Kotaku Asks: How Soon Is Too Soon For A Video Game Remaster Or Remake?
(kotaku.com)
from stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to games@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 2023 22:28
https://kbin.social/m/games@lemmy.world/t/643010
from stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to games@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 2023 22:28
https://kbin.social/m/games@lemmy.world/t/643010
When should developers go back and remaster or remake their most popular games?
threaded - newest
My vote is 10 years as an arbitrary number, or 2 or more console generations as the graphics technology will have (hopefully) have advanced enough to make an impactful difference in graphics quality.
Control schemes have largely not changed since the PS3/360 era, so there would be no point in remaking a game solely for that, at least not if it’s from around that era. For anyone that has played the Rare Replay, Rare Studio’s entire collection of games, Jetforce Gemini (a N64 game) had an option in the control settings to make the controls modernized.
All in all, a game should be remade/remastered if it is going to be significantly different to its original form. A fresh coat of paint does not a remake, uh make. For the best example of proper remakes in my opinion, see the Demon Souls remake or the Halo 2 Anniversary edition.
The Resident Evil remakes are also great examples of doing it right.
They’re not just a coat of paint, they’re the clearest examples of remakes with better everything.
A remaster implies that it’s taking what exists and bringing it to a new thing.
If there’s a 4k scan of a movie that was made for blurays and then a few years later that 4k scan gets used to release an uhd version, we don’t complain.
If developers want to re-release their games on new platforms, I say sure? No skin off my back, helps them work on engine and tooling for the new platforms, gives games another wind. Literally does not matter to me.
I really struggle to see why anyone would be against these ports, honestly.
People aren't against them. They are against pointless remakes like the PS5 version of The Last of Us 1 (not the remaster, they fully remade the game), which changes...fuck all. Like seriously, what does it change of significance?
Like, sure, if the game isn't otherwise playable on the platform then by all means, but otherwise why waste all that time?
Then there is the confusion as to the categorisation of returning games and what label to put them under. In my book, you've got:
Emulation: literally the same game from the old console running in an interpreter program. Examples: NSO Collections, MGS 1 from MGS Master Collection
Port: Same game, more or less, but running natively on the console/PC.
Remaster: As above but with updated textures, models, FMVs, etc
Faithful Remake: The game code, assets, etc are completely re-done but the game strictly adheres to the source material, save for a few modern amenities like auto save, ironing out bugs and maybe some things they wanted to do but couldn't because of hardware limitations. Examples include Spyro Reignited, Resident Evil 1, Halo Anniversary and Kingdom Hearts 1+2 on all consoles except the PS2.
Interpretive Remakes: Basically a completely new game using the old game's basic plot points and designs. Examples include: the Resident Evil Remakes (except 1) and the Final Fantasy 7 remake.
But my list isn't industry standard. There is no industry standard. FF7R and the REmakes are considered as much a remake as Spyro Reignited or Crash N'sane trilogy. The version of MGS 1 in MGS Master collection is sold as a remaster despite being blatant emulation. It makes it very hard to know what you're gonna get.
Some people might be against them for the reason that they can de-list their old games from digital storefronts. For newer games especially it'd make that hard to compare what was changed.
I guess it's not as relevant with newer titles, but I feel like many of the classics looked fine (especially with higher internal res which is a good option for emu) and had some really cool tech that gave it a nice aesthetic without it being bloated. So it kind of feels like it's missing the point (limitation and ingenuity or something like that).
Like with Spyro, a big draw for me is the usage of vertex color including the skyboxes (one example, album). So it went from ~300MiB to 30-60GiB+. I mean sure some old games were designed with raster graphics that look crusty now, but for something like Spyro I'd rather play even a fan _de_make (leaning further into vertex colors) with more fleshed out gameplay (/more content) though too many fan game creators haven't learned to distance even their game titles from trademarks.
I mean, indie games do exist that scratch that itch, so you do still have options
Well I have a lot of problems with how people design games so I don't really buy stuff anymore, plus I haven't really seen a lot of stuff that focuses on vector (esp textureless). In other words it's pretty niche even for indie, and discoverability generally isn't great even on the best day.
I'd probably have more luck doing it myself, I've done a few 2D things (meme made with Godot 3.X, 4.0 eye animation, not-yet-in-4.X test of someone elses' PR) but I'm not a dev and I don't have much energy or many ideas.
Ah. I think the problem there is that pure vectors can be much harder to work with. it's hard to make something that looks good with purely vector based approaches, especially as your scenes get more complex.
I don't think that's it. For 3D the workflow is already there and vertex colors are powerful (though usually used for shaders or other effects like terrain-based sounds). Even going for Spyro's approach (esp. grayscale textures that disappear with LoD so it's just color) wouldn't be too bad as I imagine its music/voice is actually what takes up the most space (newer audio compression or MIDI-like music would reduce that), though a more minimal/stylized look could make it a lot easier. Certainly some things are more suited for it than others.
I could say a lot of technical reasons for or against this workflow, but I think the biggest is just that it's something that people don't think about or would rather have photorealism or blocky pixels instead (or at least that's a large chunk of the market). Vertex lighting is cool but doesn't have much use over modern lighting (if it did, it'd be very niche) and developers often don't really care about optimization much, instead telling players 'upgrade your PC'.
(admittedly my experience with 2D vector seems less supported as far as editors and AA, though I'm not sure if Godot's clip children feature has an equivalent in 3D or if you'd just need to use meshes/rigging more cleverly... which is fair, I'm not aware of non-skeleton rigging tools in Godot's 2D either)
3D vectors can work well, but as an artist you are often better suited by going with the N64 approach. Due to technical limitations, textures were often used quite sparsely, with vertex shading providing the main colour and textures providing details. It was especially prevalent in games with cartoon art styles such as Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie, but even games like GoldenEye used this trick to a degree.
The problem with pure vertex is, the more detail you add to stuff, the more calculations you are doing, and they can really add up. The same is kinda true of bitmap (in terms of resolution) but the problem doesn't scale the same way. With that said, it will work well for a cartoony/anime art style where massive amounts of detail isn't necessarily needed, and shaders can be used to complete the look.
I mean yeah we're mostly on the same page... but it should be clear that I'm not suggesting crazy detail everywhere, mostly just being a bit more intentional with model design when possible to integrate vertex color (or another old technique, use multiple objects when it means a simpler mesh). And I mentioned Spyro's texture/LoD system which is good, was going to mention sprite usage and also Crash having only 2 textures (shoes, back) but was too wordy (also Crash taking advantage of a linear camera for custom culling and view-specific models).
I'd say it's really good to give variation (and unique-ness) on detail and effects that way every tiny thing you decide to add isn't a fixed workload. Or in some cases the opposite approach, a more re-used/modular design for certain things like characters.
The problem with textures (aside from data w/high-res/high-color, resolution dependency, and workload) is that when you play an older game at modern resolutions (higher internal res or even just a Flash game) the elements that were designed for older resolutions/displays are really apparent next to the meshes that scale perfectly. Particularly if it's a GUI or pre-rendered cutscene (sometimes other random stuff). Textures on meshes can still be a really solid aesthetic for the environment/characters.
Also generated textures (see .kkrieger for an extreme example) might be a potential fix for the drawbacks, or something like textures that are designed to be used with an upscale filter (or in a similar way, maybe converting to SDF textures).
Yeah, we are definitely on the same page. What they did with classic Crash with minimal textures on the character, they also did the same thing with Mario in 64 and Banjo in Banjo-Kazooie.
You could do a similar approach to environmentals for a decent effect too, such as having the texture essentially act as a very restricted form of bump map for the vertex shaded polygon. Goldeneye did this a fair bit.
I would be interested in seeing this kind of art style make a return.
People are against them. Demonstrably.
Also worth reading everything I wrote not just the bits you want to read
None of what I wrote contradicts that. Like I said, they are against pointless remakes and remasters. That's what's being discussed in the article.
While PS1, PS2 and even PS3 games could do with a fresh lick of paint if released today, it's not exactly uncontroversial to say that PS4 games don't need it. PS4 games don't even have the argument of simply making it available to modern consoles because PS5s can play PS4 games directly.
The law of diminishing returns has hit this generation pretty damn hard, to the point where most people are hard pressed to tell a PS4 game from a PS5 game. So when the differences are that miniscule, you aren't really meeting the objectives of a remaster. Just do a straight port with better FPS and/or resolution support.
I mean of course they're free to, and I don't take any any sort of umbrage against those who do but... How does it make more sense than something like a paid compatibility patch? (Tbf that's what TLoU2 is doing with its 'remaster')
you can’t do a ‘patch’ for a new platform, you have to release a new SKU. that’s just the mechanics of it. that’s what 99% of these things that people are mad about are. it also gives people an excuse to print mode physical medias which makes people who like physical media happy.
Tell that to Microsoft and Sony. Xbox Series X and PS5 have been enabling exactly this for X1 and PS4 games respectively.
The consoles not only have native backward compatibility, but they allow developers to make patches for 8th gen games to specifically target 9th gen hardware.
No, they have unlocked profiles. This is absolutely not the same thing as releasing a game made for previous gen for current gen it does not give you access to most of the graphical and audio capabilities of the modern platform, nor does it give you access to features like duelsense triggers and rumble.
It mearly takes the speed limit off the ps4 abstractation layer.
I want to be super clear about how these are very very different things. And also about how it’s petty to go and press the downvote button on someone’s posts when you’re having a conversation with them. Numbers don’t mean anything here, it’s just petty and makes conversation weird.
They aren't limited to unlocked framerates and higher resolutions though. Some games also add additional graphics effects.
Except where it clearly can. For example, Witcher 3's next gen update adds features like ray tracing.
Im not the one pressing the downvote button, heck my client doesn't even register you as having downvotes (I'm on Kbin) but I presume someone else is doing it because you are demonstrably incorrect. Go look at Witcher 3. Go look at Cyberpunk 2077. These developers are doing what you deem to be impossible.
this is a new SKU release for next gen systems, it’s not a patch. it’s a new version of the game.
No, it is a patch:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/12/23505545/the-witcher-3-next-gen-update-ps5-xbox-pc-hands-on
…playstation.com/…/EP9000-CUSA10249_00-THELASTOFU… this game has a next-gen patch for ps5 to get higher framerates: ref blog.playstation.com/…/the-last-of-us-part-ii-per…
note how it says [ps4]
…playstation.com/…/EP4497-PPSA10408_00-0000000000… this game has a next-gen SKU for ps5, to access ps5 feature sets, that they misnamed as a “patch”. note how it says [ps4] [ps5]
You're the one mixing your terminology, bud.
SKU is a shipping and retail thing. It's a unique identifier for products shipped. It has nothing to do with software versions and so forth.
Witcher 3 has a seperate entry for PS5 because they also ship a separate PS5 version.
Thing is, if I put the PS4 version of the game into the drive, and download the updates, the game I have is exactly the same as the PS5 physical. And no, it's not downloading the entire game again.
It is a patch. Not a completely different version of the game.
I think the issue is calling a next gen port a remaster. Yea it is technically a remaster but adding that to the title makes it seem like more then that.
If said game was released as definite or something nobody would be talking rn
Those words never meant anything anyway
No one would be complaining if it was labeled as a director’s cut but maybe theres a legit marketing reason to avoid the label
I may be an outlier here, but I don’t think remakes should be done at all anymore. They were great when the medium was still new and we made major jumps between generations or when we started to figure 3D out. Nowadays, I can’t even tell the difference between a PS4 and PS5 game. The medium is evolved enough to just go back and play the originals without them feeling dated in a bad way. Take for example the demon souls remake: Yes, it looked nice, but people argue to this day whether or not it’s better. The gameplay is identical. Or even worse: Look at Pokemon. The remake for Gen 4 is worse than the original and didn’t even include Platinum content. Instead of wasting dev time on a full on remake, they could have ported Platinum to the switch and called it a day. A remake probably only makes sense anymore if you can’t port a game at all. Make new games instead.
New games don’t make as much money as old games that people are nostalgic for. I hate that fact but its what the AAA industry has turned towards
It’s not just AAA gaming but all over Hollywood too, has been for a while. Nostalgia is a powerful force and churning out sequels or prequels or spinoffs off of recognizable IPs is just less risky an investment than trying to make something new.
Buddy I have news for you about folktales and oral histories
Unfortunately you’re right seeing how well the Super Mario RPG remake does. They could have put the original on their online service and worked on a new one instead. That’s something I dislike about pretty much all media.
If I want nostalgia, I go back to the original anyways.
I don’t see the point of doing a remaster of that game now as it still looks and feels perfect.
But, I also won’t complain about it if it makes other people happy and lets them experience the game while allowing Naughty Dog to maximize their earnings with such a masterpiece.
I just hope a fresh project isn’t pushed back because of that remaster.
No more remakes until Xenogears is remade.
25 years is definitely not too soon 😫
I just want to play the resident evil I missed out on growing up. C’mon Capcom, remake Code Veronica already!
I’m going to go with 1 year for every 2 years since 1970. So 10 years for a game released in 1990, 26 years for a game released this year.
I mean, is it too soon if people are still going to buy it? More seriously, I think one whole console generation is a good standard for remasters. Just so long as you can point to something that looks or plays better than the original did. For a remake, I think you need more time and the game your making needs to feel like it couldn't have been made on the original hardware. Either way three years feels way too soon, especially for what is essentially a next-gen port or a definitive edition.
Forever is too soon. STOP regurgitating content and create new IP.
You don’t get it, the 13th time they remake the first gen games, then it will really be different.
I’m so glad I found persona/SMT to scratch that same itch but with actual depth, difficulty, and variety.
How long until the next Skyrim release? Todd, you sonovabitch…