Old games for a new audience

[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.

[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?

[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."

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by NonCon

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.

I'm thinking that they should continue making stories with the Chrono Trigger franchise, not constantly update only one game out of the CT universe. The last Crono Cross game to come out is on the PS1. No one has seen nor heard of it since. If any game needed an overhaul, Cross probably does need to be reintroduced to society instead of kept in Square's "vault" like a Disney movie.

"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?

This is building off of Yahtzee's argument that having games like Silent Hill being done by an amateurish voice actor. The odd quirks when some games are made that immerse you more into the games. The remake would actually remove that VA and be professionally done, changing what others thought made the games special.

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

I'm thinking more like Gog or Steam. The problem is Nintendo tends to hold onto their IP, and leaves some games out. It's more or less an idea on showing how a company has progressed over the years. Even the defunct companies such as Virgin Games stand to benefit from people seeing their former works in a new platform. A platform that's again, not tied to the console. As I've said before, when it's time to upgrade, Steam, Impulse, all of those digital distribution sites will be right there with consumers. But all of the money spent for the 360 titles, PSN or even Virtual Console games are tied to those consoles. What happens when Microsoft shuts down the 360 servers for the next batch of games? I'm not positive if the Wii U will allow backwards compatibility, but it's still tied to a system, which is a major detriment to the console approach.

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

I'm arguing about how they take so long to make those stories while neglecting others. That's more or less Wada's problem. Square used to have their developers in charge of various IP which kept new ideas flowing through them. Nowadays, it seems that Square has one grandiose idea that is taking a decade to finish. It just seems that Square has only a few franchises that it focuses on, yet they do nothing with the rest of them.

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

There's a few things here that I'm advocating:

1) Make a digital library of games, archiving the games from their respective consoles

2) Allow someone else to license a game (fan or commercial) a port or remake, while working on newer ways to add to the stories

3) Have the games accessed through the digital library, where people could pay for access like Onlive or pay for the backup game at a cheaper price. Hell, it might help take down the Gamestop monopoly.

4) Move forward with a franchise as much or as little as possible, but keep it updated on the archive.

---------------------

The problem with this, some franchises have a ton of games that have potential.

Just in Square, you have Ehrgeiz, Tobal, Chocobo Dungeon, Seiken Densetsu, Secret of Evermore. I believe that Enix just started releasing the older Dragon Quest games. But going to play all of these games would take a lot of time to find them and see if they were good for consumers.

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

You're missing my point. Valkyrie Profile was a game that wasn't updated for 6 years until it was released in 2006 as an enhanced port on the PSP. Then they release Covenant of the Plume on the DS. So you have to buy both consoles (PSP & DS) to continue the series. You have to wait for years for anything regarding the Valkyrie series, pay top moolah for it, and buy the consoles even if they're possibly out of stock or no longer carried. And that doesn't guarantee the success of the developer, or the franchise if the developer decides to kill it.

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.

You're looking more towards a product. I'm thinking more along the lines of providing a service. An archival digital library that isn't tied to a console, that could be played on almost any machine? How much more valuable would that be if people could have one convenient location to pull all of those games depending on console?

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

Uhm... Not complaining, just stating some of the downsides. My belief is that the developers should spend more time with newer ideas and games, less time with porting or remaking older ones. Like Crono DS doesn't add much to the story that no one already know. Why put that out when people would have been perfectly fine with the SNES version?

Obviously, it's not just Square we're talking about here. Like the Spunky Knight or Vectorman games that I've mentioned, some games won't be upgraded at all (or are remade too damn much), so people are left not knowing some game franchises.

Originally Posted by EckScizor

Jagos is just mad people want Majora's Mask remade while Capcom cancelled MegaMan Legends 3.

You would have had me if you had said Mother 3. :p