/arcade/ - vidya gaems and other gaems too

I have no hopes for Silent Hill 2, didn't play the original so I can't complain. It definitely must suck seeing your favourite game warped and twisted to modern, politically correct standards. What an awful reality we have found ourselves in…

Regarding Demon's Souls - my friend, a huge fan, told me its an amazing remake of a mediocre game.

>>2234
>It definitely must suck seeing your favourite game warped and twisted to modern, politically correct standards. What an awful reality we have found ourselves in…
I actually find it quite funny, I don't think I'll touch the game, but what irks me is that these remakes that have been coming out lately are for games that aren't even that old.
I heard good things from the RE remakes that they've been putting out, but it still mesmerizes me that they're remaking a PS2 game that mechanically is OK.
I could imagine a remake of, say, Drakengard, given that mechanically it's a bit lackluster in certain regards, but these are games that already worked ok, and I didn't see any issue with them.

In fact it's actually hard to discern when was the last time I played a good remake, I swear there was one, but I just can't quite pinpoint which exactly

>>2235
Last years' Dead Space was a good remake too, but totally not necessary. I guess it was just a right move from the Excel spreadsheet standpoint. I wish big companies experimented more with new IPs, new ideas… This is why I go out of my way to learn about cool indie games and don't really bother with big series.

Personally, I liked the original Resident Evil REmake. It felt like an improvement on the original bringing back pure survival horror. The prerendered backgrounds still look gorgeous too. Its an example of a remake done right. Generally, remakes are too faithful to the original or they change too much that they loose a connection to the source material. A good remake should be an alternative spin on the original, it has to get the spirit and feel of the original without being a predictable rehash. REmake nails this perfectly. The newer Resi remakes feel more like homages to the originals but I'm just happy to see some new survival horror.

Really they shouldn't remake classics but old games that were good but fell short and remained cult classics. I'd rather see a Clocktower remake than SH2.

>>2234
>It definitely must suck seeing your favourite game warped and twisted to modern, politically correct standards.
Yeah it does. I've not been following the news on SH2. I'm really not looking forward to the remake. Did they remove the abstract rape scenes or something? Its pretty central to the plot of SH2. Why remake it anyway? SH2 was so good there's really not that much to build upon. Its near perfect as it is. You want to make a cynical cash grab? Just rerelease it simple. Its probably gonna flop anyway because hardcore SH2 fans won't buy it and most gamers these days have zero interest in horror that isn't the same Slender Friday Night and Freddy cheap jumpscare game.

>what irks me is that these remakes that have been coming out lately are for games that aren't even that old.
Corpos borrow strategies. Disney pumps out remakes because they know the children that watched this stuff in the 90s and 2000s are now adults with kids of their own, so they can appeal to people's nostalgia. I'm guessing video game corpos are just aping this trend. It doesn't make sense in SH2's case because I can't imagine introducing kids to that game and most gamers these days hate a narrative heavy single player horror. Since creative decisions are now made by suits and gaming is less auteur driven, the winning strategic is formula = $$$ so just mass produce stuff according to established formulas. Its why everything is so samey now. Remakes are low effort and low risk. Its basically rehashing an older hit. The equivalent of a microwave meal.

I understand that some games simply cannot be accessed anymore and the only way to provide them is to make a port/remake, but I don't see the need to remake good games other than a quick cash grab. Demon's Souls certainly could have used a remake since it was a tech demo at best, but Silent Hill 2 doesn't need it. Resident Evil 1 had some nice quality changes, like preserving the direction you're moving across screen changes without moving the joystick. The newer REs with the 3rd person camera are junk if you ask me. At that level of investment, I think you would have a better time calling it something else.

I liked the RE4 remake it felt different enough from the original that it was fun to play through again and it didn't kill my desire to ever play the old one either

HD remasters of early 3D games with shitty graphics (or early 2D games without color) can be good if they're faithful and just strict graphical upgrades, but remakes are basically always bad. In theory they can be good when the original creators weren't able to achieve their vision because of technical limitations or production issues and want to go back and do it right, but in practice only games that were popular enough to sell on brand recognition get picked for remaking and those achieved that reputation by already being good. At best you get to buy the same game a second time but with a little bit of its soul sucked out. At worst you get a generic modern game wearing the skin of a classic to trick people into forking over cash. It's really telling how they stopped trying to replace the originals and are now trying to have them exist alongside the originals.