Top
100°

The Top 20 Games We Want Remastered

No matter how old you are, there will always be at least one game that you’ll want to revisit and play all over again. Maybe even more than once.

Read Full Story >>
maximumpc.com
The story is too old to be commented.
camel_toad1388d ago

Man I miss tenchu. They were always rough around the edges but also really fun games.

TXIDarkAvenger1388d ago

Love Bioshock but come on, its not really old. Same thing with Oblivion. I rather have new games for those series.

vickers5001388d ago (Edited 1388d ago )

Just curious, do you think that if we didn't have remasters, we would have brand new, full games in their place? Like say, do you think that if we didn't have the Metro remastered collection or The Last of Us Remastered, we would instead have Metro 3 or The Last of Us 2?

I'm trying to understand why someone well informed would genuinely be against a remaster, and it occurred to me that people who know VERY LITTLE about how game development works must think that these remastered games are taking the place of full fledged sequels or brand new games, that if devs hadn't worked on such titles as The Last of Us Remastered, then we'd now be playing The Last of Us 2 instead.

If anyone actually thinks that this is what happens, then they need a bit of a reality check. It doesn't take anywhere NEAR the amount of effort to remaster an existing title as it does to make a brand new game. Remasters can be done in like 6 to 9 months, maybe a bit longer depending on the extras they decide to add, where as a full fledged brand new game takes a minimum of 2 years (assuming it's not an annual franchise with minimal change).

So basically, what we end up having, is a game from our past that we loved, that looks and plays(framerate) much better than before, with minimal resource/cost/time investment for the developers, being brought back to experience joyous nostalgia, or to introduce a brilliant franchise to the younger, newer generation of gamers who didn't have the previous generation systems, and a hefty profit for the developers of these low-cost, quick, profit heavy titles, profit that will go towards making the NEW title that they are currently working on a better product. And seeing as how these titles are low-budget, low-resource allocating projects, they can be handled by smaller, sub developers, the "B-team" if you will, which means they still work on the newer title on the franchise, while also working on a remaster for people who want it.

Please tell me then, how remasters are a bad thing at this point? The only negative effect it can have on you is personal annoyance of a game you think isn't worthy or necessary of being remastered, but that's not really a legitimate complaint for remasters as a negative thing.

It's literally a win-win situation, it helps the current gen library grow even further.

If for some reason, you feel betrayed that there is a "better version" out there, and that you feel obligated to play it because you didn't finish the best version, then that's your hangup. I see some anti-DLC (all DLC including good dlc, not just crappy cash-in DLC) people complain and whine that DLC comes out for a game after it came out and feel somehow ripped off because they feel they didn't get the full version, insisting that unless they have every single piece of content for the game that there is or ever will be, that it's incomplete, rather than just an "extra", and feel ripped off. I imagine these same people feel the same way in regards to "remastered versions".

Btw, in case it isn't clear, a reMASTER is a simple resolution/framerate bump (like the last of us). A reMAKE is an entire rework of the assets from the ground up (halo 2 anniversary, wind waker HD). Now, reMAKES might take a bit longer, and at that point, I can understand the complaints for them then, though I read Wind Waker HD was completed in 6 months, which blows my mind and makes me think some reMAKES don't even take that long either.

TXIDarkAvenger1388d ago (Edited 1388d ago )

No, I don't think that if we didn't have remasters, we would have brand new, full games in their place. Assuming your correct, 6-9 months spent on a remaster could be used on a new project meaning newer games sooner for us.

This is just my opinion on it. I want more new games not games I played less than 10 years ago. Obviously someone who never played previous games or fans of the series will disagree and I'm fine with that.

vickers5001387d ago

We MIGHT get the newer games sooner (I say 'might' because as I stated earlier, most dev companies have multiple dev teams, one to work on big projects and one to work on smaller projects), but even if we get it a few extra months earlier, would it really be worth it?

For one, early released titles tend to be very buggy and broken, and remasters give devs a chance to "warm up" with the new game development architecture, possibly resulting in a less buggy game (though this is just speculation on my part), for two, the profit that these developers acquire from their remastered titles will almost certainly go towards the resource allocation of their NEW game, making it a potentially better, more fully featured product.

Still, it's interesting to know that at least one person is aware that "remaster ≠ potential brand new game", though if I had to guess, I'd guess that the majority do believe this given the common line "I'd rather have a new game", implying that it's either/or, rather than the actual 'both'.

I want new games too, but I'd also like to play remastered versions of my favorite games, the ones I loved so much that I'd buy them for any platform they come out on, especially if they're improved in any way. Bioshock was one of those games for me, I bought that on every system except iOS, just so I could play the game I loved on different controllers. Mind you I didn't pay full price for all of them, I bought the 360 version full price, the ps3 version half off a year later (though that came with extra exclusive DLC) and the PC version for 5 bucks on steam to play with improved graphics.

I'd rather have new games that take a few months longer + remastered games I love than slightly earlier releases and no remasters. But that's just my opinion on it too.

I just personally think it's way better for gamers and the industry as a whole, seeing as how game development costs for devs have raised sky high it seems with the new generation. Maybe, just maybe, these remasters for SOME publishers might even take the place of some of the more extreme DLC milking practices.

There are way more pros for remastered games than cons, IMO anyway.

TedCruzsTaint1388d ago

It's as vickers stated . . .
Remastering an old title takes very little time, resources and manpower. Though it does have the potential to generate a fair bit of funding for the developer/publisher.
It also raises awareness of the brand in question, potentially helping push the series as a whole going forward.
These sorts of projects are only good for the developer, consider they are handled properly.

BattleAxe1388d ago

Bioshock is already remastered and being played in higher resolutions.... it's called the PC version.

hosseincode1388d ago

I want Dragon Age: Origins remaster so i can replay the series again.

TedCruzsTaint1388d ago

Fallout, Thief, Planescape:Torment (favorite game of all time), Deus Ex, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines . . .

So much yes going on in this article. So many classic PC titles that could do with an overhaul and be brought to a whole new audience.

Roccetarius1388d ago (Edited 1388d ago )

Planescape: Torment is still holding up fine, even without a remaster today. All it needs is the few mods there are for the game, fixing some things, and restoring quests.

Deus Ex is already being ''remastered'' . It's called the Revision mod. Vampire the Masquare Bloodlines could use some help, though.

Immorals1388d ago

Would love an amped 3 remaster. Had so much fun on that game back in the day

Show all comments (21)
The story is too old to be commented.