Game Idealist's list of the top 10 best remasters and remakes to look forward in the coming year of 2016.
There is a great selection of upcoming rereleases this year
I wonder what happened to the rumored Arkham remaster collection? I'm just finishing up a replay of the entire series and I don't necessarily think it needs any remastering, but it would be cool to see what they could do w/ it...the combat was pitch perfect in Arkham Knight, it'd be cool if they could implement that across the entire series (as long as they didn't also shoehorn batmobile tank sections in the halls of Arkham Asylum)
Agree , great games coming in 2016 soon as ps4 hit 249 (Amazon) at the moment 269 im on board can't wait for 2016 line-up. First game Gran Turismo Sport followed by Ratchet reboot, Street fighter 5.
It'll need to free its online multiplayer from the pay model before I'll get a PS4, at minimum, because I'm already disappointed by PSNow over proper BC. If they can at least free online multiplayer from the pay-wall, then I'll gladly be on board with PS4, because there's some games coming to it that I wouldn't mind having, either, and I'm no console war soldier that looks down on games due to their system, so I'd have no issue getting it once that flaw is taken care of. Until then, there's still Tales of Zestiria to nab for PS3, among a few other releases, and TP HD coming in March as well as a few other games.
Go pay for it with Microsoft then? Sony are always gonna charge for online from now on they only just started but have given out minimum 2 games ever since they started charging amongst other things Microsoft have been charging for Live/gold for well over 10 years now. They've been given games away with it for about a year.
I can't believe that people are still putting BC and PS Now in the same sentence. If you own a PS3 then PS Now is not for you. Keep your PS3. PS Now is for people that never owned a PS3 but have a PS4. It is also available on a rage of smart tvs so it is also for people that never owned a console. Same goes for it being on Vita. The PS4 can not emulate the Cell and RSX. It is that simple. Not some conspircy to pad their pockets.
yea your disappointed that you wont play old games on ps4 than new ones, yet you gladly pay to play TP HD than use BC to play TP wii instead.
@ RosweeSon Or I could hope that Sony goes back to doing what was more consumer-friendly? It may be an impossible hope, but I'll hold to it anyways. Being bribed with free games I either don't care about or have already owned before, doesn't do anything for me. Especially when the games are streamed instead of downloaded, and my internet is being pissy. And I'm not going to pay for Live, either. In fact, just to clarify; I won't be getting an NX if it demands I pay for online, either. I don't support pay-walled multiplayer. I find the concept of doing so outside of subscription MMO's to be insane and stupid. @ Skate The point is that Sony COULD have made a separate SKU with native BC as a function if they had wanted to. They have the money, they have the people, and they have the tech to make it happen. Heck, they could probably make it happen even cheaper than people think, now that the PS3's tech has aged enough over the past decade to drop a bit in price. And given the absolutely grand job they did of hyping and advertising the PS4, there's no way they wouldn't have seen those native BC units sell out, too. There's really no excuse that explains it not being in an optional SKU, other than wanting to make more money via reselling as many older titles as possible. I mean for heaven's sake, look at how quick they were to re-do TLOU. They barely waited a single year. That should be a sign to anyone watching that Sony was eager as heck to use the obsession over the graphics wars to their advantage to re-sell older experiences, and skipped any thought of an optional native-BC-capable-SKU because of it. @ Dark: I'm gladly and happily playing TP Wii as we speak, and I very much appreciate the CHOICE of being able to do so on a newer system than the Wii, without having to stream it or rent it. It's a nice little distraction while I wait for TP HD, which may possibly have a new dungeon and some features that will interconnect with Zelda U, which, if true, make the remake more worth owning for the potential extras I could earn for ZU through it. I'm not SHOEHORNED into either keeping my old console or paying for a STREAMED RENTAL with my Wii U. I can't say the same about PS3 games on PS4. So yeah, I AM disappointed, and I'm not going to suck up to Sony, or its fans who get butt-hurt at me for not wanting their latest system in its current form, just because I loved their PS3. The PS4 is not a perfect system for me. Anyone who hates me for that or who thinks I'm just a Nintendo loyalist for being against owning a PS4 in its current form, can line up and jump off the nearest cliff in a neat little procession for all I care.XD
why the hell would you care about PS Now which is for those who didnt have ps3(you could simply ignore it since you have ps3), and you dont even need to pay for online to play most of the games on ps4(which alot of people do), the console may not be perfect but deosnt force you play those old games since according to you "played all of them", theres already many new games(which you dont need online)to play on the console, which im sure you wont play all of them.
I have a PS4, and I initially got it with a 12 month PSN subscription, which went to waste for the most part because I didn't play a single of the PS+ free games, and I only played online for a few strikes on Destiny and that's about it. I didn't bother to renew my subscription, and... I'm not missing it. At all. I can play games offline perfectly fine, because I'm mostly a SP gamer anyway. For my online fix, I got Mario Kart 8 and Smash Wii U. :P
@ Dark I'm against it precisely because it feels like a slap in the face to me, as a PS3 owner, to be told that I can't enjoy my older collection on a newer system, without having to 1. pay for the online, and 2. constantly BE online to stream said games. And that's after 3. seeing if the service even HAS any of said older games that I want, and in many cases, it doesn't, meaning I have to go back to plugging in an older system that's already getting on in years. I'm someone who appreciates the choice of being able to go back to the collection I've already spent hundreds on, without having to plug in an older, and possibly failing, system just to do it. More and more "new" games these days are making use of online features, even single-player-heavy games, and that trend isn't going to stop. It's going to come to the point where you aren't getting the most out of games without an internet connection to use with the game. Heck, it's already getting to that point, if series like Dark Souls are any indication. So when I'm forced to pay for that privilege, that's where I draw the line, because I've grown up all my life with multiplayer, in all forms, being free. As for PSNow, specifically, there is always going to be a gap between new games I care enough to get that could be filled with older games, but the PS4 doesn't support that via REAL, PROPER BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY. It instead asks that I tie myself to a paid subscription plan, or go back to an older system. Do you remember how people responded when Microsoft told ITS FANS to "go back to 360" if they didn't have internet? Reference link: http://www.extremetech.com/... Yeah, now Sony is pulling THE EXACT SAME BS, only they're doing it without direct words. Instead it's centered around not just online, but around backwards compatibility as well, through the shoehorning of PSNow, and the subscription fee you HAVE to pay to use it, over any sort of proper BC. And no one is batting an eye, because it's oh-so-glorious SONY who's pulling the wool over their eyes.
@ wonderfulmonkeyman What does PS Now have to do with online multiplayer? You're a little confused. Sony is not obligated to add PS3 BC. Besides, you yourself called it a privilege. You're starting to sound more and more like an entitled brat. Not to mention the Cell architecture complicates things further. So if it ever happens, it's going to take some time. But last time they talked about it, they said they wouldn't be doing it. It's not like they mislead you and you bought a PS4 with the intentions of playing PS3 games... rearrange your priorities. You're comparing MS telling you to stick with 360 because without a proper internet connection you wouldn't be able to play ANYTHING at all. Vs PS Now. So dumb. Sony is not forcing you to pay anything. You're just being stubborn by not playing the PS3 games you have in your collection, on your PS3. You seriously telling me you have no room for it? In fact, if you don't have a PS4, that means your PS3 should still be plugged in if you care so much about the playing the games in your collection.
@Shin "You're a little confused." "entitled brat." "rearrange your priorities." "So dumb." "You're just being stubborn" Every last one of these lines shows that you didn't understand a single point I've made. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing with me on this. That, or you're intentionally ignoring what I've said as an excuse to attack me for not being blind to Sony's faults. It's not about entitlement; it's about Sony continuing to improve their systems while keeping what made the old ones great, instead of taking steps backwards in the name of easy profit. Which is exactly what charging for online, when they never did before, and replacing native BC with streamed rentals, is doing. As one of the ones that supported PS3 the most even when it wasn't doing so hot, I expected Sony to continue the things I loved about the PS3 well into the PS4. Everyone here who isn't an absolute dunce, or a Sony hater, knows that Sony has the money, technical know-how, and ability to make a BC-capable PS4 as an optional SKU. Given the hype with which the PS4 launched, I can guarantee you that even if it had cost extra, even that optional SKU would have sold out within the first month, and people would have demanded new stock of it soon after. My original point was that if Sony wants me to get off my PS3 and onto a PS4 [which is the whole point of making a new system in the first place, and shouldn't be downplayed by someone like you by telling me I should "just stick to the PS3" instead of wanting them to improve the new system], they need to, AT MINIMUM, remove the paywall for online multiplayer, so that I can take full advantage of ALL the games on the system without having to give in to paywalled multiplayer. Not just the single-player ones that don't include online features. But instead of understanding that point and leaving it at that, you pull off a post like that, that downplays my points and tells me to just "stick to PS3" instead of addressing them directly. Congratulations. We're done here, because I'm not playing that game.
"replacing native BC with streamed rentals" You're unwilling to understand things beyond the bottom line. Explaining to you why native PS3 BC is unlikely to happen is not the same thing as downplaying. "make a BC-capable PS4 as an optional SKU" You want them to make a separate PS4 SKU with built-in PS3 hardware? It's not gonna happen. "if Sony wants me..." It's not all about you though. People can have both. I bought a PS4 to play PS4 games. See, there actually are features that the PS3 had that they should definitely add back to the PS4 as well as new ones that are well within the realm of possibility. The problem is you're just focusing on the futile. Online multiplayer is likely to stay behind a paywall (with the exception of F2P and MMOs) until MS does the same. It's business unfortunately. Take your complaints to Sony instead of here if you want to make a difference.
I want new games.
So do I but a couple of those are fine. Dragon Quest VII is remake to a PS1 game and the PS1 game was graphicaly on par with SNES and a bad translation..top it off it was released the year PS2 was. So a full 3D remake is great. Gravity Rush on a system few own so putting it on PS4 is great for a great game that should get more exposure. Something like yet another KH port and another Zelda TP port we can do without but neither hurt anything either,unlike porting 1-2 year old games to PS4 and XBO.
Yep, I don't think this is something to be celebrated tbh. Although I will benefit from remasters sometime soon by getting the Uncharted Collection and The Last of Us on PS4 after not having a PS3.
I see no harm in it. Im not sure how other companies do it but Nintendo outsources remakes so its not hurting them at all. If anything it gives young 3rd party devs programing experience, the publisher more money to make other investments and players a chance to replay or experience a game for the first time.
@ Shin I want NEW games too, but not the same genre ( open world ) military crapfest . im done,finish,bored of them now time to move on
Ratchet and Clank isnt a remaster or a remake, its a new game
It's a re-imagining of the first game to be exact. Which is perfect since people like me never tried the series before and can start with this one.
You really should try the older ones anyways. Buy a PS3 for them, if you've got no one to borrow one from, but get the original series. The majority of it is really REALLY high up there on my list of action-platformers, and I don't regret a moment of the first few, at the very least. You'll be able to appreciate the re-imagining much much more, once you've got some experience with the original series to give you some context.^_-
If it's a re-imagining of the first game as the guy above says... it's a remake. Which literally means RE-MADE. Nothing wrong with that.
except that the word remake mostly used for games that hardly changes the story, with better graphic and few gameplay elements, like ocarina of time 3ds and conker live and reloaded, while R&C re-imagining changes the story(how they meet), having weapons and characters that wasnt in the first game, and the design change to some of the characters, which make it more like a reboot than a remake.
Conker: Live and Reloaded was a remake. Ocarina of Time 3D was a remaster. Now that you mention the differences on this new Ratchet and Clank game... it could be a reboot. But (as far as I know) a reboot completely scrapes previous entries in the franchise it's rebooting and starts again from scratch... like the 2013 Tomb Raider. So, does this game disregards completely the previous games in the R&C franchise? If yes, reboot. If not... remake of the first one. A remake is allowed to change many aspects of the original game, including story. Example: Golden Eye 007- the 2010 Wii game. It was a remake, and it changed several things in the story. For starters, James Bond is now Daniel Craig, not Brosnan. :P
Remakes can be very good if given the proper treatment and rebuilt from the ground up. There are alot of amazing games from the gamecube ps1 ps2 and xbox days that would be great. Im not saying remedy or naughty dog should be doing these but there are alot of small development studios that could be handed these ips and would give them jobs. And fore us gamerscore or trophy fanatics well it pads our stats. :)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.