Remastered, definitive money grab?

[Lenne]

Since The Last of Us remastered "super duper awesome GOTY" edition is going to be released in two days I wanted to ask you, my good people of CoDz, what is your opinion on past games being rereleased with higher resolution and more FPS for the full price of a new game?

 

I personally am torn on this. It basically takes time from the team working on it, which they could spend on new games, but then again who knows how much time it actually takes to make such a remastered version of a game.

 

But on the other hand people who have never played a certain game can now enjoy it on their new console AND if you really enjoyed a game or if you really like a dev team then you can support them by buying these new versions of the game(s) you love.

 

I personally would buy a Bioshock collection without thinking about it. :3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GameChanger]

It does seem kinda weird that Naughty Dog would've no doubt had knowledge about the new consoles coming out soon, but still made a PS3 version. It's not like an established IP like GTA, which is in such high demand it would be plain stupid not to try and release before next-gen. I would've understood if it was their version of a last hurrah to the console, but they still released a PS4 version a year later. If anything, it should've been PS4 exclusive considering the lacking early lineup of games. To me personally, it seems like a way to expand audiences, get people to double dip, and maximize profits in one fell swoop.

 

 

I'm more worried about gaming "journalism" sites that do the 11/10 thing yet again for a game re-released in little more than a year with its noteworthy features just being a GOTY edition in 1080p 60 FPS.

[Matuzz]

Skipped the whole last gen so I'm happy some old gens best games get remastered.

[Black Hand Smith]

I believe remastering a Game should not be ...OOh lets just add a few more FPS to the game and re sell it.....Nah screw that. I think it would be better if they remaster a game that no one can Play anymore or there are so very few copies left in circulation due to time.

 

Remember Gauntlet Dark Legacy? That game was the Shit back in the day. Remaster that, Add 4 player co-op Local and Online, and Remaster the Graphics. Then you have a remastered edition that is worth Buying. 

 

What about something Like Pokemon gen 3. Look what they did with the 3DS version. They have updated it, Added new capabilities, and a whole bunch of Goodies as well. 

 

In my opinion If you are gonna remaster something. Don't just add a few FPS to it from good to slightly Better. Go the Full length and Update something Fans love from the Past

[Delta]

It's like this.

1: Make game.

2: Reduce FPS and graphics.

3: Sell game for current console.

4: Bump up FPS and graphics to original.

5: re-sell on next gen console.

Do not support, do not like. I can enjoy a game just as much (at least on a game like this) with 30 FPS and whatever graphics it has, if the story and gameplay are good.

I personally find stuff like re-selling at full price with a "re-mastered" tag and a few more frames despicable, and I will never support it.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

They actually do sell an unofficial bioshock collection complete with BS1 download and BS2 download for the PS3 as well as all BSI dlc and the disc game for the PS3 I think… 

[Rissole25]

Some games I do agree with it and some I don't.

PS2 Remasters on the PS3 I have no problem with.
PS3 Remasters on the PS4 is where the start questioning it.

It's obvious the TLOU was remastered just to be a System Seller. People were already going to the PS4, why not attract a few more, as well as introducing those who were 360 last gen who didn't get the chance to play. The Master Chief Collection is the same for the Xbox One, however I'm more forgiving with that one. It has two games from the first Xbox on it. Those are gonna be some really big upgrades and advancements, not to mention the seamless multiplayer that's gonna be it.

So yeah, generally games that came out a while back or there is some big advancements and/or new content, I am okay with. Games that are recent or remastered for the sake of it I question. I won't have a problem buying them as I will still enjoy it if I haven't ever played it, but yeah.

Plus also, as time goes on, people start to not play there last gen consoles. I suppose it's convenience to play it on the newest format.

EDIT: I would buy an Uncharted Collection or Bioshock Collection if on PS4 since I have never played any of them.

[TheNathanNS]

I can see why some games get "remastered", especially when good games get released towards the end of the consoles lifespan. It keeps the game freash and gives those who jump ship once a new console launches a chance to expierence it, slightly better than their older gen conuterparts.

 

 

TLOU and GTA V are great examples of this. Both are highly rated games, however, TLOU was only on PS3. Not PS4, Not Xbox 360, Not PC. GTA V was only for Xbox 360 and PS3. However, both have been remade for next gen. Both are even not 1.5 years old.

 

Do they deserve to be called "remasters"? No. Not at all. Unless, it was made like 8 years ago (or longer) now remade, like Pokemon for example. If it was still in GBA graphics, that'd be a shell out too. I'd say that was a remaster.

 

 

In some ways, I do think it is a moneygrab. Why don't older games like the classic Spyro trilogy get remade? Because that was in the late 90s/early 2000s and gaming wasn't as big as it is now. If, however, Spyro 3 had TLOU/GTA popularity, I'm 100000000% sure Spyro would get a PS4 remake.

[lead_psychopath]

It's like this.

1: Make game.

2: Reduce FPS and graphics.

3: Sell game for current console.

4: Bump up FPS and graphics to original.

5: re-sell on next gen console.

Do not support, do not like. I can enjoy a game just as much (at least on a game like this) with 30 FPS and whatever graphics it has, if the story and gameplay are good.

I personally find stuff like re-selling at full price with a "re-mastered" tag and a few more frames despicable, and I will never support it.

Exactly.

I still play the hell out of FF7,8 & 9.

The graphics isn't great, but the gameplay is! And that's what brings me back.

It's funny, I wrote a massive post the other night for this thread, but didn't post it because I felt it was too negative. But what I was going to say was much of what you guys are saying. It's a money grap, and any game that is not even a year old and gets a remake is really bad. Why not just label it as "now available for the ps4"?!

What I really don't understand is why they don't remake PS1 games. I get that it's a lot more complicated, but I'd happily pay full price for some of the epic PS1 games:

Crash Bandicoot

Spyro

FF remakes (imagine all of them with voices and up to date graphics,man oh man)

But the question I'd love to ask everyone, would you buy a "best of zombies" game? So that'd be a remake of all the maps (there would be two versions of the WaW maps, a BO version and Original) but with next gen graphics?

If you answered yes (as I would) it pretty much deems us all idiots, because here we are damning it, only to support it.

[Speedo Cola]

How I look at it is this:

The Halo Master Chief Collection: That is 4 games, 2 from the original Xbox, playable with old graphics or new. One of those games came out a year or two ago. Plus you get all the episodes of a Halo TV show (not interested in it myself) and Halo 5 Multiplayer Beta. All for $60. That's good. 

However, something like GTA 5, that isn't a remaster in my opinion. That is more like an updated version, with new features because it's a new console. I will be buying it when I get a ONE, but it isn't the same as remastering. It's ok, but the remaster label isn't right. 

Point is, if they have more features, that's alright. But just better graphics? Unless it's like a game that had terrible graphics, or is like PS2-Era or before, it probably doesn't really need a remaster. 

[ZombieOfTheDead]

Depends on the remaster. The Last of Us and GTAV remasters are plain and simply dumb for coming out only a year after the original and with very few actual changes.

 

Here are some examples of good remasters

 

Resident Evil 1 remake- completely remade the game with "better" (not by much) voice acting. It's also scarier than the original.

 

Master Chief Collection- 2 remade games (one came out earlier) along with Halo 3 and 4, and new muliplayer.

 

Metal Gear Solid Legacy collection- 3 remastered games with the addition of MGS4, MGS1 original as a download, and I think the first 2 metal gears for a fairly low price

 

Kingdom Hearts 1.5 & 2.5 for bringing America and Europe/Australia stuff from the japanese final mix versions, as well as updated textures, remastered music, and remade cutscenes for two games

 

Wind Waker HD- Improved lighting, and a faster sail option. Really all that game needed, and it works since it came out 10 years after the original. Ocarina of Time 3D is also a good mention since it completely remade the graphics.

 

 

 

Many HD collectiions are simply upscales. That works for a game that came out many years ago and for people that never got to play a certain game, but really, it wasn't necessary to remaster things like GTAV and TLOU so early. I am debating on whether or not to pick up TLOU remastered despite this since I didn't play it on PS3.

[TheNathanNS]

^ Don't own a PS3/PS4 but I'd say go for it.

 

If you didn't play the PS3 version, then you haven't wasted any money buying it twice.

 

 

Also, so no one is confused, re releases are NOT remakes, like the Wii's Virtual Store (Or whatever it was called) or the old PS1/PS2 classics on the PSN Store. Those are just there for nostalgic purposes/there for people who want to experience older games.

[Slade]

Metro does it right.

The first two games are re-released on the next gen console and PC.

60 frames/1080p. All DLC included. Better graphics, higher textures, shadows, anti-aliasing etc.

But the first game has been remade in the second game's engine. Meaning the first Metro will now have much better a.i, physics, gunplay and stealth mechanics than the original version had.

+ you can get both remade games separately for 15 each, or a bundle with both of them for 30.

[MysteryMachineX]

While case-by-cases can vary, usually the answer is that it doesn't even matter. As crass as it is to say, if you don't like it don't buy it. Since literally the only thing changed to the game is practically hardware specifications (not literally I know just making a point), people who already played the game have no need to buy the new version unless they really really want to see the greatest graphics of the game. If so and still bothered, I allude to the smartphone 4, 5, 6, etc. That's technological "innovation" these days, making new and better ones. However here it is much simpler. There is a 1 and 2 and that's it. They want to make it, fine. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they want to buy 1, 2, or 1 and 2. It's not like gameplay was added making it a different game. It is just two versions of the same game. In fact, this decision is best for the people who didn't buy the game. Now when they do, they can go straight to 2. So no matter how you previous players feel about it, someone is getting a benefit from this.

[Lenne]

They actually do sell an unofficial bioshock collection complete with BS1 download and BS2 download for the PS3 as well as all BSI dlc and the disc game for the PS3 I think… 

 

I was refering to a Bioshock collection for the PS4/Xbone like all the games on one disc and stuff.

 

The thing that annoys me the most with TLOU remastered is the fact that it is so expensive on amazon.de it is 54 euros.

Same goes for Tomb Raider which is 50 bucks.

 

The Master Chief collection and like Slade already said the Metro games are doing it right.

 

Thanks for all the fine responses, guys. :3

[Slade]

This is how all remasters should be. @Lenne

@ grab your pillow, gas mask and holy water, we're re-entering the Metros survival/ranger mode on 4 Freakin' K resolution, давай!