How Far Should a Remake Go?

Alex DS. from Link Cable Gaming writes: " We’ve seen classic games come back, nearly completely unrecognizable, forging a new legacy for some of the most well-known names in gaming alongside remakes that are essentially shot for shot and stay true to the original. But what is the best way to go when it comes to remaking a classic video game? How far should a remake go?"

[masterfox]

Effing loved what they did with FF VII remake, in the end Square Enix managed to adapt the story in a way that felt like a sequel of the original one but still retaining the original feel, and at least for me that was freaking awesome!

[Babadook7]

FFVIIR was amazing. Someday that won’t be a polarizing statement when the game is no longer exclusive.

[MadLad]

I like remakes that are .... remakes.
If your "remake" changes a vast majority of the feel, content, and story, you no longer have a remake.
You have a new title that regurgitated elements of a prior game.

[Babadook7]

@Cruz

Did you play it? Last time I talked with you you didn’t want to.

[Taero]

@TheRealTedCruz What? Re>MAKE< as in you take the original concepts and you remake them into something different; "You have a new title that regurgitated elements of a prior game." Yes that's a remake. It sounds like you want a Remaster perhaps where all elements from the original are kept and they update graphics, physics, models etc. That was never the point with this.

[Kosic]

The remake for me was fun for a couple of hours but become stale not that far into it. The end became a real drag.
Also the npc who gives you the training missions felt like an after thought. That I just gave up doing these silly side quests.

Towards the last few hours I was already done and wanted the game over with. That I have very little interest in the 2nd game.

My partner watched me play the remake and came away not really understanding much off it, they relied to heavily on "you should've the original."

[IMissJimRyan]

This whole "problem" is largely due to the use of language. Remaster, remake, reboot, relaunch, reworking, ports are terms that often overlap and confuse people.

For example, Open RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 or Open GTA Vice City are games completely reworked, every line of code, but are visually identical to the originals. Are they remasters? Remakes?

Personally I think the nomenclature used by Activision in Crash and Spyro, and Square in FF VII are ideal: the first ones are remasters and the second one a remake. There are simpler remasters, as we saw a lot in the seventh and eighth generations, and more advanced remasters like Crash, Spyro, Shadow of The Colossus and Demon's Souls.

Remakes like Final Fantasy VII and Resident Evil II, if they stop making the changes they made, they stop being remakes and start being remasters.

So, answering the article's question, I consider that a remake has to go far enough to stop being a luxury remaster.

[TricksterArrow]

Regarding the nomenclatures: Remasters usually keep the same old game engine (or port everything as it was to a new one) with some graphical/control updates. Remakes usually are a big overhaul and rebuild a game from the ground up on a new engine, even if they end up extremely similar to the old one (Shadow of the Colossus).

[pietro1212]

"Remakes like Final Fantasy VII and Resident Evil II, if they stop making the changes they made, they stop being remakes and start being remasters."
Even if it's a 1:1 Remake like Shadow of the Colossus and Demon Souls those are still remakes and not remaster. They were built from the ground up on new engines

[IMissJimRyan]

Batman return to arkham is a new engine, but it's a pure remaster.
My hole point is that the name remake and remaster are misleading. If game design isn't changing it cannot be considered a remake. As I said there are games remade from the groud up and they are the same games. Back than even ports were different games.

I just agree with Activision and Square. They know remasters can be as simples as ports with resolution boost and as complex as Demon's Souls or Diablo 2.

Remakes must change game design.

[TricksterArrow]

@above "Remasters usually keep the same old game engine (>>>>>> or port everything as it was to a new one <<<<<<) with some graphical/control updates"

[pietro1212]

locomorales
You're wrong though. Both examples I provided were full on remakes despite no new content or changes. Same thing goes for any other remake despite its type of media. You do not have to deviate or add anything to a remake

[pietro1212]

It's all about keeping the essence if the orginal concept and nothing.

[pietro1212]

"Remakes must change game design"
That is simply not true

[pietro1212]

I.E Demon's Souls, Resident Evil, Shadow of the Colossus, The Pokémon Remakes, Final Fantasy 3, Final Fantasy 4, Legend of Mana.

[Petebloodyonion]

As far as it need to go to make the game better and more but while keeping the spirit and essence of what made the original so great.

[TricksterArrow]

EDIT: Replied wrong. Please, report this message for deletion! :)

[senorfartcushion]

FF7 isn’t a remake, it is a parallel story. The word remake is not regarding the game itself, but the story of the game.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

It went a little too far for me, almost perfect, but the time ghosts and everything after the bridge ruined it story-wise.

[Nerdmaster]

Same for me. I wouldn't mind changes to the plot, even big ones (when Barret was killed by Sephiroth, for example, I thought it was awesome - until the whispers revived him "because it was not his destiny to die then" -_- ). But the whispers, destiny, timelines and whatnot, felt too much, too forced, and too Kingdom Heart-y.

Funny thing is, I was loving the game until the final parts (even though the whispers constantly appearing was really bugging me - if invincible ghosts kept appearing and trying to make me do stuff or even hurting people, I would stop whatever plans I had, to find out what these things are, for example). However, I don't plan on buying the next games anymore.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

Yeah, I didn't like the KH vibes it was giving out, especially towards the end, I remember when the Whispers attacked the slums and afterwards everyone was just like "huh, that was weird, oh well". Is no one freaked out or questioning what the hell was going on? They acted like it happened all the time in the slums, it really removed me from my immersion in the story. I don't think I'll be buying the next part either, I think it'll turn out as a completely different game.

[Mulando]

Well, not as far as FFVII as this is not really a remake.
Yes I enjoyed it in parts, but (at the end) it seems that they only made that game so they can create a complete new story just with the characters of FFVII. If they don't really want to remake the game, maybe they shouldn't. It seems more they only wanted to create a sub-franchise to bring out sequel after sequel.