the original product (that would be outdated) into to something up to date. It isnt a reboot, just fixing what was making the game unplayable now (if the graphics are ruining the experience then they could think of making a remake to make the experience good again by fixing the graphics).
What are your opinions about this?
EDIT
A lot of people came up with the argument that "it brought the game to new players", but I still feel that only in those remakes where it actually improves the experience (like the Resident Evil remake that the user Wayneguard pointed out) could use this argument in their defense.
If a game is outdated then new players will have a hard time adjusting to the game, thats for sure, but if the game is not outdated (like Psychonauts, which I recently bought and played for the first time) the player will feel confortable with the game, the game itself will feel like it was released recently (with the exception of graphics of course).
Why is there a reason for those new players to become interested in the remake if they werent interested on the perfectly playable original version? What I see is that most of the people that will buy the remake are going to be the people that bought the original one unless the remake changes what was before a deal breaker for the new players.
I dont believe that the graphics (that like I said, are still good) are enough to become deal breakers.
Look, these games are still perfectly playable, and even if they werent these remakes arent fixing those issues. They are just releasing the same exact thing with a visual upgrade (well, some of them) and unless they look ugly enough to ruin the experience I dont see the point of doing a remake.
Deus Ex, for example, as aged quite a bit
Lets take Halo for a moment now, the original game still looks great, it has those simple graphics that never try to be incredibly realistic, its like the Unreal games, even though they are old they still manage to look good. Its like most Nintendo games, their visuals are simple but yet they manage to not look ugly.
It changes everything
What is the point of this remake? This particular remake only has one strong point, and even then it could be solved with DLC. Playing the original multiplayer maps online is the only strong point that I see on this particular remake. The original game didnt had online (the console version at least).
And now the Zelda remake, it got a lot of positive reviews and a good reception but I dont know why. Should we praise the work of a team that basicly only copied a game that was made a long time ago.
Yes, now I can enjoy that game that I enjoyed many years ago
Should we really like the fact that instead of having people come up with new things (even if they are from the same franchise) we have them doing things that were already made.
Maybe its just me but it seems that remakes are starting to become famous nowadays and I just dont see the point of such things.
Remakes should be about turning the original product (that would be outdated) into to something up to date. It isnt a reboot, just fixing what was making the game unplayable now (if the graphics are ruining the experience then they could think of making a remake to make the experience good again by fixing the graphics).
What are your opinions about this?
EDIT
A lot of people came up with the argument that "it brought the game to new players", but I still feel that only in those remakes where it actually improves the experience (like the Resident Evil remake that the user Wayneguard pointed out) could use this argument in their defense.
If a game is outdated then new players will have a hard time adjusting to the game, thats for sure, but if the game is not outdated (like Psychonauts, which I recently bought and played for the first time) the player will feel confortable with the game, the game itself will feel like it was released recently (with the exception of graphics of course).
Why is there a reason for those new players to become interested in the remake if they werent interested on the perfectly playable original version? What I see is that most of the people that will buy the remake are going to be the people that bought the original one unless the remake changes what was before a deal breaker for the new players.
I dont believe that the graphics (that like I said, are still good) are enough to become deal breakers.
But you're right, halo: CE remake... seriously?
