Are There Arguments to be Made Against HD Remasters?

[Bananamatic]

Devil May Cry HD Collection

the camera in dmc3 is shite, I'll take whatever "lost in translation" over having a 4:3 image on top of that
1:1 remaster means jack shit unless the game is meant to be competitive and the changes make it a completely different game, which almost none of those games are

here's a great argument for HD remasters though: pal region got screwed with 50fps in a lot of games, I'll take whatever inaccuracy there is if it means playing the game at full speed after all these years
the FFX remaster might have ugly menus but it's still better than huge black bars and playing the game at 80% speed

[Jameson Rook]

I think I should also mention that just because you don't like a remaster doesn't mean others can't like it. The Metal Gear Solid 2 remaster might be bad in your eyes, but to someone who's never played Metal Gear Solid 2 recommending they pick up the remaster on 360/PS3 would be a better introduction than telling them to get the PS2 version or not bother (they'll choose the latter).

Not sure of the tone there buddy, but I never said someone shouldn't like what they choose to. That's pretty much the point of the thread- because they are are popular and a natural choice to play older games, would there be a reason for someone to go back to the originals despite the "superior" ports.

Not a single sentence in my posts suggested that I was imposing my view was the only right one, I was inviting discussion on a topic I was interested in.

[ZellSF]

It was just a general reminder, not directed specifically at you (I apologize for not making this clearer). I wrote it because I've seen quite a few purists recommend people play the original version of games where it's either obvious that won't happen (obscure platform) or where they'll have a significantly worse experience than they would with a remaster and might be turned off the game the purist is trying to recommend in the first place. That's the risk you run into with calling remasters bad over minor details.

[Steamflogger Boss]

It was just a general reminder, not directed specifically at you (I apologize for not making this clearer). I wrote it because I've seen quite a few purists recommend people play the original version of games where it's either obvious that won't happen (obscure platform) or where they'll have a significantly worse experience than they would with a remaster and might be turned off the game the purist is trying to recommend in the first place. That's the risk you run into with calling remasters bad over minor details.

Yeah it's easy to forget sometimes because on boards like this there are more purists and people that love old games. A large majority of gamers still get rid of their last console when they get a new one. So remasters are really the only way they are playing old games.

[Jonny2x4]

I think people here are confusing remakes with remasters. Yakuza Kiwami, which was brought up earlier, isn't a remaster, it's a remake of Yakuza 1 on the Yakuza 0 engine. While the maps and scenarios are the same, the play mechanics have been updated, some of the voice acting had been redone and there's new content (such as the Majima Everywhere sub-quest). Same thing with Kiwami 2, which is Yakuza 2 remade on Yakuza 6's Dragon Engine (and from my understanding, is also missing content from the original Yakuza 2). However, there was an HD compilation of Yakuza 1 and 2 for the PS3 (and Wii U of all things) exclusive to Japan.

Of course, it's not like marketers make the distinction any easier. Stuff like the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy are marketed as remasters, but the games are completely rebuilt from the ground up.

I miss the old days when they would remake an old game on a new platform and still call it a port.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Ah my bad, you are completely correct on that. Now I have to go check what was cut from Kiwami 2 though.

[Jameson Rook]

I think people here are confusing remakes with remasters. Yakuza Kiwami, which was brought up earlier, isn't a remaster, it's a remake of Yakuza 1 on the Yakuza 0 engine. While the maps and scenarios are the same, the play mechanics have been updated, some of the voice acting had been redone and there's new content (such as the Majima Everywhere sub-quest). Same thing with Kiwami 2, which is Yakuza 2 remade on Yakuza 6's Dragon Engine (and from my understanding, is also missing content from the original Yakuza 2). However, there was an HD compilation of Yakuza 1 and 2 for the PS3 (and Wii U of all things) exclusive to Japan.

Of course, it's not like marketers make the distinction any easier. Stuff like the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy are marketed as remasters, but the games are completely rebuilt from the ground up.

I miss the old days when they would remake an old game on a new platform and still call it a port.

Yeah, the term "remake" and "remaster" are used interchangeably even by the publishers, and I assume because the word remaster is more popular these days and evoke people to go out and buy it, despite the clear distinction between the two. It reminds me when people use the word "disk" and "disc" interchangeably, they're not the same thing.

[Bananamatic]

"purism" is just nostalgia
fight me

[Steamflogger Boss]

[ZellSF]

I think people here are confusing remakes with remasters. Yakuza Kiwami, which was brought up earlier, isn't a remaster, it's a remake of Yakuza 1 on the Yakuza 0 engine. While the maps and scenarios are the same, the play mechanics have been updated, some of the voice acting had been redone and there's new content (such as the Majima Everywhere sub-quest). Same thing with Kiwami 2, which is Yakuza 2 remade on Yakuza 6's Dragon Engine (and from my understanding, is also missing content from the original Yakuza 2). However, there was an HD compilation of Yakuza 1 and 2 for the PS3 (and Wii U of all things) exclusive to Japan.

Of course, it's not like marketers make the distinction any easier. Stuff like the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy are marketed as remasters, but the games are completely rebuilt from the ground up.

I miss the old days when they would remake an old game on a new platform and still call it a port.

Yeah, the term "remake" and "remaster" are used interchangeably even by the publishers, and I assume because the word remaster is more popular these days and evoke people to go out and buy it, despite the clear distinction between the two.

What is your clear distinction between the two? I would share mine, but I don't really think there is a clear distinction.

I haven't played the Yakuza games mentioned for example, but to me they sound like remasters, they updated some stuff and made it better, isn't that what remasters do? To me, remakes are thing that are, well, remade from the ground up, not outright copying major elements.

"purism" is just nostalgia
fight me

I think purism as a word has more connotations with wanting to play the game as the artist intended it and less with wanting to play the game as you remembered it.

I am however not sure whether or not the distinction is meaningful, since in most cases you can't actually know whether or not something was a result of artistic intent.

[Bananamatic]

"purism" is just nostalgia
fight me

I think purism as a word has more connotations with wanting to play the game as the artist intended it and less with wanting to play the game as you remembered it.

I am however not sure whether or not the distinction is meaningful, since in most cases you can't actually know whether or not something was a result of artistic intent.

pretty sure that anything involving crap controls due to being on a wrong console (mgs peace walker), 30 fps and other restrictions due to weak hardware, no widescreen and PAL regions getting fucked over aren't artistic
ps2 games pretty much universally suffer from 1 or more of those, especially FF12 got a huge boost after the HD remake removed the damn spell queue that severely screwed over spellcasters
not to mention hd remasters/whatever you call it tend to be the final versions with extras that usually never got out of japan

[FinalBaton]

What do you guys think of the Dark Souls remaster?

Obviously getting 60fps on console is great improvment, that makes the remaster, the version to get. But I'm talking about the visuals.
They've changed the lighting a lot, and that really changes the feel of the game. And it's not like textures were improved : they're by large the same assets. Do you guys think the remaster look better?

I myself don't have the game currently, so I'm gonna pick up the remaster because of 60fps over the originals' 30, but often lower, framerate, that often dip in the low 20s, but sometime even dips as far as single digits territory, apparently.

[Bananamatic]

only if they remaster the second half of the game entirely

[WarpZone]

On the other hand, and quite the contrary- games remastered from the last generation (Uncharted the Nathan Drake Collection, Tomb Raider, Batman: Return to Arkham) tend to look spectacular which I suspect because the they share the same type of television the originals were designed for (HDTVs).

These should be more reliable than SD -> HD remasters, but I'm still skeptical and often feel changes and 'improvements' are done without the context and understanding of the original art direction, as seems to be the case with DS1's lighting.

Here's a comparison that's been going around -

Spoiler

But I don't even want to play DS1 at 60 fps. Played 2 that way on PC and it just felt artificial compared to the filmic impressionism a lower framerate can have (stability is important, though -- looks like the Switch ver. is 30 fps).

Also I thought the Uncharted collection looked sorta ugly, but I didn't play the originals and am not sure how much was changed. I took screenshots in fascination what an inconsistent mishmash of poorly contrasting textures, lighting, and effects it was. This makes my eyes almost hurt:

Spoiler

[ZellSF]

On the other hand, and quite the contrary- games remastered from the last generation (Uncharted the Nathan Drake Collection, Tomb Raider, Batman: Return to Arkham) tend to look spectacular which I suspect because the they share the same type of television the originals were designed for (HDTVs).

These should be more reliable than SD -> HD remasters, but I'm still skeptical and often feel changes and 'improvements' are done without the context and understanding of the original art direction, as seems to be the case with DS1's lighting.

You could easily be wrong though. If you were wrong, what would change? Would you suddenly prefer playing the game with what you think is inferior lightning?