I think that a remake is needed for a game when the original version of it has some elements of presentation or gameplay that could be updated, like how Metroid zero mission took its original counterpart and changed it to be more in line with the later Metroid games.
I think re4 need it a remake because the ps2 s weak hardware didn't let the developers pot more stuff but now with the power of the Xbox series x and ps5 the can now pot more stuff and really wanted to see how the characters look like in the re 8 engine and last of us remake didn't really need a remake because it's already have a remaster with better graphics then the original
REmake 1 worked because it looked like shit and obviously wasn't as polished as it's sequels. So being able to smooth out the rough parts while adding new stuff wasn't difficult. Unlike REmake 2 where content was taken out or completely changed and ended up making only the people who enjoyed RE4 happy while not really doing much for people that may have just wanted an updated RE2. Basically, it's easier to polish a turd than it is to further polish something that's already gold.
@@lordxmugen I see it as Capcom doing another take rather than fixing what's not broken. I would want to see how RE4 would play and feel if it's going to focus on the horror aspect of it all. And we get to see the repercussions of Leon's past events that is the RE2 remake which the OG RE4 skipped over for some reason
The Last of Us DEFINITELY didn't deserve a remake. We got a Remaster version for the PS4 a few years after the original game was released. Resident Evil 4 was released for the Gamecube with numerous of ports for future systems.
Because you know what a game deserves lol! Keep in mind that not many developers can do what naughty can. They have the technology and it will bring a new audience. A new pc audience isn’t that amazing?! Yes
People keep using the ‘but TLOU1 was already remastered for PS4!’ rhetoric but it’s a false equivalence. It’s a 1080p/60fps port of a PS3 game, despite the ‘Remastered’ subtitle, and primarily existed for new PS4 owners that never owned a PS3. Quite frankly there’s more impressive cross-gen ports that don’t claim to be a remaster at all.
Your best point is about how modern games haven't changed as much to warrant the types of remakes older games receive. My two cents: Neither of these deserve remakes. But at least with what Capcom has been doing lately, Resi4 has the track record to at least feel fresh. TLOU "part 1" will in no way feel fresh. And it seems a lot more like a vanity project.
RE4 remake is totally justified It's a almost 2 decade old, that alone is a solid reason TLOU however, is totally not. Game still looks good, plays well, and it basically add nothing if it get remake.
As the others stated, I disagree that, or at least, RE4 does need a remake. While TLoU, does not like at all. I just can't see them adding more to the story plus the remaster holds up well these days. Hell even people thought they were looking at the remaster being ported over to PC or getting a re-release until they saw the small differences between that and this "remake". But I wholeheartedly agree on the "Will in no way feel fresh". It's definitely a vanity project. Waste of resources.
@@Skrenja True, old games doesn't necessarily need a remake But it also would be beneficial that old game are reworked to modern standards and fixed whatever problems that devs face back in the day. Black Mesa, a Half Life remake. On the OG version, the last 4 chapter of the game are regarded as the worst part of them all. Black Mesa fixed this, remaking the worst part of the game and change it into the best thing ever. RE4 is great game, but it still has its problem. For example, the Island. It's the worst part in the whole game and I really wanted to see it getting reworked.
I don't judge a game remake based on whether it "deserves" to exist or not. Instead I judge it on three factors after it gets released: 1-Other than visuals does it improve on the original in any significant way? 2-Does it add extra content that didn't exist in the original that in any way shape or form? Or 3-Does it do its own thing and go in a new direction to differentiate itself from the original? For me a remake needs to hit at least one of these factors in a significant way for me to see a remake's existence as "justified" unless the original's on old hardware that isn't easily accessible. Of course those factors aren't the end all be-all, RE3make as an example adds in narrative elements that didn't exist in the original but also cut a ton of content gameplay wise. It's just my personal guideline for this sort of thing.
I would say there is too little remakes who make some of that things I can only think in the RE 1 Remake or Yakuza Kiwami as really good remakes Those are the same games, but better and with more things
I'm being brutaly honest when i'm saying this but The Last of Us doesn't need a fucking remake it's not even 10 years old yet and video game graphics sinse then haven't inproved that much for a remake to be fucking needed And It's not like the Resident Evil 2 remake which is a remake of a 24 year old PS1 game that shows it's age in the graphics department but Resident Evil 2 is still a fun game though even that it's 4 years older then me
My personal interpretation of what the difference between what's a remake and what's a remaster goes like this: - If a game has been remade from scratch (new assets, new code, etc.) _even if it tries to be 1:1 "faithful" to the original_ it still offers a completely different experience over playing the OG *it's a remake* - If the game is 99% the same (same assets, same code even, etc.) _even if there have been some visual and gameplay enhancements to smooth it out_ the experience is majorly retained enough so a person could say they have experience same game regardless of the differences (a different version, but the same game in the end) *then it's a remaster*
It's unlikely for a remaster nowadays to have 99% of the same assets and code. If a company is porting something to a new engine that looks more appealing for the current audiences, you will only be using intellectual assets and script in order to remaster something. Old code and assets won't translate well to a new engine and GTA Definitive Edition is the prime example of that, which by definition is technically a remastered but let's not kid ourselves, that thing goes more in line with being a mod since is just a whole package of AI upscaled textures.
Four basic categories of re-releases of games. 1) Port - Same game, different hardware that runs the game. Maybe some tweaks to controls and bug fixes along the way. 2) Remaster - Mostly same game, update graphics for newer hardware. Some tweaks to controls and bug fixes, possibly with some model and texture updates. May also include DLC from previous versions and labelled "Definitive Edition" or something similar. 3) Remake - Same game/level design, overhaul of game engine. Ground up remake but attempting to make the game as close to original as possible, but with some modern updates to give it a more current gen feel. 4) Reimagining - Same game concept, but reimagined with how the game would be designed and written if it was being made for the first time with the current generation. All new graphics, models, story, gameplay, etc.
Remasters aren't like you said. Nowadays it's almost impossible to remaster an older game without using a new engine and making it from scratch. Look at Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy. How the hell were they supposed to remaster those games? You could only do so much with the OG trilogy's engine. They HAD to make it from scratch. The thing is that besides some graphical and audio improvements, the game is the EXACT same game. It plays the exact same way even with the exact same physics and mechanics. Therefore it's a remaster and not a remake. A remake should be something like Pokemon Fire Red, REmake 1, or MW2019. Not only do they remake the source material from scratch with a new engine, but they also change the game in a huge and noticeable way (besides graphical improvements) while also keeping what made the original game, well, the original game. In other words. A remake should give a different experience when compared to the original game while also keeping the soul of the original game.
You are correct indeed. And this game does not need neither since they already did a remaster and now they remake it ? WTF is wrong with Naughty Dog ? Oh wait maybe they forgot to make Abby's father black you know to promote "The Message! ". It won't surprise me if they will add some woke shit in it just to keep in trend with the trash of today.
I think the real problem is games that need remakes to be actually good like for example Dmc2 or Sonic06 to make them playable never get remade only a port that's just here take this garbage no fixing it I don't want just good games being the same or worse I want bad games to become Amazing like the good ones
I see where you’re coming from, but like someone else said, most people would cringe at a remake of a bad game, to a certain extent I can’t blame them although I get where you’re coming from
My philosophy on remakes is "Does the remake justify it's own existence?". There's any number of ways a remake could do that. Have technological limitations caused the original to age poorly? Was the original a great premise with a flawed execution that could benefit from a do-over? Is the remake a reinterpretation that does something new? All of these are valid imo. RE4 holds up well on the technical and gameplay fronts, so I think a more toned down horror inspired reinterpretation of the action heavy original is the way to go. Incidentally this is also why I will not be buying the TLOU remake.
I think the problem people have isn't so much that TLOU is getting a remake/remaster what have you. It's the fact that it was ported to the PS5, and then is being re-ported to the PS5 at 70$. 70$. When on PS4, it cost only 20$. The game may be adding accessibility features, but you can't deny that for the most part, it is just TLOU in the same way it was initially, and the same way when it was ported to PS4. It feels like Naught Dog or Sony or whoever came up with that idea is trying to gain extra money with little effort.
@@olddog4090 You're right. I haven't. But it is still scummy sounding seeing them try to sell a game that's been around since 2013 for more than the price it was when it was new. And don't try to say "But it has new accessibility features!" They could have added those in when they ported it to the PS4. But they didn't, and now they think they can get away with a port of a 2013 game being 70 dollars. 70. When on the PS4, it was around 20. Doesn't that sound like double dipping?
I think what makes a "meaningful remake" in my eyes is if the game in question felt like it was made with intention. Is this game available to play on modern consoles? Are they meaningfully adding something or fixing elements of the original? Is this an alternate take on the original? Are they trying to possibly relaunch a franchise into the modern day? All these things are what I think about. And TLOU Part 1 feels simply pointless in regards to my own criteria. Whereas RE4make very much seems like they're taking the template of RE4 and running into a new direction with it.
I think TLOU didn’t need a remake at all. You can already play it on current consoles and it’s not that old at all. I’m just really upset that PlayStation isn’t remaking games that need it and/or need to come back
So true. They have Twisted Metal and the original God of War on PS2 that needs a remake. But I guess The Last of us made them the most money. Why not remake. Just remaster it Sony. Don't fucking remake it.
bruh, i loved tlou2 (my fav game so far) and i tried tlou1, and i cant continue it cause of the graphics and the gameplay its so oldschool already compared to tlou2 so tlou remake is well needed. for people like me who still hasnt experience the first one, u just mad cause u already played it and u dont have any new games to play anymore. Plus its not playstation whos funding the remake its the studio that made tlou that did it and decided for it. You only think about yourself and what you want!
@@labradog05 You should probably know that TLOU2 wasn't what everyone wanted and they felt burnt and like they had the right to be disappointed with it. It didn't really continue the story between Joel and Ellie's relationship. That stuff was just in flashbacks. Now I'm not telling you you're wrong about it. I completely understand. But just don't expect anyone to say anything positive about it.
A “remake,” I believe, should be reserved for games that are taking the base model of said game and reworking it to meet modern standards and add something to the experience as well, to show a growth and even a contrast between the original and the remade game. Consider the FFVII Remake. It considers both a new and old audience, for people to play and feel nostalgic but to also tell its own, completely new story, and the gameplay is certainly not one to one either. I think “reimagining” is just a fancy way of saying “remake.” If anything it’s just to imply it’ll be an all new experience with familiar mechanics, world, and/or characters.
This comment is EXACTLY why I think LoU remake is bogus lol LoU every much still fits modern standards while RE4 is hard to go back to if you didn’t grow up with it lol
Resident Evil 1 is the gold standard for remakes. It keeps everything iconic from the first one while adding new features that don't compromise the uneasy feeling of survivor horror.
And Metroid Zero Mission. Taken from the old 8-bit original, improved on the controls, level designs & other things in the gameplay department, added content & have an difficulty option.
I'm at the point now where I don't care about remakes anymore. Video games are a lot more than just products to be consumed, they're works of art that people grow connections with. So when a game comes along attempting to retell that story, or adapt that experience for a new age, there's infinitely more ways for it to go wrong or miss the mark than there is to develop a sequel, or just port/remaster the game. Everyone loves different aspects about games, even aspects that are generally disliked define the experience. Like any piece of art, the creation of games are surrounded by important context that informed every aspect of it, from hardware, design trends, and culture. Making games more accessible is always a good thing, but I think it's much better to port/remaster the game so the artists original vision is preserved, and all the hard work put into it isn't invalidated by a clone product. The only remakes I think are worthwhile are the ones that land on the reimagining spectrum like FF7 Remake and RE2 Remake. Games that take a piece of work as a jumping off point to tell a similar, but ultimately new story. However, when doing so, I think publishers should always make the originals accessible to modern players as well, so they have a point of comparison. Ideally these remakes should just come with a port of the original. Anyway, I have a ton more thoughts, but I think I'm gonna do my own video similar to this to flesh it all out. Great video man, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts
Not only do I want to see your video about these differences, I also see you made one about Dark Cloud (what caught my eye was Toan in your banner). Just take my subscription.
I'm perfectly fine with remakes. Some things should just be given new life with new technology. A few months back I beat the DS version of Final Fantasy IV and I have to say the updated visuals, story immersion, and harder difficulty made me enjoy it more than I think I would have otherwise even if other versions have upsides to them. I wish V got the same treatment. I also enjoyed the Crash N Sane trilogy which got me into the series. The Metroid Prime Trilogy is something that doesn't need anything aside from an enhanced port and that's mostly in regards to controls.
This comment is the most ignorant rant I have seen, in a long time, about video game remakes in a sea of ignorant rants about video game remakes. You contradict yourself quite a lot in this comment too. At one point, you say that remasters are better so that the original intent is preserved and then contradict yourself by praising FF7 remake and RE2R. Remasters are cash grabs. They dont even improve the game visually in a very significant way. Remakes, on the other hand, generally speaking, while capturing the essence and spirit of the original game, modernise the gameplay mechanics and visuals to the point that a video game remake, technically, should be considered a new video game. This is the best thing. You get to experience the old game as if it was made using the current technology but at the same time you are getting a new game too. Anyone who dislikes video game remakes, in essence, hate video games in my opinion
Personally I think a remake should happen if 1: is a complete reimagining like RE2 and 3 2: if the game is needs a lot of touching up to make it more refined. I'd put Metroid 1 and Code Veronica here And 3. When the series has been on a long hiatus and needs to be reintroduced to a new audience kinda like Dead Space EDIT: 4thsnake brought this up but I hope Capcom makes a full game out of the End of Umbrella campaign from Umbrella Chronicles
I agree with the first two things. The third though is debatable. I don't think Dead Space needs a remake. The original still holds up. I'd be more hyped for The Callisto Protocol than Dead Space remake. The creator of the original Dead Space is working on that. It's meant to be a spiritual successor to Dead Space. It'll probably be more Dead Space than the Dead Space remake is.
Still confused on why Code Veronica wasn’t the next game that got the remake treatment. That game definitely needed some touch ups that could make it an amazing game for new fans to try out.
@@douglasmonroe7417 i think dead space 1 holds up perfectly. I just think if it made a comeback a remake would be the best bet to reintroduce it. It's been 9 years since 3 dropped the ball because of EA. I just hope they continue with a Dead Space 4 at some point because 3's dlc ending disappointed me. For a the longest time I just pretended 2 was the ending.
@@kingbash6466 yeah I think it deserved it more because it followed up the original trilogy instead of defeating Umbrella off screen like what 4 did. I love 4 but it dropped the ball right there
Can always count of you J's for a measured discussion. The thing I appreciate is even if something isn't an issue for you personally, you acknowledge how other people do care about certain things and can see why that may turn them off. That's something vital gaming discourse needs more of. For me, RE4 being remade at all isn't where my bitter reaction and expectations come from, but the recent precedent of these remakes, and that the time and resources would be infinitely better spent on Code Veronica, a game that stands to benefit infinitely more, than a game that is already fully realized and is much more monumental task to not only improve, but preserve. Something which I have no faith in their ability to do, given their track record in failing to preserve several aspects of the original RE2 and 3. And I don't believe reimagining, or making a 'different take' on RE4 is worth it either, under these specific circumstances or time. I don't doubt that RE4make will be a great game on its own - and given the series recent track record of banger after banger (mostly), I can totally understand why that may be enough for a lot of folks. But for me, that's only half the story when it comes to remakes. Preservation of content and identity is equally important, which has been a very distant priority since RE2make, which leaves me not enthused much for this latest project. Basically, the timing and precedent isn't right for me to be able to get hyped for RE4make... not with the amazing potential I know Resident Evil remakes are capable of achieving, anyway. And that's probably what gets me the most is the insane potential for remakes of these games that I wanted to see reached, after marinating with RE1make for almost two decades.
To give my thoughts they should’ve just remastered the last of us again by adding ray tracing to the game and making it look a bit nicer or just left it alone and Capcom should’ve remade code veronica instead of Re4
yeah CV is a perfect example for sure. esp if they can take the right amount of time, not re2make and re3make that were both rushed and didn't get the last 20-30% content in.
@@michaellilly965 RE2make still had a decent amount of content removed too such as the zapping mechanic, the different A and B scenarios, the fact that Claire and Leon barely interact in the game outside the beginning and ending, the Extreme Battle mode, the missing G Birkin boss fights, even some enemies were removed. RE3make was shorter yes but the original was also short so it didn't bother me as much as RE2make's cut content did. They're still decent games on their own but the original versions are still more enjoyable.
Remake = from the ground up recreation Remaster = a port with higher res textures Reimagine = the devs think they are better than what came before and change things drastically while calling it the same product. (ITS NOT COMPLICATED YALL THESE ARE WORDS WITH DEFINITIONS, NOT PHILOSOPHY DEBATES)
One reason I'm more into RE4 remake is that 4 had a lot other builds so they could add on a lot of things. Propably not, but it's possible. For Last of Us, they can at best add on Left Behind into main game, maybe few tweaks but that's it. I saw screens, and sorry they don't look enough to wow me. It's like with Crisis remaster, they already look good, but when remaking there's not enough of it to make it wow.
I think you're missing the point of the TLOU1 remake. Its not only about the graphics but other stuffs like the outdated AI of TLOU1 or the stiff character movements etc. For example I still remember Ellie or tess walking infront of an enemy and they never noticed them. This isn't simply a remaster with slapped on next gen graphics. And I'm glad since its also coming to PC so new players can experience it at its best.
They probably won't as base RE4 also took a lot from those builds. The castle, Leon's Jacket, Leon as the MC across every version of the game basides the first, and the general setting are things taken from prior builds of RE4, among other examples.
@@jcie3424 You're literally pointed out minor issues that doesn't affecting the game drastically especially the story. So the remake would not have stiff character movement and...? Does that have any major impact on the overall story? Is Joel being less stiff would somehow change the narrative of the game? What's next? Part 3 would have a massive improvement that Part 1 and Part 2 lacked so they need to remake both Part 1 and Part 2 in order to match whatever improvement they implemented in Part 3 as well, huh? Then repeat all that shit again and again with future games. Just make a slight improvement to the gameplay and make pwetty shiny grafix and you morons just ready to be mindless sheep for it.
In the case of Crash, the devs couldnt use the original code, so they remade it from scratch trying to match the original as much as possible, which also came with a few oversights like Crash's collider being a capsule collider, which basically means that he can now slip when standing on edges
I still pray every night for a Sonic 06 Remake. I love what they’re doing with Project 06 but it not being official and lacking funds/resources/time/etc. makes it seem so far away from being a full thing.
@@modmaker7617 the general public wants it and has asked for it for years which is why Project 06 is so loved. Everyone saw the potential in 06 it’s just a shame what happened to it.
Sometimes a game needs a second chance because sometimes a game could have a good idea and a bad execution, remaking that could fix the execution. Even with games that have good execution there can still be some improvements and quality of life features to help modernise it and allow more people to play it making it more beloved.
To me, between those two are so tight that would rip apart the middle of it's similarities and difference. I couldn't care less if megaman legends can't remake or remastered. At least, give it director's cut and some concept stuff like playable side expansion of bonne pirate and diggers prodigies like so called "legendary Artillery", something.
For me the difference between a remake and a remaster comes down to intentions. A remaster intends to deliver the same experience as the past. There may be quality life improvements from a simple text re-translation, to drastic as an entirely new artstyle. But the point of the Remaster is to give an old game new life. When you play a good Remaster, the core experience is the same as a port of original version, regardless of any improvements. Think the original crash trilogy to the N. Sane Trilogy. The latter is substantially different, but at its core its the same experience as the originals. A remake intends to deliver a new experience inspired by the past. There will be similarities between the original and the new game, but the new game is substantially different and goes in its own direction. Often learning from the mistakes of the original. The story may be the same, the setting may be familiar, and even the names of characters may be shared. But the core of the game is without a doubt new. Think X-com UFO defense to its Remake X-Com Enemy Unknown.
With remakes that use new assets and engines but retain the same core gameplay, I prefer how bluepoint studios termed their take on Shadow of the Colossus for the PS4, where they didn't say it was a remake or a remaster, but a rebuild. They're not remastering the game as everything made in game is new, so that term is inaccurate, but at the same time while SOTC IS a remake, you can't say it's a reimagining since it features most of the core gameplay. It's the same with the Crash trilogy or the Link's Awakening remake. Those aren't remasters because every asset they use is new, but they aren't reimaginings because the core gameplay is generally left untouched. See, to me, a remake, no matter what form it takes, has to be from the ground up even if it recreates the same exact levels with newer textures and assets. Otherwise your argument would simply state that Link's Awakening 2019 or Demon's Souls 2020 are remasters despite both of those games using entirely new assets and engines with none of the original coding.
@@tcrpgfan That's the thing. I DO see those games as remasters. Since, at their core, they are trying to recreate the exact core gameplay of the original. That said, I get where your coming from. And I feel Rebuilds are a better term for these middle ground games. Built from the ground with new assets, but treading a familar path.
@@NotSpecialDude Calling those kinds of games rebuilds really does help to distinguish those types of games from remasters, especially since Bluepoint Studios, who coined the term, are known for having those types of games be their bread and butter. But I ask this? Wouldn't REmake be considered your own logic a remaster instead of a remake because it does tread the same familiar path of RE1 but with new assets? And wouldn't that make REHD a remaster of a remaster?
@@tcrpgfan Essentially yeah. The best way to explain my logic would be to apply my personal litmus test on the game. Essentially play the original and the new game. A remake should feel different, new, and unique. XCOM is still the best example. There are things the original did that its remake did not. Like managine multiple bases, a ton of micromanagement. Hell, at times the game felt like a bureaucracy/financial simulator with alien combat on the side. The new game focuses more on the combat and focuses the base building aspect to be more focused on the main quest. Both are valid experiences and I have seen people have strong preferences for either title. With RE1 and REmake, the only differences in preference come from the changes made in the newer game. Both offer the same experience, both offer the same basic story, and both offer the same basic gameplay. Its the differences that come from being developed in entirely different standards of gaming that define and separate the two. That's why my definition is based on intention and not execution. Afterall, sometime that old code just isnt available anymore (Silent hill "remastered" comes to mind) and sometimes even if you have the code, you arent allowed to use it. (Check up on the hostory of Ms Pacman, thats a messy one) Many of the tomes and stories that we have like Dracula or Hamlet come from eras long ago, but we dont read them now on shriveled and decrepit paper or in the original language they were written in. We read them in new books, printed in this year, with words of this era. And some changes were made to the text to maintain legibility. That doesnt change the fact that the hamlet you read today at its core, is still the hamlet Shakespeare wrote in his day.
@@NotSpecialDude That's a hard disagree from me, chief. When it come to remakes the only thing necessary for it to qualify as one is to be rebuilt on a newer engine, on newer technology. Whether the gameplay/story is different is inconsequential. It the mechanics are different or updated, I also call it a retool; and if the story is changed I call it a retelling.
Honestly, I think the key difference between the two games needing to be remade and why people are more keen on RE4 remake is mostly as you said, but with the added caveat that there's nothing really stopping Capcom from going back to remake Code: Veronica and 0. Especially when you look at RE5 and the simple fact that it continues and expands upon plotlines from both those games (The Chris and Wesker rivalry, the origins of the progenitor virus, Billy's reason for being courtmartialled, etc.). Plot elements that new fans would kind of need to know for RE5's story to work. Compare that to the Last of Us... which is just one of only two games so far in that series, especially since unlike Resident Evil which loves to alter levels and story elements they are not going to be anywhere near as willing to alter or change the gameplay other than some minor tweaks and features. So it would effectively be the same game... just prettier and plays better.
Before I watch the video, I just want to share my thoughts on the matter. I think games never DESERVE a remake, but they NEED one. The first three RE games had aspects that may put modern players off, even if they want to experience them-so a remake was needed. Nobody is going to "remake" DOOM 2 or Super Mario Bros, they just make sequels that iterate on those ideas. Now, how the hell is TLOU going to be a "remake"? Does RE4 NEED a remake? Who fuckin' knows.
They are remaking TLOU1 so that Niel can retcon and ruin the story, the only good part of that game. That's it. Then they'll do their best to remove the original TLOU1 from all stores both physical and digital to try to force you to buy the remake and ONLY the remake. Niel hates his fans and is trying everything he can to make every real person hate him, but the media loves him and hands him a free GOTY because he pays them off with blood money from the Order of Adonia. There's no stopping him. If TLOU1 Remake wins Game of The Year over Xenoblade 3 and Elden Ring I WILL RIOT.
Imo, Re4 at least gives better reasons for a remake than TLOU. After revisiting Re4 recently, yeah the story needs some repair. Gameplay is also a bit rigid. But TLOU holds up largely fine and it doesn’t seem like they’re really gonna add anything new; I mean a lot of us have already seen tlou2 gameplay.
A remake is deserved when the visual ambition or presentation is limited by hardware. Shadow of the Colossus Halo 2 Spyro Tril Homeworld Resident Evil GameCube I would have preferred if Naughty Dog would have done a remake of the visuals for the Jak trilogy.
Just so you know that footage of frontiers was the "lesser finished" gameplay from ign, today a more finished gameplay came out and I'm totally relieved that it actually looks pretty good now
I don't get why people get so confused by this. It's very cut and dry. Remake: a game is rebuilt from the ground up with content that follows the original game closely Remaster: literally the original game with some graphical improvements added in. Reimagining: a game is rebuilt from the ground up with content that is inspired by the original game.
The tricky part of RE4, I get the feeling is a diminishing return on how big the leap in update it's going to get. It won't be as wide a gap from PS1 to PS3, so graphical updates might not be as important. But we've seen the REmakes team do some good work on making new content and context on the classics. Though I'm also looking forward to RE4, I'm also expecting it to get some backlash for not being as good as the original. It has big shoes to fill, and expectations are high. I would have preferred a Code Veronica update too though. It definitively needs more love. The Last of us though definitively won't get as much improvements from the remake though. the original was already very good-looking graphically, so making another won't add too much there. There would need to be something extra for it to be worth it, and I don't think it will get much. Worse, it might feel like a way to milk more money out of the franchise out of the fans.
I'm more curious to see what's going to happen when Capcom gets to Resident Evil 5. How will they retell the story to be less over the top and outlandish
My specific RE 4 hesitations is not that it’s being remade. It’s that it looks like it’s being remade to not be stupid. And not stupid resident evil 4 should NOT exist.
I am very conflicted on remakes and remasters in video games. I'm starting to see too many negatives in the gaming market. Its led me to believe that remasters, remakes, reimaginings, and sometimes sequels in game franchises are cash grabs reflecting a certain level of creative bankruptcy. That a studio either lacks the talent to come up with new IPs or that they are trying milk an IP for all its worth without planning for that IPs future. Maybe I am wrong, maybe its just that so many ideas have been produced over the years that its hard to come up with something creative without it feeling like another game or ending in a lawsuit.
I hope that when The Last of Us Remake gets released, their new "Factions mode" will be included, as they said it's got a story of its own to share, while being way better than before.
Imagine if Mario Bros just kept making remakes of the first game and the creators point out goomba AI and Mario's denim overall's have more details..... Times have changed.
When it comes to remakes, for me, it really depends on whether the original still holds up and if it’s playable by modern standards and sensibilities. Like, if I’m asking myself “But why?” when a remake’s announced - like I did when I heard about the Dead Space remake - that’s usually a good indicator that I don’t feel like a game needs a remake. At least not yet…
Honestly I accepted it more since imo it feels like forever since we had anything for dead space. I'll all in. The last of us imo doesn't need one. We had the game under 8 years ago and I feel like we're Honestly going over the same story too many times. We had the first game then the remastered a year or so afterwards. Then we have the TV show coming out based on the game and now we a remake on the first game. All under 8 years. Wtf lmao
If I may offer me own two cents on the whole topic at hand; it's less of "when" a game deserves to be remade and rather "what" games deserve it and for me personally; bad games are more deserving of being remade than good ones. I know that might not even make a damn lick of sense to many fans of remakes in general but hear me out. While yes, remaking good games does sell well and generates enough interest in a franchise to revitalise it, the whole idea of remaking games to me personally is to basically become the better version of what you're recreating, and in that sense, when you're remaking good games, there's very little that can be improved upon to make them any better than before and if anything, that just leaves more room for it to get screwed up in one way or another. But when it comes to bad games, it's the complete opposite. This is why something like say Nitro Fueled was the best remake of the Crash/Spyro remakes we'd god, cause it was less of a remake of CTR and more so it's own thing, basically reusing a whole bunch of content from past games that were never good or had potential to work, basically what a remake should've been to begin with.
I would die for a remake of DmC2 in the style of DmC5. That game has some genuinely good ideas and with a good overhaul it could be really fun. DmC1 could also be remade since I think it is a game that has showed its age, but the game is pretty good already.
I was confused when I heard the rumors that Resident Evil 4 and The Last of Us will get remakes. Both of these games still hold up pretty well, and at least Resident Evil 4 is avaliable on pretty much any plattform I can think of. But many new players may just know Resident Evil 7, Village and the 2 and 3 Remake and don't want to go back to the old games. Remaking a classic such as Resident Evil 4 for those new players and portraying the events of the game in a more serious manner sounds interesting. When it comes to The Last of Us, I saw no reason for a Remake at first, but then I heard that it will also come to PC and it will probably get the gameplay mechanics from the second game. I haven't played The Last of Us Part 2 personally, but I heard that the gameplay in that game is amazing. So releasing this game with better graphics and gameplay on PC sounds like an absolute win to me! Now I want Capcom to Remake Devil May Cry even more!
I was very hesitant at the resi 4 remake at first way before the trailer because I still think the original is incredible and doesn’t need a remake. After watching the trailer I think this might be the best remake and best resident evil game ever. The last of us however ,just seems like a 1 to 1 recreation of a fairly modern game so it feels unneeded. I’ll still get the game but I still don’t feel any need to play it
I would put it this way if the original still plays well and still holds up for the most part I don't really see the point of a remake. But having said that it doesn't mean a game that doesn't necessarily need a remake can't have a good remake. I don't personally think re4 needs a remake but admittedly it could still be fun.
I mean with TLOU your getting the ai and gameplay from 2 built into the part 1 which I'm down for, to bad I don't own a PS5 but y'know I can dream at least I'll still have my Factions Multiplayer 2
Resident Evil 4 personally deserves a remake, at least in terms of its controls. Unless you played the Wii version, which many of us for sure played because of the aiming being better, the controls were really jank at times, and to shoot and turn around wasn't fun because of the lack of proper camera control. So that alone makes it worthy for the Remake, or rather in Capcom's words "Reimagining" of RE4. The one thing I am concerned about is the horror implementation since RE4 despite being the game being more action-based with horror elements, so by adding more actually can take less from the experience that everyone enjoyed from the original game. I just want to play RE4 with better controls and graphics, and nothing else. That and perhaps new scenes that were probably dropped from the original game. Also: out of all games to remake for the PS5, I am so dumbfounded by how Naughty Dog didn't decide to remake the FIRST UNCHARTED GAME since you know that's where they got their notoriety from. PLus that game is jank as heck.
I agree completely about RE4. I think there is a way to add more survival horror elements while keeping the high octane action of the original, but they could very easily screw it up. RE4 is one of the most revolutionary action shooters of all time, and changing the game to be more horror based is head scratching imo
I'm honestly just hoping it's a case of "make the game we KNOW will sell like mad, and use that to fund the slightly iffier game". There's no way an RE4 remake won't sell like absolute mad, but I can see Coder Veronica being a little bit harder of a sell, cause less people will be as eager to "revisit" that game, even though this isn't "that" game.
I think one of the main reasons is that most modern gamers can't really get used to the old gameplay, making the gameplay like RE2 and RE3 remake would get a lot more people in and would be a fun new take
Re4 for me is a great game overall, however the gameplay has become rather dated over the past 17yrs. The three things in re4 that need to be adjusted/tweaked IMO are listed below 1. Not being able to move freely while aiming/shooting 2. QTE's 3. Giving Ashely a weapon "gun, knife, anything to defend herself" Having both of these can be removed/fixed in said remake will make for for a a much better game IMO overall. Also plus upping the horror is always a plus in my opinion.
Outside of number 2, those changes have bad implications imo. 1. The enemy movement was designed around Leon being stationary when aiming, all the enemies attacks miss when you slowly walk backwards, you'd have to retool the enemies movement in a way that moving while aiming doesn't suck out the tension and challenge of the encounters. 3. This is another balancing issue, the enemies only grab Ashley and it's your job to make them drop her before getting to a door, giving her a weapon means there's no situation where she would get grabbed, and the only gameplay solution is to introduce enemies actively trying to hit her, which is one of many reasons why RE5 & 6 are trash.
@@Steroyd666 I mean that's fair and you provide good points as to why. Still Re4 is very action based and being able to move/shoot as you do in re2-3 remake would make things much more interesting. After all they are re-doing things from the ground up so all of that can be changed. As for Ashley the only other option, would be to make her appear even less in the remake. I'd rather not have to deal with her at all and only see her during scripted events.
@@CecilTheDarkKnight234 But then at what point does the remake stops being faithful in spirit to the original, RE2R (and to a lesser extent 3), aim and strafe works is because the enemies were still zombies, hit stun wasn't guaranteed so they could tank damage while they lunge at you, RE4 head and limb shots guarantee a stunned state of some kind get the right stun and you can falcon punch or suplex the Las plagas so for that not to be in the remake is going to feel real weird for a lot of people who love the original. I still stand by that this was the most unnecessary game to remake before Last of Us was announced, compared to the tank controls and the fixed camera angle of the original 3 it holds up in a lot of areas and as you mention I can only envision minor tweaks added like a cover system or strafing to modernise it, but I don't know if that will fix it or improve it especially if they don't understand why the mechanics are what they are. Sadly escorting Ashley was probably the best escort mission I've ever played in a game which just shows how garbage escort missions are.
Really, the only weird thing I find about The Last of Us remake is that they didn’t save it for the 10 year anniversary next year. Usually games like that get an “Anniversary” Edition 10 years after the original game. Seems strange that they’re releasing it this year.
I don't understand why its so confusing for people to understand the difference between a port, remaster, remake, and reimagining. The line is crystal clear for me. A port is literally the same game as the original just running natively on different hardware. A remaster is the same game as the original, but with it's technical aspects such as framerate and resolution increased to meet a higher standard. A remake is when they make an enhanced version of the original game from scratch that for the most part is faithful to the original but still free to make small changes here and there. A Reimagining is when they remake the game from scratch but in a way that is drastically unfaithful to the original. Usually a game is remimagined in order to appeal to a new audience at the expense of the old audience. The Crash Insane Trilogy is a remake because the game was remade from scratch in a faithful way. How the graphics look or how similar the level layouts are to the original is irrelevant. The GBA version of A Link to the Past is a remake as well. Even though it uses the exact same sprites as the original, and therefor looks exactly the same, It wasn't a port or emulation. It was made from scratch, and is therefor a remake.
Man, I've been really struggling with working on a video essay/retrospective of my own lately. It seems like no matter what though you're _always_ producing professional level work. Do you have any pointers for a noob like me? I'd love to see your process and what goes into making a "J's Reviews".
I have always thought about doing a behind the scenes video, I made it a patreon stretch goal the other day. As for general pointers for getting into it, I can tell you this above all, experience is a good thing. The only way to get it is by doing more of it. Back when I really got into it, 2016, my upload schedule was pretty hectic. There was over a month between my first and second reviews for example, and then like, 2 weeks till my third. It's only this year where I dedicated myself to weekly videos, but still, when you know what you are doing on a more basic level it's easy to do consistently. For beginners, I say, focus on doing the best you can...you will inevitably not enjoy the stuff you made earlier on, so I say...just focus on doing what feels right in the moment, take your time with it and hope for the best! Hope that helps.
Personally, when I heard TLoU was getting remade my only hope was for it to be on pc as I haven’t played it since I had a PS3 and Apparently it’s on the way! that got me excited but when you look at the time frame and fan reception (for newer titles) it does seem like a cash grab, hyped for my pc friends to try the game for the first time tho!
Reasons why RE4 should get a remake: - Graphical update (especially for Seperate ways which uses pre-render cutscenes at 240p) can greatly imrove the game's atmosphere, the game just doesn't look scary at all and enemies were freakin easy to predict - Improved controls. Characters in RE4 control and move like tanks with unnecessarily limited mobility, it sure as heck could benefit from the improved controls RE2/RE3 Remake offered.
I’ve been wanting a re4 remake before they even started remaking re2. The reason why is honestly because I love re4 and would just love for it to look way way better and just relive the amazing feeling of playing re4 for the first time
I feel like set things straight that in theory I would be excited for RE4 remake but problem is that I just played resident evil 8 not long after and the developers behind that game didn't hide the fact that they took alot of infulence from RE4 and you can see it in plain sight with how the game was design in terms of world and mechanics... Personally wasn't fan of recent First person RE games but I do give them pass for being new and also paying huge tributes to the originals so RE4 remake right after Village was strange choice, I'm not advocate for remakes period but wouldn't have made sense if they took break and made RE code veronica or Zero remakes since I feel those games are more flawed and could use some re-writing and gameplay tweaks but ig capcom went with smarter financial decision I know I sounded negative but this just left me baffled in way, but on plus side I imagine story and structure would be atleast since when you take away RE4's ham dialogue you got weird plot that keeps jumping into places with multiple villains and ada often acting as player's escort than a character, Even *mikami* stated that he hopes they place better writing than what he did before since story was written in 2 weeks before end of develooment and..... lol it shows
Really, I don't see it as a strange choice as I saw RE4make coming from a mile away back when Village was being marketed (I saw the attache case and was like 'They're doing 4 after Village. I guarantee it). Especially since RE7 shared assets and UI with the RE2 and RE3 remakes, so why wouldn't Capcom recreate the Inventory system of the Series' most lauded game if they were only going to use it once?
TLOU 1 didn't need a remake. Naughty Dog has the resources to do a remake, but instead of making a TLOU 2 Remake, they decide to remake a classic that doesn't need one. This is why I lost all respect to Naughty Dog.
"Do games deserve remakes more than others?", Code Veronica exists so that's an easy yes. Not to say I'm not hyped for RE4Make but Claire better get some love after this, CVX has one of the best settings in any RE game and could be improved vastly in all aspects. Edit: looks like I just proved the point you mention later in the video 🤣
With remakes I think the excitement of things like: "how will this place look" and "Is that mechanic still going to be in the game" is essential. Its like you're in an alternate timeline where RE4 was released in 2023 instead of 2005. The "what if" factor is essential. With TLOU we already know what the game will look and play like because there hasn't been that much of a gap in time and tech yet. There are no key areas that can be modernized to the extent RE4 remake will get modernized. In 7-8 more years a TLOU remake would have made more sense, but fans will be happy to have it now anyway.
I have a feeling re4r won't be like re3r Since it'll be made by the same team that did re2r I hope it's so good that i can play it for hours and hours like the original resident evil 4🙏🛐
There is (almost) never a good excuse for a remake. It's incredibly lazy and damaging to the gaming industry as a whole due to the complete lack of creativity needed when compared to making a new game, or better yet a new IP which the industry is in desperate need of more of.
I don’t think RE4 or TLOU really need remakes, but I’m a little forgiving towards REmake 4 because I can at least see the differences between the orginal and the remake, and it’s been almost 20 years since the original Gamecube release. TLOU feels like a cash grab since not only is the game not that old and the differences between the original and the remake so far aren’t substantial enough to warrant it existing, but the original literally got remastered for the PS4, and you can play it for free on the PS5.
I think a game deserves a remake if the original didn't live up to its full potential because of some constraint that is no longer an issue (time, money, etc). Or if the game can be meaningfully improved through modern gameplay design to make it more accessible to a modern audience. There are plenty of older games that I can think of that definitely deserve a remake just because of how clunky and awkward playing them is (often this is because of the controls or technological limitations at the time that simply don't exist anymore).
That's cuz re2 and 3 are not "remakes", it's a common misconception, it's a ReImagine, remakes doesn't change the story of the original, it can only add slight tweaks to the story, graphics and redoing the game visually is the meat of a remake, ex. Demon souls, shadow of the colossus, re1 remake etc, ReImagine is redoing the whole thing story and graphics, but only keep the core of the story like there is a racoon city in both games and our playable characters are leon and Claire in both etc, only core elements are kept, and you can just keep and remove whatever you want.
The two things that could get improved in that game in my opinion is a more detailed map and actually improved controls because super metroid had really unintuitive controls
Answering to your question. The last of us is getting a remake because the TV show is coming out soon. They even made small changes to the characters faces to make them look more like the actors of the HBO series. It's a real shame, so many other games need a remake and are forgotten.
for me, RE4 remake is justifiable just by how long has been since the day was release and how much the technology have change and the Capcom team have proven already they are in a roll woth the RE games they have remake and launch in the last 5 years, so that alone make me excited to see what they do with this game....despite we have seen ports of this game at this point I think even a watch can run it XD.....and yes technically MGS was remake as you say almost immediately and also RE1, and totally agree with what you mentioned the technology from they generation to the next was leaps ahead and just by watching you see the difference..........but remake a game that was already pushing the visuals of the PS3 and got a remaster literally a year after for PS4 (and I think that was also ported to PS5) makes no sense to me to get a remake just now....specially when you see the remaster and the remake and the difference is......welp NOT MUCH, and that will cost 70 US on a game probably many already have the remaster version of it. For me Naughty Dog is just remaking this one because the reception of Last of Us 2 was pretty bad with fans, and maybe they prefer to remind people about the good times instead of moving forward with a story they know many fans got piss about and probably not plan of buy the sequel if the read ABBY again is a playable character....who knows but to me this is just too soon and unnecessary and defined not plan of buy it.
I have never played RE4, and I really enjoyed the RE2MAKE. So I'm actually very excited to play a remake of everyone's favorite in the series, and in the style of one of my personal favorites in the series.
My only problem with RE4 Remake is that Capcom entirely skipped Code Veronica. If there was a game that could’ve need a remake was that game. It’s one of the most underrated titles in the series that has a cult following but is definitely one of the ones that is tough to get through on your first run. Making it more accessible and making some of the cheesy writing more modern could fix some of that dated stuff. I would not have minded RE 4 being next for the remake treatment if Code Veronica had got it first. Oh well. But now that’s got me thinking is RE 5 next for a remake? Because that’s a title I think that is absolutely fine and does well on its own and shouldn’t need a remake until maybe the next console generation.
For me I guess there's a few buckets it could fall under. Taking an experimental game that hasn't aged as well, like say the original resident evil and original Metroid. Both of these games are eclipsed by their remakes. A strictly faithful RE 4 remake feels weird to me when I think Code Veronica could use it more. But if they do take it in more of a horror direction, shaking up character arcs and events, I think it could be worthwhile. Final Fantasy 7 for me is one of the big missteps in recent video game remakes. I didn't care for the new combat direction and if they wanted to do something new with the story, I would have rather they just DID that out the gate instead of going for a meta narrative to 'excuse' them deviating from the original story. All I really wanted from a 7 remake was the old game with updated HD graphics and add in voice acting. The overall approach they've gone for just doesn't appeal to me.
Without RE4s over the shoulder gameplay (which is literally on all modern 3rd person shooters nowadays) we probably wouldn’t have the last of us and it’s soon to be 20 years since Resident Evil 4 first came out so yes, it does deserve a remake.
RE2 Remake was the best Remake and one of the overall most fun games I've ever played. RE4 was released tons of times with Remasters etc, so I'm beyond happy that it's given a complete overhaul. I really like the charm of the original RE4 and a lot of that is inevitably getting lost in a modernisation, but at the same time I'm excited how they will alter some aspects. Like many others, I'm not the biggest fan of the island part in the very end, as it's very action heavy. I'm going to play this game to death.
My definitions: Port: Pretty simple, the exact same version of the game gets ported from one platform to another. Rerelease/Remaster: Same game, but with better resolutions/textures etc and maybe some quality of life improvements (Dark Souls 1 Remastered comes to mind) Remake: Shot for shot remake of the original, all new graphics and lighting, some quality of life improvements from the original, basically anything Bluepoint does (Shadow of the Colossus) Reimagining: A new take on an old title, entirely different gameplay or story or both (RE2Make) The lines can be blurred here and there but it's a good framework to start from
With The Last Of Us Part 1, I think the remake is warranted cause after playing Part II I went back to Part 1 and the gameplay feels a bit clunky. Furthermore, with Factions 2 being made I think it makes sense to make things more consistent gameplay wise across the board, especially if they attract a new audience via the HBO show. There's two ways to approach this, either from an experienced perspective or one of a newcomer. Also, I think Part 1 is being made to help Naughty Dog get familiar with the PS5 hardware, so that way, when they start making their next story driven game they can focus more on pushing the technology rather than learning how to develop for it. It's why they remastered Part 1 only a year after releasing TLOU, and with that knowledge went to push the PS4 to the max with Part 2, A Thierf's End, and Lost Legacy.
Playing TLOU recently after playing TLOU2 made me really wish the first one had the same gameplay from 2. That alone makes me think that the remake was well deserved, and the graphic overhaul makes the whole series consistent. So I'm totally on board, and if the 100$ edition had been released in Europe, I would totally have bought it. In the end it's a matter of perception, some people won't need a game to be remake, others will. Having a remake from a studio than has several teams that can work on multiple projects doesn't take away anything to anyone, so why people are so angry at it? They are doing a new IP, they are doing a multiplayer TLOU game, so why not having a TLOU1 remake as a side project? If you don't need it, then don't buy it. But if people are happy about it, then that's perfectly fine.
To be fair I haven't played LoUII since it came out. (And never will again because of just how much I did not like that game.) I can agree that gameplay mechanics had been improved from the first game. But I don't think it was that much of an improvement from the first one. The same basic gameplay was mostly intact. They added a few good things, like being able to lay prone and jumping. (the later really wasn't all that useful imo.) And melee combat had a bit more nuance than simply mashing the square button. But I don't know if it made coming back to the older game feel outdated by comparison. If anything it's more simpler.
Well a recent release has stated that Dr. Salvador or the chainsaw man is supposed to be a stalker type enemy now which in a way he was but not to the extent of nemesis or the tyrants
Quick note for you J, I know you recorded this video before the day you released it so you wouldn't know at the time, but more footage of Sonic Frontiers has come out today that looks way better than what the IGN footage was thanks to IGN's footage being from an earlier build and SEGA not playing the showcase footage that well. People that played the demo on the Summer Games Fest floor said it was way better than what was being shown by IGN and the footage that came out today further seems to support that. Honestly it just seems like SEGA right now is just bungling the marketing for Frontiers big time and it's really gonna be a great game, but we won't know until it comes out so let's just hope it will.
Does it really matter if a game gets a remake, everybody still wins weather it's good or bad if you don't like it then you can still play the old one but if it good then that's a bonus you get 2 games that you'll like for 2 very different reasons I.e. I love re2make but I still play the original sometimes.
Let me start by saying I love both of these games. I’ve played RE4 more recently and I’m excited for the remake for one large reason, that being I won’t have to pause the game every time I swap weapons. TLOU pt 1 I haven’t played in awhile yet don’t feel the need to get the remake when the remastered is so damn perfect. Just my two cents
I'm definitely glad that RE4 is getting a remake. The modern rereleases have plenty of port decay and bugs. It probably won't be a scenario like FF7R where I wasn't expecting an Evangelion Rebuild scenario. On the topic of TLOU, I guess the PC release is only a really good justification for it, it looks more like a Halo CE/Fable Anniversary esque remaster than anything else.
Last of us getting a remake is like Uncharted 2 getting a remake (same company same situation) both are games that are very good and both have aged incredibly well. RE4 does have some issues that are incredibly noticeable after playing the RE2 remake, and even though it doesn't NEED a remake, it certainly can benefit from one
Video games that was released in 2007 and forward don’t need remakes or remasters. All and all their graphics still hold up. There are some games before 2007 that still look good like Half-Life 2 and somewhat God Of War and Gears Of War. But I think remakes or remasters should go to games that really need it like GTA Vice City and San Andreas, Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic, Call Of Duty: Big Red One, and Metal Gear Solid 1 through 3.
My thoughts on RE4 Announcement,"Oh.......A Remake for a game that doesn't need a remake........hmmmmmm.......what content is going to be removed like RE3 Demake this time??"
The important question is... Would this remake finally use Euros as the in-game currency? Pesetas ceased to have tender status on March 2002 (3 years before the original GameCube version) but they were still used in the game, regardless. As an Spaniard, that anachronism always breaks my immersion when replaying this great game (yes, even more than tentacle monsters coming out of the necks of enemies after headshots).
re: your end ramble, a remake is simply using a new engine. That's the core base of what makes a remake. Whether it's shot for shot or re-conceptualized for modern sensibilities doesn't really matter. New engine, it's reMADE. What you could have also considered is a reBOOT. Tomb Raider 2013, Doom 2016, Mortal Kombat 2011, the upcoming Dead Space, and others are not remakes, even though they did use/are using new engines compared to their original games. But they're reboots b/c they begin a new continuity, essentially.
The announcement of a Resident Evil 4 remake mainly makes me feel very tired. I'd argue that a lot of the original game's quality is owed to aspects of other games' design it omits, and its appeal hasn't deteriorated by the existence of newer games and popular design conventions. Trying to make the Leon and Ada of Resident Evil 4 more realistic and vulnerable characters seems like a futile exercise to me as so much of the game is built on campy, weird and silly stuff. I'd hope they mainly use this as an opportunity to create a very different game that plays off players' familiarity and fondness for the original. I liked the Resident Evil 2 remake, but I still prefer the original and I don't think the existence of a remake has taken away from its appeal. I actually prefer the Resident Evil 1 remake to the original, but I still have an enormous fondness for the first game, and I think they both complement each other quite well. I wouldn't say its remake makes the original obsolete at all, when the bright corniness is such a big part of its appeal. I really liked Deadly Silence for legitimising the original game after the remake had already found its audience. At my most optimistic, I'd hope the 4 remake would attempt to do something similar. There's definitely enough abandoned concepts produced for 4 that they could explore to interest the hardcore fans. I still expect there will be aspects of the remake I'll have a strong distaste for. I'm definitely out of touch with the kind of video game fan who would be excited for The Last of Us Part 1. I know they've stated that the gameplay will see changes, but it sounds more like slight refinements in the hope of creating a replacement for the original game than trying to do something different and compelling. Seems to me like the result of people attributing too much value to high resolutions and complex rendering techniques as opposed to the things that make a game interesting. If it's successful, why wouldn't they just do the same every 5-10 years? Sony are really struggling to create a staple of first-party titles that are as widely beloved as Nintendo's, and the first Last of Us might be the closest they've come. I don't know if there's a lot of benefit to the approach they've taken in reconstructing every aspect of the game as opposed to bringing out another remaster for new audiences and the hardcore fans who will take each new opportunity to replay one of their favourites. I definitely think that ground-up remakes are better served towards flawed games that remain relevant, and I don't think there's much to get excited about when the original is still beloved by new players today. It's just not nearly as marketable, and publishers are unlikely to offer developers the resources to do it right this time.
