Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Remasters, Remakes, and Console Ports/Collections - "Definitive" version or a butchered cash grab?
The practice of porting games to different hardware has been around for as long as home consoles have existed. The problem that many soon found out was just because it had the same name doesn't mean it's the same game.
In the beginning, it was fairly obvious that arcade cabinets had better hardware than consoles at the time, but that didn't stop people from wanting to play a version at home even if it was lower-quality experience. The line started to blur however around the 16-bit generation and the start of the console wars between Nintendo and Sega. Not only were there debates on which system had the best exclusives, but also which one had the best port as well. Most famously was the debate between the home release of Mortal Kombat. While many argued that the SNES port had better quality graphics, many still sided with the Genesis/Mega Drive port due to the inclusion of the blood cheat code that made the game feel more faithful to the tone of the arcade version.
On the flipside, there were cases where just the attempt to even port the game in the first place was seen as more impressive than the game itself. This can be seen in the N64 version of Resident Evil 2 where they managed to fit a multi-disc PS1 game spanning over 1GB in size to fit in a single 64MB cartridge.
As time went on a new issue began to arise: What if a company wanted to re-release one of their older titles onto newer hardware that didn't have backwards-compatibility? This is where the concept of a remaster comes in. Ideally, the idea is to make the game play the same as the original with little to no compromises, but since on the surface many would view this to be just another "port", oftentimes developers would try to find ways to incentivize players to buy their new version. This was usually done by offering updated graphics or gameplay options to enhance the player experience and help it feel on par with the other newer games on the market, or to release multiple games as a collection for a lower price. An early example of this can be seen in Super Mario All-Stars where the first 3 games on the NES were remastered using 16-bit sprites and included a copy of the Japanese exclusive "Lost Levels" from the first game (some copies even came bundled with the new Super Mario World as well).
However, just because you give a game "pretty graphics" doesn't mean that everyone will consider it better than the original. (Source)
Even worse when the newer graphics ruin the original vision
Or when there's not enough changes
Or when they make it impossible to play the original since all you need is the "definitive" version now.
This issue also becomes even more complicated when dealing with a game that previously has multiple ports on the different systems as a company may not take the time to compile the best aspects of all versions into one and instead settle for an inferior version as its base.
Sometimes it may not be enough for a game to simply swap out the textures and replace the models, sometimes it's better to completely remake the game from scratch using a completely new engine and gameplay mechanics. This is where the line can start to blur between what's classified as a "remake" vs a "remaster" as most remasters are technically running on newer engines. Usually the deciding factor is if there's a drastic change in gameplay and/or how much effort was made to remake it. An example of this is the Resident Evil remake on GameCube where the entire game was fully modeled to 3D, or Persona 3 Reload where the game was remade to use a similar engine to Persona 5 and give it more flair. A more controversial instance would be the Final Fantasy VII Remake where there's an entirely new combat system and deviations from the original story, plus the fact that the original game is being broken up into a trilogy.
TL;DR - Rant about you're favorite (or least favorite) game that has a remaster, a remake, or a notable port on another system. Is it better? Worse? """Definitive"""?
majoras mask 3ds added the zelda equivalent of yellow paint to the bosses. Stupid giant weak points. Keen to see if they learnt their lesson for the switch 2 remake of OoC.
As I mentioned in the BG3 thread, there are rumors of a BGII remake. I don't care what they do with it, it's DoA. The VA for Irenicus is dead. They could just adapt the voice lines and that would be the only solution but WotC will fuck that up. Bethesda didn't even use the og voicelines for Oblivion and instead redubbed them with shittier versions for their shitty remaster (yes, shittier than the iconic VAs of og Oblivion).
Hot take on remakes/remasters and VAs/voicelines: I'm not against AI. I'm using the no faggotry mod for BG3 that restores Ser Aylin and removes some girlbosses and poofs. They used AI to modify the voicelines and you could not tell if you didnt know better.
safe to say nobody is maintaining this, the list is missing so many entries i'm not even surprised
post-hack nu-/v/ is utterly worthless
I've only ever played two actual remasters, Diablo 2 Resurrected and the "new" Oblivion, and they're basically as good as it gets, though they both received plenty of shit from tourists whose insight and knowledge of the games was restricted comparing screenshots between the versions and going "yeah no this doesn't look the same, certified cashgrab 0/10 would not even pirate"
if you didn't play D2 enough to be able to identify what type of item dropped based solely on its audio cue or Oblivion enough to know which NPCs have copies of the lusty argonian maid on them or in their houses, you're not qualified to judge the quality or the "feel" of the remaster
So much garbage it's not even funny anymore. FF7, D2R, Silent Hill 2, everything that BluePoint touched, Last of Us, Oblivion, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Resident Evil slop and so on, it never stops. Basically the baseline is, almost every remaster and remake is shit. And if you love the regurgitated garbage served at room temperature you are a dumb nigger cattle.
As for "good" remaster and remakes or ports that is a tough question. I guess the PC port of DDDA doesn't run at 5 FPS compared to the PS3 version so that's good. But Capcom were faggots and didn't shill out for the license agreements for "Into Free" and the Berserk DLC. So it's a trade-off. Anno 1404 History edition ? Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 Total War ? Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition ? Best thing you can hope for is a plain remaster, just making sure the game runs and looks fine on modern hardware without tampering with anything else. But even that seems to be a major problem.
Its always funny to see barebones ports of Vector games. Like nothing can display that shit and the graphics make most of the experience. It would be like porting board games without any fancy modes and shit
I liked some of the extras in Wild Arms: Alter Code F. But the game was very broken picking up overworld items can break the map and you can fly and sometimes sail through them letting you reach places you shouldn't. Or get lost. I remember breaking the map so badly that I was stuck sailing around looking for a place to disembark.
Honestly, I'd be interested to hear what are considered good remakes. I appreciate that there is enough people who make a fuss that normally the original gets ported anyways (eventually).
Remasters are tougher. In a way, they are at least much closer to the original. But they seem much more likely to delist previous versions for a buggier/censored/pricy release. There's also the classic cases of "got X in this remaster, but later remasters is missing X." At least some still bundle the original, and I imagine a remaster is more likely to be considered a definitive version than a remake by people who played the original.
For some quick Delist Examples: Blood: Fresh Supply got delisted for Blood: Refreshed Supply, for a base price increase of $10->$30. Final Fantasy VII got a new version, with new bugs.
Yakuza as a series has had it happen a couple times now. For example, Yakuza 0.
More if you include ones that can still be bought, but require a direct link (STALKER trilogy, Skyrim, etc.)
Ver archivo adjunto 9151886
majoras mask 3ds added the zelda equivalent of yellow paint to the bosses. Stupid giant weak points. Keen to see if they learnt their lesson for the switch 2 remake of OoC.
What Aonuma did in Majora kindov tells me he doesn't understand a lot of why people like his games. He has expressed issues with both Majora and Twilight Princess, both of which are up there in terms of Zelda games, but he seems to lament having to have worked on them or treated their development in retrospect with displeasure. Which is one of many things that has me worried for the demake.
When it comes to remakes there's a reason why the tried and true REmake is always brought up, because it did what a remake should, essentially improving all elements of a game, but keeping the same development mindset from its creation. The graphics, gameplay, music, atmosphere, story, and voice acting were all improved - But, instead of throwing out the old tank controls and fixed camera angles like they were an old rag, it embraced them. The fixed camera angles and pre-rendered backgrounds were simply enhanced by the graphical power of the gamecube, and the original integrity was maintained. The tank controls weren't treated as a hinderance, it was a deliberate style, and the new changes were balanced around them. The game did not REMOVE content like the new RE remakes so often do - it Added content. And the content it added not only improved the strategy and horror (crimson heads), but it also improved the story (Lisa Trevor).
There's a reason many people cite REmake as the paragon for remakes, cliche as it may be - it is no less accurate , it is the gold standard.
