I have a confession to make: When it comes to my entertainment, I like to remember what year I'm in. You'll rarely see me go back to play a game that was released over five years ago, and almost never play a game that was released over ten years ago.
Granted, some games can be said to age well, and they're still being played today. Such games have their audience, but I'm not their target audience.
Enjoy your games.
I cringe every single time I hear the words remake, reboot or re-release. I feel it's just a way to draw more money from the fans who liked the game/franchise when it was first released. Here's how I see it:
1. Yes, we all enjoyed the game when it first came out in 1997, but if you go and buy it all over again, you'll probably be disappointed and ruin the memory of the game.
2. A lot of people are fond of a certain game, as nostalgia to the circumstances that surrounded the time they used to play that game. My guess is, circumstances have changed a lot in all of our lives since the game was being played by a widespread audience, so the general experience will inevitably be diminished once the nostalgia element has been satisfied. Some may even be disappointed.
3. No matter how great the game was, it's a safe bet to say that there have been better games, in both gameplay, game mechanics, storyline, scale and overall entertainment value between that time and now.
Bigger, better, bolder
I don't shy away from my criticism of Nintendo: They have more franchises than they know what to do with, and instead of allowing them to grow with their audience, they insist on remaking, rebooting and restarting a predictable selection of games. Granted, they were amazing at their time, but I don't think they can stand up to today's competition.
You can call me out on how I loved the Worms series on the PC, Twisted Metal, and a few other games I thoroughly enjoyed. You can even try to make a big deal out of how I'm looking forward to the upcoming Worms game on Steam, but I say only this: I'm not getting any new Mario, Zelda, Star Fox or Donkey Kong title until one comes out that clearly isn't a remake, cheap ripoff or gimmicky title.
Instead, you'll see me looking out for games that acknowledge the technological developments of the last decade, and respect me as a gamer who owns a current-gen console. I'm looking at you, Twisted Metal, Halo: Reach, Killzone 3, Gears of War 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.
I'm talking bigger, bolder and better. That's the direction we're heading in as a community of gamers with systems and games that were nothing more than an impossible fantasy just one decade ago.
And yet, most people are gravitated toward this...
Pictured: I sense a disturbance in the force, like six million seasoned hardcore gaming veterans letting their inner child take over at the very sight of this...
Why?!
SAMA1984's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
I see the point you are making and can agree to a certain extent but I don't mind remakes and reboots and am looking forward to the new Starfox way more than any new Halo game but that's where my tastes lie I suppose.
While I'll-obviously-disagree with everything you say, I'd like to point out that going back to games with remakes or reboots does not constitute ignoring current technology. Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver were amazing remakes of the Game Boy Color classics, with the touch screen, updated graphics, and updated pokedex of the newer generations. TMNT: Turtles in Time for XBLA had fully updated HD graphics with the same core gameplay (though I hear attacking diagonally is awkward). Sonic 4, a reboot, is returning to classic Sonic 1-styled gameplay with pre-rendered HD visuals. Or even the upcoming re-releases of Dreamcast classics, such as the impending Sonic Adventure with updated resolutions and other perks the new consoles can offer.
Plus, as I said, just because they're dated doesn't mean they are bad. Many people will contest that Ocarina of Time is one of the best games ever, if not the best. I mean, if they're terrible games, why would Nintendo have the ever-expanding Virtual Console, Sony putting up emulated PS1 games on their store, Microsoft releasing old Xbox games on their store, and Sega emulating their old games on the XBLA and PSN?
Nintendo keeps remaking and rebooting their games for new generations because they have a formula that works. If you had a formula for, say, the most delicious soft drink on earth, would you stop making it after twenty years, or would you try to mess with it and end up making a product everyone hated before shying back into what you had?
Plus, demakes and reboots are not bad things, at all. Capcom tried to make Mega Man 7 and 8 work. They were fine games, but didn't scratch the surface of the old 8-bit classics. They knew this, and didn't play off of nostalgia (alone, anyway) but went back to the Mega Man formula they knew their fans love, and lovingly crafted Mega Man 9. Capcom also tried to pull Mega Man X into 3D territory with Mega Man X7 (Legends doesn't count as it was built on 3D exploration, not linear level progression), but acknowledged that it was a failure and returned to 2D-only in X8. Sega knows the new Sonic games have been lukewarm at best, that's why they decided to go with the old 2D platformer route with Sonic 4.
New technology doesn't always bring great things, mind you. 3D technology brought Avatar: The Game. The 3D rush is also allowing companies to try to shove the 3D gimmick down consumer's throat, expensive TVs and all (though don't get me wrong, Nintendo's E3 and the 3DS made me squeal like an excited schoolgirl) and seems to be used as not more than a marketing point.
It's still good to see the perspective of someone on the other side of the fence from me, though.
P.S. Do NOT knock Kirby made of string. He's. Made. Of. Fucking. String. That and it looks like a genuinely fun game, seeing as it's not traditional Kirby as it lacks copying abilities (it's more in the vein of Kirby's Dream Land, except he has a string for a weapon) and allows for a bit of exploration with pull-able strings and whatnot.
Interestingly enough I recently re-played Myst on the IPad. The game is at least 15 years old now and I remember playing the game when it was new, but it actually plays better on the IPad than it did on the computer. The touch technology is a better fit for the "point and click" nature of the game.
I'm not saying I don't play these games but if I limited myself to only having them in my library I really think I'd be missing out. I was in this same frame of mind up until 2 years ago when I got a used SNES and I had such a great time rebuilding my old collection, I thought it would only be natural to get a Wii. Now, I play the classic franchises way more than most of my 360 stuff. When I do play 360, usually its for some Symphony of the Night, Gunstar Heroes or Rez.
Mario especially isn't that cut and paste either. The Mario saga has expanded to RPG, sports, fighting, 2d and 3d Adventures using every type of gaming technology on the market and he only gets better with age. The story is pretty non-existant in most of them but the game play continues to be mind blowing with just enough nods to the past games to give a sense of continuity while keeping the experience fresh. Even look at Cave Story; that game would have ruled any year it came out but it came out fairly recently and even with "limited" graphical capacity still was a great game: A current gen title with a last last last gen feel.
However I will give it to you on the Sonic Series and the Command and Conquer Series who very rarly hit the right chords when it comes to making a decent sequel. Sonic Adventure is the exception.