HD remakes / remasters

[hazeredmist]

These feel like a bit of a crutch for the new generation, I get why they're done - it's relatively easy money selling products they know will sell, eg. GTA, The Last of Us, now Dark Souls 2, Halo, Zelda, Mass Effect being talked about... there are and will be many others. They're getting more and more common and it feels like lazy software support that could be better placed elsewhere.

I would much rather see new IP or even just sequels that use the new consoles to their actual potential, not just crisper graphics in 1080p with higher frame rates which clearly isn't all the new generation can offer. Is it the failure of titles like Watch Dogs we have to blame on this approach? Or is it just that we really need to wait until a couple of years before the new generation really hits it's stride? It could just be me, this is the first generation I've bought consoles under a year into their cycle so maybe I'm just not used to this but this trend seems to be gathering pace as opposed to slowing, and the more I see remakes of last gen titles or even titles that end up split across generations like Destiny, I can't help but think so much potential is being missed.

What do you guys think? Too early to be thinking like this or do we want every half-decent title from previous generations rehashed every time a new console comes out?

[James]

I'm fine with it. Looking back at the first year of PS3 and Xbox 360, it was a pretty mixed bag, quality-wise. It takes time for the new hardware to hit its stride, and re-releases allow those who loved a game and newcomers alike to play (or replay) solid games until it does.

Of course, I'd love new games to be sufficiently high quality and sufficiently plentiful to make re-releases the icing on the cake, rather than the sponge, but I don't think it's as detrimental as it might seem. My reasons are that preparing a re-release doesn't seem to take the time, money or effort that making a new game does. The Last Of Us on PS4 will likely not have been made to the detriment of Uncharted 4, for example.

Also, we are used to 'Game Of The Year' editions and the like, which bundle in all DLC (and patches, let's be honest). A good re-release should be that across a console generation gap. I know that they aren't always a definitive version, but the best ones are.

My final reason is that, amongst the re-releases that come 12 months after a game's first release, there are re-releases of much older games. The chance that such updated versions bring a game to people who missed it first time around are pretty high. The Zelda games fit this bill, as do the Resident Evil, ICO/Shadow Of The Colossus and Oddworld re-releases, for example. As old as it may make us feel, even the Halo and Mass Effect re-releases may be greeted by people who were too young to play the originals. If a new, slightly shinier version on the newest consoles brings people (who wouldn't go back to older hardware to play them) to these games then all the better.

I realise that my argument is predicated on the re-releases being high quality, and the definitive versions of these games. I also realise that this isn't always the case (hello, Silent Hill), but I think we will see more and more studios/developers like Curve, Nicalis and Bluepoint who specialise in re-coding/porting games. And for the games I missed, to me, that's a good thing.

[dezm0nd]

I'm pretty much for remakes/remasters but only really if there's been enough time to warrant a forgotten classic to be brought to new light. Majora's Mask is a prime example of this. Sure it's not forgotten but who really played it? I bet it was no way near as popular as OoT which is a shame. It's bloody marvellous.

My opinion on the newer remakes ala GTA V and Last of Us aren't as positive though but I don't have to buy them. Options are always nice.

[Alex79]

I really like HD Remakes/Remasters. It seems like they give you the old games back the way you remember them in your head, rather than the blocky reality that you usually get when plugging an old console in. I loved Ico and Shadow Of The Colossus having never played them 'at the time', same goes for the first two God Of War games. I've not got a PS4 yet, but when I do I'll be looking forward to playing even better versions of GTA 5 and Dark Souls 2, I'm definitely all for re-releasing games at a higher quality. I mean the movie industry has been doing it for decades and nobody seems to mind that. I really think any argument against it can be brushed away with 'but you don't have to buy it'.

[Flabyo]

I'd much rather have something new I've not played before than a shinier version of something I've played to death already.

[ratsoalbion]

James and Alex have summed up my feelings on the subject perfectly. I am firmly in the pro camp.

[hazeredmist]

James and Alex have summed up my feelings on the subject perfectly. I am firmly in the pro camp.

At the expense of new games though? The volume of development concentrating on remakes and remasters surely takes away talent from innovation, no?

[magicjoef]

At the expense of new games though? The volume of development concentrating on remakes and remasters surely takes away talent from innovation, no?

Although, if they are fairly efficient to produce and put out, they might fund development on new titles, giving those new projects more scope?

Also I'm guessing Rockstar probably planned their cross generation project from the start, and factored it into the build plan very early on. Notice they don't call it 'HD' or 'Remastered', it is just the version for the latest consoles.

[James]

At the expense of new games though? The volume of development concentrating on remakes and remasters surely takes away talent from innovation, no?

I'd argue 'no'. As mentioned earlier, re-coding/porting a game is less resource heavy than developing from scratch, as demonstrated by Bluepoint being much smaller than the development teams that created Ico, Shadow Of The Colossus or the Metal Gear games originally. I also believe that different skill sets are in play. At the end of a development period QA and programmers (for example) are heavily in use, but concept/art teams not so much. I can foresee the production of a re-release requiring programmers, but not necessarily artists and other early-stage development sub-teams. That would mean the late-dev teams could work on a re-release whilst the game design team is prepping new game X or sequel Y.

Then again, I also argue that (generally unpopular) on-disc/day one DLC/"unnecessary" multiplayer modes don't necessarily detract from the development of the 'core' game due to the nature of project management and the way in which business cases yield extra funding/personnel/time. For example, does Mass Effect 3 having multiplayer constitute a needless drain on resources from the single player development, or was multiplayer used as a bargaining chip by the development team to be afforded extra resources? In a business setting, it's usually up to the project manager to present a business case for their project and negotiate resources accordingly.

So too could Naughty Dog or Rockstar (or their publishers/owners/investors) make the case that sales forecasts for a re-release are worth the extra time/money/personnel invested. That extra doesn't necessarily have to be taken from the team working on their next game, it could be personnel surplus to current dev requirements, newly recruited personnel, a 'B-team' demonstrating their ability (like Ready At Dawn on the God Of War PSP games and Wii port of Okami, for example) or an external development company (like Curve or Bluepoint).

Naughty Dog, for example, were never going to have Uncharted 4 ready to release twelve months after The Last Of Us. In many ways, the re-release fills a gap in Naughty Dog's release schedule that would have existed anyway.

All that said, a lot of my points stem from presumptions to the positive side of the video games industry. It is, of course, possible that publishers demand re-releases of studios that would rather focus on new games, and that they are afforded no extra resources with which to so do. The truth of how/why it came to be is likely different for each and every re-release, just as the quality varies wildly.

Apologies for going on and on. A very interesting topic to me, as you can tell. Thanks for bringing it up, hazeredmist.

[arry_g]

James and Alex have summed up my feelings on the subject perfectly. I am firmly in the pro camp.

At the expense of new games though? The volume of development concentrating on remakes and remasters surely takes away talent from innovation, no?

It isn't always at the expense of new games though is it? Often it is what is helping finance new games, it also helps keep developers in work and it helps give developers experience with the new hardware. I understand why some people are fed up or tired of seeing re-releases but it is one way how developers are dealing with the skyrocketing cost of development.

[James]

You see, I go on for six paragraphs to explain what arry_g said much more eloquently in one. It's situations like this that give me such crippling self-esteem issues, folks!

[JaySevenZero]

Hmmm, maybe we should record a 'Conversationals' on this subject? We haven't done one in an age and I believe this is an interesting enough topic to perhaps warrant one - would you folks be interested in listening to it?

[ratsoalbion]

Besides, a lot of remakes are handled by sub-teams or even third party external specialist developers anyway.

[JaySevenZero]

For the record, I'm on the 'pro' side of things. I got a PS4 last week and the three games I got with the platform were Destiny, GTAV and The Last of Us - not just three games that I wanted for that platform but also three games I already own on the PS3.

[arry_g]

Besides, a lot of remakes are handled by sub-teams or even third party external specialist developers anyway.

Certainly that has been the case with the Ps3/XB360 HR re-releases (with mixed results).

The facts are that this is a complex issue, no... not issue, topic (I do not believe it is an issue, not yet anyway).

Development teams come in many different shapes and sizes, anywhere from one person to thousands can be involved in the process of bringing videogames to our screens. All of these people need paying, all of the assets these people use require payment to acquire or to operate and all of the bases of operation these people work from come with a cost. This is ignoring administrative/submission costs.

Operationally, some studios only deal with a single project at a time, some deal with multiple, some juggle projects plus R&D simultaneously. Some studios keep a percentage of their development staff out of the creative process (except leads) at the early stages of projects and some do not. Some studios will as Leon said hand this work to their excess staff, some will hire it out and some will use a percentage of staff not needed yet for their next big IP or franchise entry.

There are many reasons why studios want/need to do these remakes and there are many ways they can do so - personally I would rather have something to play on my console whilst Sony, Capcom, Square, Rockstar or whoever work on their next project(s) particularly during the rocky early years of a console.

I'm sorry if I come across as dismissive or flippant it's just I feel people are sometimes too critical or focus on the wrong aspects of what is wrong with this sort of trend. As someone who has known many in the gaming industry (as well as software development industries) who have lost their jobs as a result of the trend of shedding staff at the end of major projects, I think this helps and I think it gives people something to play when they would otherwise have nothing.

[kappisun]

Hmmm, maybe we should record a 'Conversationals' on this subject? We haven't done one in an age and I believe this is an interesting enough topic to perhaps warrant one - would you folks be interested in listening to it?

I would. I have no real issue with them if they're done well. Same as any other media, film does it all the time. Also good way for folk to catch games they might not have had previously. I've never played the last of us but know it's a game I will def be getting on ps4 at some point

[hazeredmist]

I'm not against them as such, more troubled by the growing reliance on them in the development of the new generation of consoles. I've got Zelda: Wind Waker HD and I really want The Last of Us. Destiny is utterly superb.

BUT:

How good could Destiny have been if the development was focussed entirely on PS4/Xbox One?
Would we get the new Zelda sooner if Wind Waker wasn't touched up?
Would we get Uncharted 4 sooner if The Last of Us wasn't touched up?

Sub development teams or other in-house teams can be better tasked with creating new IP too rather than just up scaling existing games for that easy return?

I know it's endemic to any media upgrade really, such as DVD to Blu Ray meaning many buying their favourite films again for example, but with each passing generation this has become more and more of a factor. Until the likes of Super Mario All Stars, new consoles got new games, or new editions of games.

At the moment, a year into the cycle, I think the percentage of desirable / marketed games and games in the pipeline being remakes or remasters is way too high.

[ratsoalbion]

How good could Destiny have been if the development was focussed entirely on PS4/Xbox One?

I'd say that's an entirely separate conversation and an entirely different set of industry machinations.

Would we get the new Zelda sooner if Wind Waker wasn't touched up?
Would we get Uncharted 4 sooner if The Last of Us wasn't touched up?

I doubt it very, very much in each case.
Certainly Aonuma-san said that WWHD was a side-project handled by a very small team and took around six months in total.

[arry_g]

I'm not against them as such, more troubled by the growing reliance on them in the development of the new generation of consoles. I've got Zelda: Wind Waker HD and I really want The Last of Us. Destiny is utterly superb.

But it isn't a new trend...

Doom has been re-released across multiple generations, multiple times. Duke Nukem 3D also.
Broken Sword, Dragon's Lair have been re-released across generations.
Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 3 have been released across multiple generations.
Final Fantasy I, II, IV and VI in particular have seen NES, SNES, PSX, PSP, iOS and Android for example.
Multiple Sonic and Mario games have often been re-released (Super Mario Bros 3 is available on NES, SNES, Wii, Wii U?, GBA, 3DS).
Ys.
Tetris, PacMan and many other arcade games.
Dragon Quest games have gone the same way as Final Fantasy.
Pokémon games, Donkey Kong games and Metroid games have seen re-releases time and time again.

...the same is true of many other games. This practice has been done time and time again. The only generation leap I can say it happened less significantly for is PSX, N64, SS to their respective evolutions.

[Flabyo]

As a game programmer I know I'd be bored silly having to redo a game I'd already worked on, but as you say, these remakes and remasters are rarely done by the team that made the original title. (Most of the appeal for coders in the games industry is inventing new and cool things, solved problems are a lot less entertaining)

I agree that for many studios these are a way to recoup some extra costs, and could be the difference between life and death. Taking Tomb Raider as an example, Square said that game wasn't successful but the addition of the sales from the next generation remakes (offset against the cost of making them) turned that game into a profitable exercise.

They absolutely make business sense in the current market.

But given the choice I'd always like to see developers making new things and pushing the medium forwards instead of retreading the glories of the previous 12 months.

[Edit] - there's definitely a perception that there are more remakes now, even if there actually isn't. I think it's because we're seeing games remade *within 12 months of their original release*.

I do agree that there was a period where we didn't see much in the way of remakes when we went from 16 bit to 32 bit because the entire way games were made (and what they looked like) completely shifted at that point.