Thread 11976283

Serious question: what’s wrong with remakes and remasters? Why wouldn’t you want a once-beloved classic refined, with some of its clunky mechanics fixed, so everyone can enjoy it easily?

In this specific instance I do question why it needed to be remade since they were fine with porting it as recently as 2019 (not counting the VR remake because that's something else entirely).

First: Stop spamming remake threads on here and v.
Second: Go fist yourself.
Third: Remakes are not made by the original teams or allowed the freedom of the originals so you will never get something even half as decent as Re:Make and it will instead cater to the dumbed down generation we have now who simply want le hyped game with epic clips on social media.

>>11976283 (OP)
My biggest issue is that only good games get remade and not mediocre games with potential that could actually use a remake

My issue with remasters is that they often leaving out visual effects or even content if it is deemed "too difficult" to replicate. Some remasters are literally remakes because they lost the source code and assets and had to remake everything (like the KH remasters and SH HD collection).

>>11976283 (OP)
the problem is the context they exist in. the modern industry has a lack of creativity due to homogenized design standards and a need to recoup large dev costs. modern developers struggle to make games at all due to various inefficiencies and the brutal workload of modern fidelity.
with that as a backdrop it's obvious why spending great sums and man hours on sanding down old games that already exist slots into the same dismal outlook as the industry at large.

RE4 is an incredibly smooth and well designed game. It never had "clunky mechanics".
Plus, the new version literally adds inertia, and makes the controls less responsive.

>>11976291
The fact that they leaped over Code Veronica and Zero to get to 4 is so annoying. Those could actually use remaking.

>>11976283 (OP)
Because it was fine the first time I played it.

>with some of its clunky mechanics fixed, so everyone can enjoy it easily?
Because I don't care about clinical retards who weren't even born when the game was released.

>>11976283 (OP)
Because it was completely fine the first time I played it.

>with some of its clunky mechanics fixed, so everyone can enjoy it easily?
Because I don't care about comforting literal retards who weren't even born when the game was released.

>>11976365
>Because I don't care about comforting literal retards who weren't even born when the game was released.

Okay, you don't care. You also dictate nothing.

>I feel insulted by seeing games I can enjoy as-is being remade.

I prefer it on some games. I tried maverick hunter X instead of original MM X and it sucked. You dont even get the charge beam on the introductory level. When done right (like re2make) i don't mind it at all. But it needs to be done well.

>>11976283 (OP)
The aiming and movement system is what made the game unique and fun

>>11976283 (OP)
The whole problem is:
>Originals—made by A teams with main talent (Mikami in your case), spent a long time in development, lots of thought put into them, optimized perfectly for the hardware
>Remakes—made by teams of literally whos in UE5 who will at best try to closely emulate the originals, at worst mess up half the things that made the original good
Remakes are just as bad as new entries in the series made by different studios. Only zoomer retards say "remake = original but refined!!". It's the same as MGS without Kojima, you'd rather have Kojima without MGS.
Good remakes exist though—but these are actually high level, high effort projects by the original teams, e.g. DQ remakes or something like Pokemon Soul Silver / Heart Gold. But, EVEN then, you still miss a lot if you don't play the originals.
>Clunky
Nigger, you don't understand what "clunky" is. AAA games are generally rarely clunky, and if they are it's often their design.
Which brings me to my last point. GOAT games don't need remakes. Need "fixes"? Download a hack. What really needs remakes is obviously flawed games like FF2.

>>11976283 (OP)
Because remakes/remasters take said "clunky" mechanics and just make the graphics worse and rewrite writing to tranny standards.

>>11976283 (OP)
They never remake games that were flat out failures, only games that were already great originally.
Remakes of good games split fanbases and communities.
There's a lot of artistry that goes into making something out of nothing. There's value in that original game coming from the actual people who had the original ideas for its gameplay, aesthetics, or atmosphere. The devs for the remake almost never directly involve the original creators, so any "creativity" the remake can be said to have is counterfeit. The devs are just iterating on ideas that aren't their own. If you care at all about the artistic merit, it's just a matter of time before this fact eats away at any enjoyment you could've had.
Remakes are conceived for the tastes of the unthinking normie neanderthal who can't fathom watching a movie or playing a games that's older than 2 months. Such a thing filling that purpose can't possibly be respectable.
Remakes are existential contradictions. The more closely it resembles the original, the more pointless they become. If the RE4 remake had been a full game from the Hookman concept, then you'd literally just have a new RE game.
I can already replay 20 year old games whenever I want to already and probably for free.

I have never in my life reacted to a game by imagining a modern remake of it instead.

>>11976283 (OP)
Because that time should be spent into making a new game instead. The marginal utility of a remake is minimal, because you're just getting an existing good game and outputting a....good game. GIMME SOMETHING NEW AND EXCITING.

>>11976283 (OP)
Because
1. My computer can't handle all that senseless blast processing going on in the gfx
2. Zoomers are gonna call og re4 an out of date unc game

>>11976283 (OP)
>fixed
This is everything wrong with remake culture. If people weren't retarded, I wouldn't care.

>>11976291
Yep. Or games that were really good and unfinished, like System Shock 2. They remade that game and didn't fucking finish it

You don't remake art

Video games aren't art

>>11976283 (OP)
>with some of its clunky mechanics fixed

>>11976350
they should remake Survivor or Dead Aim in my opinion. Fix a game that sucks, make it good, but they won't

>>11976283 (OP)
Literally nothing. Either it sucks and I ignore it, or it's good and I play it. The fact that the original is still there means that there's no harm in remaking anything. Unless it's a situation like WC3 where they made the original unavailable, but I think they already fixed that.

I am all for taking a classic game that I loved and making it easy to run on modern systems as well as upping its fidelity.
Problem is most of time its not the original devs who work on remasters so its a different vision.
You also get examples like pictelated because hecking problematic

>>11976283 (OP)
Tank

>>11976283 (OP)
Bait thread

Why re make when make is good still?

>>11976283 (OP)
The "clunky mechanics" is what I like about this game.
If anything it's the new one that feels more clunky than the old one

>>11976283 (OP)
theyre cool. I have no problem with them. both versions still exist

resident evil 4
a horse with no name

>>11976283 (OP)

Because remakes aren't faithful 99% of the time. And remasters usually only exist because of the transition from SD to HD, but they end up looking stupid as hell half the time because people are ignorant of the fact that these games were meant to be played on CRTs, a completely different type of technology from flat panels. Ya, it makes these games more accessible to clueless normies but they always market it as some definitive upgrade when it isn't.

If dudes would actually fix what was wrong and leave everything else the same it would often be good. Like, maybe some ability is stupidly underpowered, so make it stronger. Imbalances like that are everywhere in old games. Sometimes they're not a problem, but sometimes they just make a chunk of the game useless and inert. Bugs can be fixed, plot holes in stories can be patched. Bad translations can be replaced with good ones. Idiotic UI design choices that even the most hardcore fans find needlessly annoying can be corrected.

But that stuff isn't spectacular enough to drive sales so a bunch of good things need to be ripped out and replaced as well - mainly graphics, sound, and story. In the process, the original work is likely to be watered down and made less interesting.

The primary goal of a remake project is very, very unlikely to be improvement. Rather, it is modernization. Modern stuff sells far better than old stuff does; good stuff only sells a little better than bad stuff does. Keeping the remake as good as the old thing was is quite difficult, whereas modernizing the old thing (at least in superficial ways, and sometimes in deeper ways) is relatively easy. If quality must suffer to make the modernization possible, it will, because quality isn't what drives sales and sales are what drive the project.

The best part about playing the original games is knowing that zoomers can't have them. And it's important to continue playing originals to remind zoomers that they aren't allowed to have good things in life. They can only have remakes, remasters, mumble rap, and skibidi toilet

resident evil 4, a horse with no name