What are your opinions of remastered and remade video games? Worth it? Not worth it? Developer cash grabs? Post below.
My first opinion of a remaster was that it was hog wash. If it doesn't add anything new to the game then why pay full price for it again. But the botched attempts at remakes made me go back on that opinion and say "Well maybe they should just stick to making it pretty and updated". For example the remade SWBF, which had less features than the star wars battlefront that came out in 2004. Lot's of games especially if they were made for pc already have mods that make them look a couple years ahead of the time they were made. So in my opinion remasters should be saved mostly for console.
Remasters are remasters, they cannot be perceived to be better than the original because the game is the original just in a shiny new box. I do feel as though they should not be released at the full price being that the teams really have half the work to do, story is already made, characters are decided, everything is mapped out its just moving it to a different engine and releasing it.
In order to make a remake better than original there are some hoops to jump through and the devs will catch negative comments which ever way they take it. If they take a risk and try to make it way different than original people will be mad. If they make it to much like the original people will be mad. Plus nostalgia always comes into play.
The only remake I know that perfectly added it's own new features yet still hit the original concept on all cylinders was Resident Evil 1 for gamecube. That was released in 2002. Donkey kong on the GB was also pretty good.
All in all I'd say they are worth it sometimes it really all depends on the dev team. You get EA DICE you get a crappy remake. You get the original team you may or may not. They are usually cash grabs when it comes to remasters though. You did half the work there should be some representation on that when it comes to the price which most companies being their #1 is making money ignore that.
My first opinion of a remaster was that it was hog wash. If it doesn't add anything new to the game then why pay full price for it again. But the botched attempts at remakes made me go back on that opinion and say "Well maybe they should just stick to making it pretty and updated". For example the remade SWBF, which had less features than the star wars battlefront that came out in 2004. Lot's of games especially if they were made for pc already have mods that make them look a couple years ahead of the time they were made. So in my opinion remasters should be saved mostly for console.
Remasters are remasters, they cannot be perceived to be better than the original because the game is the original just in a shiny new box. I do feel as though they should not be released at the full price being that the teams really have half the work to do, story is already made, characters are decided, everything is mapped out its just moving it to a different engine and releasing it.
In order to make a remake better than original there are some hoops to jump through and the devs will catch negative comments which ever way they take it. If they take a risk and try to make it way different than original people will be mad. If they make it to much like the original people will be mad. Plus nostalgia always comes into play.
The only remake I know that perfectly added it's own new features yet still hit the original concept on all cylinders was Resident Evil 1 for gamecube. That was released in 2002. Donkey kong on the GB was also pretty good.
All in all I'd say they are worth it sometimes it really all depends on the dev team. You get EA DICE you get a crappy remake. You get the original team you may or may not. They are usually cash grabs when it comes to remasters though. You did half the work there should be some representation on that when it comes to the price which most companies being their #1 is making money ignore that.



