27th January 2004, 8:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th January 2004, 9:04 PM by A Black Falcon.)
Heh, half an hour after posting the message I actually finish it, after essentially rewriting the whole post when I noticed that the original version wasn't very good... :)
It has everything to do with it because the situation you are describing almost never happens! I'm talking about the real world here! Where remakes aren't just graphical improvements!
You didn't? Sure didn't seem that way to me!
Oh, and for 2d resolution is very, very important. Until we can get TVs at higher resolutions there's only so far you can go...
Okay, yes, if the debate was just about 'games that play identical and look different' I did, but I (obviously) didn't take it that way, and was talking about remakes and re-imaginings and sequels, not just graphical updates... I think it fits in fine, myself.
Okay, so this started when I said that SNES graphics are "good enough", and several people objected and said that 2d should be made as good as possible, and that when it's better the games are better. On further thought, that statement of mine just is not right. Any graphics are "good enough" in a way... so I take that back. :) If the game is a NES game and looks good as a NES game, who am I to say that that isn't "good enough"... Instead I should have said (in addition) that updating games is a tricky business and when you do it you need to be very careful, because a lot of remakes and sequels are messed up, or just aren't as good as the originals.
See, I like nicer graphics as much as anyone, but here is a fact of life. When a company makes a game with better graphics, remake, sequel, re-imagining, whatever, 99.9% of the time they change the game in various ways. It is NOT the same game that you played before. Yes, Nintendo did do a near-perfect remake of the SMB series on the SNES. However... I just thought of something.
Even Super Mario All Stars was not a "perfect" remake. You can save. I bet that some people were annoyed by that fact... it changed the game, after all! And as I said about nostalgia, that is a huge factor here... as everyone here must admit if they are sane. But I think everyone here by now must know how nostalgia shapes our view on games, right? And same for gameplay changes. I made a lengthy list of games where improved graphics didn't change the gameplay and many where the gameplay was not as fun so the older looking game is better...
Given these facts (nostalgia and making major changes in gameplay), can you seriously deny that I am right (that you have to be very careful about just saying "improve the graphics because that will make the games better")?
Oh, and remember to factor in how often remakes, re-imaginings, and sequels are worse than the games they were inspired by. Because that's a lot of the time, as you're all well aware...
My point originally wasn't that I hated the idea of new graphics for the SNES/GB Zeld games, but that I just don't see a point (for me; for the mass market there is obviously a point). I like them as they are, and am used to them that way... and I don't mind "old" graphics at all... it'd look prettier for sure and might attract more people, but I don't see a point. As I said originally it wouldn't make the game any better. If you make it a perfect port it'd be just a nice looking version of a old Zelda game... pretty and fun to go through again and look at the pretty stuff, but *BETTER*? Graphics is on the bottom of the list for what I think of when I think about better.
It'd be fun, but to me seems like a waste of resources when you could be making something new. Unless you're changing the games in some big way of course...
And finally, StarTropics and StarTropics 2 (also on NES) are great games and definitely would be great games to be remade. It'd be awesome to see a new StarTropics... and Kid Icarus too, but I think StarTropics would be better. :)
Oh, though of some good remakes... the Sierra remakes of games which required command-prompt command entries that they remade in the graphical Sierra adenture system. Like Quest for Glory. :) They improved the graphics -- and I liked it, I love QFG's beautiful (256-color, 640x480 VGA? Yeah sure, so? It's beautiful. (and remember the original is 16-color CGA, I think... or EGA maybe...)) artwork, but the real reason that the remake is great and was worth doing is the addition of a graphical interface for actions and conversations. If the 16-color version had had that the remake wouldn't have had nearly as much point.
Quote:That has nothing to do with this debate.
It has everything to do with it because the situation you are describing almost never happens! I'm talking about the real world here! Where remakes aren't just graphical improvements!
Quote:No one said otherwise, what we are saying is that we would rather have updated graphics instead of sticking with the "good enough" SNES graphics.
You didn't? Sure didn't seem that way to me!
Oh, and for 2d resolution is very, very important. Until we can get TVs at higher resolutions there's only so far you can go...
Quote:Several of your points strayed from the point of the debate...
Okay, yes, if the debate was just about 'games that play identical and look different' I did, but I (obviously) didn't take it that way, and was talking about remakes and re-imaginings and sequels, not just graphical updates... I think it fits in fine, myself.
Okay, so this started when I said that SNES graphics are "good enough", and several people objected and said that 2d should be made as good as possible, and that when it's better the games are better. On further thought, that statement of mine just is not right. Any graphics are "good enough" in a way... so I take that back. :) If the game is a NES game and looks good as a NES game, who am I to say that that isn't "good enough"... Instead I should have said (in addition) that updating games is a tricky business and when you do it you need to be very careful, because a lot of remakes and sequels are messed up, or just aren't as good as the originals.
See, I like nicer graphics as much as anyone, but here is a fact of life. When a company makes a game with better graphics, remake, sequel, re-imagining, whatever, 99.9% of the time they change the game in various ways. It is NOT the same game that you played before. Yes, Nintendo did do a near-perfect remake of the SMB series on the SNES. However... I just thought of something.
Even Super Mario All Stars was not a "perfect" remake. You can save. I bet that some people were annoyed by that fact... it changed the game, after all! And as I said about nostalgia, that is a huge factor here... as everyone here must admit if they are sane. But I think everyone here by now must know how nostalgia shapes our view on games, right? And same for gameplay changes. I made a lengthy list of games where improved graphics didn't change the gameplay and many where the gameplay was not as fun so the older looking game is better...
Given these facts (nostalgia and making major changes in gameplay), can you seriously deny that I am right (that you have to be very careful about just saying "improve the graphics because that will make the games better")?
Oh, and remember to factor in how often remakes, re-imaginings, and sequels are worse than the games they were inspired by. Because that's a lot of the time, as you're all well aware...
My point originally wasn't that I hated the idea of new graphics for the SNES/GB Zeld games, but that I just don't see a point (for me; for the mass market there is obviously a point). I like them as they are, and am used to them that way... and I don't mind "old" graphics at all... it'd look prettier for sure and might attract more people, but I don't see a point. As I said originally it wouldn't make the game any better. If you make it a perfect port it'd be just a nice looking version of a old Zelda game... pretty and fun to go through again and look at the pretty stuff, but *BETTER*? Graphics is on the bottom of the list for what I think of when I think about better.
It'd be fun, but to me seems like a waste of resources when you could be making something new. Unless you're changing the games in some big way of course...
And finally, StarTropics and StarTropics 2 (also on NES) are great games and definitely would be great games to be remade. It'd be awesome to see a new StarTropics... and Kid Icarus too, but I think StarTropics would be better. :)
Oh, though of some good remakes... the Sierra remakes of games which required command-prompt command entries that they remade in the graphical Sierra adenture system. Like Quest for Glory. :) They improved the graphics -- and I liked it, I love QFG's beautiful (256-color, 640x480 VGA? Yeah sure, so? It's beautiful. (and remember the original is 16-color CGA, I think... or EGA maybe...)) artwork, but the real reason that the remake is great and was worth doing is the addition of a graphical interface for actions and conversations. If the 16-color version had had that the remake wouldn't have had nearly as much point.