The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Many people have cited too many sequels as a criticism of the PlayStation 2. Now I’m not here to debate this subject as I personally think a sequel to a quality title is a deserved thing as long as it’s not just an ‘expansion pack’ style sequel (i.e. exactly the same thing with new levels). However have to admit I do think that the PS2 suffers from being the lesser kind of sequel itself – apart from tarted up visuals there is little advantage over the PSOne.
Regardless of my own opinions, there is another potentially even more dangerous word that is becoming increasingly common and it’s largely coming from the GameCube camp – a console which I am much more fond of. At first it had nothing to do with Nintendo themselves (well, not directly anyway) but now they’re joining in as well. It’s a word that the film world is already familiar with, and hasn’t suffered badly as yet, except for a few notable examples.
The word I’m talking about is ‘re-make’.
Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I have my doubts about this). There’s no question that Resident Evil is a modern classic and thoroughly deserves the status it has achieved. Bringing it up to date by adding all that has been added can only be a good thing. But to re-make pretty much the entire Resident Evil back catalogue over the course of little more than a year (most of which with little in the way of improvement – certainly no where near as much as the originals re-make) is sending bad signals out across the gaming world. Particularly if they prove popular a second time round.
Nintendo have recently announced that they are releasing a GameCube update of the N64 Zelda game The Ocarina of Time. I admit they are also giving the graphics a workout and are adding extra dungeons and features originally planned for the unreleased Ura-Zelda expansion (as well as including the original game on the disc) but why are Nintendo and several other developers releasing games of the past on a console of the future?
In the case of Zelda, I have a theory. It’s no secret that the new cel-shaded Zeldas look has become a bit controversial. I’m on the side of fence with the people who think that the looks of an RPG greatly affects how immersed you can become in it’s world and I just don’t think I can feel that way when playing a cartoon (no matter how superbly animated it is). Hopefully we’ll all be proved wrong by the time we get into playing it but if there wasn’t this backlash I sincerely doubt that the Ocarina re-make would ever have been considered. It’s just a way of satisfying traditionalists (like myself) and more open minded people with two Zelda games for the price of one and a bit (for them at least, it’ll be twice the price for those of us who buy both).
Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance. In fact, the GBA has quite a few re-makes to its name and there are sure to be more to come. Just because you can play an 8 or 10 year old game on a handheld console rather than one that’s tied to a TV doesn’t make it new. Square have/are doing it with a couple of Final Fantasy games as well. Why not set all the people who are working on these on to developing a brand new Final Fantasy game for the system. This is more than likely happening anyway but it would happen sooner I they didn’t waste staff on re-makes (and will also allow that all-important, money-making, trillion-selling sequel to be released quicker as well).
People can play their old PSOne games on a PS2 with some graphical improvements for free. Would they really want to do that if they had to for out £30-40 a time for the privilege.
I hope I’m wrong with this, I really do. But the thought that some of our most admired and excitement-inducing developers are re-making classic titles makes me think that they’re in danger of concentrating too much on their past successes and not enough on their future ones.
Regardless of my own opinions, there is another potentially even more dangerous word that is becoming increasingly common and it’s largely coming from the GameCube camp – a console which I am much more fond of. At first it had nothing to do with Nintendo themselves (well, not directly anyway) but now they’re joining in as well. It’s a word that the film world is already familiar with, and hasn’t suffered badly as yet, except for a few notable examples.
The word I’m talking about is ‘re-make’.
Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I have my doubts about this). There’s no question that Resident Evil is a modern classic and thoroughly deserves the status it has achieved. Bringing it up to date by adding all that has been added can only be a good thing. But to re-make pretty much the entire Resident Evil back catalogue over the course of little more than a year (most of which with little in the way of improvement – certainly no where near as much as the originals re-make) is sending bad signals out across the gaming world. Particularly if they prove popular a second time round.
Nintendo have recently announced that they are releasing a GameCube update of the N64 Zelda game The Ocarina of Time. I admit they are also giving the graphics a workout and are adding extra dungeons and features originally planned for the unreleased Ura-Zelda expansion (as well as including the original game on the disc) but why are Nintendo and several other developers releasing games of the past on a console of the future?
In the case of Zelda, I have a theory. It’s no secret that the new cel-shaded Zeldas look has become a bit controversial. I’m on the side of fence with the people who think that the looks of an RPG greatly affects how immersed you can become in it’s world and I just don’t think I can feel that way when playing a cartoon (no matter how superbly animated it is). Hopefully we’ll all be proved wrong by the time we get into playing it but if there wasn’t this backlash I sincerely doubt that the Ocarina re-make would ever have been considered. It’s just a way of satisfying traditionalists (like myself) and more open minded people with two Zelda games for the price of one and a bit (for them at least, it’ll be twice the price for those of us who buy both).
Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance. In fact, the GBA has quite a few re-makes to its name and there are sure to be more to come. Just because you can play an 8 or 10 year old game on a handheld console rather than one that’s tied to a TV doesn’t make it new. Square have/are doing it with a couple of Final Fantasy games as well. Why not set all the people who are working on these on to developing a brand new Final Fantasy game for the system. This is more than likely happening anyway but it would happen sooner I they didn’t waste staff on re-makes (and will also allow that all-important, money-making, trillion-selling sequel to be released quicker as well).
People can play their old PSOne games on a PS2 with some graphical improvements for free. Would they really want to do that if they had to for out £30-40 a time for the privilege.
I hope I’m wrong with this, I really do. But the thought that some of our most admired and excitement-inducing developers are re-making classic titles makes me think that they’re in danger of concentrating too much on their past successes and not enough on their future ones.
"Re-make"
There! It's fine.
*Arm falls off*
Er... a little help over here please...
There! It's fine.
*Arm falls off*
Er... a little help over here please...
Re-make. See, nothing bad happed.
*Arm falls off*
Crap.
*Arm falls off*
Crap.
The_King wrote:
> What you've got to remember is that at the end of the day, a great
> game is a great game, whether it's a re-make, sequel or totally
> original. I'd rather play excellent re-makes or sequels than poor
> original games any day.
What I'm questioning is whether people want to play what are essentially old games on their new consoles, regardless of how great they are. If we are relying on excellent re-makes rather than excellent sequels and excellent new games then what is the point in replacing our hardware?
Wouldn't it be better to incorporate the new ideas used and areas (if applicable) in the re-made Resident Evil into a completely new game in the series?
Oh and Mario Advance isn't a diect port of Mario World. What about the addition of Luigi as a distinctly different character for a start?
Re-makes or whatever on the GBA can sometimes be partly excluded from the rest of my examples becuase they are portable versions of the titles in question. Playing Mario World in a car on a long journey? Only a fool would call that a bad idea, but I think there is a danger of this all going too far.
> What you've got to remember is that at the end of the day, a great
> game is a great game, whether it's a re-make, sequel or totally
> original. I'd rather play excellent re-makes or sequels than poor
> original games any day.
What I'm questioning is whether people want to play what are essentially old games on their new consoles, regardless of how great they are. If we are relying on excellent re-makes rather than excellent sequels and excellent new games then what is the point in replacing our hardware?
Wouldn't it be better to incorporate the new ideas used and areas (if applicable) in the re-made Resident Evil into a completely new game in the series?
Oh and Mario Advance isn't a diect port of Mario World. What about the addition of Luigi as a distinctly different character for a start?
Re-makes or whatever on the GBA can sometimes be partly excluded from the rest of my examples becuase they are portable versions of the titles in question. Playing Mario World in a car on a long journey? Only a fool would call that a bad idea, but I think there is a danger of this all going too far.
Hmmm, sorry for the poor spelling and grammar in the last post, it’s the end of the day and I’m off home! Just wanted to reply before I left.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube
> release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added
> (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I
> have my doubts about this).
Just wait until you play it! I've finished the PS1 version loads of times, and the difference is huge. not just on the viduals, but the whole game. The layout of the mansion, the areas where monester appear, the numbers in which monsters appear, and almost all of the puzzels have been re-wored in some way. Res Evil on the GameCube is a stunning game, and while you're labeling it a re-make, which technically it is, its way more different than may sequels i've played. Basically it's a totally different game.
>
> Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance.
I was under the impression that Super mario Advance 2 was IDENTICAL to the Super NES version. This isn't a re-make, it's a direct port! Why is this a bad thing, Mario World is one of the best games of all time, and being able to play it on a handheld is top stuff. If they released Super Mario World on the GameCube, then that would be poor, but on a handheld, i see no problem.
What you've got to remember is that at the end of the day, a great game is a great game, whether it's a re-make, sequel or totally original. I'd rather play excellent re-makes or sequels than poor original games any day.
> Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube
> release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added
> (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I
> have my doubts about this).
Just wait until you play it! I've finished the PS1 version loads of times, and the difference is huge. not just on the viduals, but the whole game. The layout of the mansion, the areas where monester appear, the numbers in which monsters appear, and almost all of the puzzels have been re-wored in some way. Res Evil on the GameCube is a stunning game, and while you're labeling it a re-make, which technically it is, its way more different than may sequels i've played. Basically it's a totally different game.
>
> Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance.
I was under the impression that Super mario Advance 2 was IDENTICAL to the Super NES version. This isn't a re-make, it's a direct port! Why is this a bad thing, Mario World is one of the best games of all time, and being able to play it on a handheld is top stuff. If they released Super Mario World on the GameCube, then that would be poor, but on a handheld, i see no problem.
What you've got to remember is that at the end of the day, a great game is a great game, whether it's a re-make, sequel or totally original. I'd rather play excellent re-makes or sequels than poor original games any day.
Many people have cited too many sequels as a criticism of the PlayStation 2. Now I’m not here to debate this subject as I personally think a sequel to a quality title is a deserved thing as long as it’s not just an ‘expansion pack’ style sequel (i.e. exactly the same thing with new levels). However have to admit I do think that the PS2 suffers from being the lesser kind of sequel itself – apart from tarted up visuals there is little advantage over the PSOne.
Regardless of my own opinions, there is another potentially even more dangerous word that is becoming increasingly common and it’s largely coming from the GameCube camp – a console which I am much more fond of. At first it had nothing to do with Nintendo themselves (well, not directly anyway) but now they’re joining in as well. It’s a word that the film world is already familiar with, and hasn’t suffered badly as yet, except for a few notable examples.
The word I’m talking about is ‘re-make’.
Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I have my doubts about this). There’s no question that Resident Evil is a modern classic and thoroughly deserves the status it has achieved. Bringing it up to date by adding all that has been added can only be a good thing. But to re-make pretty much the entire Resident Evil back catalogue over the course of little more than a year (most of which with little in the way of improvement – certainly no where near as much as the originals re-make) is sending bad signals out across the gaming world. Particularly if they prove popular a second time round.
Nintendo have recently announced that they are releasing a GameCube update of the N64 Zelda game The Ocarina of Time. I admit they are also giving the graphics a workout and are adding extra dungeons and features originally planned for the unreleased Ura-Zelda expansion (as well as including the original game on the disc) but why are Nintendo and several other developers releasing games of the past on a console of the future?
In the case of Zelda, I have a theory. It’s no secret that the new cel-shaded Zeldas look has become a bit controversial. I’m on the side of fence with the people who think that the looks of an RPG greatly affects how immersed you can become in it’s world and I just don’t think I can feel that way when playing a cartoon (no matter how superbly animated it is). Hopefully we’ll all be proved wrong by the time we get into playing it but if there wasn’t this backlash I sincerely doubt that the Ocarina re-make would ever have been considered. It’s just a way of satisfying traditionalists (like myself) and more open minded people with two Zelda games for the price of one and a bit (for them at least, it’ll be twice the price for those of us who buy both).
Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance. In fact, the GBA has quite a few re-makes to its name and there are sure to be more to come. Just because you can play an 8 or 10 year old game on a handheld console rather than one that’s tied to a TV doesn’t make it new. Square have/are doing it with a couple of Final Fantasy games as well. Why not set all the people who are working on these on to developing a brand new Final Fantasy game for the system. This is more than likely happening anyway but it would happen sooner I they didn’t waste staff on re-makes (and will also allow that all-important, money-making, trillion-selling sequel to be released quicker as well).
People can play their old PSOne games on a PS2 with some graphical improvements for free. Would they really want to do that if they had to for out £30-40 a time for the privilege.
I hope I’m wrong with this, I really do. But the thought that some of our most admired and excitement-inducing developers are re-making classic titles makes me think that they’re in danger of concentrating too much on their past successes and not enough on their future ones.
Regardless of my own opinions, there is another potentially even more dangerous word that is becoming increasingly common and it’s largely coming from the GameCube camp – a console which I am much more fond of. At first it had nothing to do with Nintendo themselves (well, not directly anyway) but now they’re joining in as well. It’s a word that the film world is already familiar with, and hasn’t suffered badly as yet, except for a few notable examples.
The word I’m talking about is ‘re-make’.
Capcom have re-made the original Resident Evil title for a GameCube release with a massive graphical overhaul and lots of new things added (I’ve read reports that the game is also up to 70% new material but I have my doubts about this). There’s no question that Resident Evil is a modern classic and thoroughly deserves the status it has achieved. Bringing it up to date by adding all that has been added can only be a good thing. But to re-make pretty much the entire Resident Evil back catalogue over the course of little more than a year (most of which with little in the way of improvement – certainly no where near as much as the originals re-make) is sending bad signals out across the gaming world. Particularly if they prove popular a second time round.
Nintendo have recently announced that they are releasing a GameCube update of the N64 Zelda game The Ocarina of Time. I admit they are also giving the graphics a workout and are adding extra dungeons and features originally planned for the unreleased Ura-Zelda expansion (as well as including the original game on the disc) but why are Nintendo and several other developers releasing games of the past on a console of the future?
In the case of Zelda, I have a theory. It’s no secret that the new cel-shaded Zeldas look has become a bit controversial. I’m on the side of fence with the people who think that the looks of an RPG greatly affects how immersed you can become in it’s world and I just don’t think I can feel that way when playing a cartoon (no matter how superbly animated it is). Hopefully we’ll all be proved wrong by the time we get into playing it but if there wasn’t this backlash I sincerely doubt that the Ocarina re-make would ever have been considered. It’s just a way of satisfying traditionalists (like myself) and more open minded people with two Zelda games for the price of one and a bit (for them at least, it’ll be twice the price for those of us who buy both).
Super Mario World has had a minor re-make on the GameBoy Advance. In fact, the GBA has quite a few re-makes to its name and there are sure to be more to come. Just because you can play an 8 or 10 year old game on a handheld console rather than one that’s tied to a TV doesn’t make it new. Square have/are doing it with a couple of Final Fantasy games as well. Why not set all the people who are working on these on to developing a brand new Final Fantasy game for the system. This is more than likely happening anyway but it would happen sooner I they didn’t waste staff on re-makes (and will also allow that all-important, money-making, trillion-selling sequel to be released quicker as well).
People can play their old PSOne games on a PS2 with some graphical improvements for free. Would they really want to do that if they had to for out £30-40 a time for the privilege.
I hope I’m wrong with this, I really do. But the thought that some of our most admired and excitement-inducing developers are re-making classic titles makes me think that they’re in danger of concentrating too much on their past successes and not enough on their future ones.