a bunch of my retro gaming friends talked me into it awhile back and now I got a CRT hooked up to a mini PC with n64 controllers, I definitely see the appeal
I’ve seen this article 15 fucken times today. They’re children who have never known a world without microtransactions. They also get these games for free, its not like they’re choosing subs over a game. They are choosing a sub for a game. Much like I did with WoW when it was the thing back in the day.
And where was this shit with flash games? “Kids would rather load a webpage than buy games”
I wouldn’t really use this as an indicator. Read your terms of agreements in most games. You do not own any of those virtual items. My D Scimmy is property of Jagex, not Sanctus. Subscription games have existed for as long as there has been dial-up. Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 & 2 made you buy a “Hunter’s License” to play online. Neopets has a term in the TAS that states you do not own anything belonging to your Neopets account.
The minute it gets alarming is when the normal goes from “buying your first home/car” to renting, which we already have one foot through the door on that front. Physical commodities are a much better indicator of our dystopian qualities. Once people stop expecting to own a home, and are just excited to return to their corner of the habblock then we have a problem.
Games as a Service on the other hand, are mostly symptoms of our unregulated technology markets. Its much more profitable to release the license to play your game for free and pack it with predatory microtransactions than it is to release an actual piece work for a game. So we will continue to see more of the shitpacked experiences as they continue to be profitable.
If you want to own digital things, consider finding games on Itch.io whwre you can buy them directly from the creator.
A remaster implies that it’s taking what exists and bringing it to a new thing.
If there’s a 4k scan of a movie that was made for blurays and then a few years later that 4k scan gets used to release an uhd version, we don’t complain.
If developers want to re-release their games on new platforms, I say sure? No skin off my back, helps them work on engine and tooling for the new platforms, gives games another wind. Literally does not matter to me.
I really struggle to see why anyone would be against these ports, honestly.
People aren't against them. They are against pointless remakes like the PS5 version of The Last of Us 1 (not the remaster, they fully remade the game), which changes...fuck all. Like seriously, what does it change of significance?
Like, sure, if the game isn't otherwise playable on the platform then by all means, but otherwise why waste all that time?
Then there is the confusion as to the categorisation of returning games and what label to put them under. In my book, you've got:
Emulation: literally the same game from the old console running in an interpreter program. Examples: NSO Collections, MGS 1 from MGS Master Collection
Port: Same game, more or less, but running natively on the console/PC.
Remaster: As above but with updated textures, models, FMVs, etc
Faithful Remake: The game code, assets, etc are completely re-done but the game strictly adheres to the source material, save for a few modern amenities like auto save, ironing out bugs and maybe some things they wanted to do but couldn't because of hardware limitations. Examples include Spyro Reignited, Resident Evil 1, Halo Anniversary and Kingdom Hearts 1+2 on all consoles except the PS2.
Interpretive Remakes: Basically a completely new game using the old game's basic plot points and designs. Examples include: the Resident Evil Remakes (except 1) and the Final Fantasy 7 remake.
But my list isn't industry standard. There is no industry standard. FF7R and the REmakes are considered as much a remake as Spyro Reignited or Crash N'sane trilogy. The version of MGS 1 in MGS Master collection is sold as a remaster despite being blatant emulation. It makes it very hard to know what you're gonna get.
Some people might be against them for the reason that they can de-list their old games from digital storefronts. For newer games especially it'd make that hard to compare what was changed.
I guess it's not as relevant with newer titles, but I feel like many of the classics looked fine (especially with higher internal res which is a good option for emu) and had some really cool tech that gave it a nice aesthetic without it being bloated. So it kind of feels like it's missing the point (limitation and ingenuity or something like that).
Like with Spyro, a big draw for me is the usage of vertex color including the skyboxes (one example, album). So it went from ~300MiB to 30-60GiB+. I mean sure some old games were designed with raster graphics that look crusty now, but for something like Spyro I'd rather play even a fan _de_make (leaning further into vertex colors) with more fleshed out gameplay (/more content) though too many fan game creators haven't learned to distance even their game titles from trademarks.
Well I have a lot of problems with how people design games so I don't really buy stuff anymore, plus I haven't really seen a lot of stuff that focuses on vector (esp textureless). In other words it's pretty niche even for indie, and discoverability generally isn't great even on the best day.
Ah. I think the problem there is that pure vectors can be much harder to work with. it's hard to make something that looks good with purely vector based approaches, especially as your scenes get more complex.
I don't think that's it. For 3D the workflow is already there and vertex colors are powerful (though usually used for shaders or other effects like terrain-based sounds). Even going for Spyro's approach (esp. grayscale textures that disappear with LoD so it's just color) wouldn't be too bad as I imagine its music/voice is actually what takes up the most space (newer audio compression or MIDI-like music would reduce that), though a more minimal/stylized look could make it a lot easier. Certainly some things are more suited for it than others.
I could say a lot of technical reasons for or against this workflow, but I think the biggest is just that it's something that people don't think about or would rather have photorealism or blocky pixels instead (or at least that's a large chunk of the market). Vertex lighting is cool but doesn't have much use over modern lighting (if it did, it'd be very niche) and developers often don't really care about optimization much, instead telling players 'upgrade your PC'.
(admittedly my experience with 2D vector seems less supported as far as editors and AA, though I'm not sure if Godot's clip children feature has an equivalent in 3D or if you'd just need to use meshes/rigging more cleverly... which is fair, I'm not aware of non-skeleton rigging tools in Godot's 2D either)
3D vectors can work well, but as an artist you are often better suited by going with the N64 approach. Due to technical limitations, textures were often used quite sparsely, with vertex shading providing the main colour and textures providing details. It was especially prevalent in games with cartoon art styles such as Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie, but even games like GoldenEye used this trick to a degree.
The problem with pure vertex is, the more detail you add to stuff, the more calculations you are doing, and they can really add up. The same is kinda true of bitmap (in terms of resolution) but the problem doesn't scale the same way. With that said, it will work well for a cartoony/anime art style where massive amounts of detail isn't necessarily needed, and shaders can be used to complete the look.
I mean yeah we're mostly on the same page... but it should be clear that I'm not suggesting crazy detail everywhere, mostly just being a bit more intentional with model design when possible to integrate vertex color (or another old technique, use multiple objects when it means a simpler mesh). And I mentioned Spyro's texture/LoD system which is good, was going to mention sprite usage and also Crash having only 2 textures (shoes, back) but was too wordy (also Crash taking advantage of a linear camera for custom culling and view-specific models).
I'd say it's really good to give variation (and unique-ness) on detail and effects that way every tiny thing you decide to add isn't a fixed workload. Or in some cases the opposite approach, a more re-used/modular design for certain things like characters.
The problem with textures (aside from data w/high-res/high-color, resolution dependency, and workload) is that when you play an older game at modern resolutions (higher internal res or even just a Flash game) the elements that were designed for older resolutions/displays are really apparent next to the meshes that scale perfectly. Particularly if it's a GUI or pre-rendered cutscene (sometimes other random stuff). Textures on meshes can still be a really solid aesthetic for the environment/characters.
Also generated textures (see .kkrieger for an extreme example) might be a potential fix for the drawbacks, or something like textures that are designed to be used with an upscale filter (or in a similar way, maybe converting to SDF textures).
Yeah, we are definitely on the same page. What they did with classic Crash with minimal textures on the character, they also did the same thing with Mario in 64 and Banjo in Banjo-Kazooie.
You could do a similar approach to environmentals for a decent effect too, such as having the texture essentially act as a very restricted form of bump map for the vertex shaded polygon. Goldeneye did this a fair bit.
I would be interested in seeing this kind of art style make a return.
Also worth reading everything I wrote not just the bits you want to read
If developers want to re-release their games on new platforms, I say sure? No skin off my back, helps them work on engine and tooling for the new platforms, gives games another wind. Literally does not matter to me.
None of what I wrote contradicts that. Like I said, they are against pointless remakes and remasters. That's what's being discussed in the article.
While PS1, PS2 and even PS3 games could do with a fresh lick of paint if released today, it's not exactly uncontroversial to say that PS4 games don't need it. PS4 games don't even have the argument of simply making it available to modern consoles because PS5s can play PS4 games directly.
The law of diminishing returns has hit this generation pretty damn hard, to the point where most people are hard pressed to tell a PS4 game from a PS5 game. So when the differences are that miniscule, you aren't really meeting the objectives of a remaster. Just do a straight port with better FPS and/or resolution support.
Like, sure, if the game isn’t otherwise playable on the platform then by all means, but otherwise why waste all that time?
If developers want to re-release their games on new platforms, I say sure? No skin off my back, helps them work on engine and tooling for the new platforms, gives games another wind. Literally does not matter to me.
I mean of course they're free to, and I don't take any any sort of umbrage against those who do but... How does it make more sense than something like a paid compatibility patch? (Tbf that's what TLoU2 is doing with its 'remaster')
you can’t do a ‘patch’ for a new platform, you have to release a new SKU. that’s just the mechanics of it. that’s what 99% of these things that people are mad about are. it also gives people an excuse to print mode physical medias which makes people who like physical media happy.
you can’t do a ‘patch’ for a new platform, you have to release a new SKU.
Tell that to Microsoft and Sony. Xbox Series X and PS5 have been enabling exactly this for X1 and PS4 games respectively.
The consoles not only have native backward compatibility, but they allow developers to make patches for 8th gen games to specifically target 9th gen hardware.
No, they have unlocked profiles. This is absolutely not the same thing as releasing a game made for previous gen for current gen it does not give you access to most of the graphical and audio capabilities of the modern platform, nor does it give you access to features like duelsense triggers and rumble.
It mearly takes the speed limit off the ps4 abstractation layer.
I want to be super clear about how these are very very different things. And also about how it’s petty to go and press the downvote button on someone’s posts when you’re having a conversation with them. Numbers don’t mean anything here, it’s just petty and makes conversation weird.
They aren't limited to unlocked framerates and higher resolutions though. Some games also add additional graphics effects.
it does not give you access to most of the graphical and audio capabilities of the modern platform
Except where it clearly can. For example, Witcher 3's next gen update adds features like ray tracing.
And also about how it’s petty to go and press the downvote button on someone’s posts when you’re having a conversation with them.
Im not the one pressing the downvote button, heck my client doesn't even register you as having downvotes (I'm on Kbin) but I presume someone else is doing it because you are demonstrably incorrect. Go look at Witcher 3. Go look at Cyberpunk 2077. These developers are doing what you deem to be impossible.
A free next-gen patch for The Witcher 3 launches on December 14th, giving the aging open-world a boost if you’re playing on a PS5, Xbox Series X/S, or high-end PC.
SKU is a shipping and retail thing. It's a unique identifier for products shipped. It has nothing to do with software versions and so forth.
Witcher 3 has a seperate entry for PS5 because they also ship a separate PS5 version.
Thing is, if I put the PS4 version of the game into the drive, and download the updates, the game I have is exactly the same as the PS5 physical. And no, it's not downloading the entire game again.
It is a patch. Not a completely different version of the game.
My vote is 10 years as an arbitrary number, or 2 or more console generations as the graphics technology will have (hopefully) have advanced enough to make an impactful difference in graphics quality.
Control schemes have largely not changed since the PS3/360 era, so there would be no point in remaking a game solely for that, at least not if it’s from around that era. For anyone that has played the Rare Replay, Rare Studio’s entire collection of games, Jetforce Gemini (a N64 game) had an option in the control settings to make the controls modernized.
All in all, a game should be remade/remastered if it is going to be significantly different to its original form. A fresh coat of paint does not a remake, uh make. For the best example of proper remakes in my opinion, see the Demon Souls remake or the Halo 2 Anniversary edition.
I think the issue is calling a next gen port a remaster. Yea it is technically a remaster but adding that to the title makes it seem like more then that.
If said game was released as definite or something nobody would be talking rn
A scam for whom? My epic library is full of games that they literally gave away for free. I didn’t pay for any of them. Hard to see how I’m being scammed. I’m not surprised that it’s a shitty business model though, and I suppose their investors could argue they’re being scammed.
How does them giving free games have anything to do with their desire for a “monopolistic” market share? Couldn’t they just do the same if they wanted any market share?
Because if you have to subdize to get marketshare then how are you going to maintain that marketshare once you stop subsidizing?
This has been the play for the last decade of cheap VC debt in tech. Wework, Uber, etc all these businesses operate at a loss in the hopes they can someday get a monopoly. That’s the explicitly stated business goal or Uber!
It’s not sustainable. It’s stupid and the bill will come due eventually.
Games as an industry is impossible to make money in unless you’re a platform owner. That’s just how it is. The 1983 game industry crash and Nintendo resurrection showed that. It’s just repeating the cycle.
They operated at a big loss until people were only using their platform and then hiked prices.
They literally price undercut up and coming websites by a ridiculous margin (20-30% sometimes) subsidized by their rich benefactor loans until they were driven out of business and then jacked up their prices to make profit.
The whole game is getting people using your platform as exclusively as possible and then return to normal prices once you gave enough market share.
The scam is that they undermine the actually viable platforms by offering something that is literally too good to be true. Then when all their competitors are dead their store will go to shit and you won’t have an alternative. When the time comes, you will wish you’d spent some money on a real store rather than play for free on theirs. See enshittification.
I may be an outlier here, but I don’t think remakes should be done at all anymore. They were great when the medium was still new and we made major jumps between generations or when we started to figure 3D out. Nowadays, I can’t even tell the difference between a PS4 and PS5 game. The medium is evolved enough to just go back and play the originals without them feeling dated in a bad way. Take for example the demon souls remake: Yes, it looked nice, but people argue to this day whether or not it’s better. The gameplay is identical. Or even worse: Look at Pokemon. The remake for Gen 4 is worse than the original and didn’t even include Platinum content. Instead of wasting dev time on a full on remake, they could have ported Platinum to the switch and called it a day. A remake probably only makes sense anymore if you can’t port a game at all. Make new games instead.
It’s not just AAA gaming but all over Hollywood too, has been for a while. Nostalgia is a powerful force and churning out sequels or prequels or spinoffs off of recognizable IPs is just less risky an investment than trying to make something new.
Unfortunately you’re right seeing how well the Super Mario RPG remake does. They could have put the original on their online service and worked on a new one instead. That’s something I dislike about pretty much all media.
If I want nostalgia, I go back to the original anyways.
I mean, is it too soon if people are still going to buy it? More seriously, I think one whole console generation is a good standard for remasters. Just so long as you can point to something that looks or plays better than the original did. For a remake, I think you need more time and the game your making needs to feel like it couldn't have been made on the original hardware. Either way three years feels way too soon, especially for what is essentially a next-gen port or a definitive edition.
kotaku.com
Aktywne