They're remaking the wrong games!!!!

[jp]

Resident Evil. Metal Gear Solid. Final Fantasy. Ninja Gaiden.

All these games have two things in common:

1. They all recieved rave reviews upon release and made a shit ton of money.
2. They all got remakes, some more than one!

My question is: Why? Why remake games that were deemed "good", or even, "excellent" when they came out? Whats the fucking point? At no point in time while playing RE was I like, "Man, if only this had better graphics!" And certainly at no point during Ninja Gaiden did I think, "Man, this game is missing so much, it needs a remake, or better yet, TWO!"

And now rumor has it that FFVII is going to be remade. Why? It got near perfect scores when it came out. A plethora of people (mistakingly) regard it as one of the best games ever made. And yet... it gets a remake!?

I know I know. Its all about money. Quick cash-ins due to stupid gamers that will willingly buy the same exact shit over... and over... and over... and over again. But it hit me tonight that the industry really is going about this all wrong. They're forcing people to play the same exact thing over and over with a new coat of paint each time, when what they SHOULD be doing is FIXING the games that had some minor flaws holding them back from greatness.

For instance:
I would love to see the XBox game Phantom Crash remade. Why? Because all it needed was online play and it would've been considered one of the best games on the system. But due to lack of online play, it got panned. I mean, I personally still love it, but by God online play would be great! And I know they made a sequel for PS2, but as I understand it, that one pales in comparison. So fuck that. Xbox Live. Phantom Crash 360. Come on!

Or how about a remake of Alien Front Online for 360? Its impossible to play it online now, and bringing it to the 360 would be awesome for people who just want to play a game they love since the single player aspect is rather lacking. But no, instead we get remakes/ports of old Sega games that were great back then, and are the same thing today.

I mean, so many games had such TINY flaws that just BARELY kept them from being AMAZING! And THATS what developers should be remaking. If it isn't broke don't fix it, but some games are in desperate need of repair!!! And I assure you, nothing with "Final" and "Fantasy" in the title would make such a list. I don't NEED FFIV in 3D, I've played FFIV, I know the plot, I never once thought, "Huh, if this was in 3D it'd be so much better," but at the same time, I often thought about how much cooler Kung Fu Chaos would be if it just had some online play with it. Or something SIMPLE you know?

Perfect example of this done right:
Hyper Duel for the Sega Saturn. When Hyper Duel came out in the arcades, it wasn't anything to write home about. Graphics were kinda bleh, music was cool, but dammit you couldn't hold your shot in one direction while moving around in mech mode. This made the game a bit frustrating. Tecno Soft decides to put Hyper Duel on the Saturn, the remake it, add ONE BUTTON to hold your aimed shot in a direction, up the graphics, up the music, add rank, BAM! Game is instantly a billion times better.

I just think its stupid that stuff like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Ninja Gaiden, etc. get remade, when there's virtually NOTHING to really improve or change outside of graphics, they get some bullshit extras thrown in, and suddenly its like, "Yay! I get to play this again! Only it looks different now! Yay!" I mean honestly, are we in such desperate times in gaming history that we have to resort to buying the same games over and over and over again? Is the only way we can derive enjoyment from this hobby is that we buy Final Fantasy (THE ORIGINAL!) 5 thousand times, and each time it ALWAYS ends the same way? You ALWAYS fight the same four elemental, always get the same four crystals, and always find Chaos at the end. FFVII remake... you'll do the same exact shit you did the first time you played it. If they remade PDSaga I would see it as stupid, because there's nothing that needs improving. And if they upped the graphics, it would completely lose the atmosphere of the game (and I can assure you Futatsugi more than likely agrees with me). Ninja Gaiden didn't need a remake. Or two. It was fine the first time. The second time it was the same game. The third time it was the same game with bullshit extras and a new coat of paint.

Whats the point? Remake (read: fix) the games that need it, not the games that got 9s and 10s and have no need of improvement.

[Frogacuda]

Well the obvious answer is, of course, public demand. People will be more apt to buy a remake of a game they really liked.

Generally games that almost worked, but have room to improve upon either get sequels or spiritual sequels rather than a remake. It's probably better that way, since they won't have to deal with the baggage of their predecessor's flaws.

Would Metal Slug have done as well if it was a remake of Gun Force 2? Would Border Down have been better if it was a prettier Metal Black? I mean nothing is keeping anyone from exploring the things they did right before and doing them better in the future.

While they have their time and place, remakes don't generally contribute as much to the gaming landscape as original games do. RPGs probably benefit the most for whatever reason, but other games that are very restrained by either conventions of the time or just technology might deserve a second chance. To say there's nothing to improve about Resident Evil or Final Fantasy is a very dubious claim as well.

Also, how do you figure Ninja Gaiden was a remake? That was as much remake as Shinobi for PS2 was.

EDIT: Oh you meant Ninja Gaiden Sigma, not the 80s one. I'd almost call that an enhanced port or a director's cut rather than a full remake.

[Basil]

Actually I don't mind the earlier PSX/64 games being remade as their 3D polygons do NOT hold up as well as their 8 and 16 bit counterparts.

Or when RPGs get improved translations. I loved FFT when it was first out, but half the time I had no clue why stuff was happening. Now I do and it's almost like a whole new game for me.

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly.

[lordsnarf]

Or when RPGs get improved translations. I loved FFT when it was first out, but half the time I had no clue why stuff was happening. Now I do and it's almost like a whole new game for me.
Did it really get a better translation in the PSP version? If that's true I may have to pick it up. I never finished the PSX version anyway(no surprise if you know me).

[jp]

Well the obvious answer is, of course, public demand. People will be more apt to buy a remake of a game they really liked.

Generally games that almost worked, but have room to improve upon either get sequels or spiritual sequels rather than a remake. It's probably better that way, since they won't have to deal with the baggage of their predecessor's flaws.

Would Metal Slug have done as well if it was a remake of Gun Force 2? Would Border Down have been better if it was a prettier Metal Black? I mean nothing is keeping anyone from exploring the things they did right before and doing them better in the future.

While they have their time and place, remakes don't generally contribute as much to the gaming landscape as original games do. RPGs probably benefit the most for whatever reason, but other games that are very restrained by either conventions of the time or just technology might deserve a second chance. To say there's nothing to improve about Resident Evil or Final Fantasy is a very dubious claim as well.

Also, how do you figure Ninja Gaiden was a remake? That was as much remake as Shinobi for PS2 was.

EDIT: Oh you meant Ninja Gaiden Sigma, not the 80s one. I'd almost call that an enhanced port or a director's cut rather than a full remake.


I meant Ninja Gaiden Black and Ninja Gaiden Sigma. And it was still pointless.

And I still say nothing has improved with the original FF in all 10 thousand of its remakes. RE had prettier graphics and some added features, but it was still rather pointless.

And I don't think Gun Force or Metal Black really apply here, since the games that followed weren't THAT similar. They had the nods to them, but other than that... no.

[Frogacuda]

And I still say nothing has improved with the original FF in all 10 thousand of its remakes.

Just because nothing has improved doesn't mean there's nothing too improve. That's just silly. Maybe the problem isn't that they're remaking the wrong games, it's that they're not remaking them right.

I mean look at Tales of Phantasia's remake. The game was only 3 years old when they remade it, but it really improved almost everything about the experience from refining the battle system, to the encounter rate, to fleshing out the dialog. Also new items, new gameplay systems... It was so much more than just remade graphics.

Now is that because the original Tales of Phantasia was more in need of improvement than Final Fantasy, or is it just because Namco took the time to actually do it rather that slap some new paint on it and ship it out to market?


And I don't think Gun Force or Metal Black really apply here, since the games that followed weren't THAT similar. They had the nods to them, but other than that... no.
Really Gun Force 2 wasn't that similar to Metal Slug? They played identically, pretty much. Except MS didn't have the duel wielding.

[jp]

Just because nothing has improved doesn't mean there's nothing too improve. That's just silly. Maybe the problem isn't that they're remaking the wrong games, it's that they're not remaking them right.

I mean look at Tales of Phantasia's remake. The game was only 3 years old when they remade it, but it really improved almost everything about the experience from refining the battle system, to the encounter rate, to fleshing out the dialog. Also new items, new gameplay systems... It was so much more than just remade graphics.

Now is that because the original Tales of Phantasia was more in need of improvement than Final Fantasy, or is it just because Namco took the time to actually do it rather that slap some new paint on it and ship it out to market?

My point was that if a game came out to rave reviews and success, then remaking it was pointless because when it came out, it was fine. There was no need to remake it.

Final Fantasy could be improved, it was called Final Fantasy III. Final Fantasy II, in theory, could be improved, if it WASN'T Final Fantasy II.

Could the games be improved? Possibly. Does this happen? No. Do they really need it? No.

Also, my point isn't that games SHOULD BE remade, its that if they're going to remake games for a quick buck anyways, they might as well remake games that actually need it. And a ton of games never got sequels due to the original having one flaw keeping it from being all that it could have been.



Really Gun Force 2 wasn't that similar to Metal Slug? They played identically, pretty much. Except MS didn't have the duel wielding.

I was mostly referring to Metal Black/Border Down there.

[Frogacuda]

My point was that if a game came out to rave reviews and success, then remaking it was pointless because when it came out, it was fine. There was no need to remake it.
Then what say you to my Tales of Phantasia example? It was a fantastic and successful game that was made signifcantly more fantastic when it was remade.

[jp]

Then what say you to my Tales of Phantasia example? It was a fantastic and successful game that was made signifcantly more fantastic when it was remade.

That there's always an exception?


What do you say to the plethora of examples I can come up with then? That its just for a quick buck? I already covered that in the first post. I'm just saying if game developers weren't lazy hacks they'd do that.

Also, Tales of Phantasia wasn't previously released in the US when it was remade, so much like the DS remake of FFIII, its not a very good example.

[Frogacuda]

Also, Tales of Phantasia wasn't previously released in the US when it was remade, so much like the DS remake of FFIII, its not a very good example.
The remake wasn't released in the US, either :P I'm speaking of the SNES original being updated with the PSX version (which is very similar to the PSP version).

The GBA version is fucking terrible. It's not really a remake. It's a frankenstein of SNES port and remake, mixed in with liberal amounts of dog shit.

That there's always an exception?

And the difference between that exception and Final Fantasy is that they took an approach to the remake that actually refined the experience as a whole.

If all remakes did that, they'd all be the exceptions. That's what we should be focusing on.

[lordsnarf]

It would be great to see developers retool older titles in ways that make them better then their original. It would be interesting to see them do so with titles that didn't make splashes the first time they came out. At that point however, the dev could just as easily make a new title, and remove the stigma the original title carries. Characters and game series are very disposable in this industry, when they don't sell well. A publisher is rarely going to green light a project with the pitch "I want to remake Craptastic Crap Adventure, I think I have some ideas to make it work this time.". Though with the new ways of getting games out there, maybe you will see some games like this.

[James]

If only they'd remake Road Trip with decent graphics and physics, or better yet an all-new Choro Q game using Road Trip as its template, then I'd be happy with remakes. Otherwise, I just don't care. I don't play too many games twice, and it's going to take more than a fresh coat of paint to change that.

James

[jp]

And the difference between that exception and Final Fantasy is that they took an approach to the remake that actually refined the experience as a whole.

If all remakes did that, they'd all be the exceptions. That's what we should be focusing on.


I disagree. From what you say, Tales didn't NEED a remake. It got one and they did it right, but it wasn't called for.

Miyamoto has said something along the lines of, "A delay only lasts a few months, a bad game is forever." I think correcting the "bad games" (or not quite as good as they should be) should take far more precedence than remaking games that turned out fine and really don't NEED a remake.

I imagine you love the original Tales game. Ergo, did it NEED a remake? Sure, you're like, "Well the remake was great, weee!" But did it NEED it?

If the answer is yes, then apparently you didn't care much for the original. ;)

[James]

Miyamoto has said something along the lines of, "A delay only lasts a few months, a bad game is forever."

He may also have said "Our games go to 11!"

James

[Frogacuda]

I disagree. From what you say, Tales didn't NEED a remake. It got one and they did it right, but it wasn't called for.
The result more than justified the release, so in that sense it was called for. Yes, I loved the original, but the remake is why I've replayed it so many times, which I probably wouldn't have done otherwise. It turned a good memory into a game I can enjoy again and again without being frustrated by its nagging flaws.


If the answer is yes, then apparently you didn't care much for the original. ;)
I loved the original game, but did have issues that detracted from my enjoyment. If you think the first Final Fantasy game has fewer flaws than ToP you are out of your mind.

Yes, remaking a perfect game is stupid. But the examples you used are not perfect games. Just because those remakes dropped the ball does not mean there was nothing they could have done.

[jp]

Yes, remaking a perfect game is stupid. But the examples you used are not perfect games. Just because those remakes dropped the ball does not mean there was nothing they could have done.


They weren't perfect, but there wasn't much more they could do with them outside of making a sequel. They have no glaring flaws.

[Frogacuda]

They weren't perfect, but there wasn't much more they could do with them outside of making a sequel. They have no glaring flaws.
You will never convince that RE1 and fucking Final Fantasy on NES have no glaring flaws. That seems absurd.

[jp]

You will never convince that RE1 and fucking Final Fantasy on NES have no glaring flaws. That seems absurd.

For what they are, they don't.

Knowing you, your idea of "remaking" them would be to make completely different games. I.e. take out the turn-based combat in FF and make RE --> RE4.

But those aren't remakes in the sense we're talking. There's no one small mechanic that can be tweaked in either game to make it considerably better.

[Frogacuda]

For what they are, they don't.

Knowing you, your idea of "remaking" them would be to make completely different games. I.e. take out the turn-based combat in FF and make RE --> RE4.

But those aren't remakes in the sense we're talking. There's no one small mechanic that can be tweaked in either game to make it considerably better.

Sure there is. You could definitely smooth out the controls and improve the camerawork in RE, add more variety to the enemy patterns, improve the fucking acting...

And FF, come on. The game is stone age. You could add an item creation system, you could update the battle system with more abilities and skills to add depth like FF5 and 6, you could add a story, you could redo the dungeons so that they actually have fucking puzzles somewhere in them, you could establish actual characters and try to develop them...

You're really just not thinking hard enough about these games.

[Bruhaha69]

I don't think remakes should be left to games that just missed the mark.

I've always liked the Tomb Raider series. I'm a sucker for games like Flashback and Out of this World, so a 3D version of those always worked for me.

Anyway, I thought Crystal Dynamics' Legend was awesome and now their remake of the original Tomb Raider (TR Anniversary: basically the Legend engine which is a lot like current day Prince of Persia games) is also playing very well and is a lot of fun. Not just a remake but a reimagining of the classic game I love with completely different gameplay. It feels like experiencing a brand new game and not just a rehash of the game I loved in the mid 90's. Still has the charm that drew me in back then (which is not the charm of big polygon boobs and ass).

Is it any better when other companies make complete rip-offs of old games we loved but could have had some improvements? What about sequels? Is it ok to take the same core game and improve the graphics while tweaking the gameplay/camera/whatever just as long as they tack a "2" on the end?

I think it would be sweet to see games that JUST missed greatness being brought back to life and improved, but what's so bad about taking an old game that was great and making it a new and more fun experience. It might even shoot some life back into a franchise that had become forgotten but should be remembered. I'm already planning on going through Tomb Raider for Saturn once I get my TV all bought and squared away.

I think a good remake is as good as any game as long as some quality development work goes into it and not just mindless particle effects and bump mapping to get it shiny.

[Specineff]

It took the PS2 to get a perfect port of VO:OM. No more grainy low-res Saturn models with pixel meshes, no 30-fps PC port anymore. And for VO, yes, I'll give $ony my cash. In this case, a remake was not only necessary, but a divine commandment, as stated in the Book of Mecha:

"Sixty shall be the number of frames thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be sixty. Seventy-five shalt thou not count, neither count thou thirty, excepting that thou then proceed to sixty. Ninety is right out."

[jp]

Sure there is. You could definitely smooth out the controls and improve the camerawork in RE, add more variety to the enemy patterns, improve the fucking acting...

And FF, come on. The game is stone age. You could add an item creation system, you could update the battle system with more abilities and skills to add depth like FF5 and 6, you could add a story, you could redo the dungeons so that they actually have fucking puzzles somewhere in them, you could establish actual characters and try to develop them...

You're really just not thinking hard enough about these games.


The FF you described would not be the original FF.

[Frogacuda]

The FF you described would not be the original FF.
How is any of that any more significant than the changes they made in the Tales of Phantasia remake, which is generally regarded as very faithful by all of its fans?

What change was it that you feel makes it not be FF any more? Is any attempt to add complexity or polish to the gameplay somehow "ruining" it?

And screw being 100% faithful, anyway. No one's coming into your house and smashing your NES cart. Like bru mentioned, Tomb Raider Anniversary is great, but is it a scene-for-scene identical remake? Does it play the same? No. But it does capture the essence of what made the original good, and it pulls it off a lot better, and that's why by and large the fans loved it.

[James]

The original FF isn't a very good game by today's standards. Remaking it means re-creating it, while still remaining faithful to its world and characters.

Come to think of it, I didn't really enjoy the original FF when it came out, either. JRPGs and I didn't start getting along until the SNES days.

James

[jp]

How is any of that any more significant than the changes they made in the Tales of Phantasia remake, which is generally regarded as very faithful by all of its fans?

What change was it that you feel makes it not be FF any more? Is any attempt to add complexity or polish to the gameplay somehow "ruining" it?

And screw being 100% faithful, anyway. No one's coming into your house and smashing your NES cart. Like bru mentioned, Tomb Raider Anniversary is great, but is it a scene-for-scene identical remake? Does it play the same? No. But it does capture the essence of what made the original good, and it pulls it off a lot better, and that's why by and large the fans loved it.

It doesn't have to be 100% faithful. But there comes a point where you've changed so much that its no longer a remake and its just a different game. And you sir, are operating outside of the "remake" boundaries I would say.

Let me put it like this:
Calling the FF you're talking about a remake is like calling Regulators a remake of Desperado. Or better yet, you're basically saying Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is a remake of the original FF.

I also do love how you put words in my mouth though. I never said anything about any changes "ruining" FF. I don't even hold FF in such high regards. I just know the difference between a "remake" and "a new game". Incidentally, what you described is pretty much FFIII. :rolleyes:

And the only reason I singled out FF is because I've played it various times. I've only played through RE once, and I can't remember too much about it oddly enough.

[Frogacuda]

It doesn't have to be 100% faithful. But there comes a point where you've changed so much that its no longer a remake and its just a different game. And you sir, are operating outside of the "remake" boundaries I would say.

How do you figure? What I talked about is the kind of things they did in the Tales of Phantasia remake, in the Tales of Destiny remake... all of these things which are universally excepted as remakes. And it's nothing as drastic as Tomb Raider Anniversary, which is also universally accepted as a remake.

So again, I ask you, which change was it that crosses the line and why, because I really am not following your logic at all on this one. The things I suggested are all common practice in remakes.

Let me put it like this:
Calling the FF you're talking about a remake is like calling Regulators a remake of Desperado. Or better yet, you're basically saying Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is a remake of the original FF. Those had nothing to do with each other. I'm just talking about fleshing the game out a bit with some more story, items, and puzzles. I don't get where you're coming from.

[jp]

How do you figure? What I talked about is the kind of things they did in the Tales of Phantasia remake, in the Tales of Destiny remake... all of these things which are universally excepted as remakes. And it's nothing as drastic as Tomb Raider Anniversary, which is also universally accepted as a remake.

So again, I ask you, which change was it that crosses the line and why, because I really am not following your logic at all on this one. The things I suggested are all common practice in remakes.


Because there is a lot less to work with in the original Final Fantasy. It is a very simplistic game. And while I agree that Squeenix (and most developers) goes about remakes the wrong way, I still say there isn't too much that needs to be done to most of the games that are getting remade.

[Frogacuda]

Because there is a lot less to work with in the original Final Fantasy. It is a very simplistic game. And while I agree that Squeenix (and most developers) goes about remakes the wrong way, I still say there isn't too much that needs to be done to most of the games that are getting remade.

Square did NOTHING to the FF1 remake(s). That's lazy and a wasted opportunity. But MOST RPG remakes do make refinements (not radical rethinkings, but refinements) to the battle systems, they expand the story and fill in some of the gaps, balance the game out more, add new areas, new subplots, integrate certain elements from later games in the series...

Truly, this is how remakes should be done, and very often it's how they are done. What would make Final Fantasy 1 so special that it's beyond being refined, but all these other great RPGs like Tales of Phantasia and Star Ocean somehow aren't?

I don't get why if I take FF1 and I add a few puzzles to the dungeon and add some dialog all of a sudden it's FF3 (even though FF3 didn't have any more puzzles or dialog than FF1). Where is the line crossed?

[jp]

Square did NOTHING to the FF1 remake(s). That's lazy and a wasted opportunity.

You obviously never played the NES original then. They DID change stuff up for the remake aside from the graphics. They made it a lot easier and made it play more like the later FFs.


But MOST RPG remakes do make refinements (not radical rethinkings, but refinements) to the battle systems, they expand the story and fill in some of the gaps, balance the game out more, add new areas, new subplots, integrate certain elements from later games in the series...

And most all RPGs are more complex than the original FF and have more room for such things without losing the essence of the original.


Truly, this is how remakes should be done, and very often it's how they are done. What would make Final Fantasy 1 so special that it's beyond being refined, but all these other great RPGs like Tales of Phantasia and Star Ocean somehow aren't?

The really funny thing here is that someone who hates the original FF and has probably never played through it is trying to tell someone who has played through the original a bajillion times and likes it alright about how to keep the essence of the original in a remake. And I answered your question above.


I don't get why if I take FF1 and I add a few puzzles to the dungeon and add some dialog all of a sudden it's FF3 (even though FF3 didn't have any more puzzles or dialog than FF1). Where is the line crossed?

FFIII had no more puzzles than the original (then again, none of the FFs have much in the way of puzzles, so I think adding puzzles period is kinda "unlike the series". Oddly enough, I would imagine the original FF had the most in the way of puzzles and was the least linear entry in the series, :lol: ), but no more dialogue? For shame Frog, have you even played these games?

[Frogacuda]

You obviously never played the NES original then.Think again. Played it then, played it years later, and played the remake (not to completion, though)

And most all RPGs are more complex than the original FF and have more room for such things without losing the essence of the original.
So then why are you disagreeing with me that a remake ought to do that?

but no more dialogue? For shame Frog, have you even played these games?

You inserted a "no" before the word "more" that befuddles me. I said they should expand the script. Like how they did with the FF3 remake on DS.

Stop it with the gamefaqs "Have you even played..." bullshit, too. You know me better than that, jp.

[jp]

Think again. Played it then, played it years later, and played the remake (not to completion, though)

So then why are you disagreeing with me that a remake ought to do that?


You inserted a "no" before the word "more" that befuddles me. I said they should expand the script. Like how they did with the FF3 remake on DS.

Stop it with the gamefaqs "Have you even played..." bullshit, too. You know me better than that, jp.


I know you hate turn-based combat and how much you hate old school Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior. One would assume, given that dislike, that one wouldn't play through something as long as an RPG if they disliked it. Playing through a shooter is one thing, playing through an RPG is a completely different story.

The "no" was a typo I guess. I dunno. FFIII had more dialogue/plot than FF, even in its original iteration. Like I said, the very essence of the original FF is so simplistic that making a plethora of changes (as you suggest) would pretty much make it NOT FF anymore. The story in and of itself is stupid simplistic, and doesn't really have much more space to go. Of course, given the general "plot" as is, I don't see a point in it having much story anyways.

Its like trying to remake Scramble. Its so simple that if you deviate too much, it quits being Scramble, and you might as well call it Scramble 2 or something. All you can really do is tweak the controls a bit and make it shiney. Same goes with FF. Its archaic, yes. But its that simplicity that is its very core, and without that, it would not be the same game, ergo it would not fit into the "remake" category.

Tomb Raider and Resident Evil "worked" because they were a bit more complex, there were far more things they could "tweak" or "redo", and while they didn't really NEED remakes (which amazingly enough, was the entire original point, not whether or not games COULD be remade, but SHOULD they, so thanks for that. :flat: ), it was possible to re-do them such that they didn't lose the original core of their being. FF is not one of these instances though since its a near-bottom of the evolutionary chart JRPG. Tales and Star Ocean and what-not, were not.

[Frogacuda]

I know you hate turn-based combat and how much you hate old school Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior.
When have I EVER said I hate turn based combat? You've made that accusation a million times and I told you you were wrong every single time, but you still go on and on about it.

Wasn't I going on and on about how much I love Persona 3 for like 3 weeks straight? Doesn't that have fairly traditional turn based combat?

At the time I saw FF as "Shitty Phantasy Star" since that was the first J-RPG I ever played and as a kid it (and the first to come out in the US) and since it really was miles better than FF.

I played it again years later along with all the other 2D FF games. I though FF1 was ok, but a bit dull and sparse, I HATED 2, and I liked 3, 4, and 5. I found 6 disappointing, but I still liked it enough to play up to the last dungeon.

We HAVE had this discussion before.


I dunno. FFIII had more dialogue/plot than FF, even in its original iteration.Only in that it is a much longer game than the original. The dialog is still very, very sparse. Good game for its day despite that, but lean on story to say the least.



Its like trying to remake Scramble. Its so simple that if you deviate too much, it quits being Scramble, and you might as well call it Scramble 2 or something. All you can really do is tweak the controls a bit and make it shiney. Same goes with FF. Its archaic, yes. But its that simplicity that is its very core, and without that, it would not be the same game, ergo it would not fit into the "remake" category.
I definitely get what you're trying to say about Scramble, but I think what I'm trying to get at is that many of the shortcomings of FF were not made because there was a concious need to keep it simplistic. The lack of story, the simplicity of the gameplay, much of this was just the result of not having a lot of cart space and not having the benefit of years of insight. They weren't trying to make FF simple, they had no choice.

Whereas Scramble is its gameplay and if you change its gameplay it isn't Scramble, this is less true of old-school RPGs. RPGs have always been appealing because they try to tell a story and immerse you in a world. Enhancing their ability to do that will help a game like that in a way that's really meaningful, not just superficial.

[jp]

When have I EVER said I hate turn based combat? You've made that accusation a million times and I told you you were wrong every single time, but you still go on and on about it.

Wasn't I going on and on about how much I love Persona 3 for like 3 weeks straight? Doesn't that have fairly traditional turn based combat?

At the time I saw FF as "Shitty Phantasy Star" since that was the first J-RPG I ever played and as a kid it (and the first to come out in the US) and since it really was miles better than FF.

I played it again years later along with all the other 2D FF games. I though FF1 was ok, but a bit dull and sparse, I HATED 2, and I liked 3, 4, and 5. I found 6 disappointing, but I still liked it enough to play up to the last dungeon.

We HAVE had this discussion before.

I don't recall this conversation at all. Typically you're just like, "I hate old school turn-based combat, rah rah rah!"


Only in that it is a much longer game than the original. The dialog is still very, very sparse. Good game for its day despite that, but lean on story to say the least.

FIII had more going on in it than the original does. Period. :shrug:


The lack of story, the simplicity of the gameplay, much of this was just the result of not having a lot of cart space and not having the benefit of years of insight. They weren't trying to make FF simple, they had no choice.

I'm not saying they had a choice. I'm saying they worked with what they had, and made a game that doesn't really need a remake, especially since EVERY remake thus far has been lesser to the NES original.


Whereas Scramble is its gameplay and if you change its gameplay it isn't Scramble, this is less true of old-school RPGs. RPGs have always been appealing because they try to tell a story and immerse you in a world. Enhancing their ability to do that will help a game like that in a way that's really meaningful, not just superficial.

But FF's story involves random people, appearing, being dubbed the Warriors of Light, and then setting off the continue the infinite cycle thats always occuring. There's not much else that needs to be added. What? You want them to all meet in a tavern in Corneria and discover they all mysteriously have amnesia? And at the end be like, "Oh, we did this before, about as many times as there are remakes of this game (read: 1 billion)."

[Frogacuda]

I don't recall this conversation at all. Typically you're just like, "I hate old school turn-based combat, rah rah rah!"
Then you weren't listening.

I believe the conversation was in the Skies of Arcadia vs Grandia II thread. Both of those games are turn-based, as you know...

Though I don't think that being turn based automatically makes a battle system good, and sometimes I get the impression that you do.

Being real-time doesn't automatically make it good, either. If the battle system challenges me and rewards me for playing better, has a decent pace to it, and doesn't take longer than it has to, then it's good. Doesn't matter if it's turn-based or not. Persona 3 was turn based, but it was set up so that choosing the right moves was very important, and it was very fast paced and the battles were over quickly. That was just right and I loved it. Skies, on the other hand, was borderline acceptable in terms of depth but VERY slow so it drove me nuts.

FF1 and Phantasy Star are neither here nor there for me. They definitely aren't interesting or deep at all, but they're also very quick, so they end up just being "there." If you had more interesting abilities and spells to choose from it could definitely be made into something decent.


But FF's story involves random people, appearing, being dubbed the Warriors of Light, and then setting off the continue the infinite cycle thats always occuring. There's not much else that needs to be added.That's one way to look at it... I would say just the opposite, that everything else needs to be added.




ANYWAY, to try to get this a bit more back on topic, because I do think it's an interesting discussion, I think that games that were handicapped by technology should really be high on the list of games to remake.

I always felt that Burning Rangers and Panzer Dragoon Saga were really pushing the Saturn as far as it could go and the hardware was struggling to keep up. They were great games anyway, but they'd surely benefit tremendously from having some modern tech behind them. A lot of old 3D games that had poor frame rates and bad draw distances and the like probably deserve the remake treatment, don't you think?

[jp]

Eh, I don't think a game is necessarily GOOD because it has turn-based combat, I just don't think having old school turn-based combat makes a game BAD, or unenjoyable, which is what I was disagreeing with you about in said thread.


In so far as remaking old stuff:
Burning Rangers I could see I suppose. PDSaga, no. I think a remake with revamped graphics would utterly destroy the original spirit of the game (and as I said earlier, I can almost guarantee you Futatsugi would agree with me). I know you're probably not going to understand this (not an insult, just... I doubt very many people can look at a 3D Saturn game and see how it still works for some of those games, if that makes sense), but PDSaga's dark colors and general "Saturn-look" contribute a lot to the game in my opinion. PDSaga looks awesome because its on the Saturn, and its entire style works as a Saturn game. And there is nothing that I think needs to be added to PDSaga. It may be a fairly short adventure, but I really don't feel like there's anything that needs to be added. And when I first played the game I felt it was perfect as is, and even now, 50+ play throughs later, I still feel that way.

[Frogacuda]

Eh, I don't think a game is necessarily GOOD because it has turn-based combat, I just don't think having old school turn-based combat makes a game BAD, or unenjoyable, which is what I was disagreeing with you about in said thread.
Well judging the combat itself. Is the combat fun and rewarding, or is it a minor (or major) chore that I put up with in order to enjoy the rest of the game? That is always an important question for me, and like ANY aspect of game design you can do it right or wrong, and the ways you can go wrong are various.


Burning Rangers I could see I suppose. PDSaga, no. I think a remake with revamped graphics would utterly destroy the original spirit of the game (and as I said earlier, I can almost guarantee you Futatsugi would agree with me). I know you're probably not going to understand this (not an insult, just... I doubt very many people can look at a 3D Saturn game and see how it still works for some of those games, if that makes sense), but PDSaga's dark colors and general "Saturn-look" contribute a lot to the game in my opinion. PDSaga looks awesome because its on the Saturn, and its entire style works as a Saturn game.
I undestand the general concept of what you're saying but I disagree about this in particular, and here's my argument.

I've seen the official art and concept art for Panzer Dragoon Saga, and it is staggeringly beautiful. The game itself does not do this art justice. I think the look of the game should be able to realize the artists vision better.

This is the SAME vision that they were trying to realize originally. They had artists designing a look for the game, and unfortunately, they couldn't do it. Now they can, or at least come a hell of a lot closer.

[jp]

PDSaga is all about atmosphere (well, that and awesome gameplay).

Teh hi-rez graphics and next-gen magic would destroy the atmosphere presented in the Saturn game. Yes, the artwork is fecking awesome, and the blocky 32-bit characters aren't good depictions of these characters, but the thing you're not getting is that PDSaga is meant to take place in a very bleak, dead, dulled world. And there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of this would be lost in a remake (it wouldn't have to be, but keep in mind Frog, Kusunoki, the artist for the series, is now at Artoon, so the original vision would not be realized in any form or fashion unless Sega outsourced said remake to a Futatsugi lead Artoon, and even then I imagine those guys would rather make a new game, though the character artist for Saga, Katsumi Yokoto, is at Q?).

Incidentally, Blue Dragon did have a LOT of PDSaga-esque locales (you could really tell Kusunoki did a lot of it).

But I still don't think a remake is called for for PDSaga. Like I said, it works as a Saturn game, and it is perfection, ergo there is no point in remaking it. The dark murky graphics of the Saturn really help PDSAga's atmosphere and make it that much better. I really wouldn't want to see it in super-duper graphics, because it would not feel the same at all, and a lot would be lost.

[Frogacuda]

PDSaga is all about atmosphere (well, that and awesome gameplay).

Teh hi-rez graphics and next-gen magic would destroy the atmosphere presented in the Saturn game. Yes, the artwork is fecking awesome, and the blocky 32-bit characters aren't good depictions of these characters, but the thing you're not getting is that PDSaga is meant to take place in a very bleak, dead, dulled world.
Sure, but you can do that with modern visuals as well. Shadow of the Collossus is a perfect example. (Vaguely similar art direction, too.) Vast, open, lifeless worlds with an thick, oppressive atmosphere. As long as the people remaking it understand it, this can be done even better with modern hardware.


And there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of this would be lost in a remake (it wouldn't have to be, but keep in mind Frog, Kusunoki, the artist for the series, is now at Artoon, so the original vision would not be realized in any form or fashion unless Sega outsourced said remake to a Futatsugi lead Artoon, and even then I imagine those guys would rather make a new game).
Ok, that much is a totally fair point. You'd have to have the right people involved and assembling them at this point might be difficult.

I do get your general point, even if I don't agree in this case. There are games where they make simplifications and it sort of works for the game. Parappa the Rapper comes to mind. You could almost argue like Virtua Fighter 1 had its own charm to its look. Stuff like that where the technological compromise became a part of the game's identity. But when I can look at PDS's art and see what they WANTED it to look like... I just feel it should have a chance to look that way.

[Specineff]

I agree with Frog. A PDS remake with Orta graphics would make me come through my ears.


What about the VO remake for PS2, JP? I know you won't play it because it's on a Sony system, but that game DESERVED a remake since the Saturn and PC Ports don't do any justice to it. Same with Galaxy Force.

[jp]

Incidentally, Futatsugi DOES want to remake PDSaga in a sense. He wants to make a shooter version of it. :lol: (If he HAD to remake it, as I understand it he just wants to make another game though, though I doubt many people would appreciate what he would do with a "sequel" to Saga).

But still, I think in his mind (and in most people that really put a lot of time into the game) there is no need for it to be remade from its original form. The magic of PDSaga was seeing it running on the Saturn, put it on something else and it loses that magic.
_

[post updated]

_

I agree with Frog. A PDS remake with Orta graphics would make me come through my ears.


What about the VO remake for PS2, JP? I know you won't play it because it's on a Sony system, but that game DESERVED a remake since the Saturn and PC Ports don't do any justice to it. Same with Galaxy Force.


Thats a port of the arcade version. Both games are ports from the arcade. Hardly remakes.

[Specineff]

So new graphics options, remixed soundtracks, online capabilities and link options do not a remake, make?

[jp]

I thought Sega Ages just consisted of ports now. I don't know, I don't keep up with Sega's port happy bullshit. :shrug:

Though if all that constitutes a remake then Twinkle Star Spirtes on the DC is very much a remake as well. Though the Saturn version of VO had online and link capabilities as well. :shrug:

[Hunter]

They need to remake Advent Rising.

[Frogacuda]

Yeah, I would consider VO and Galaxy Force's Sega Ages things enhanced ports, not remakes. If you're still using the original assets, it's not really a remake.

[Specineff]

I thought Sega Ages just consisted of ports now. I don't know, I don't keep up with Sega's port happy bullshit. :shrug:


Well then. Shame on you. Sega needs your money and you should buy their games even if they're released on a system you don't own. Bad JP. Bad.

[jp]

Well then. Shame on you. Sega needs your money and you should buy their games even if they're released on a system you don't own. Bad JP. Bad.

I bought these games back when they originally came out, so I gave the Sega I give a shit about their due. :)


Also, VO:CT became null, void, and irrelevant the very instant VO:OT came out. I don't think I've even thought about that game since.

[Frogacuda]

How do you feel about "Director's Cut"-style remakes? Like ones that aren't trying to rethink everything, but just make the perfect version.

I ask because I'm thinking about the Out of This World remake. All it did was combine the different versions (the sound of the Amiga version, the added level of the DOS version, increased difficulty of the Genesis version, remade backgrounds of the cell phone version) and some new features (better save, hi-res, etc).

Now that really didn't make it an all new experience or anything, but I totally respect that the original creator got the rights back and wanted to make a perfect version.

[MAD.MANTIS]

I, for one, would play a remake of FF7....why? Well because it was a fantastic game, however, if you go back to it now (which is what I would LIKE to do) the graphics seem dated. I'm sure the game is going to stay exactly the same...just the graphics will be updated and I say YAY! I'd buy it again!

[Frogacuda]

They're always talking about that one, but I don't know if it'll ever happen.

I think being able to up the presentation flair on that game would definitely help it. In an RPG that isn't just superficial, it can make the story more emotionally resonant if you do it right. Though I never cared for it to begin with, so I'd sit it out regardless.

[NeoZeedeater]

Now that really didn't make it an all new experience or anything, but I totally respect that the original creator got the rights back and wanted to make a perfect version.
Yeah, Another World: Collector's Edition was the perfect update. And given the low price, no fan of the game should pass on getting it.

[MAD.MANTIS]

I think they should remake FF1 - 6. I'd LOVE to play those again with characters that don't look like this:

http://www.panelmonkey.org/pds/Final_Fantasy_Charachters.FF_1-comma-_2-comma-_4_-_7_and_Tactics.16.Tweek.-na-.png

[DarthArcturus]

Don't leech images! :rofl:

[MAD.MANTIS]

Why can't I leech images? :(

[Frogacuda]

because that site doesn't allow it.

Also, they have remade FF1-3. 4 is on the way, and you know 5 and 6 aren't far behind.

[jp]

I think they should remake FF1 - 6. I'd LOVE to play those again with characters that don't look like this:

http://www.panelmonkey.org/pds/Final_Fantasy_Charachters.FF_1-comma-_2-comma-_4_-_7_and_Tactics.16.Tweek.-na-.png

They've remade FF and FF2 about as many times as they've made new FF games.


The remade FFIII for the DS.

They "ported" FFIV, FFV, and FFVI to the GBA, and they're working on remaking FFIV for the DS.

[Specineff]

Okay, what about the Twin Snakes for Gamecube? Minus the Matrix-like cutscenes, I say that one was 120% worthy of being remade.

[Frogacuda]

I don't know that the end result was something THAT much better than the original. I mean I liked it and all, but it was a lot of effort for maybe not so much reward.

[jp]

Okay, what about the Twin Snakes for Gamecube? Minus the Matrix-like cutscenes, I say that one was 120% worthy of being remade.

Well, I hate stealth games. So, I'm not a good judge on that one sir.

Though my opinion is that it was pointless to remake MGS. So... yeah.

[Bruhaha69]

I always wanted to try Twin Snakes. I may now that I have a Wii. That's 100 backwards compatible with the GC, right?

[Specineff]

Yup. Though you'll need a Cube controller. (Piece of cake, right?)



Well, I hate stealth games. So, I'm not a good judge on that one sir.

Though my opinion is that it was pointless to remake MGS. So... yeah.

Ban, plz. :SM35:bonkbite::tantrum::mad::bomber::gun: :56.ghgg4843::frustrated:

[Wildcat]

Would love to see M.U.L.E. get remade. The old Bard's Tales would also be awesome. I also think that the Last Ninja would be an incredible update, as long as they kept the lush colors. Hard to believe that the game could look so nice on a C64. O_O

[Frogacuda]

Didn't they do a 16-bit remake of Last Ninja?

[NeoZeedeater]

I would say it's closer to a port if you're thinking Amiga/ST/IIGS. The Archimedes version is a remake. The art style is way different.

[Wildcat]

The thing that truly struck me about Last Ninja (I think I had 2, but I don't quite recall) was that it FELT like you were in Japan in that time period. It was just amazing to look at...on the C64. I never saw the NES pull off the depth of colors and vibrance that the developers accomplished with LN2. Awesome music as well. Now that's a soundtrack I need to hunt down...

[NeoZeedeater]

Yeah, the attention to detail and soundtracks were amazing. It was a point in time where my interest was shifting towards the new Nintendo and Sega stuff then along came games like Last Ninja, Maniac Mansion and Barbarian showing 8-bit computer gaming was far from dead.

[MAD.MANTIS]

Have I been living in some cave in Antarctica for 5 years, yet completely unaware that I was doing so?

[Frogacuda]

Have I been living in some cave in Antarctica for 5 years, yet completely unaware that I was doing so?

Probably. I imagine it and Colorado would be difficult to distinguish. Why do you ask?

[MAD.MANTIS]

Lots of remakes I was unaware of.