Why does everybody want remakes and remasters instead of new games?
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Why does everybody want remakes and remasters instead of new games?
Why does everybody want remakes and remasters instead of new games?
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Brand recognition trumps everything else. Quality doesn't matter, name does.
I can't even remember the last time an AAA dev made a new big budget IP that wasn't a complete disaster
Elden Ring.
>Elden mid
>Good in any way or form
What games do YOU like then anon?
Souls game from Fromsoft isn't a new IP.
It's just a darksouls spin-off or darksouls sequel with a different name.
Zoomer want to play the same games their favorite e-celeb plays but can't play anything that is older than 12 months.
I'd rather just play the originals with the shit you hate patched out and whatever bugs fixed
I don't think people do, it's just companies are looking for easy money remaking a game that has an established name for itself.
Gaymers are cucks
Zoomers have only ever known stagnation and creative bankruptcy, so they cannot comprehend a world where new ideas and concepts are presented to them.
Because the new games don't explore new concepts or try to be anything previous games weren't. They're not following changes in tech or medium. They're just trying to distinguish themselves or make some cash. It'd be better to get a slightly enhanced version of an already-proven classic than some new rubbish that tries to be the same thing, yet fails.
Would you rather go down a new bike path on a mountain that could be risky to take or go down a safe path that you know by heart?
This is like being told a bike path you go down has a new bridge but it turns out they doused the entire path in gasoline in the process thinking its an improvement.
I do not trust vidya industry to make good original games, any time they try they have to go and pozz it up in order to appeal to Americans. If they make remakes and remasters there is a very slight chance they actually stick to the working recipe instead of making it to 'appeal to modern audiences' or to put it in the mitts of a writer that decides it needs to be remade in their own perspective.
Strictly speaking, this isn't what "everybody" wants, nor what remakes and remasters tend to offer, but I think there's a strong argument in favor of going back to the classics and to some degree this is exactly what you SHOULD want. After all, the the eternal exploration-exploitation dilemma applies to vidya just as it applies to basically everything else: you can try to stick what works and move on from there (exploit), or try to create something new in hopes of coming up with something better (explore). Most new ideas will turn out to be bad, but some degree of exploration is required to find the best ideas as of yet unthought of.
The thing is, I think vidya development tends to exploit too little, precisely when it comes to the sort of classics that people might want remakes of. Consider Civilization series for instance: Each of Civ IV through VI was a marked step down from its predecessor in their initial releases, and finally started to come to their own by their final patch. I think it's something of a tragedy that they didn't get at least one more expansion pack each before reinventing the wheel, because there was still low-hanging fruit for refining the formula in each of these titles. I think of "remasters"/"remakes" along these lines: rebuilding the wheel from scratch (remaking the game as-is with a new engine or whatever) or applying a fresh coat of paint is largely senseless, unless the older game just doesn't run or doesn't run well on modern systems. But iterative expansion-like improvements make a whole lot of sense, especially if you have a decade's worth of retrospective to identify exactly which bits worked and which ones didn't! Going back to an old game with the benefit of hindsight is an easy way to go from 9½/10 classic game to near-flawless 10/10, way way way easier than trying to come up with something new, and a standard remake/remaster, well, it's going to be 9½/10 just the same. Huge missed opportunity.
Easy, fast and cheap way to make some forgotten old game series relevant again and potentially lead to a new game of that series if it does well
Name one time where this has actually worked where just announcing and releasing a new game would have done the same shit.
pro tip Armored Core proves you wrong
the new armored core clearly isn't a cheap cash grab to gauge interest in the franchise anon.
>times it worked
Dragon's Dogma on PC single handedly lifted the franchise from obscurity and has resulted in a full scale sequel
> the new armored core clearly isn't a cheap cash grab to gauge interest in the franchise anon.
Thats exactly my point. All they have to do is MAKE A GAME.
> Dragon's Dogma on PC
Theres also a difference between going back on arbitrary exclusivity/porting versus making a trillion poly reboot hyping it up as if nobody knows how to run a fricking emulator to get that nostalgia.
>making a trillion poly reboot hyping it up
literally doesn't happen outside of like, The last of us 1. like I get you don't like it but to pretend that these remakes are getting the same budgets as new releases is silly, and to ignore the obvious risk/reward of making a new entry or recycling an already designed and loved game for a quick buck is also extremely silly. the alternative is not getting a new title, it's getting nothing because they weren't budgeting for a new title. it's that simple
>why doesn't everyone else also have ADHD
If you like something you want more of it.
Which is also why you shouldn't want the other two because it implies they're changing it. Which was fine 15 years ago but not anymore.
it's easier to say "I want thing that already exists but more" than to say "I want an entirely unique thing I haven't even thought of yet"
I don't
Nostalgia is the most powerful drug that exists. Even for drug addicts. Chasing that old remembered high they will never get again.
You’ll never be a teen staying home from school playing X game again. And when you rebuy the game and call off work, you’ll be bored after a few hours and start doing laundry.
We don't. They're okay if people want to re-experience really old games with a shiny coat of paint or if there are glaring issues that can be fixed, but most of the time, it's a pointless cash grab.
because people dont know what they want, its the way its always been, people didnt know they wanted half life, spyro, crash, mgs, mario - but when they got a taste of some that they didnt know they wanted, the companies that made such developments fell for the same trap
>oh well, they love X, we'll just give them X2!
>we'll give the X remastered! they love it
it's one of the foundational reasons why indies blindside heavy hitters, and this isn't even isolated to the video game market
big money israelites got too involved so creativity is killed for formula.
>everybody want
People got stuck in nostalgia because new games actually do sucks balls, but nobody ever said they wanted a remake or remaster because even the biggest moron knows they're always absolute shit.
Because
>1, it's familiar/nostalgic
>2, it has a built-in audience that almost guarantees sales
>3, the game being remade is old and has room for improvement, mainly in the graphics department
>4, remakes doing well can show there's still an interest in the game/IP, which can lead to new games
>5, remakes being successful can then spurn other companies/developers into making more remakes
I don't really care about remakes/remasters as long as companies are still making new games. Like P3 Reload, it's clearly meant to old people over while they prepare the new team for P6. My issue is when we haven't had a new game in ages but they're just doing remakes/remasters. Seeing people ask for the Zelda Oracle games to get remade next pisses me off. We haven't had a new 2D Zelda in 10 years and even that game reused another game's map. I want a new 2D Zelda, not remakes.