Modern remakes

[kupomogli]

So I've recently started playing Final Fantasy 7 remake and really enjoying it. If it wasn't called Final Fantasy 7, I'd definitely have to look it up and make sure that Square Enix did indeed develop it. When initially hearing about it, I was certain that I would be disappointed. A remake of Final Fantasy 7 except the game is only going to feature the first four hours of the game at most? But two hours in, they've put some exceptional effort into making the dialogue, traversal, and combat in all honesty, exceptional. It's a linear experience, but Midgar itself was a linear experience, and I honestly hate the modern open world, so the game hasn't been ruined with that aspect.... yet. I mean, I've only been playing two hours, there's a whole 30 hours left to ruin the experience.

However, I've also played Resident Evil 2 and while I don't prefer it over the original, it's an amazing game, one of the best in the series. Now of course, these being excellent games(if Final Fantasy 7 remains as such,) could just mean that they're the exception. I mean, Resident Evil 7, DMC5, etc, are all great games and they're not remakes, it just goes to show the quality of the developers at Capcom.

What I wanted when Final Fantasy 7's remake was first announced though was just a graphical update of a game that is the exact same, but now that I'm playing what we've got, I actually prefer this. While I love Final Fantasy 4 and all of the graphical remakes that we've received, they're just the same game over and over again and I can play that anytime. Even the DS version wasn't much of a change, just a hard mode essentially. I'm actually enjoying what we've received as a completely new experience and I'd like more developers and publishers to start remaking games in this way.

Who else though have played these games or others, even games like (Ys Oath in Felghana, Celceta, Wild ARMs Alter Code F, and others fit the criteria) and has it changed your opinion on ports and graphical updates as they've been released? Would you prefer getting graphical updates or modern remakes?

[gbpxl]

I don't like remakes of anything unless the original was broken, unplayable, severely flawed, or no longer available for various reasons. If people really like them and they are supporting them with their dollars, more power to them. I know that Final Fantasy 7 was a universally acclaimed game and I don't understand the need for a remake but apparently many people do and if it makes them happy then great.

[Aussie2B]

I don't really have any preference for styles of remakes. I can enjoy any style from faithful, 1:1 remakes to drastic remakes that feel like totally different games. All that matters to me is if I feel whatever style they went with was done well. Like with the recent Langrisser release, I don't have a problem with the concept of having new character designs, but I think the new art looks like crap compared to the original art, which is why I'm glad they included both sets of designs as an option.

But I guess how I feel about the original version does have some impact on what kind of remake I think would best suit me. With Final Fantasy VII, I don't particularly like the original, so a drastic remake sounds more appealing to me than a faithful remake. Or if you take a game like, say, Chrono Trigger, virtually everything about it is already perfect to me, so I see no reason to add or change anything, really. The added content in the ports feels pointless to me, and I've never been able to relate to people who want a 3D version. But my commitment to the exact original experience isn't so strong with most games. If I like a game, I'm usually open to at least trying a new take on it.

[Edmond Dantes]

I personally would prefer just straight HD upscales or even just ports rather than full-fledged remakes.

For me, part of the appeal of remakes is just that I might be able to connect with younger generations (I DO have a niece and nephew, after all) and I hate being in a situation where they've only seen/played a watered-down version of an awesome thing... or where I would essentially have to watch an all-new show in order to keep even footing. This bothers me about even good stuff like the Netflix She-Ra.

The cases I really dislike are things like, say, the live action Cat in the Hat. I would hate for that to be someone's only exposure to that classic property and color their perception of Dr. Seuss.

Also a part of me doesn't really like attempts to fix what has gone before... like, things should live and die based on what they are, not what we wish they were. Granted there are edge cases (Like, I'm fine with patching) but I would rather the FF7 remake be an all new game... which it essentially is, so just call it Final Fantasy 16.

[kupomogli]

I personally would prefer just straight HD upscales or even just ports rather than full-fledged remakes.

For me, part of the appeal of remakes is just that I might be able to connect with younger generations (I DO have a niece and nephew, after all) and I hate being in a situation where they've only seen/played a watered-down version of an awesome thing... or where I would essentially have to watch an all-new show in order to keep even footing. This bothers me about even good stuff like the Netflix She-Ra.

The cases I really dislike are things like, say, the live action Cat in the Hat. I would hate for that to be someone's only exposure to that classic property and color their perception of Dr. Seuss.

Also a part of me doesn't really like attempts to fix what has gone before... like, things should live and die based on what they are, not what we wish they were. Granted there are edge cases (Like, I'm fine with patching) but I would rather the FF7 remake be an all new game... which it essentially is, so just call it Final Fantasy 16.

I understand your point here. While I'd prefer a different game experience for myself, if it's a graphical remake, then you can still talk to other people about the same game where as you can't very well have a conversation of the Final Fantasy 7 remake unless you yourself have actually played it because of how different the game can be at times. Even when it's not different, the amount of dialogue for the same events make it much different as you have far more characterization with characters that were only mildly important in the original.

Final Fantasy 7 isn't my favorite in the series, but even so I still hold the game in high regard and still one of my favorite cast of characters in an RPG. Before playing the remake though, I had the same opinion. All I wanted was a game that played identical to Final Fantasy 7 with better graphics, a remake much like Crash Bandicoot or Spyro the Dragoon where it's really just the same game. Square Enix gave me a remake that I prefer over the original despite, now 11 hours in, can confirm that I don't like it as much as the original. It's still a completely different gameplay experience with a cast of characters that I really like who have far more depth and back story than the original game has ever offered in the period of time you spend with them within Midgar.

The way Square Enix is doing it with multiple parts also bothered me at first, but again, I didn't realize the amount of effort they were going to actually put into the game, nor the quality of the game, being Square Enix afterall. A lot of people say that it's not "a full game" not just the full game, but a full game and that they're splitting it into parts just to screw people over. But just the amount I've played of it right now and I can easily say without a doubt that it's a full game even if you take the main story alone. On top of being a full game, with these multiple parts in the remake, this means that we'll have more time to spend with these characters, we'll have more time to spend in this world, and it extends the length of Final Fantasy 7 to a much larger experience. By much larger experience, I'm talking about a much larger "quality experience" where you are traversing through what's essentially a 30 hour experience or longer for just Midgar, and again, that's the main story, not the side content which isn't as good as the main story content(but honestly, in this case the side content isn't as bad as what you'd see in a Ubisoft game or even Square Enix's own Final Fantasy 15, there's only a few quests in the first town and each one of them has you going to a sort of mini dungeon within the area that you otherwise never need to go to again.)

This is similar to Ys Oath in Felghana. While there's already an Ys3 graphical remake in Japan, I can't imagine anyone actually asking for it. So when Ys Oath in Felghana was announced as another Ys3 remake, it's a pleasant surpise as it takes what's essentially a really bad game and turned it into what was actually once the best game in the franchise. It took what was a good concept and turned it into a great game with more story and depth in the game than the oriignal could ever hope for.

[Edmond Dantes]

This is similar to Ys Oath in Felghana. While there's already an Ys3 graphical remake in Japan, I can't imagine anyone actually asking for it. So when Ys Oath in Felghana was announced as another Ys3 remake, it's a pleasant surpise as it takes what's essentially a really bad game and turned it into what was actually once the best game in the franchise. It took what was a good concept and turned it into a great game with more story and depth in the game than the oriignal could ever hope for.

Was Ys III really so bad? I remember quite liking it, though it has been awhile.

One thing I forgot to say before but which I feel I should say now.... I tend to not trust positive reviews of remakes. Not because I think people are lying or are shills or anything like that, but because I don't trust them to be objective. When something is new, especially if there's a hype train behind it, of course your feelings are gonna be very positive unless the thing winds up being a total trainwreck--and even then, some people will love it.

Just for example (and this isn't a remake, I know, but) back when Star Wars Episode I first came out, anyone who criticized it was assumed to be just trying to be controversial or a hipster or just had bad taste in movies. I have old magazines where people sent letters to the editor for DARING to say bad things about it.... when nowadays the prequel trilogy as a whole is considered not-so-great.

On a more personal level, I remember a time when I thought Neverending Story III was the best movie in the trilogy, just because it was a new movie in a series I loved. Gah, sometimes I'm glad I'm not so young anymore....

But those are demonstrations of what I mean: when something is new its easy to see all positives and no negatives, so people are gonna say things now that they won't be saying five years in the future.

One thing that came up with regards to the Resident Evil remakes in particular, for me, is I feel like people fall into this trap of thinking they have to judge every change as better/worse rather than just "different." Also the problem of "closer to my preferences, ergo better." It bothers me that the RE1 and 2 remakes are considered superior more or less JUST because they're darker and more serious than the original games, which had a campy B-movie tone going for them. For some reason horror gamers in general have this idea that more serious = automatically better, which I've never quite gelled with... especially since a lot of "serious" horror games wind up being pretentious and stupid. I'd rather have the dumb fun that classic RE exemplified. Although I think part of this reaction is because for awhile, RE had dropped horror entirely and become basically an action movie franchise, which didn't sit well with a lot of people.... which goes into what I mean about not being objective.

Put another way, at one point RE4 was considered the best game in the series, just because it was a breath of fresh air. I personally never liked RE4 (I liked the village, but after that it feels like the game just gets padded out and refuses to FREAKING END), and it seems like everyone else turned on it because it led to RE5 and 6... which ironically I played demos of them on my Switch and kinda enjoyed them, but just not enough to pay Capcom's asking prices.

I think games should be judged on what they are, not what you want them to be.

[Gameguy]

It bothers me that the RE1 and 2 remakes are considered superior more or less JUST because they're darker and more serious than the original games, which had a campy B-movie tone going for them.
These games along with the Final Fantasy VII remake are considered so superior now because they're so much better than the majority of other modern games released today. It's kind of sad when the best games available on a modern console today are remakes of 20+ year old games rather than something actually completely original, but that's how the industry is now.

As for serious vs campy horror, it really depends on the mood I'm in. A good horror based item(book, movie, game, etc) would be scary or unsettling in some way, a cheesy campy humorous horror can be fun but isn't as appealing to as many people compared to actual well made horror. I like crappy movies too but most people enjoy actual well made movies over MST3K quality films. I think with these games people are liking the controls better too compared to the PS1 versions.

[Edmond Dantes]

The thing about horror tho is back in the day, we had a choice: Camp fans had Resident Evil, serious had Silent Hill.

I remember even back then SH had a bit of elitism surrounding it. Just look at how Yahtzee snubs his nose at RE but then salivates on Silent Hill... and he was not alone.

Nowadays tho it feels like RE is trying to BE Silent Hill, and its always sad when a thing ignores its own strengths in favor of conforming (see: DC superheroes trying to be more like Marvel, or Sierra On-Line dropping adventure game production in favor of multiplayer because that was "the future,").

I'll always hold that one reason Mario remained strong, bland tho he sometimes was, was that Mario always did whatever he pleased rather than just chasing trends.

Of course, I say all this, but then Silent Hill itself went seriously downhill and the point where it looked like it might climb back on top, Konami killed it....

[kupomogli]

Was Ys III really so bad? I remember quite liking it, though it has been awhile.

I think games should be judged on what they are, not what you want them to be.

I tried to put more effort into it back then, but yes, it's bad. I'm of the same opinion you are on Resident Evil 4.

The reason people praise everything new popular is the same reason people hate on everything popular to hate. People are sheep. This is fact, not opinion, it's actually been scientifically proven but it's not hard to see. I'm not going to deny I haven't jumped on that bandwagon before, back when Dirge of Cerberus Final Fantasy 7 was released I hated on the game simply because it had different gameplay that I didn't often play. I did play through the game shortly afterwards and really enjoyed it, infact, I played it after Resident Evil 4, and enjoyed it much more.

However, I personally believe that I don't have much bias at all. I don't get caught up in all the hype on any game. Even after a game releases and I play it, I'll describe in detail what I didn't like about it and what I did and I'm often met by people who think I hate the game or rather every game because I criticize parts of every game. No game is perfect, but people get upset when you don't praise each and everything about a game they like.

That being said, even if the game in question may not be better than the original or as amazing as a game it's hyped up to be(in this case Final Fantasy 7,) I'm now inclined to say I'd rather have a full remake over just a graphical update. Because at this point, it at the very least feels like I'm experiencing a new game with the same story rather than just replaying a favorite game from my childhood. Now this is obvious under the assumption that the game is at the very least a good game, a game that could be considered in some ways as good as the original. If it were between a graphical update and a bad remake, then I'd take the graphical update any day of the week.

In the case of Final Fantasy 7. Nothing like this has been done before. Now, liken this to a move where they take the book and rewrite it to be a movie or tv series. Final Fantasy 7 is like going from a movie being rewritten as a book, having so much depth added to the world and the characters. The storyline is the best part about the game and I've recently passed maybe two thirds of the way through where I'd be in the original. The gameplay is a solid change, unlike Final Fantasy 15, you've got a gameplay that's great as an action RPG, and except for Cloud and Tifa who fill the same role with Cloud being more power and Tifa being speed, the characters all fill a very unique role from one another. One complaint about the original Final Fantasy 7 was that everyone is essentially the same, something that couldn't be less true of this game even if you were to give them all identical materia.

If you ask me though, when it comes to storyline and presentation, the Final Fantasy 7 Remake is amazing. It's an absolutely amazing retelling and it's a different game, so you're getting characters you already like as a different game. I think I'll have already hit my favorite chapter in the game, and it's such a major change in how it feels to progress through this section of the game than the original, that if I told you just the area and likened that area to something else, it in itself could actually be considered a spoiler.

I'd actually say if you wanted a comparison to this game, then esentially a console version with similar but different gameplay to Crisis Core would probably be the closest resemblance. The story and game progreses much the same way and while the combat is action based, both play fairly similar but very very different.

//

As for Resident Evil, the series has always been serious. There are some campy jokes in the original, but most of it was poor localization and low budget voice acting. Modern games have better localization and better voice acting. Castlevania Symphony of the Night suffered from the same thing. Konami updated the dialogue and redid the voice acting. It wasn't bad, but it waas no longer so bad it's good, though the plus side is that the succubus scene isn't complete trash in DXC rerelease.

[Aussie2B]

Funny that elitism was brought up in this topic............

At the end of the day, there's no "objective" when it comes to the quality of games, outside of technical problems (like crashing and what have you). Everybody is entitled to like and dislike whatever they want, for whatever their reasoning is, and it doesn't make their opinion "wrong" because an opinion can't be right or wrong to begin with. Somebody can like or dislike an older game without it being a matter of blindly following the herd or whatever, and somebody can like a modern game (or specially a modern remake) for reasons beyond it being brand-new or because most modern games supposedly suck (which in itself is a totally subjective opinion that countless people would disagree with, people who, again, aren't necessarily blinded by shallow reasons or thinking). Really, I gotta wonder why some of you even visit the Modern Gaming section of this forum if you're seemingly so anti-modern games.

As for Resident Evil, all of the games seem like a mix of seriousness and camp to me, including the modern releases and remakes. I don't really get this mentality that some are all one or the other. But games that mix themes always seem to get a lot of flack, since, no matter what the balance is, there are always some who'd prefer the scale to be tipped in the other direction. For example, Star Ocean has always been a mix of sci-fi and fantasy, and I've seen many complain that some of the games have too little of the sci-fi elements. Yet other games in the series pumped up the sci-fi, and personally, I found those a bit too heavy on it. Then you got series that evolve over time, like how Castlevania started off as all camp, as a parody of B-tier classic horror movies, but then it became practically all gravitas later on, to the point that some fans see it as this dark, gothic series where they take the canon and characters super seriously, yet my mindset is to continue taking the series with a sense of humor (which the later games still have, but it's definitely toned down). So with these kinds of scenarios, there's no pleasing everybody, and it sucks if a series is going in a direction that isn't to your tastes, but we can't expect every game to be catered specifically to any of us. If any of us got exactly what we wanted out of every single game, then that would mean a lot of other gamers wouldn't be getting what they want. So the best solution is to have a diverse market so everybody can find some games that work for them, and I think the industry is succeeding at that better than ever. Between mainstream AAA games, niche games, and indie games, you can find practically anything. It's just a matter of putting in the time and digging through what's available, but some are closed-minded and don't bother to look past the big-name stuff.

[Edmond Dantes]

I think one reason I prefer RE to be silly is because its a series about zombies, and I just can not take zombie media seriously... mostly because, its only got one plot: a virus or bio-agent or whatever causes people to become brainless moaning things that want to eat living hoomans, and you happen to be in an infested area. There's only so many ways you can do this before it gets played out. Whereas with paranormal entities you can do them any number of ways... serious, silly, capable of being channeled via card games, capable of being killed by cameras...

I agree diversity of options is the best solution, and I've always liked the philosophy a lot of big-name writers used to have: "I write things I, myself, would want to read/wish other people were writing." Or in other words, if you want something that doesn't exist, create it!

[Gameguy]

....or because most modern games supposedly suck (which in itself is a totally subjective opinion that countless people would disagree with, people who, again, aren't necessarily blinded by shallow reasons or thinking).
There's just a lot of practices with modern games I don't like, such as loot boxes, DLC not available on the disc, digital download only where every game takes hours to download and install, constant patches and updates for games and console firmware, purposely making games sluggish or full of boring grinding parts and including micro-transactions so you can skip the purposely crappy gameplay, micro-transactions in general like Dead Or Alive 6 charging $1 every time you want to change your character's hair colour, etc.

As a recent example, Ubisoft's Trackmania has just been described by Ubisoft as not being subscription based.


"Actually it's not a subscription model but an access to the game for a limited time. You pay for having access to the game for a one period and that's it," a Ubisoft rep wrote. "When the time is over, you have to buy the game again for the time that you want to access it again."
Really glad to hear that's not a subscription. This is how modern game developers treat customers.



Really, I gotta wonder why some of you even visit the Modern Gaming section of this forum if you're seemingly so anti-modern games.
There's little else to check in on with the forum anymore so I look everywhere. Also there might be some things of interest that get posted in the modern section so I still look. I still look through my junk folder in my emails too as some things end up there by mistake.


It's just a matter of putting in the time and digging through what's available, but some are closed-minded and don't bother to look past the big-name stuff.
Very true, there's always some people making some type of games that will appeal to every person in some way, like text adventures that are still being made. It's just not by major studios. The thing is not everyone has the time to search the entire internet looking for obscure games that would be suitable for them, then checking reviews to confirm that the appealing game is actually good. People are often busy and just have limited free time, they won't usually spend it searching endlessly for entertainment, they'd rather spend their time on the entertainment itself. It's why people used to surf TV just to see what's on, not that they wanted to watch anything specifically. The modern equivalent would be browsing youtube through the recommended videos, just clicking on random videos that are being presented to you.

Overall for myself I usually tend to just go back to movies and games I already own and know I'll have a good time with, or just browse through what unviewed things I physically have as it's easier than searching online for random things to watch or play. Otherwise it's youtube. It's really rare for me to try searching specifically for new games or content to watch, when I find out about new games it's usually by chance as I'll come across it online and just think it's interesting and worth looking more into. I rarely specifically look for new games to play.

[Edmond Dantes]

Having watched some footage of the RE remakes, I've actually realized one thing that may be making me biased against them is simply their look. Their modern graphics really don't... stand out. It's a problem I know we've discussed in other topics, but seriously look at RE3 remake and look at any third-person over-the-shoulder shooter, or even something like The Evil Within, and tell me you can even tell they're by different companies.

That and... it seems like they downplay something I like about the originals... that they're kind of a halfway point between a PC point-and-click adventure game like King's Quest, and something like Super Metroid, but with a vague "scary" aspect to them (not that Super Metroid wasn't kinda unnerving at times itself). These seem more action-oriented, which isn't something I'm into.

I mean, I'm not saying they should keep the low-poly PS1 look... but they should definitely have kept the low-poly PS1 look.

Well, that and honestly a modern survival horror that seriously does the camera angles would be a nice return to form. I was never the kind of person who hated those or tank controls, and I seriously kinda miss them in this sea of third-person shooters that all kinda just run together.

[Gameguy]

Having watched some footage of the RE remakes, I've actually realized one thing that may be making me biased against them is simply their look. Their modern graphics really don't... stand out.
Most companies these days want to focus on realism over style, which I feel by nature fails to stand out as much. Most photographs won't stand out more than a well made painting, and most live action won't stand out more than animation. It's not that something realistic won't stand out but overall far less than something stylized. There's a good reason why independent games are focusing more on older styled graphics, not just looking like 8 or 16 bit consoles but now Gameboy monochrome, vintage Macintosh monochrome, or PS1 styled graphics. They look more like a video game. Overall realism works best for simulators. Most anime fans still prefer traditional looking 2D animation compared to modern CGI animation, I'm pretty sure it's mostly for the same reason.

I still like the looks of the Resident Evil remakes as they're really well done, I just don't necessarily prefer them compared to the older looking graphics. But admittedly I've always preferred the look of older games to modern ones, even in the PS2 days I still liked Genesis or SNES graphics more.

[Edmond Dantes]

I'll add something to that: older game graphics had this quality to them of asking you to kinda subconsciously fill in the blanks with your imagination, same as when you read a book, which I find just by default gives me a level of engagement.

That and sometimes older graphics just... move quicker. This is probably most noticable with RPGs--back in the top-view 2D days, if something sad happened it would be conveyed with the soundtrack changing and the character sprites' heads changing to indicate they were looking down or something. Now everything has a lot more detail and this means things take up more time. An issue I recall people having with the reboot of Thief: the Dark Project is that now, instead of just clicking on objects and WHAM, they're in your possession, now there's an animation for every time Garrett grabs something. It's small but it feels like it slows the game down.

Altho this trend has been happening for a long time now... Egoraptor had a similar issue with Zelda: Ocarina of Time and how now there's always this animation of Link looking wonderingly at a chest before opening it, whereas it used to be he would just.... open the damn thing. Having replayed Ocarina recently I actually wound up agreeing with statements like this. Don't get me wrong, I don't think 3D or high resolution has to inherently be "bad" or anything... but I do think game designers have a misplaced focus on realism, detail, and "immersion" over simple player convenience.

I've rambled before that "immersion" is another thing that nobody properly understands--lots of designers seem to think it means overthinking game logistics and having to explain everything, whereas I personally think games get more immersive when you just admit its a video game and go with it. An example of what I mean... there was some recent indie horror title that had important puzzle items looking no different than standard junk or background decorations. Which you can see the problem... it becomes so easy to get stuck because it turns out you needed to pick up this one specific cup or whatever that did not stand out in any way from the other kitchen utensils. Nothing breaks immersion quite like having to hunt down a walkthru. Meanwhile oldschool Resident Evil and Silent Hill just have important items being obvious and standing out.

Games for me are more immersive when I understand how they work and can just get into that particular mode of thought, but being too close to reality often obscures this... I've had multiple cases where, say, I've been in a chase sequence and didn't know where to run because how the heck was I supposed to tell the "right" hallway apart from dozens of others?

(And while I'm on a roll here, am I the only person who hates it when horror games have notes you read, but the game world is still moving in the background, so its 100% entirely possible to be killed by the monster while you're reading the damn novels that the game designer sprinkles around? It's like... how are we supposed to follow the stupid story if its actually detrimental to our survival to stop and read? You should ALWAYS pause the rest of the game while the player reads notes. I remember a game called Kholat especially being frustrating because of this)

[YoshiM]

I haven't played a lot of remakes of games over the years. However of those I have, I haven't run into a game where I said "oh yeah, this one is way better than the original". Then again, I can't say I've seen a remake of a movie that was better than the original either, but like Aussie said, one can't be objective about such games. "Conker's Bad Fur Day: Live and Reloaded" is probably the first (that I can think of at the moment) example of me experiencing a bone fide "remake" and preferring the original. I liked the updated graphics, I liked the addition of the Xbox Live content BUT they should have left the game's content alone. "Super Mario 64 DS" is another title: I'm not sure why Nintendo got the itch to make your main character Yoshi instead of Mario and change up the game. I could have seen playing a portable version of SMB64 and then having the choice to play as other characters to beat the game as them with their own unique movesets. "Metal Gear: The Twin Snakes" (or whatever it was called) for Gamecube actually kinda broke the game play from Metal Gear Solid by using the Metal Gear Solid 2 engine. Gorgeous game but the new engine caused problems with some of the puzzles (like the fight with Revolver Ocelot, if memory serves).

As for liking modern games, like anything else, it's always going to be subjective. I used to be pretty up to date with games up to the X360/PS3/Wii/U era but then my interest in the games at the time started to wane. Even though every generation can be blamed for having games that played near the same, in the then (and seemingly now from what I read, now) modern era the games got to feel the same. The differnce was, in my mind, that the 3D style games like FPS (which I enjoyed) and third person/first person adventures (like Mass Effect) tended to get stuck in ruts of "action sequence, explore sequence, action sequence (oh yeah, this next area has spots to take cover, I bet I'm going to be attacked), etc. Past games, like platformers and shooters, had the same concept elements but different approach to each. Which is probably why for me personally, I think I am sliding more toward either classic or "classically designed" games than going for the new AAA hotness like I used to. I love "Shovel Knight"-modern but still "old school" in all the right ways without giving me cheap deaths.

I think for some regarding a visible "dislike" of modern games, maybe those titles just don't scratch the itch classics do? As Shane R. Monroe called it in an episode of Retro Gaming Radio, people are looking for that "cherry high" they had with the games of their past. Sometimes the new games can hit the right buttons, but sometimes games, like "remakes" just don't do it. Other times, like it sounds with the new Final Fantasy 7 remake, it flicks new switches that the gamer didn't know they had available the virtual dopamine kicks in.

[kupomogli]

@Gameguy
Indie devs have lower budgets, so you either make classic looking titles or you make a stylish looking game since graphically you can't compete. Also, where are these microtransactions and lootboxes in these remakes? There's times to complain about games being screwed by modern mechanics and I'd imagine one of those times when the games in question actually have these issues, but that's just me.

@Edmond Dantes
Complaining that Resident Evil 2 plays like a third person shooter and not a fixed camera angle shooter with tank controls and you'd rather have another fixed camera angle game is more biased if you ask me. You're modern games are the same while also complaining that it doesn't play the same as the orignal. The irony here is pretty strong.

Infact, platformers are as much similar to another platformer as a third person shooter is to another third person shooter. You don't play a platformer and then take it at face value that all you do is go to the right. Platforming physics, game mechanics, etc, just as you would compare these aspects to each individual platformer you'd compare these aspects to each individual fps, tps, etc. Now yes, we can argue that most military shooters play near identical. I'm not arguing against that, but it's also a genre that I ignore. I also ignore the shmup genre, a dime a dozen genre that most games play near identical. Or how about the classic beat em up, yet another dime a dozen coat of paint genre that is again, just the same game over and over again. You've got modern developers trying to turn the garbage beat em up genre around and while there's no game in the genre as good as God Hand, the modern games are far better than most of Capcom's copy and paste bs.

Classic gaming has just as many faults modern gaming. At the very least, modern games on average are of a high quality than classic games, the average quality. However, the upper echelon of quality for modern gaming isn't quite as high as classic game quality. On top of that, modern gaming has many more styles of gameplay than classic gaming could ever hope to achieve and then there are styles of games that are playable as classic genres that modern versions of those games are superior in every way.

[Gameguy]

@Gameguy
Indie devs have lower budgets, so you either make classic looking titles or you make a stylish looking game since graphically you can't compete. Also, where are these microtransactions and lootboxes in these remakes? There's times to complain about games being screwed by modern mechanics and I'd imagine one of those times when the games in question actually have these issues, but that's just me.
There's a few things to reply to so I'll just quickly break down my reply further.


Indie devs have lower budgets, so you either make classic looking titles or you make a stylish looking game since graphically you can't compete.
Limitations help make a game better, whether they're technological limitations or budgetary limitations. With limits in place you need to focus on being creative, that benefits any type of art form.

Also, when games just try to go for full realism, they'll only look impressive until more powerful hardware comes along and surpasses it. It becomes forgettable very quickly.


Also, where are these microtransactions and lootboxes in these remakes?
There are none, which is why I consider these specific remakes to be good games. Maybe I wasn't clear with how I previously replied in this thread but I actually do consider these remakes to be good games. I have heard some criticism of Final Fantasy VII for changing the ending from the original game but I haven't looked into it myself. I specifically said most modern games, not all of them.

I just find it funny how conversations about great console games are turning out. Twenty years ago when asked what are the best games on the still current PS1, you'll get replies including Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, and Resident Evil 3. Today, twenty years later, when asked what are the best games on the current PS4, you'll get replies including Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, and Resident Evil 3. That's how progress is going, feels like the best games to play are exactly the same. It's like specifically buying a PS3 to play Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection.


As for comparing the gameplay between the original Resident Evil games and the remakes, it's a personal preference. I still would prefer playing the original games to the remakes. I may still like the remakes but overall I don't like fully 3D games as much as older styled games as I generally dislike 3D controls. There's not a whole lot of PS1 and PS2 games I like either, most 3D games just feel off to me when I try playing them. Plus with modern survival horror games for added realism there's plenty of areas with lots of darkness, while it does add to the atmosphere and does look impressive visually, I prefer clearly seeing what's happening when I'm playing a game. For most modern games I'm fine with watching a playthrough online, while I'll actually play older games myself. As for beat em ups, the modern Streets of Rage 4 looks very good, I'll see if I'll play it at some point but at the moment I have no interest in buying new hardware.

[Gameguy]

@Gameguy
Indie devs have lower budgets, so you either make classic looking titles or you make a stylish looking game since graphically you can't compete.
I forgot the name at the time but there's Hellblade from 2017, that's a modern game that was low budget but still looks like an impressive modern game. It was the first game that the developer Ninja Theory decided to fund and publish themselves, lower budget but high quality. They also decided to use their own money instead of using Kickstarter so that's good on them. Apparently the team size was about 15-20 people, I've seen both numbers mentioned so I'm not sure which is accurate but either way that's small for a modern game.

Since this game came out the studio has been acquired by Microsoft but this game was made independently, it's everything positive how a modern game should be made. This isn't a remake or a sequel, it's something new.

[kupomogli]

I forgot the name at the time but there's Hellblade from 2017, that's a modern game that was low budget but still looks like an impressive modern game. It was the first game that the developer Ninja Theory decided to fund and publish themselves, lower budget but high quality. They also decided to use their own money instead of using Kickstarter so that's good on them. Apparently the team size was about 15-20 people, I've seen both numbers mentioned so I'm not sure which is accurate but either way that's small for a modern game.

Since this game came out the studio has been acquired by Microsoft but this game was made independently, it's everything positive how a modern game should be made. This isn't a remake or a sequel, it's something new.

And Ninja Theory isn't just your small indie dev team working out of their home. It still cost 10 million to make which for example, is half of what the original Uncharted cost to make. However, the response wasn't that larger independent studios can't make these games. Your comment was that a lot of these games look similar and that indie developers have different stylish looking games. How different does Senua's Sacrifice look from many other games, how different does it actually look from their last game; DmC Devil May Cry. Not very honestly. Infact it's even closer to "realism" than many games despite being on a budget, one of your above complaints.

*edit*

Now I'm not crapping on the game saying it's a generic game or it's just a repetitive game, because its combat is actually its own, I'm just giving an example of your complaints. I purchased the game because I was interested in it, so there's that. I haven't yet played it. But the game fits the complaints you made and my responses towards that. They made a game on as large of a budget they could and they made something that was closer to the games you were complaining about.

[Gameguy]

And Ninja Theory isn't just your small indie dev team working out of their home.
Most "indie" developers aren't just a couple of people working out of a home basement. WayForward of the Shantae games is considered by most to be an independent developer and they just celebrated their 30th anniversary, and Infinite Fall who just formed to create and release the recent Night in the Woods made the game with around the same number of staff as Ninja Theory. It's a bit odd how they're all considered "indie" studios when their structure and size is how most game developers used to be decades ago, but that's what small studios are today.

So many "indie" kickstarters are made by industry professionals who have worked in gaming for decades, it's odd to consider these as independent like Bloodstained, Broken Age, Shenmue III, etc. The real small devs you're suggesting who are working out of a home are really close to homebrew programmers, and most releases are near unplayable as most of the Xbox Live Indie Games were. It's just that most of the styles or types of games I personally enjoy happen to be made by indie studios these days, it's not that I love indie studios over anything AAA by default.

I basically mentioned Hellblade as you mentioned that indie devs can't compete on making graphically intensive games, I found that's not necessarily the case as Ninja Theory did just that. They don't all have to be 2D or uniquely stylish in a graphically limited way.

Thank you for finding the budget for Hellblade, I tried finding it but couldn't. Their previous games weren't independently funded but I counted this one as they both funded it themselves with a lower budget and reduced the team size to a small number, so at this point they're basically on par with any other indie developer. They still managed to profit after selling 500,000 copies of Hellblade, which I think is a pretty reasonable amount to sell to recoup your costs in development. And then there's Electronic Arts who was "disappointed" when selling 7.3 million copies of Battlefield V as that wasn't enough. It's really hard for me to sympathise with AAA studios complaining about stuff like that when it was incredibly unrealistic for games to sell anywhere near that many in the past.

There's other good AAA games too, like the recent God of War for PS4. It looks like a well made game and I watched a playthrough of it, it's just not a game I feel I would want to play through myself. It's not that there's no good modern games, but I really have to struggle to think of any that interest me. Looking up Hellblade and God of War again reminded me of another aspect of modern games that I'm not a fan of, most games seem to have a skill tree of some type. Basically every type of game is treated as an RPG or has elements shoved in just to extend the game time through grinding, I don't like having to fiddle around with this stuff when I'm just trying to play a basic action or combat game. Thankfully Hellblade left that out, obviously because of budgetary reasons but the end result is more of an improvement in my opinion. My PC isn't powerful enough to play Hellblade but maybe someday I'll get around to it, otherwise I can watch a playthrough online.

[Edmond Dantes]

@Edmond Dantes
Complaining that Resident Evil 2 plays like a third person shooter and not a fixed camera angle shooter with tank controls and you'd rather have another fixed camera angle game is more biased if you ask me. You're modern games are the same while also complaining that it doesn't play the same as the orignal. The irony here is pretty strong.

Except, it's only "irony" if you ignore what I actually said and pretend my entire complaint was "I hate games that play like other games," which no offense but, that's basically what you're doing here.

I find third-person over-the-shoulder shooters BORING. Moreover, the original gameplay style of RE was unique--even at its height there weren't that many games that played like it (yes there were a lot of RE clones, but they were a small handful even in their own time). So yeah, it bothers me that a style that was pretty unique and which I actually had fun with got replaced with something dime-a-dozen which I find to be a bit of a sleep aid. Is this really such a complicated concept?

To use your own examples, imagine if the thing you always liked about Mario was the platforming action, and then Nintendo came and said all Mario games henceforth would be Final Fight-style brawlers.

[kupomogli]

Except, it's only "irony" if you ignore what I actually said and pretend my entire complaint was "I hate games that play like other games," which no offense but, that's basically what you're doing here.

I find third-person over-the-shoulder shooters BORING. Moreover, the original gameplay style of RE was unique--even at its height there weren't that many games that played like it (yes there were a lot of RE clones, but they were a small handful even in their own time). So yeah, it bothers me that a style that was pretty unique and which I actually had fun with got replaced with something dime-a-dozen which I find to be a bit of a sleep aid. Is this really such a complicated concept?

To use your own examples, imagine if the thing you always liked about Mario was the platforming action, and then Nintendo came and said all Mario games henceforth would be Final Fight-style brawlers.

Aside from the fixed camera angles, what's so unique about Resident Evil 2? Nothing. The remake goes back to the same item management style of Resident Evil 2. Resident Evil 7 did this as well. The only difference with Resident Evil 2 is the positioning of the camera angle and now when you do have to shoot enemies, it's skill based instead. No longer just hold L1 and press X for 100% accuracy. That doesn't bother me as that doesn't change how enjoyable Resident Evil 2 is regardless which iteration of the game it is. They both play fairly similar one is just modernized the othern is less modern, but it shows how good the development is that both of these games can be equally as good(even if I myself do prefer the original over the remake.)

Just watch 10 minutes of this and you'll see just how much location memory and item management there is in the game. This is a HUGE part of the game. Played by myself on hardcore difficulty. https://youtu.be/65roDpv1zT8?t=589

I often talk about how God Hand is the best beat em up ever made over and over again. One of the very very very few games I'd give a 10/10. That game isn't a shooter yet the camera angle is the same over the shoulder camera angle that you're complaining about. At the same time, I think God of War on PS4 is merely good, despite also being an over the shoulder camera angle and at the time, a beat em up. Kind of like God Hand.

[Ryudo]

And Ninja Theory isn't just your small indie dev team working out of their home. It still cost 10 million to make which for example, is half of what the original Uncharted cost to make. However, the response wasn't that larger independent studios can't make these games. Your comment was that a lot of these games look similar and that indie developers have different stylish looking games. How different does Senua's Sacrifice look from many other games, how different does it actually look from their last game; DmC Devil May Cry. Not very honestly. Infact it's even closer to "realism" than many games despite being on a budget, one of your above complaints.

*edit*

Now I'm not crapping on the game saying it's a generic game or it's just a repetitive game, because its combat is actually its own, I'm just giving an example of your complaints. I purchased the game because I was interested in it, so there's that. I haven't yet played it. But the game fits the complaints you made and my responses towards that. They made a game on as large of a budget they could and they made something that was closer to the games you were complaining about.

Ninja Theory isn't indie anyway. Microsoft owns them

[Gameguy]

Ninja Theory isn't indie anyway. Microsoft owns them
Microsoft bought them after they released Hellblade, I only considered them indie for that one release. The games they made before that were mostly contracted out and paid for by other studios or companies, those games weren't indie either.


Aside from the fixed camera angles, what's so unique about Resident Evil 2? Nothing. The remake goes back to the same item management style of Resident Evil 2. Resident Evil 7 did this as well. The only difference with Resident Evil 2 is the positioning of the camera angle and now when you do have to shoot enemies, it's skill based instead. No longer just hold L1 and press X for 100% accuracy. That doesn't bother me as that doesn't change how enjoyable Resident Evil 2 is regardless which iteration of the game it is. They both play fairly similar one is just modernized the othern is less modern, but it shows how good the development is that both of these games can be equally as good(even if I myself do prefer the original over the remake.)
Your argument is like saying A Link to the Past plays exactly like Ocarina of Time as they progress and manage items in similar ways, you might as well say Gradius and Starfox are essentially the same game as you're piloting a spaceship and shooting enemies. The way they control feels very different. As for auto aiming in the original version, I would also be ok if the shooting was taken out entirely. It's mostly an adventure game focusing on solving puzzles and managing inventory items, that's mostly the appeal I have with survival horror games as I'm more into the adventure parts. If it was turned into a full adventure game without combat I wouldn't hate the change.

The remake has the combat changed to that of a standard 3D shooter, it's not bad but I'm not really into those types of games as much. That's not saying it's a worse game for having that change, I just don't personally like that gameplay style as much and it's less unique as 3D shooters are extremely common now. I think Edmond Dantes seems to feel the same way. That said there was criticism towards the controls for the original version back when it first came out so it's not like it was flawless. I tend to like the earlier fixed camera angles as they give a more cinematic feel.


At the same time, I think God of War on PS4 is merely good, despite also being an over the shoulder camera angle and at the time, a beat em up. Kind of like God Hand.
God of War wasn't a beat em up, there was combat in the game but it was mostly sidequests and puzzle solving. It's like saying Zelda games are beat em ups.

[kupomogli]

@Gameguy

You should probably keep it in the realm of realism if you're going to argue against my Resident Evil 2 plays like a modern version of the original Resident Evil 2. Modernized versions of the games are going to play different, but based on your comparison, such as my comparison is like Gradius plays just like Star Fox? Then here's an idea. Stop playing modern consoles and only play classic games, because it's clear you're only going to bitch about them. So instead of just constantly bitching about them, do yourself a favor and just don't play them. Problem solved.

//

However, if you take classic Resident Evil's tank controls, that translates pretty well into your modern third person shooter. Up moves you forward, left and right on the right stick turns your character, back well, has your character walk backwards. You have the left stick left and right which adds strafe which is something you couldn't do but otherwise pretty similar right? Infact, Resident Evil Outbreak has tank controls and Resident Evil Outbreak File 2 has tank controls and you can strafe left and right. They're still tank controls, you now just have the visibility of viewing the character behind the back instead of overhead and instead of just holding L1 and hitting square to shoot, you actually have to aim your shots. That's pretty much the biggest difference.

Classic Resident Evil games are prerendered games that look to play as if they're 3D and the tank controls allow the player to not switch screens and then spin out of control. Otherwise the games play exactly the same, item management is identical. You can try and spin it if you want, but we both know this is true, I know it, you know. Everyone in the forum who has touched the game knows it. There's very little difference between the original and the remake.

For example, look here when the prerendered video is behind the back and your movements match like for like what the full 3D Resident Evil movements would to go straight and then turn left or right around a corner. Like it or not, the tank controls are just third person shooter controls. https://youtu.be/kYmeNHhwQd4?t=538

[Gameguy]

@Gameguy

You should probably keep it in the realm of realism if you're going to argue against my Resident Evil 2 plays like a modern version of the original Resident Evil 2. Modernized versions of the games are going to play different, but based on your comparison, such as my comparison is like Gradius plays just like Star Fox? Then here's an idea. Stop playing modern consoles and only play classic games, because it's clear you're only going to bitch about them. So instead of just constantly bitching about them, do yourself a favor and just don't play them. Problem solved.
That's what I said I do, I don't really play modern games. Except for some indie games that play like old ones.


However, if you take classic Resident Evil's tank controls, that translates pretty well into your modern third person shooter. Up moves you forward, left and right on the right stick turns your character, back well, has your character walk backwards. You have the left stick left and right which adds strafe which is something you couldn't do but otherwise pretty similar right? Infact, Resident Evil Outbreak has tank controls and Resident Evil Outbreak File 2 has tank controls and you can strafe left and right. They're still tank controls, you now just have the visibility of viewing the character behind the back instead of overhead and instead of just holding L1 and hitting square to shoot, you actually have to aim your shots. That's pretty much the biggest difference.
The aiming is the biggest difference, and that's a part of the tank controls I mentioned. I didn't view aiming as something separate from the tank controls when I mentioned preferring them. Just talking about walking itself between tank controls and the modern analog stick controls, they're close enough. Overall I dislike having to aim precisely with an analog stick, with a lightgun it would be fun, but aiming with analog sticks just gets on my nerves far more than older methods of aiming. In 3D shooters, I like the old Wolfenstein 3D or Duke Nukem 3D where you just face the enemy to aim at them, I don't need to precisely aim at their head, chest, or appendages to kill them. That's more fun to me. Or arcade games like Silent Scope where you're using a lightgun to aim.

Overall with modern 3D games I don't mind modern controls as much with adventure games as I can take my time exploring everything, I don't like that when I'm dealing with enemies.


Classic Resident Evil games are prerendered games that look to play as if they're 3D and the tank controls allow the player to not switch screens and then spin out of control. Otherwise the games play exactly the same, item management is identical. You can try and spin it if you want, but we both know this is true, I know it, you know. Everyone in the forum who has touched the game knows it. There's very little difference between the original and the remake.
I just like the prerendered backgrounds in comparison to the modern version because each shot is framed specifically, it just looks cinematic to me as the camera in every shot is specifically placed at specific heights and angles the way well made films are carefully framed. In the remake the modern camera follows you around so you're not getting as specific controlled angles and perspectives, it's just an environment to move through. It's funny how when I say I don't like the new controls as much, like the movement and combat(aiming), you bring up item management which aren't the controls and then say they basically play exactly the same. The way your character moves and fights enemies is different, that's enough of a difference.

Like I said, the remakes are still good games, I just prefer the original versions more.