Games being "remastered" or remade too often?

[Shaissa]

One of my friends got a PS4 yesterday and a few games and I looked at all the games he ended up getting, they were all Remasters or Remakes of previous games!

Now I have to ask myself, is this happening way too often now? Between this and last generation it is really shocking how many games were either "remastered" or remade. I mean you remaking or remastering games isn't anything new or uncommon, but I feel like when these are even more talked about than new games coming out, is this going be a problem in the future for gaming? When should a game be remade or remaster? is there a set timeline when a game should finally be remade or remastered? Is it something fans should decide?

Let us talk about a game many people are talking about for an example, Final Fantasy VII.... How many people wanted this remade? I remember as soon as the PS2 people were begging for it to be remade, I mean that was a short 3 years after Final Fantasy VII came out. Now I think this was a little too soon and it was really more about a sequel at the time I believe, but still 3 years people wanting a remake?

Now I am not against remakes at all, in fact I welcome them, getting a "fresh coat of paint" on older games to replay them is a very nice way to preserve a generation of gaming, but at what point is it too soon and too often?

When the PS4 came out there were remasters of Last of Us and Xbox One has the Halo Remasters, and it feels like these remasters are coming sooner and sooner. I get that these consoles aren't or weren't backward compatible but I feel many people still have a PS3/Xbox 360, so are these becoming necessary because it cost too much to make a game now? is it better to take less risks now in this constantly higher cost of making games?

 

[Linnaete]

A combination of greater costs to develop an AAA current generation game these days, thus fewer "big" releases than what the situation was a decade ago; and the fact that there is actually sufficient demand for these remasters, which shows when you look at the rousing successes of existing remastered releases.

Remastering a relatively recent game from a portfolio is remarkably easy work compared to what it would take to make a full new title from scratch. It can be marketed in various ways, ranging from a handy must-have all-in-one collection, to the assurance that this is the technically definitive version of the game, freed from the shackles of last-gen trappings, with enhanced graphics, 60fps, all DLC, etc. It's handy to help bridge a "gap" in a release schedule, promotes a larger, more prepared user base for your next installment (e.g. Halo: MCC --> Halo 5, Uncharted Nathan Drake Collection --> UC4) and as you said, easy money. Sort of like how people will constantly buy new boxset editions of the original Star Wars trilogy, I suppose.

When should a game be remade or remaster? is there a set timeline when a game should finally be remade or remastered? Is it something fans should decide?

I think cases such as TLOU is fine. More people owned a 360 last gen than a PS3, and the situation has switched since. A PS4 remastered edition reaches out to the 360 audience that has jumped ship to PS4, and to the minority of gamers put off by TLOU's lower frame rate on PS3.

Of course, this risks the problem of a customer feeling a little short changed that they purchased a "lesser" version of the game when just roughly a year later, they have come out with the upgraded edition. And when remasters become more ubiquitous on the market, it's not hard to see this sentiment build up and become more common, which can prompt some people to be more cautious with their wallets.

However, this remaster phenomenon is more of a product of the transition between the console generations. I wager the trend will start to slow down as the current consoles start to mature and build their libraries. Portfolios are finite, after all, and some IPs are considered less valuable to dig up again than others. Remastered titles will still happen, but the upcoming ones will have the advantage of having a larger time gap since the original versions first arrived on store shelves.

Personally, the charge of "too many remastered games" doesn't bother me. Yes, it doesn't make your relatively new consoles look very enticing, but neither is it anything that insidious and sinister. People are not obligated to purchase them. Remastered titles are a product of the current industry after all, and not the cause of it. The real problems for the industry will be ballooning costs, greater willingness to resort to the most egregious of nickel and dime tactics, the oversaturation of the F2P and mobile markets, and increasing bankruptcies, because an expensive "failure" is big enough to sink a studio in one gulp.

 

[mikey_boson]

I'm not a particularly big gamer any more, I haven't been for probably 5+ years now. However, I do pay a little bit of attention to the industry, specifically for any games that look more original. This is why I really enjoyed LBP, it was different. But when you look at a good percentage of new games, many are remakes and reboots. I do think it's quite sad that it's so easy to just re-release an old game with a few more pixels than it is to do something new. As has been said above though, money talks and people just can't take risks anymore. We all know of the crazy budgets involved in making new games and companies just will not dare choose a new road to go down in most cases because of the high probability of financial ruin.

From my personal perspective, almost all the remakes of older games (that I've liked) have been disappointing. I know that they're old games but to mention two, Superfrog and Dizzy: Prince of Yolkfolk had remakes a few years ago and they were just wrong. It's hard to put your finger on what's wrong but they just felt wrong. I'm not someone stuck in the past by the way, I just think that the legacy of many games ends up being tainted by the remake. And just for the record, I have never wanted a FFVII remake, but especially now with SE at the helm who seem excellent at spoiling FFs.

I also think that the 'yearly edition' could be thrown into the topic of discussion too. Games such as AC which, I'm sure, only get a slightly different lick of paint because they sell well. Yes, each edition is a new game but it's only really the storyline that's altering a bit, the games and game engine are very much similar to their predecessors. I've heard one of the future games will be set in Victorian England...? It's as if the developers are just flicking through a history book and picking the next historical era that they haven't done yet. The games have become cash cows which is perfect for a games company and like sheep, everyone will go out and buy them. Unfortunately this is basic economics, demand and supply, and who am I to question what people purchase... I know I'm talking about something that's slightly different to your topic but I don't think there's a huge gulf between rebooting an old game and release a (very similar) sequel. I have nothing wrong with sequels either, by the way. It's just when a game gets is 6th or 7th outing (for example), you've lost track of what the original was about and it's importance is diminished as well. You get the impression the game franchise is just getting remade with nothing more than a shiny lick of paint.

You could say the same about the film industry too. Their method of producing a new film involves one of two things: Either pick a superhero character they haven't already done a film about and then make a film about them, which will be almost identical to every other super hero film; Or take a current, established super hero franchise and then make a film on said-hero's alternative comic book universe. It's like the same product is being remade over and over again.

Just to conclude, I think the simple answer is that it's far cheaper to polish up an older game, one that IS established, and profit off that game's reputation rather than create a new game.

 

[The Witch]

Yes. The last of us remaster was not needed.

Things like FFX and Uncharted 1 & 2, I understand. But These remasters of games from like two years ago. It's fucking annoying.

 

[LovingOfLightning]

Remasters or remakes of PSOne and PS2 games are always welcome. Maybe more for PS2 as you can still play PSOne games on PS3's.
Trouble is, it's never the games you want to see remastered! I love "The Getaway: Black Monday" game. It was wonderful stepping away from the mission to just drive around London. (And have the police control call you a rogue agent when you just went around beating up civilians and restraining them with a seemingly infinite amount of handcuffs!)
Sadly, the developers Team Soho have gone bust, and the consensus is "Oh, it was just a GTA clone." Yeah, but a GTA clone set in London with the option of playing in story mode or playing the casual drive around mode! What's not to love?

But the main reason I'm putting off getting a PS4 is because I'd only bother with the remakes and remasters, so I may as well stick with the PS3!

Now, throw a couple of FF remasters and I'll reconsider...