• 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by BrennRambles (3 posts) -

Recently a lot of gaming companies seem to be doing remastered versions of previous gen(PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360) titles. This got me thinking, even though the game was fun, why would I bother to spend another $59.99 on the same game I own for only better graphics, not to mention the price hike for most new gen games (Wii U, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4) being $69.99, so what's the point if you already own the game?

I am curious to what you all think of games being remastered, would you spend money on a game you already own just to play on your new gen console and what game would that be?

#2 Edited by Corevi (4433 posts) -

I wouldn't buy a remaster of a single game for $60. I bought the Peace Walker HD version at $20 because the controls in the PSP version were awful. ZOE HD is great because the original games are really really hard to find, as are ICO and SotC. The Last of Us Remastered makes sense though because there was no antialiasing in the original so just pixels everywhere.

#3 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

#4 Posted by csl316 (9263 posts) -

I'm fine with it, especially for people that missed it the first time around. I don't have an amazing PC, so buying a 1080p 60 FPS version would be worth it again to me... except that my main big TV only hits 720. Otherwise I'd easily pick up Tomb Raider again (which was my game of the year).

I missed Injustice, so I'll pick up the PS4 version eventually.

I do think $50 is a much better price point, though. Hopefully Last of Us establishes a trend.

#5 Edited by believer258 (12103 posts) -

not to mention the price hike for most new gen games (Wii U, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4) being $69.99,

Where are you? Prices are still $59.99 in the States as far as I know.

I'm not going to buy a remaster that consists of a single game, but I am fine with buying remastered collections of games that look and run much better than their originals. The issue with PS2 games was that they didn't run at a high enough resolution and they looked bad on modern TV's. I think the issue with this generation boils down to framerate, which is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Buying HD versions of games you own is a lot like buying the Blu-Ray version of a DVD you've had for a long time. It's still the same thing, but it's presented in a much better way. Whether it's worth your time and money is up to you.

@video_game_king said:

@corruptedevil said:

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

I've always been under the impression that the Silent Hill port was the exception, not the rule - generally, these HD ports seem to hold up to the promise of looking and running better than the older versions.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@believer258:

I know I read something about ZOE being glitchy, and I think Ico might have some problems (although I could be imagining that one).

#7 Edited by jakob187 (21732 posts) -

Until they remaster/HD remake Vagrant Story, I couldn't care less. However, if they did that, I would pay $60 or MORE for it.

#8 Edited by Corevi (4433 posts) -

@video_game_king: the framerate in Z.O.E 2 isn't perfect but it's completely playable, Z.O.E 1 is just a bad game, and ICO is the exact same as the PAL release of the PS2 version just upscaled, they did however make some changes to SotC to make the game harder, specifically your grip gauge runs out faster.

#9 Posted by 71Ranchero (2796 posts) -

My opinion is "sure, why not". I dont really get why these sorts of things get any kind of backlash. I doubt they expect YOU(someone thats purchased it once before) to repurchase the game if you dont like the idea of owning it again with slightly better graphics. There is a whole world of new potential customers.

#10 Edited by pyromagnestir (4337 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@believer258:

I know I read something about ZOE being glitchy, and I think Ico might have some problems (although I could be imagining that one).

I just finished playing through SotC HD and that had no problems. Ran smooth and looked great. I imagine Ico should as well, seeing as it's a simpler game in some respects. None of them huge ass colossi to deal with. I'll probably start to play it tomorrow so I'll know more about that specific game then.

edit: Oh, right. There was a bit of weirdness with the occasional pop in, particularly when out riding around the open world. But it was hardly a problem. Just something you noticed once in a while.

#11 Posted by Hailinel (25203 posts) -

not to mention the price hike for most new gen games (Wii U, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4) being $69.99,

Where are you? Prices are still $59.99 in the States as far as I know.

I'm not going to buy a remaster that consists of a single game, but I am fine with buying remastered collections of games that look and run much better than their originals. The issue with PS2 games was that they didn't run at a high enough resolution and they looked bad on modern TV's. I think the issue with this generation boils down to framerate, which is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Buying HD versions of games you own is a lot like buying the Blu-Ray version of a DVD you've had for a long time. It's still the same thing, but it's presented in a much better way. Whether it's worth your time and money is up to you.

@video_game_king said:

@corruptedevil said:

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

I've always been under the impression that the Silent Hill port was the exception, not the rule - generally, these HD ports seem to hold up to the promise of looking and running better than the older versions.

ZOE HD did have issues, but I heard that that it was patched. I could be wrong, though. The Silent Hill 2/3 HD ports were straight-up poor, though.

The Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster is really the standard that these collections should be held to. A lot of care went into updating the graphics, and the collection runs smoothly without the glitchiness found in the Konami examples. That it includes content that wasn't in the original North American FFX/X-2 releases also helps a lot, though that's kind of a special case.

#12 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@hailinel:

I'm guessing it's a company to company thing. Square has all these Final Mixes/International Releases lying around, meaning decent material for these rereleases. Konami generally has tech problems with theirs because the original release either did weird things with the tech at the time (ZOE) or vanished into thin air (Silent Hill).

#13 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1874 posts) -

For me, it's not as simple "remasters are bad" or "remasters are good," it depends entirely upon the game and my situation. I passed on Tomb Raider because I played through that game twice in 1080p/60fps on PC. However, I am planning on getting the The Last of Us and am considering GTA V, despite having played both those games already.

The Last of Us is among my favorite games of last generation, and though I've played through it several times and have gotten the platinum trophy, there is one compelling reason for me to pick up the PS4 version; multiplayer. I really enjoyed the multiplayer in The Last of Us, but most of my gaming friends were on either 360 or PC, so the entirety of my time playing was with randoms. Several of those friends now have PS4s and have expressed strong interest in The Last of Us. So in the end, the prospect of experiencing this masterpiece again looking better than ever, playing the multiplayer (which I loved) with a group of friends, and getting a chance to play the new maps (which I never bought) is more than enough reason to spend $50 on a game I already own.

Though the majority of these remasters fall into the category of ambivalence for me, I'm sure there are those that have similarly compelling reasons to pick up Tomb Raider or Metro again, so even if I don't have interest in most of them, I see no problem with these remasters existing.

#14 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1662 posts) -

The way I see it, they're there for superfans and people who never played the game the first time around. I'm not interested in Tomb Raider Definitive Edition because I had my fill of Tomb Raider, but it's a really good game and I bet people are enjoying it for the first time on the new consoles.

I think we're seeing the quick turnarounds now because many games developed over the last few years have been severely cut down to run well on the fairly ancient (by tech standards) console hardware. Developers have the higher-quality assets and engines designed to take advantage of the new consoles, so it's not a huge undertaking to put together a re-release and cash in on the post-launch lull.

Also, I booted up the PS3 remaster of Space Channel 5: Part 2 today, and I'm really glad I had that option open to me.

@video_game_king said:

@believer258:

I know I read something about ZOE being glitchy, and I think Ico might have some problems (although I could be imagining that one).

I just finished playing through SotC HD and that had no problems. Ran smooth and looked great. I imagine Ico should as well, seeing as it's a simpler game in some respects. None of them huge ass colossi to deal with. I'll probably start to play it tomorrow so I'll know more about that specific game then.

I don't remember having any problems with Ico. Considering Ico and Shadow of the Colossus reportedly didn't run very well on the PS2, I think that collection is probably a prime example of why remasters can be a really good thing and help to preserve games that otherwise might not age very well. If people didn't like the framerate of Ico in 2001, I'm guessing they really wouldn't like it today.

I looked of ZotE recently because it was on sale on PSN, and if I recall correctly, the issue with the remaster was a dodgy framerate.

#15 Posted by NegativeCero (3026 posts) -

I expect we'll be seeing a lot of them after The Last of Us and GTA5, which is great for me because I haven't played either of those games. I'm hoping for plenty of PS3 games done on PS4 since I never had the previous console.

#16 Posted by egg (1469 posts) -

FFX HD - they updated the graphics but still did not remove the random encounters

That is what I think of remasters

#17 Posted by Damodar (1460 posts) -

Am I a hypocrite for laughing at the guy who came out on stage during the Microsoft conference to assure people that if they buy the halo collection, they'll be buying the exact same games they already have, but then losing my shit over the Grim Fandango announcement so badly that I somehow crashed steam?

I think my stance is that I'm basically ok with it. It's totally milking, but I think you can still make a case for most of them to exist. I held off on GTAV with the hopes of getting a PC version that looked nicer. The other worthwhile aspect is just preservation or easier access to the game. Grim Fandango is a great example of that. In this day and age of services like GOG and programs like DOSBox making it easy to get legimate access to classic old games, it's terrible how many great Lucas games have just been left to rot. No digital versions of Day Of The Tentacle, Curse Of Monkey Island, Full Throttle or Grim Fandango available anywhere. And of those games, Grim is maybe the one that could most use a makeover. Whereas the others went for a fairly timeless hand drawn look, Grim Fandango combines polygonal characters and pre-rendered backgrounds. Given how far CG and real-time rendering has come in the last 16 or so years since the release of the game, it really deserves an update as it has some of my favourite design/art direction etc basically in anything ever.

So something like that or getting out arcade accurate ports of fighting games that got less accurate home console ports in their day etc, that's all completely worthwhile. Something like the PS4 version of Tomb Raider, probably not as easy to defend.

#18 Posted by HistoryInRust (6380 posts) -

I think it's worth having a hook beyond, "hey it looks better." Take the Halo series remaster, for instance. Offering the entirety of core franchise's multiplayer carte blanche like they're doing is a pretty significant selling point for me, someone who has owned or currently does own all of the games in the docket.

Simply brushing over a game with a new coat of paint just isn't enticing enough to me. But then again, I'm probably not the market being hard-sold on the idea here.

#19 Posted by pyromagnestir (4337 posts) -

@grantheaslip:

I really should pop in my PS2 copy of SotC and try to fight one of the colossi, just to see how fucked I think the framerate is now. Back then I didn't really have a problem with it, but after just having played a smooth version, I imagine it'll be waaaaaaaaaaay more annoying.

#20 Posted by crithon (3441 posts) -

@corruptedevil said:

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

Nope, I just bought a limited edition box copy last week for 25 bucks. ZoE2 on PS2 ran pretty horrible and the HD collections run as smooth as butter. The biggest problems in ZoE2 was the big battle sequence where there's a million enemies on screen and your team mates are asking for help, that whole thing ran maybe 7 or 12 FPS. I even was looking up some people trying to play the game on PC emulation and it ran slow too, it's not a consistant engine, the new HD version is first time I saw particle effects of the explosion it ran too smooth I didn't know how to react.

#21 Edited by BigJeffrey (5147 posts) -

I get Halo 2 Anniversary + some other stuff for $60, this is how you release remasters.

#22 Edited by Corevi (4433 posts) -

@bigjeffrey: I'm not sure I'm okay with Reddit and Gaf being referenced on marketing materials. In fact I am quite sure I am not ok with that.

#23 Edited by Gaff (1849 posts) -
Online
#24 Posted by Yummylee (22297 posts) -

Most HD collections I buy are typically of games I haven't played, or it at least has one in there I haven't. I primarily bought the MGS HD collection for Peace Walker, though it's also nice to have available MGS 2 & 3 in HD, too. Sometimes I buy a HD collection just to give me a reason to play through a beloved game again as well, such as Symphonia Chronicles. Though I was also intrigued in seeing just how bad its sequel was at that, and... er... it's pretty fucking bad.

#25 Posted by Corevi (4433 posts) -

@gaff: I figured it was because it used all the design fundamentals of the Xbone and it's all press talk ("Be among the first to experience a new generation of Halo")

#26 Posted by Fattony12000 (7596 posts) -

The XBLA remaster of Perfect Dark was...near...perfect...

  • 1080p60
  • All features and options and modes retained
  • Added online play

#27 Edited by GunstarRed (5403 posts) -

@crithon said:

@video_game_king said:

@corruptedevil said:

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

Nope, I just bought a limited edition box copy last week for 25 bucks. ZoE2 on PS2 ran pretty horrible and the HD collections run as smooth as butter. The biggest problems in ZoE2 was the big battle sequence where there's a million enemies on screen and your team mates are asking for help, that whole thing ran maybe 7 or 12 FPS. I even was looking up some people trying to play the game on PC emulation and it ran slow too, it's not a consistant engine, the new HD version is first time I saw particle effects of the explosion it ran too smooth I didn't know how to react.

Not sure which version of ZoE2 you were playing but the frame rate drops in the 360 one can range from playable to pretty damn awful, especially in the opening stage. The first game seemed fine though.

#28 Posted by TooWalrus (13255 posts) -

Remasters don't bother me. They remaster a game I haven't played but would like to someday? Great, there's a better version for me to play. They remaster a game I've already played and would like to play again? Great, the new experience will be even better than the first. They remaster a game I've got no interest in playing? Great, I don't have to buy it.

#29 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (685 posts) -

I like the convenience of not having to dig out an old console just to play a game I really like

#30 Posted by KentonClay (257 posts) -

I'm fine with it. The film and music industries have been doing this for decades, and it can help old games find a new audience. Of all the business tactics in the industry meant to squeeze more money out of people for less work, this is probably the least offensive.

#31 Posted by Marcsman (3262 posts) -

Shameless cash grabs

#32 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4744 posts) -

I think it's fine. I think they would be much cooler if studios went the extra mile and included things like developer commentary, interviews, and other little things like that, but meh, whatever I guess.

#33 Posted by Dixavd (1367 posts) -

HD remakes are the best excuse to play something you either missed or know that you love. Also, sometimes they make a game that was almost unplayable (Especially compared to the standard of games now) back to a point where they are enjoyable again.

I loved the endless wonder galloping across the world of Shadow of the Colossus, and doing that in HD with a steady frame-rate made it relaxing as well as awe-inspiring.

People underestimate how much presentation can actually change an experience (though, for some, updates can make them feel worse).

#34 Edited by phantomzxro (1583 posts) -

I do think it depends on the game and price because not every game will get away with being 60 bucks. But the main reasons i like the remastered versions is

Ease of access - older games i don't want to roll out older systems and discs become easier to play when they are on the current system. Also when you have a series its always nice having them on one disc.

Playing older games i missed - There are the few gems that fall between the cracks that you miss that can have a second life when the remakes happen. You also get the bonus of them looking and running a little better.

I would also throw in with the current gen systems having more power, It's also cool to see last gen games that pushed those systems get even better when moved to ps4 & xbox one. (tomb raider & last of us)

#35 Edited by Corevi (4433 posts) -

@gunstarred: Konami games have always been inferior on Xbox, and most Japanese games in general. Though there are exceptions like Bayonetta which is only playable on 360 and the PS3 version is a broken mess.

#36 Posted by Kidavenger (3610 posts) -

I have never gone back to replay a game, remastered or otherwise; there is too much new stuff coming out that it's really hard to justify going back to something I've already experienced even if it's new and improved.

If you missed it the first time around, go for it but otherwise I think it's a waste of time and money.

Online
#37 Edited by crithon (3441 posts) -

@gunstarred said:

@crithon said:

@video_game_king said:

@corruptedevil said:

ZOE HD is great

Isn't there a frame rate problem with one of the games, though? And aren't technical problems common in these rereleases (or am I only thinking of Silent Hill)?

Nope, I just bought a limited edition box copy last week for 25 bucks. ZoE2 on PS2 ran pretty horrible and the HD collections run as smooth as butter. The biggest problems in ZoE2 was the big battle sequence where there's a million enemies on screen and your team mates are asking for help, that whole thing ran maybe 7 or 12 FPS. I even was looking up some people trying to play the game on PC emulation and it ran slow too, it's not a consistant engine, the new HD version is first time I saw particle effects of the explosion it ran too smooth I didn't know how to react.

Not sure which version of ZoE2 you were playing but the frame rate drops in the 360 one can range from playable to pretty damn awful, especially in the opening stage. The first game seemed fine though.

AHHHHHHHH, PS3 version. But the original PS2 release ran really poor, does the 360 version dips down to 7 FPS or 12? Oh by the way, there was a 500mb patch when I popped it in last week.

#38 Posted by pinner458 (823 posts) -

This discussion is nearly 3 years old. I don't see how anyone who is invested enough in games to consider this topic hasn't seen it come up dozens of times already by now.

#39 Posted by GunstarRed (5403 posts) -

@crithon: Definitely not that low, but it can get bad enough for it to feel like a problem.

#40 Edited by crusader8463 (14427 posts) -

They never remaster the games I want them to, nor do they put them out on the platforms I want. So poop on them.

#41 Edited by crithon (3441 posts) -

@gunstarred: there was a 500 mb patch I had to install when I loaded up the disc. So they patched the game a while ago. I could imagine it was bad, but I'm checking even emulators there's some nasty slow downs in ZoE2. They throw in so much crap on screen

#42 Posted by Entreri10 (235 posts) -

For me I'm mostly indifferent to remasters unless its a franchise I really care about such as the Master Chief Collection or Metro Redux. The only other ones I can think of off the top of my head might be possible remasters of the Mass Effect or Dead Space trilogies.

#43 Posted by CornBREDX (5839 posts) -

It depends on the game and what work they put into "remastering" them.

For example the "remastering" of the Silent Hill games was junk and you are still better off just buying the originals (well, 2, 3 and 4) on PC.

The price point is usually lower than an actually newer game as well.

As long as the price is right, it's done acceptably, and it's a game series I cant run any other way for whatever reason- I'll buy it. The Sly collection on PS3, for example, was worth it. So was the God of War collection.

Buy it if you want, don't if you don't. It won't hurt you either way. It's really similar to remastering old films on blu ray or DVD and re-releasing them.

#44 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5903 posts) -

I think they're generally great.

#45 Posted by Raven10 (1888 posts) -

Well for GTAV and The Last of Us I am happy they did it. GTAV really lacked foliage in the last gen version. I guess that might be a silly thing to complain about but all these green Hollywood style hills without a single shred of grass on them just really got to me. Combined with the iffy performance at times and I think the game could really use a next gen makeover. The Last of Us I think is even more clear cut. The performance was God awful. The whole thing felt like it ran at 20 fps not to mention the lack of AA on the environment left the whole game filled with jaggies and pixel shimmer. I don't have a PS4 yet but when I do I will absolutely buy and play both those games on it.

The only other example of a disc based game I can think of this generation has been Tomb Raider, which again performed pretty poorly on consoles, although those with a decent PC could get most of the features of the current gen version. Basically, if the game is under a year old and ran poorly on the previous generation then I'm more than happy with a current gen port. If we are talking about something like remaking the Modern Warfare games for current gen systems, I would hope they would include all three games in a single set for like $40 at most.

#46 Posted by DifferenceEngine (73 posts) -

In nearly all cases, they're a shameless cash grab IMO. A remastered The Last of Us, really?

#47 Edited by SomeJerk (3364 posts) -

A lot of people in here have guns pointed to their heads forcing them to buy remastered games.

Maybe you should call 911 or try to escape from your captors.

(TLOU 1080p60 for $50 (including the DLC), great, I was busy with other things and my PS3 lost HDMI so I sold it off. GTA5 1080p30, great, PS4 came and I look forward to online without hackers. Whatever's next? I'll happily take it. Would get an Xbone if I had the desk-space and money for it for the Halo MCC.)

#48 Posted by Dussck (324 posts) -

@differenceengine: Agreed. Some improved textures and rerendered cut-scenes are no excuse to ask for a full price imo. No way that there's a full team at Naughty Dog working on this, probably just a couple of programmers and a texture artist working in a corner, so how is this justified? The game is a year old, it's the same game, make it half the price.

#49 Posted by bluefish (531 posts) -

They're like all games, different strokes for different folks. eg. There's no way in hell I'm buying The Last of Us again at anywhere near full price but I'm beyond (BEYOND!) happy that Ico/Shadow of the Colossus are permanently in widescreen HD and I dearly love the Halo: C.E. Anniversary edition.

They're a bit much I suppose but you just gotta pick and chose, like everything.

#50 Posted by MightyDuck (1524 posts) -

I enjoyed a few of the HD Classic releases on the PS3 this past generation. That was mostly due in part to two reasons.

  • my ps2 has a super hard time reading disks these days.
  • it had been a long time since I had last played that particular game.

That being said, I can honestly say I have no interest in "Remastered" games on the PS4 since most of these ps3 games I just played or still have the option to play currently.