Modern remakes

[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.