• Stamets@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. They were released like 5 years ago. It’s one gen old. How about remastering shit from. Like 15+ years ago? What about Goldeneye or Nightfire? No that Daniel Craig abomination of a game doesn’t count. Or that weird villain one. Or just ACTUALLY remastering. Resident Evil 3 was offensively bad and as much as I love the remakes of 2 and 4 (Minus whatever the hell Adas performance was in 4), why was a remaster such an awful concept?

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What was wrong with “that Daniel Craig abomination”? That game was awesome and an incredibly good recreation of the original.

      • Stamets@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What was wrong with that game?

        Daniel Craig.

        It was a Brosnan movie and Brosnan game. It angered me to hell they had the nerve to already refuse to honor their promise with Brosnan (He was supposed to make more Bond movies) and then take away something that was his and give it to him. There was no even asking of Brosnan either. They just made it Craig.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it was a James Bond movie and a James Bond game. Craig was the current Bond. You’re confusing business decisions with whether or not the game was good. It was. It wasn’t an abomination.

    • 9715698@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like Alex said, it starts to make sense if they bring it to PC, but they should call it a director’s cut, not a remaster.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a director’s cut, though. Words have meanings. A remaster reuses assets but may contain reexported versions of assets at higher quality than the original. A director’s cut is using the same assets, at the same settings, but with editorial changes or unused pieces reinserted. They’re not the same thing.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      1 generation that was a dogshit excuse for a CPU when it was released a decade ago.

      The PS5 SoC is genuinely a solid piece of tech. The performance is reasonable and the hardware features (primarily the hardware compression/decompression to accelerate data loading) actually matter.

      The time between games doesn’t matter when the hardware is night and day.

      • Stamets@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. The hardware is night and day. At least between the PS4 and every other game released on another console.

        Plenty of shit to remaster that wasn’t just released. Keep talking about the hardware strength. It’s utterly irrelevant to my complaint. You don’t get to have a remaster the moment its released just because new tech happens to come out.

        Plenty of other games to work on that deserve a chance instead of some AAAA game forcing it’s way to the front of every queue.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Age is completely irrelevant. The purpose of a remaster is and always has been to take advantage of newer hardware. The difference in hardware, in and of itself, justifies a remaster. There is a huge difference mechanically in the gameplay between Zero Dawn and Forbidden West. I haven’t played the PS5 version of the Last of Us, but I’m assuming it’s the same.

          The games were held back significantly by the hardware, and because they’re done with modern tooling, they can be done a lot more easily than older games, allowing them to pass the savings on by giving you a cheap upgrade if you own it. They’re nothing projects, and aren’t holding back other projects.

          • Stamets@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            See previous comment. There’s nothing I can add to this. Especially that you haven’t already ignored. Have the same energy.

  • Carter@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do we ever need any remaster? Most are entirely unnecessary. Bloodborne though…

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A remaster of a modern game probably just involves creating (or even just generating) some higher res art assets and some minor new features (like support for adaptive triggers). It’s not like they’re shutting down production of a Parappa the Rappa game for this.

  • ANIMATEK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I haven’t played those games and I probably would if they remaster them. I didn’t have a PS4 so I’m kinda the target audience.

    Keep in mind that a remaster is not comparable to creating a new game or even a remake like RE4. This is low-effort and high-yield, so expect to see more of it.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I see this all the time on Lenny but it’s so pervasive it’s annoying now (“this” meaning people whining about things they’re not the target of). You’re 100% right. These are easier ways for studios to make back money via a newer target audience. They’re not meant for people who have already played the games. Not every product is for everyone and companies will definitely try to squeeze every dollar out of work already done that they can.

  • AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nope. They’re not even that old. I haven’t even gotten to playing TLOU2 yet and it feels like that just came out last year to me.

  • Otakulad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not make a new IP instead of remakes? I think mostly because it is easier to do a remake and doesn’t cost as much.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      These are remasters. It’s not anything like the effort of making a new game, you can do both.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, we don’t. Where the fuck is Drakenguard, Destroy All Monsters, Monster Rancher, A New Spyro IP, Gauntlet?

    I know these are all different studios (excep Spyro). But there are countless great IPs left in the dust right now.

    • MonsterFenrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s been SOME activity in MR in the last couple years…
      MR1&2DX is a remaster of the first 2 games with some QoL improvements, on Switch, Steam, iOS, released in 2021
      Ultra Kaiju Monster Rancher is a crossover, though only on Switch, released in 2022
      LINE:Monster Farm is a JP only mobile gacha game released in 2023, but some folks hope it will come to the west… it has some amazing artwork.

      There’s also hope for MR3&4 “DX” release but those weren’t very financially successful originally, so it’s probably unlikely they’ll be rereleased, but everyone’s huffin’ that hopium.