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')
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.
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.
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.
bit wait, I do remember another differentiator. Dying light heavily discouraged frequent use of guns, preferring you to use melee. If you used guns too much, it would spawn in a bunch of 28-day-later zombies that would absolutely fuck your shit up in groups.
True, but they got discontinued because they weren't selling, long after the market itself had given up on the product. It's not exactly like Sega where they came up with a bunch of platforms only to cancel them after a few years.
I mean...of course they have a roadmap. They had a roadmap well before the first unit. Their work and investment in Proton wasn't just for desktop Linux users.