Quote Originally Posted by kupomogli View Post
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.