Are There Arguments to be Made Against HD Remasters?

[Jameson Rook]

For the longest time, I thought HD remasters were unquestionably the definitive way to enjoy older games. I mean, how are they not? Higher resolutions, better framerates, superb anti-aliasing and general improvements around the board that I figured there's no way I'd go back to the originals even if you paid me.

Well, no one ended up paying me but when I got back to PS1/PS2 gaming trough the Framemeister, I noticed most of the aesthetics in these HD ports had something lost in translation, such as the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection, Devil May Cry HD Collection or any of the Resident Evil remasters. While it's true that some ports are infamously bad (Silent Hill HD Collection), I found that the artistic translation of even the highly revered games isn't completely 1:1.

Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I notice a myriad of visual inaccuracies that not a single review brought up, and it would be blasphemous if I did since it's made by BluePoint Games, but simply put- I never thought the more simplistic graphics of those games would be all that impressive to look at in HD, where every polygon and flat texture laid bare and I came to a total 180 on my opinion that I had 5 years ago, that now you can't pay me to play most of these HD remasters. I mean you can, but that's not the point here.

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).

Am I the only one having such an unorthodox sentiment?

[neorichieb1971]

I'd rather all the games got the "Shadow of the collossus" treatment rather than a HD upgrade. I think that set a new standard. It should be the same game, but feel like a completely new game. In other words they need to push the newer systems capabilities as hard as a AAA title.

[BulletMagnet]

Am I the only one having such an unorthodox sentiment?

Nah, it's inevitable that a game originally made to take advantage of a particular format, especially one that "pushed the envelope" at the time, will lose something in translation, even if it's rebuilt from the ground up. As you note, though, there are advantages too (even beyond the "convenience" angle), so it's just a matter of whether or not the one makes up for the other in a particular player's estimation.

[Xyga]

HD remasters of old games are often awful because most are done the wrong way.

And there's not just one 'good way' actually, some games will look better with a real redrawing of all elements in higher resolution, but some will lose their visual soul as they were completely designed for a lower resolution and aspect anyway, nothing you can do without a complete redesign, which is often too much or badly done and the game ends up too different from the original.
Some games would only need a proper upscale and/or fltering, but for some reason this is rarely done properly. Another awful decision some devs make also is to expand the visual field to 16:9 but without resizing the contents and it looks like everything's been shrinked.
CRT imitation shaders can also be good to some games but it's not often used with ports/remasters, some offer pain scanlines but meh, we're far from the better implementations found in the realm of emulation.
Worst of all besides the visuals is to change things in the gameplay or other design elements that nobody has asked for, even a little different thing can ruin a lot.

I think among the many cases the recent Secret of Mana remaster is a good example of what NOT to do.
While apparently it's not a bad game as it is, it denatures the original too much, which is why the greater number of players who loved the game back in the days are disappointed.

I'm strongly in favor of always providing an almost untouched port of the original along with the remaster, no matter how; selectable from the title screen, unlockable, whatever. And again it must be decent with proper scaling and filters, smooth framerate, no lag, no added bugs, proper controls management, etc. which honestly isn't too hard to do with today's consoles.

It's sad but I just think a lot of dev teams in charge of those remasters are either just clueless about retro games, or ordered by clueless higher-ups who have the wrong idea.

[Ji-L87]

I love the idea of a HD remaster but I generally don't trust the people charged with creating them.

Also, like mentioned, small changes can be a big deal. I never played the original Wind Waker but I do have the HD remaster, which is fantastic for the most part, but what's with the wildly different lightning? It's so overly warm.

[Jonny2x4]

Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I notice a myriad of visual inaccuracies that not a single review brought up, and it would be blasphemous if I did since it's made by BluePoint Games, but simply put- I never thought the more simplistic graphics of those games would be all that impressive to look at in HD, where every polygon and flat texture laid bare and I came to a total 180 on my opinion that I had 5 years ago, that now you can't pay me to play most of these HD remasters. I mean you can, but that's not the point here.

You're not alone. They replaced all the blurred texts on the textures from the PS2 versions of MGS2 and 3 into filler gibberish. Why do the hatch doors in the Big Shell have "Metal Gear 2: Guns of Patriots" written over them? Why not write something that actually makes sense in context? The only reason why I even bought the HD Collection was because it had PW and I never owned a PSP.

Similarly, the only reason why I bought the ICO/SotC collection on PS3 was because it was cheaper to own that than the two PS2 games individually.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

There's no definitive way an HD remaster is "done" - like any remakes there's good and bad ones.

The CAVE ports for instance usually are well done because they use high resolution versions of the original art, while playing very comparably to the original game. In essence, they are a graphical upgrade, but do not change the gameplay because the playing field is the same.

The Resident Evil HD Remakes are good too, but I do not recommend playing in Widescreen mode them. In order to fit the wider format, the view is zoomed in and subsequently there is awkward vertical scrolling in some scenes where visibility is affected. The best example in REmake is the graveyard where you put the arrowhead - the camera angle before the steps down to the mask statues is badly cropped, which makes it difficult to see if there are zombies at the top of the stairs (whereas playing in 4:3 aspect makes them easily visible if they're at the top of the stairs as originally intended). In this case the aspect ratio affects the visible play area, and subsequently the gameplay.

Silent Hill 3 is an example of a bad remake - buggy, and voice acting is grossly inferior to the original (perhaps due to not being able to secure rights again...? I don't know why they were changed). They may have finally addressed the bugs though.

Shadow of the Colossus was bound to happen eventually, as was Perfect Dark - both were games which pushed the limits of their respective systems (as well as the framerates). As such, they're not so much HD remakes as re-releases on platforms with hardware strong enough to run them at more stable framerates, and so feel very natural in remade form.

Why do the hatch doors in the Big Shell have "Metal Gear 2: Guns of Patriots" written over them? Why not write something that actually makes sense in context?

Seriously? Haha, I hadn't heard that, that's hilarious and sad.

[Xyga]

@Roo: mmh...the Cave ports are a mixed bag, not everything is redrawn, only the essentials (bullets, sprites)
And several lack any HD treatment only offering shitty filters PS/MMP, Guwange, DOJ, Ketsui: those look much, much better if partly zoomed by a TV's settings (if decent zoom/overscan settings are available), or completely handled by an external scaler like a DVDO.
Plus they're not all that well accurate ports, and not technical issues-free either (we've herad enough about sdoj)

[BryanM]

In the case of redoing art like Duck Tales, Cave Story, La Mulana, Super Mario etc, I don't really see the point. Might as well make an entirely new game or whatever. The pokemon ports especially seem exploitative. (Super Mario 2 having all of its weird unique art removed in All-Stars really does strip away a lot of what little that game brought to the table.)

Higher resolution renders have always been a huge deal since even the UltraHLE days. Hell, even almost until today Nintendo insisted on screens that made characters look like they've been run over by a truck.

Arguments have been made that 3d models made for poop resolutions are optimized for those resolutions, but I think these are largely baloney. Maybe for something like Silent Hill or hiding how Mario goes into an anemic low poly rectangle man when he's in motion in Mario 64, a case could be made. But really, most of the time a line just looks better the more it looks like a line.

Why do the hatch doors in the Big Shell have "Metal Gear 2: Guns of Patriots" written over them? Why not write something that actually makes sense in context?

Perhaps that's just what the original texture was, before being mangled by compression.

[Jonny2x4]

Perhaps that's just what the original texture was, before being mangled by compression.

Perhaps, but "Guns of the Patriots" was the subtitle of MGS4. MGS2 was subtitled "Sons of Liberty". I get the impression they were added in by Bluepoint (or whoever was in charge of the HD textures).

[Jameson Rook]

Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I notice a myriad of visual inaccuracies that not a single review brought up, and it would be blasphemous if I did since it's made by BluePoint Games, but simply put- I never thought the more simplistic graphics of those games would be all that impressive to look at in HD, where every polygon and flat texture laid bare and I came to a total 180 on my opinion that I had 5 years ago, that now you can't pay me to play most of these HD remasters. I mean you can, but that's not the point here.

You're not alone. They replaced all the blurred texts on the textures from the PS2 versions of MGS2 and 3 into filler gibberish. Why do the hatch doors in the Big Shell have "Metal Gear 2: Guns of Patriots" written over them? Why not write something that actually makes sense in context? The only reason why I even bought the HD Collection was because it had PW and I never owned a PSP.

Similarly, the only reason why I bought the ICO/SotC collection on PS3 was because it was cheaper to own that than the two PS2 games individually.

Trust me, as a MGS2 fanantic, the filler texts are the least of the game's problems. I could name at least a dozen annoying inaccuracies that no one picked up on, yet these remasters are hailed as being the definitive way to play these games.

The other that comes to mind is the Final Fantasy X remaster, in which they changed the main character models and had the audacity to redo the entire soundtrack, which makes no sense at all. I admit that I haven't been playing too many of these HD remasters, but I don't think I've ever come across that's a 1:1 adaptation with logical resolution and performance gains.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Yakuza Kiwami was quite changed from the original but it was a case where I felt they just made it a better game.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

The other that comes to mind is the Final Fantasy X remaster, in which they changed the main character models and had the audacity to redo the entire soundtrack, which makes no sense at all.

I didn't realize the soundtrack had been updated. As far as I know it was a badly needed rerelease including the international stuff such as expert sphere grid and the extra stuff from X-2?

Is the original soundtrack a selectable option? If not, that's really disappointing, I gave it a listen and it's definitely inferior to the original.

[BulletMagnet]

Is the original soundtrack a selectable option? If not, that's really disappointing, I gave it a listen and it's definitely inferior to the original.

IIRC in the PS4 version you can choose between the two, but on PS3 it's the "remixed" music only. You are correct that the remake (on both systems) includes the extra "international" content and such, though.

[Jameson Rook]

The other that comes to mind is the Final Fantasy X remaster, in which they changed the main character models and had the audacity to redo the entire soundtrack, which makes no sense at all.

I didn't realize the soundtrack had been updated. As far as I know it was a badly needed rerelease including the international stuff such as expert sphere grid and the extra stuff from X-2?

Is the original soundtrack a selectable option? If not, that's really disappointing, I gave it a listen and it's definitely inferior to the original.

Is the original soundtrack a selectable option? If not, that's really disappointing, I gave it a listen and it's definitely inferior to the original.

IIRC in the PS4 version you can choose between the two, but on PS3 it's the "remixed" music only. You are correct that the remake (on both systems) includes the extra "international" content and such, though.

Correct, the re-arranged soundtrack was the only option in the original HD ports (PS3. Vita) but if memory serves me right, there was enough backlash that they reinstated the PS2 soundtrack as an option for the PS4/PC ports, which came out much later.

[Jameson Rook]

Anyway, thanks everyone for their opinions. I thought I was going mad, being the only person I know who sees the ugly side to an otherwise logical and much welcomed gaming trend.

[Jonny2x4]

Trust me, as a MGS2 fanantic, the filler texts are the least of the game's problems. I could name at least a dozen annoying inaccuracies that no one picked up on, yet these remasters are hailed as being the definitive way to play these games.

Really? I'm interested to know all the differences. I feel the same way about the Subsistence editions of the MSX Metal Gear games to be honest. For me, emulation is the best option for these games.

I know about the bit with "Gorge Sears", while some of the cutscene show stuff that weren't supposed to be visible due to the aspect ratio bump from 4:3 to 16:9.

There's also timing issues with the framerate in MGS3 due to the PS2 version being designed with sub-30fps in mind and the lyrics of the Snake Eater song in the opening video is completely off due to the way the video was re-edited.

[llaoyllakcuf]

I definitely prefer the original MG2:SS over the HD/"Persistence" version, just for those character portraits in the codec/dialogue screens.

Gotta have Mel Gibson as Solid Snake, Sean Connery as Big Boss, etc.


(I didn't create this image btw)

[Jonny2x4]

It's not just the character portraits in MG2. There's some subtle mechanical differences between the Subsistence editions and the MSX2 original, since the Subsistence versions are actually ported from galaphone versions of the game that were released in 2004. In the Subsistence versions, equipping the cigarettes will drain your health, which was only implemented in the MGS due to some lame-ass anti-smoking policy that SCEA enforced back when MGS1 was first made.

Guards also move much more slowly in the Subsistence versions of MG1 than in the MSX2 original and you can't input any of the cheat codes from the MSX2 version due to the lack of keyboard support.

[Jameson Rook]

Trust me, as a MGS2 fanantic, the filler texts are the least of the game's problems. I could name at least a dozen annoying inaccuracies that no one picked up on, yet these remasters are hailed as being the definitive way to play these games.

Really? I'm interested to know all the differences. I feel the same way about the Subsistence editions of the MSX Metal Gear games to be honest. For me, emulation is the best option for these games.

I know about the bit with "Gorge Sears", while some of the cutscene show stuff that weren't supposed to be visible due to the aspect ratio bump from 4:3 to 16:9.

There's also timing issues with the framerate in MGS3 due to the PS2 version being designed with sub-30fps in mind and the lyrics of the Snake Eater song in the opening video is completely off due to the way the video was re-edited.

Sure thing, I've posted this on other forums before so this is the cliff notes version:

- Gameplay is cropped rather than expanded horizontally.
- Graphics take on a "cooler" hue, colors do not match the original.
- Cutscenes are faster (although some would prefer this).
- Sound effects are radically different (such as the Scope and Nikita).
- Certain dialog are re-recorded and sound jarring.
- Poor 5.1 mix is, with cutscene dialogue coming from all 5 speakers with no dynamic range while the exceptional Dolby 5.1 mix of certain scenes of the PS2 ver. remain untouched, making it jarring when the new mixed cutscene plays immediately after.
- Rain in tanker is toned down.
- 1st person camera effects are disproportionate and distorted due to widescreen conversion. (such as water streaks on the camera).
- Effects are mostly toned down (such as the mist when entering the ranker).
- Last name, DOB and blood type info are removed from the game.
- At least one typo in cutscenes. ("Gorge Sears")
- 2D art is stretched or blurred (such as the sexy posters, Snake Tales art & VR selection portraits).
- CODEC loads much slower than the original.
- CODEC volume is much lower than cutscene dialog volume.
- Water effects are incorrect or glitchy (most apparent in Strut D).
- Minor graphical glitches such as visible clipping when using the Coolant Spray.

Spoiler

[quash]

I actually played the Xbox port of MGS2 growing up, but even I've noticed some of the off details in the remaster.

Also, didn't the PS2 version only support Prologic? Or did it support 5.1 in cutscenes only? I remember the Xbox version having "true" 5.1 being a selling point back when it was released.

[Jameson Rook]

I actually played the Xbox port of MGS2 growing up, but even I've noticed some of the off details in the remaster.

Also, didn't the PS2 version only support Prologic? Or did it support 5.1 in cutscenes only? I remember the Xbox version having "true" 5.1 being a selling point back when it was released.

Yeah the Xbox port while inferior visually and graphically, is closer to the PS2 version than the HD version is. The PS2 version had 5.1 Dolby Digital cutscenes for only 3 or 4 cutscenes, the rest of the game is in stereo. Unfortunately, MGS2 does not support DPL-II unlike MGS3 and Twin Snakes. I believe the Xbox version ran everything in 4.1 Dolby Digital, and that sounds like a definite edge over the PS2 version regardless.

[quash]

That'd be the only advantage, unless somehow it doesn't slow down on the 360 like it does on the original Xbox. The opening area on the Tanker, the burning strut you have to extinguish with coolant, and both the Harrier and RAY fights brought the framerate down to a crawl.

[Jonny2x4]

- Certain dialog are re-recorded and sound jarring.

I noticed that, but it mainly happens with play control-related conversations. In the PS2 version, they used the term "analog stick", but in the Xbox and PC ports of Substance they replaced all instances of that with "thumbstick". With the PS3 and 360 versions they simply went with the more platform-neutral term of "stick". It sticks out mostly when the Colonel gives out instructions, since it's obviously someone other Paul Eiding who was brought in to re-record those lines.

[Obiwanshinobi]

MGS2: Subsistence on PS2 (PAL, pretty good a conversion) looks SHARPER on RGB CRT than "HD" one on PS3. That was one of the sharpest-looking PS2 games (not so much on the PS3, due to the 960x720 native resolution on LCD I believe).

P.S. My bad, I meant MGS2: Substance.

[Jonny2x4]

I always thought it was bullshit that they removed PS2 backwards compatibility on later PS3 models. I can understand if it was just a matter cheapening out on the Emotion Engine components, but if I'm not mistaken later builds of the PS3 phats rely on software emulation for their PS2 compatibility instead, so I don't understand why they would remove that in later models.

[Jameson Rook]

MGS2: Subsistence on PS2 (PAL, pretty good a conversion) looks SHARPER on RGB CRT than "HD" one on PS3. That was one of the sharpest-looking PS2 games (not so much on the PS3, due to the 960x720 native resolution on LCD I believe).

Wow, really? I have a PAL copy but I never tried it because I'm using the Framemeister (not sure how it converts PAL) but my PS2 is modded so it could play it. If what you're saying is true then I'm super eager to try it out!

I always thought it was bullshit that they removed PS2 backwards compatibility on later PS3 models. I can understand if it was just a matter cheapening out on the Emotion Engine components, but if I'm not mistaken later builds of the PS3 phats rely on software emulation for their PS2 compatibility instead, so I don't understand why they would remove that in later models.

Cost reduction and making more money essentially. This is pure speculation, but I'm sure a lot of money was spent on getting the software emulation up and running so Sony had to recoup the cost by selling digital PS2 downloads. Ditto for the PS4. We already know that a good number of PS2 games run fine on jailbroken PS3s/PS4s so theoretically they could have BC trough emulation.

Going back to the topic thread, I guess the best way to play most of these old games are trough emulation rather than HD ports, but I play my games using real hardware- I'm way too dumb to build a powerful PC and get things up and running.

[quash]

The good news is that you don't need an expensive, high end PC to run most emulators.

https://youtu.be/beAkUV5crwI

[Steamflogger Boss]

The good news is that you don't need an expensive, high end PC to run most emulators.

https://youtu.be/beAkUV5crwI

Love the educational purposes only disclaimer.

[ZellSF]

For the longest time, I thought HD remasters were unquestionably the definitive way to enjoy older games. I mean, how are they not? Higher resolutions, better framerates, superb anti-aliasing and general improvements around the board that I figured there's no way I'd go back to the originals even if you paid me.

Well, no one ended up paying me but when I got back to PS1/PS2 gaming trough the Framemeister, I noticed most of the aesthetics in these HD ports had something lost in translation, such as the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection, Devil May Cry HD Collection or any of the Resident Evil remasters. While it's true that some ports are infamously bad (Silent Hill HD Collection), I found that the artistic translation of even the highly revered games isn't completely 1:1.

Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I notice a myriad of visual inaccuracies that not a single review brought up, and it would be blasphemous if I did since it's made by BluePoint Games, but simply put- I never thought the more simplistic graphics of those games would be all that impressive to look at in HD, where every polygon and flat texture laid bare and I came to a total 180 on my opinion that I had 5 years ago, that now you can't pay me to play most of these HD remasters. I mean you can, but that's not the point here.

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).

Am I the only one having such an unorthodox sentiment?

There are good remasters, there are bad remasters and there's "controversial" remasters where some people see improvements and others do not.

I don't see how that's any coherent argument against HD remasters. Saying they're not 1:1 representations of the original isn't an argument against HD remasters either, they're not supposed to be, by definition.

All I see is you realizing what most of us already knew; remasters need to be judged on a game per game basis, and not as a whole.

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).