>A remake of some game from 20 years ago that has godtier graphics but is so 1-to1 like the original there's practically no reason to go back and play it?or>A remake of some game from 20 years ago where the new developers try to improve things here and there, not quite hitting the mark in some places but earnestly trying to improve the game for the better?
>>747524587Second option.
>>747524587It depends on the game and genre and how much option two has "improved" upon the formula there are no absolute answers sorry OP
>>7475245871. If you didn't play the original (which is a lot of games) the remake will be an amazing experience for someone who hasn't played it
Don't care, I simply not buying your demakes.Pay for some fucking AI hackjob if your writers are too zoombrained to write their own shit
Consider this:>Either option BUT the original game, untouched, is included and accessible from the main menu (either from the start or as a completion reward)
>>747524587Remake hater here.I'd go with>new game
>>747524587Neither, I'll just replay the original because I'm not a shit-eating gamer.
>>747524587No remakes. Learn to make good games or fuck off.
>>747524587>but is so 1-to1 like the original there's practically no reason to go back and play itPeople do yearly playthroughs of their favorite game. There's no reason to go back to any game besides it being enjoyable
>>747524587>the game, unaltered, but able to run on modern hardwareWas that so fucking hard?
>>747532097Christ.
>>747524587eat shit tranny
>>747526301Metroid Zero Mission had this right? what else
>>747524587How about a remake of a game that was dogshit but didn't have to be?Remake DMC2. Remake Zelda 2. Remake FF2. Remake DK64. Remake Sonic 2006. Remake BAD games and make them GOOD.
>>747524587Just port it to modern systems. No graphic upgrades, no changes, hell you don't even have to bugfix it.Why is that so hard? This is what playstation, gog, Nintendo, and xbox were doing in 2010s. Why change that successful piss easy model?
If the devs genuinely have insight into the original gameplay and aren't just steamrolling it with modern conventions then B.
>>747532630>>747526301Dracula X with Rondo of Blood but you had to play the remake to unlock it.Danganronpa 2x2 includes the original with (seemingly) redone executions.
>>747533265is 2x2 even a remake? isn't it like an alt route? like SMTVengeace which has the full original game (but with the new mechanics so it's easier).
Both pills make you trans
>>747524587The first should be called a remaster while the second one should be called a remake
good examples : resident evil 1 2 remakebad examples : re 3 remakethere, that's the fucking answer. The nuetral ending : Oblivion remake (with bugfixes) The neutral + ending : Oblivion remake but with cut content remade well.
>>747533649It's a new entry with DR2 but remade with the 2x2 engine. What I'm not completely sure of is how it looks because most of the stuff they've shown in the trailers so far is the new slayhem route.
>>747532630Odin Sphere Leifthrasir and the upcoming Muramasa remake.
I dont care for 1:1 Remakes like MGS3 and Oblivion and Black Flag and Zelda OOT. I only care about Remakes that are basically brand new games like FF7 Remake and Resident Evil 2 Remake and Silent Hill 2 Remake.
>>747524587>godtier graphicsI have seen what people call godtier.
>>747534360This is how I learn that Danganronpa changed engines?
Why do boomers try to push the false narrative that gameplay hasn't improved over time?
>>7475245872 if improved means improved1 if improved means changed for the sake of modernizationyou can improve things without completely changing the game but i am all too aware of what "improved" means to some people
>>747524587the second can only happen when the devs are actually also fans and understand the game completely
>>747535143>improvedPretend I posted a meme image about yellow paint, I can't be bothered
Seiken Densetsu 3 vs Trials of ManaThat's the kind of remake that is perfection and what we want to see more of
>>747524587obviously the second is better, remaking the same game with shinier graphics is a waste of time and money when you can just play the original.it's why remakes like the RE ones are beloved while Demon's Soul remake is derided.
>>747535284This.
>>747533856>good examples>re2 demakeLol. Lmao.
>>747524587The 2nd if they actually improved some things or at least have something interesting to say about the original. If it's just women, nepos, and Indians raping the corpse of a classic game I'm not interested.
First. If I wanted a new game I would play a new game, not a remake. They never improve shit. If they want to add their improvements as a kind of DLC or extra mode, that's fine, but don't fuck up the base thing. See: FFVII that got padded with bullshit for a worse game.e.g. I want to play the OoT remake, if I wanted something different I would boot the fucking copies of Darksiders that I got gathering mold unplayed in my library
>>747532630I'm playing the Wizardry 1 remake and you have all the original stuff as options. You can even overlay the dogshit 1 bit graphics.
>>747524587You could remake all the metal gear solid games 1:1 with better graphics and strike gold every time
>>747524587B. Issues or "not hitting the mark" can be fixed by devs and shows intent to make a good game, or satisfy the customer.A. is just the free money tree most companies will be doing in 5 years to milk nostalgia bait.While there are some games I will never touch again because their graphics are outdated, if I get into a beautiful game and the controls, gameplay, or systems are archaic instead. Then you and I are both less likely to continue playing no matter how beautiful the fishbowl is.
>>747524587first option as long as its priced like a 20 year old game and not a new AAA release
>>747539513Here's your LoZ:OoT remake. It's 120 dollars. (Adjusted for inflation.)
>>747533265DXC version of Rondo was molested
>>747533856>good examples>re1 demakeLol. Lmao.
>how it was meant to look>how it currently looks
>>747526301I was kinda hoping that Square Enix was going to do this with the FF7 remake. Where if you bought all three games, completed them, then you get to play through the original game, with better graphics but none of the time ghost bullshit. I think the improvement to the gameplay was enough to sell it, even with a little bit of added stuff on the side (extra flavor) but changing up the original premise like the Dune movies or FF7 Remake rubs me the wrong way.
>>747539946>When the shovel they give you is actually a pooper scooper and wondering why nothing you pick up is a gold nugget.This is entirely on the tools and devices they're using now on the dev side. Pushed, sponsored, and funded by companies that will be worth trillions in 4 years. Unfortunately the best you can ask for is mods to turn off the fog, and your own tools like reshade to be flexible to get what you want.
>>747524587Diablo 2 remake is fucking great and it's 1:1 with a very sparse smattering of QoL changes, so maybe like 1.1:1. i'll go with that - a remake that is extremely close to the original but with some minor obvious improvements
Good games do not need to be remade because they're already good games. If a developer had the skill and talent to make a "good remake" then they would have the skill and talent to just make a good new game. But they don't, which is why they're stuck doing bad remakes.This is why remakes are ALWAYS bad and always will be bad.
>>747540208Probably could call it 1:1+Witcher 3 Remaster seems to be following those steps as well.
>>747540284With the amount of talentless hacks in the industry you'd really want them tarnishing the franchise you love, rather than revamping/improving on the greatness that laid their foundation?Let me ask you.Would you rather have a God of War 1 remake or Laufey?
>>747540208>Diablo 2 remake is fucking greatIt fucking butchers the audio you fagola. kys>>7475245871.2 is SHIT.
>>747540569I don't want either. I don't have to accept good games being raped by demakes or bad new games.
>>747539946soulless/soul
>>747524587The first one. A "reimagined" remake has less reason to exist than an objective improvement.
2i could just play 1 i'm not that chuffed about grafix2 is a whole new game that could be for better or for worse
>>747540961but they're almost always worse1 at least gets a rare good one like okami or dragons dogma
>>747540612it doesnt
>>747542817it objectively does and you are a literal retard for making this argument, you just eat shit and think it's normal
>>747524587remake should be like a turbo charged requel, a game unique enough to be a sequel mechanically but a remake of the story narrative. romancing saga minstrel song is like this.
>>747533856Yea, re3 is the only bad one i experienced. Everyone agrees it's too short and the nemesis sections feel forced. All other remakes felt fine: ff7, mgs3, etc
>>747524587I prefer the diablo 2 resurrected approach, where they threw graphics over the original game (that you can switch back to at any point) while giving you options in which way you could play it. Classic (even with the classic stash), Lord of Destruction with changes or Reign of the Warlock with more content.. but still waiting on that more content part.
>>747524587Neither. A remake is an opportunity to leverage better hardware and lessons-learned from the original release of a game. For example, if you did the opposite of Oblivion Remastered you'd have the perfect remake/remaster.
>>747543209i usually play with the volume down and music on so i wouldnt know, i just wanted to irritate you
OP. You're an idiot for trying to show technical change in YEARS. Even console gens would be less stupid of a metric. And you're missing the most obvious pill that makes people think remakes are trash to begin with.Just make a new goddam game. Even one that shares some themes/dna or mechanics from the old one. GBA donkey kong. Every goddam 2d zelda.
>>747540284What would be the point of remaking a not-good game?
>>747549405Making it good, obviously.
