Everytime I hear something new about nintendo I like them less. Which sucks because I know there's no chance of kirby going anywhere else without emulation.
Assuming that these patents are all granted, courts will generally treat them as though they are valid and enforceable. However, the bar for getting a patent is generally rather difficult, so it could be the case that none of these patent prosecutions are successful at all. If they get these patents, all Nintendo would have to do is file an infringement against allegedly infringing parties, and then the onus is almost entirely on the responding party to prove either that they did not violate the patent, or that the patent was invalid in the first place. Nintendo loses almost nothing in trying to enforce a patent, and has plenty to gain from the chilling effect that prolonged litigation could have.
I dont understand this argument. When a game is considered very good, particularly by people that are already invested in a series, those people want remakes and remasters to more or less be exactly the same game, with only technical improvements such as graphics and framerate. The game is beloved and changing it more often negatively effects the experience. This way new players and old players can have discussion about the game and their experience is more or less the same. Changing the game means new players will have a totally different experience from old players, and ruins discussion between the two.
Why can they not make their new version a separate mode, like New Game Plus?
A remaster is what you describe - technical improvements such as graphics and framerate.
Remakes are (supposed to be) additive - improving the story, changing un-fun mechanics, implementing new stuff that still fits the themes of the game (or that they originally wanted to include, but couldn’t due to budget or time or publishing constraints).
If you’re looking through nostalgia lens, yea, a remaster is all you need. But, when it’s not a studio just looking for a cash grab, devs can have plenty of reasons for wanting a second crack at their game.
FF7 Remake is a great example. Sure, there’s been a lot of controversy around the changes. But I’ve really enjoyed a lot of them because it’s different from the original. It didn’t ruin the discussion - it added to the conversation.
A remaster is generally a re-release of an already existing game. It is a new build of the same game, on the same engine, with the same assets. The only difference being compatibility with new hardware, etc. In my opinion, a lazy cash grab that realistically shouldn’t even exist. Often times these new builds aren’t even the same and have many bugs not originally present in the original game that the remaster developers never even fix.
A remake should always try to stay as close as possible to the original for its initial presentation. The intention of a remake is to become the current market replacement of an old product, for various reasons. Maybe it doesn’t run on new hardware or the original code was deleted/lost. Maybe the original game was poorly received and the developers want to try again with some QoL adjustments. Maybe the graphics haven’t aged well but the story is timeless. This is why a studio would opt for a remake instead of a lazy remaster.
The issue comes from something like Silent Hill 2 Remake. It did not include a “Classic Mode.” The remake alters some pretty important themes in the game, changes multiple story elements, and entirely changes the focus of the gameplay, putting a greater emphasis on action and combat than the original ever did. The remake shifted the tone away from a melancholic exploration of a character into a Hollywood action movie with an over-reliance on jump scares (basically every Bloober game, honestly).
This has problems when fans attempt to talk about the game. Which version is each talking about? People do not always specify. If one person talks about the Coin Puzzles in the apartments for example, the clues, hints, and solutions are completely different between versions. Players of the original game needed to get a crate of rotten juice cans and drop it down a trash chute in order to receieve a coin for that puzzle, but that entire sequence was removed in the remake. This is only a minor example that doesnt impact the story, but the problem of discussion disconnect is apparent. You can imagine how confusing it would get when there are other major changes that do impact the story later on in the game.
These differences are fine if the developers add them as an “Arrange Mode” or “Remake Mode,” but not as the only way to experience the game. That effectively says “our new version is the only good version, because we won’t allow the players to directly compare the two with the same engine and graphics. If you want the old version, you can’t, because we definitely aren’t selling the original and pirating the original that we refuse to sell you is copyright infringement.”
A remake should always try to stay as close as possible to the original for its initial presentation. The intention of a remake is to become the current market replacement of an old product, for various reasons.
Reading your comment, it seems like you’re locked onto the idea that all remasters are lazy, low quality cash grabs and that remakes should actually just be high quality remasters.
Remasters don't change the content of the game. Remakes do. And there's a spectrum of quality for both.Life is Strange had a bad remaster. They updated the graphics, but there’s original aesthetic looked better than the uncanny “upgrade”. Skyrim - Special Edition had a better visual upgrade and fixed bugs.
Twin Snakes was a bad remake of Metal Gear Solid. They added unnecessary cutscenes and tried to bork in mechanics from MGS2 just because it was newer. RE4 was a good one.
It sounds like you wanted a high quality remaster of Silent Hill 2, and instead they gave you a remake and never released a digital version of the original. So now everyone’s playing the remake and calling it Silent Hill 2, instead of properly differentiating it as Silent Hill 2 Remake/Silent Hill 2 (2025).
And I agree that the situation is ass for navigating online conversations.
But a remake should not “stay as close as possible to the original”. That’s what remasters are for.
Isn’t this discussion already murky by the fact that persona games re-release with upgraded versions even without ramakes? As far as I know, they are actually remaking the Golden version, which is already notably different from the original (many touches rather than a full on overhaul)
And I’m saying this as a former battlefield fan, they’ve thoroughly run the series into the ground. It’s genuinely impressive, it’s not even lucrative anymore I don’t think.
another former fan here, could you pls expand a bit on what you’re feeling with these points and what it means? i don’t know enough about each of them to realise what you meant?
the previous games i’m 100% with you, 2042 was beyond embarrassing. the publisher, nothing need be said lol. the dev cycle i’m going to assume is suspciously fast?
Well the price is $80+. GAMES with higher prices tend to do poorly a lot of the time. Additionally, this is a multiplayer game, so less people buying for the high price also means lobbies might be more on the empty side, which takes away the fun. And then there is also an argument that high prices cover a lower expectation of sales. Although this one might be my naivity about causality.
They talk about the game in abstract terms, and in a way where the hype seems to be more important than the content of the game. Which to me is always a bad sign. If the game is good, why not talk about specifically what the must fun parts were for you?
And even the leak itself suggests at least one person knows the price is a bad look for the content. So that person who has insight, knows it sounds bad. I will boldly infer, that that’s because it’s not worth $80. Which makes it also very probable that it’s far less than even a “moderate” $60, I can’t believe I’m saying this because that’s still an unbelievably high sum of money for a game.
And with all these points remember, battlefield does not have the best track record, so only some of these details indicating a fishy smell will sound the alarm and make me reconsider buying. I don’t have enough trust to extend towards games published under EA, for obviously reason.
gamesradar.com
Ważne