Old games for a new audience

[Jagos]

Link

You know, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with making old games available to new audiences. There might be something wrong with sprucing up the artwork and adding a ridiculous 3D gimmick and charging full price, mind. And there may be something equally wrong with completely remaking a game (or film) with current technology and a story more fitting of contemporary trends and morals.

I got to thinking about the current game generation along with the emphasis on remaking games. It's going to always be the wrong thing to do. a game company should be moving forward with a franchise, never backwards. Let the fans remember the characters as you progress a story. I think that would work a lot better in solving all of these problems with a company such as Square.

Let's consider a few games they updated. You have the CronoTrigger series that they put onto the 3DS with a few edits. But fans continue to clamor for a new entry into the game (which may never happen).

Then, we have FFXIII -2 that's set to come out, but has had a longer than normal (even for Square) development cycle.

Given this, where are the stories for Vagrant Story (tied to Ivalice), Saga Frontier, or any other game that once made Square a juggernaut in RPGs?

It would seem that most companies should have a way to update what they do with gaming in general. If there could be a system to store old games, so they could be played at one's leisure, then maybe the game companies could focus on newer iterations, leaving someone else to keep the back story intact through the perpetual use of the game.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I got to thinking about the current game generation along with the emphasis on remaking games.

This is in no way anything resembling a new thing. Nintendo's done it since the SNES. Square has done it since the PSX.

It's going to always be the wrong thing to do.

Ehhh, naw. I'd say remakes and ports are a good way of introducing new fans to old games, especially when not everyone has their old N64 lying around.

a game company should be moving forward with a franchise, never backwards.

Plenty of new games are backwards steps in their respective franchises. I also don't think remakes and ports are steps backwards. It's simply bringing old games to a new audience via a new system, and I think resources it takes to do so are minimal enough that they probably don't affect other projects in any meaningful way.

Let the fans remember the characters as you progress a story.

Once again, not everyone has their old N64 lying around, and I know nostalgia likes to claim otherwise, but old games can benefit from improvements to presentation. Presentation matters, and as technology progresses that bar is raised and the old visuals and audio quality are not always as able to do the games they're in justice as well as they did on release. Aside from that, good luck convincing someone who didn't grow up with these games, "Well, it was really impressive when it released! Take my word on it!"

I think that would work a lot better in solving all of these problems with a company such as Square.

Once again, I think you're overestimating the resources such projects require and the impact they have on other projects.

Let's consider a few games they updated.

Yes, lets.

You have the CronoTrigger series that they put onto the 3DS with a few edits.

DS, not 3DS.

Then, we have FFXIII -2 that's set to come out, but has had a longer than normal (even for Square) development cycle.

What is this? No, really. What is this? Jagos, if you're going to make a thread wherein you feign superior understanding of what companies should do, have your facts straight.

It sounds like you've somehow managed to confuse FFXIII-2 for an updated version of FFXIII while simultaneously mistaking its development cycle for that of FFXIII Versus. If you didn't do the former, it makes no sense as an example in your post. If you didn't do the latter, then you're flat out wrong.

Given this, where are the stories for Vagrant Story (tied to Ivalice), Saga Frontier, or any other game that once made Square a juggernaut in RPGs?

I just... What is this supposed to mean?

This is an honest question.


If you don't like ports and remakes fair enough, but you are not doing a very good job of making your point, and that you get basic facts wrong makes it hard for me to take your point seriously.


Beyond this, remakes are hardly harmful for a company. That they keep being made says that clear as day. Fans love them and want more of them, and as I said the resources are less than making a completely new game, so the risk is smaller. Square Enix's current faults have absolutely nothing to do with remakes and have everything to do with the new projects they have been putting out. Final Fantasy XIII did well, but not as well as they wanted given the investment they put into it, and Final Fantasy XIV just outright bombed. Both original games and "steps forward" for the franchise.

[Bells]

Remakes can be a great thing, except (in my view) in 2 cases:

1- When a remake gets a coat of paint and gets called a new game (my own personal beef with several Zelda games)

2- When a Company stops trying new things, new franchises, new titles, new stuff to -instead- work on just remakes or rebuilding the same game over and over. (Hellooooo big slice of Megaman)

For this i gather a couple of things:

One is that nintendo is only partially faulty of this. Because, even though they repaint their property and send it out as new quite often, they still work on new stuff at the same time.

Secondly, my personal respect towards the Final Fantasy franchise, that to my eyes, is one of the largest franchises ever to take risks with it's branding. Some of it pays off, some don't... at least i can see the desire to innovate and improve there, even if it's not always effective.

I have very little interest on the Soulcalibur franchise, even though i love the gameplay from when back when it was called Soul Edge. But the company did get points with me when they decided to actually Ditch a lot of characters and relaunch the franchise with new faces... There is not a lot of room to stretch on Fighting Games, so i can respect that. Even though most of the Soulcalibur games have actually being Remakes with tiny increments that get called new games.

On Squeenix case, even thouhg i praise some of their inniatives, i still get annoyed by the constant relaunch of old titles. Not because i have a problem with new audiences have access to polished versions of pretty good games on any platform they like, but mostly because Squeenix quite often neglect several of their great games that don't get such treatment because, well at some point you just got to believe that their research numbers really show that people really really want another release of Final Fantasy 4 ou 1 and 2 with updated content... not so much from 6, or Xenogears or Vagrant Story or SaGa....

[Viridis]

Source of what Jagos quoted. It mostly gets into how we should have more options for playing old games besides hanging onto all the old consoles.

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by NonCon

This is in no way anything resembling a new thing. Nintendo's done it since the SNES. Square has done it since the PSX.

Ehhh, naw. I'd say remakes and ports are a good way of introducing new fans to old games, especially when not everyone has their old N64 lying around.

That's debatable, because the companies get entrenched in certain ideas unless they progress the games forward. And honestly, how much have people been clamoring for Radical Dreamers, Chrono Break, or (a good) Crono Cross instead of the one remake of a game from 20 years ago? If they're going to update a franchise, it should be more in line with making new iterations into a series and a few side stories. Even then, the need to port only increases the further it's been since the game was introduced.

Once again, not everyone has their old N64 lying around, and I know nostalgia likes to claim otherwise, but old games can benefit from improvements to presentation. Presentation matters, and as technology progresses that bar is raised and the old visuals and audio quality are not always as able to do the games they're in justice as well as they did on release. Aside from that, good luck convincing someone who didn't grow up with these games, "Well, it was really impressive when it released! Take my word on it!"

What I'm more or less advocating is playing the game through, say, an emulator, keeping the game's integrity intact. I'm thinking of a platform that could show off all of the Zelda games and how it's progressed through the years. Does that mean people aren't interested in replaying those games? With the advancement of GoG, I'd say that's a confirmed yes.

It sounds like you've somehow managed to confuse FFXIII-2 for an updated version of FFXIII while simultaneously mistaking its development cycle for that of FFXIII Versus. If you didn't do the former, it makes no sense as an example in your post. If you didn't do the latter, then you're flat out wrong.

They're all part of the same vein of games. They're presented in the same world, but we've yet to get FFXIII-2 or Versus. Square wants to tell an epic Star Wars story, but the question is, how long can this go on? Meanwhile, they neglect their older games that could appease people and actually help Square. I'm more or less criticizing how Square focuses on this one epic while neglecting the other games they have. I believe for the past 4 or 5 years, it's been almost exclusively the Final Fantasy series with little thoughts into other properties or branching out.

What is this supposed to mean?

This is an honest question.

Where are the older games in newer platforms that made them a good company today? Where do they allow games to be played outside of the two or three that they're currently working on? That's the question here. Square has forgotten about Valkyrie Profile along with the others mentioned. Square's biggest problem, as I think most other companies that have been existing over two generations of consoles, is keeping those games updated for newer audiences. I recall a story on Escapist that in order to play Kingdom Hearts 1, you would have to search it down, along with all of the side games that help you keep up with it.

What I'm thinking of is something like Steam that shows all of these old games.

The problems with ports is that companies do horribly with them. Even Valve, who I like a lot, can't always get their own ports right. Sometimes, it might be better for fans to update the game and test their own skills (like the Valve Timed Black Mesa game). Hell, The Warriors might be a good game on PS2, but the ports still suck on PSP.

With remakes, the magic may be lost on redoing a game. There's very few that honestly need an update. It might be better to just do an entirely new game instead of living in the past. Yahtzee actually goes into an example (Silent Hill) that shows this better. While the companies can do it, it still takes resources and manpower from any future projects. Good ones take more time, and even then, I believe, new problems arise such as with Ocarina of Time 3D and the wonkier camera and targeting issues.

Beyond this, remakes are hardly harmful for a company. That they keep being made says that clear as day. Fans love them and want more of them, and as I said the resources are less than making a completely new game, so the risk is smaller. Square Enix's current faults have absolutely nothing to do with remakes and have everything to do with the new projects they have been putting out. Final Fantasy XIII did well, but not as well as they wanted given the investment they put into it, and Final Fantasy XIV just outright bombed. Both original games and "steps forward" for the franchise.

I'm not saying remakes can't be made nor that I won't play them if they're good. I would just like to have all of the parts to the story on one platform if possible or find ways to bring back older games that were pretty special gems in the day. What are the chances of a rerelease of Illusion of Gaia or Spunky Knight? Would you honestly want to see these remade into "updated" versions as the industry moves on? Or would you want to play them as they were on your console of choice?

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Viridis

Source of what Jagos quoted. It mostly gets into how we should have more options for playing old games besides hanging onto all the old consoles.

Thanks, I don't know what happened, but my link disappeared on me.

We have PSN and Virtual console, and as time passes those are expanded. Ocarina of Time is available for Virtual Console even.

Yes, but those are tied to the console. I'm saying a Steam version, which is tied to an individual. Once you run out to buy the PS4 and the XBox 720, it's going to be VERY interesting to see how either console ships over their respective networks, which you have no control over.

[Azisien]

Having your N64 remake basically be the flagship of a new system [and not present at launch], now that's the wrong thing to do!

Remakes themselves? I like them to an extent. Charging full price is bullshit, most of the time. It still breeds new fans, but it probably has a hindering effect, since new fans wouldn't have that nostalgic "Shit yeah I'll pay $45, this is OCARINA!"

I mean, I've been introduced to games I missed as a child due to re-releases. Like FFIV on the PSP more recently.

Square, I'm waiting for the total overhaul of FF7, 1080p that shit, voicework, additional content, yeeeeeah. Old fan willing to pay $69.99 for that!

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Jagos

That's debatable, because the companies get entrenched in certain ideas unless they progress the games forward. And honestly, how much have people been clamoring for Radical Dreamers, Chrono Break, or (a good) Crono Cross instead of the one remake of a game from 20 years ago? If they're going to update a franchise, it should be more in line with making new iterations into a series and a few side stories. Even then, the need to port only increases the further it's been since the game was introduced.

A Chrono Trigger port and wanting to continue the franchise are two separate issues. They're not making another Chrono Trigger game because they don't want to make another Chrono Trigger game. They remake Chrono Trigger because it will make them money with little investment. "If they're going to update the franchise they should do ____" seems to imply that they aren't doing one because of the other, which is wrong. Chrono Trigger sequels are irrelevant, because unless you have some magic insider info there's no reason to suspect one would at all effect the other.

What I'm more or less advocating is playing the game through, say, an emulator, keeping the game's integrity intact.

"The game's integrity"? What does that mean, exactly? That if you aren't playing the N64 version of Majora's Mask you're playing a bad version that is bad simply because it isn't the N64 version? In what way do games have any sort of integrity to be tainted one way or the other?

Also: 1. Nintendo has a Virtual Console, which is basically as close as we're getting to a legal emulator. Ocarina of Time is on that emulator. People still bought a lot of copies of the remake.

2. If you're arguing illegal emulation, you're basically saying that pirates should dictate how a company handles its IPs.

I'm thinking of a platform that could show off all of the Zelda games and how it's progressed through the years. Does that mean people aren't interested in replaying those games? With the advancement of GoG, I'd say that's a confirmed yes.

A platform like the Virtual Console?

Which exists?

They're all part of the same vein of games. They're presented in the same world, but we've yet to get FFXIII-2 or Versus. Square wants to tell an epic Star Wars story, but the question is, how long can this go on? Meanwhile, they neglect their older games that could appease people and actually help Square. I'm more or less criticizing how Square focuses on this one epic while neglecting the other games they have.

You argue in continuing stories instead of doing remakes, and then criticize Final Fantasy for continuing its story and telling new stories. Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I believe for the past 4 or 5 years, it's been almost exclusively the Final Fantasy series with little thoughts into other properties or branching out.

Kingdom Hearts keeps on trucking, I think TWEWY was more recent than what you're saying, Parasite Eve got a new game, and to be perfectly honest Final Fantasy is almost more of a clothing label than a series anyways. Complaining about more Final Fantasy games misses the point of Final Fantasy as a franchise.

Where are the older games in newer platforms that made them a good company today? Where do they allow games to be played outside of the two or three that they're currently working on? That's the question here.

So a company is only doing its job right if it's continuing its old franchises?

Square has forgotten about Valkyrie Profile along with the others mentioned.

Valkyrie Profile got a new game in 2009, and before that there was a new one in 2007.

Square's biggest problem, as I think most other companies that have been existing over two generations of consoles, is keeping those games updated for newer audiences. I recall a story on Escapist that in order to play Kingdom Hearts 1, you would have to search it down, along with all of the side games that help you keep up with it.

Kingdom Hearts is hardly an old game, and I went to my local Gamestop last week and got a copy for cheap with little difficulty finding it.

What I'm thinking of is something like Steam that shows all of these old games.

For the actually old games, there is, and it's called the Virtual Console or PSOne Classics. For games that came out so recently I can still find them at Gamestop in ten minutes I don't really feel like there's a need.

Also, you're complaining about porting while arguing that they should just port all their games to a digital distribution library. Whelp.

The problems with ports is that companies do horribly with them. Even Valve, who I like a lot, can't always get their own ports right. Sometimes, it might be better for fans to update the game and test their own skills (like the Valve Timed Black Mesa game). Hell, The Warriors might be a good game on PS2, but the ports still suck on PSP.

This has nothing to do with anything. There are good ports and there are bad ports, just like there are good sequels and bad sequels and good games and bad games. There are bad fan mods and good fan mods. There are good fan games and bad fan games. That bad remakes and ports exist in a world where bad everything exists doesn't mean anything. "I don't support remakes... Unless fans are making them..." honestly sounds a bit ridiculous.

With remakes, the magic may be lost on redoing a game. There's very few that honestly need an update. It might be better to just do an entirely new game instead of living in the past.

I'd say the idea that the original version of a game is as good as that game can ever be and to update it is to violate its integrity is the very definition of living in the past.

While the companies can do it, it still takes resources and manpower from any future projects.

As I said, it takes a very small amount compared to a completely new game, and these remakes make the company money, money that they can then put towards original projects.

new problems arise such as with Ocarina of Time 3D and the wonkier camera and targeting issues.

I have a hard time believing that OoT3D has a wonkier camera and more targeting issues than the original.

Yes, but those are tied to the console. I'm saying a Steam version, which is tied to an individual. Once you run out to buy the PS4 and the XBox 720, it's going to be VERY interesting to see how either console ships over their respective networks, which you have no control over.

"My name is Jagos and I'm upset that consoles aren't PCs."

EDIT: "I also criticize Square Enix for not taking action that would essentially require that consoles be PCs."

[rpgdemon]

@The integrity of the game bit: Which N64 version is the integral one? The one that launched? Or the ones that were "patched" versions of the launch cart?

[Kim]

I find it a bit odd that he only cares about the game's integrity if it's the company making it, but if fans are making it then either integrity doesn't exist, doesn't matter, or "fans are just so much better than the company and you know they'll treat it right!"

To be clear, because I don't want this thread to go down the predictably stupid path: I don't have a problem with fan remakes, and have one I'm looking forward to. I just think it's ridiculous to argue that remakes are bad and are steps backwards and game's integrity etc etc while arguing in favor of fan remakes.