The fact that the remasters exist was the reason I posted it to begin with though.

It's just a damned shame that future players will more likely play said remasters, because they are what's advertised (and, as far as I understand it, the originals are not even bundled with the games outside GOG), rather than experience the originals.

Games are different from films though; at least with all games they can make them better due to advancements in technology. The same can't really be said for films though - most of the remakes have been abominations in my eyes - particulary the cult classics like Nightmare On Elm Street, The Omen, Robocop, etc. Those remakes are highly offensive to me. Absolutely nothing wrong with the originals and no need to remake them.

I always chuckle reading his posts. I like word games, it feels like a short and quick word challenge trying to decipher the message. In fact, I don't really care about the content, I just like trying to understand what he is saying. Also, his style is very unique which has a certain scarcity value that is interesting on its own. It would be really annoying if everyone wrote like that though.

Cannon Fodder. Design-wise it's pretty much perfect, most attempts to expand it would probably only harm it (as could already be seen in Cannon Fodder 2) and pretty much any attempt to update the presentation would pretty much ruin the delivery (as could be seen in Cannon Fodder 3, developed not that long ago by some Russian no-name developers - although admittedly that one failed as a successor in pretty much every way imaginable).

That said, I generally don't think that the whole remake and port trend is really a bad thing. For one, I believe that very few creative works in general are ever really finished (heck, even some classic novels had numerous iterations and their writers weren't held back by technology) and secondly I believe that updating games along as new tech becomes available and introducing them to new generations of gamers is a commendable effort. Also I observe a lot of double-standards, people praising that modders keep updating games they love for 20+ years while at the same time hating on developers and publishers who do the same, just expecting money for it. And heck, we DO expect good movies to be rereleased whenever a new higher quality medium becomes available (and we DON'T want VHS quality on a 4k Bluray!), why the same is supposed to be a problem in case of games... no idea.

The quality of the remakes etc. is a separate matter altogether. Note that I myself more often than not prefer the original versions over remakes and mods and when emulating games I try to stick with the original experience as much as possible. I just want the unaltered original versions to remain available as an option (the recent Windows port of Z would be an extreme example where it borders on a crime not to include the original version). And what really bothers me is when a new version of a game becomes available, that differs in a number of ways that suggest that the developers did not fully understand the original, and then pull a George Lucas and pretend that the new version is how it's always been supposed to be (Silent Hill HD collection... CURSE YOU, TOM HEWLETT!!!).

I call it "dropped on head".

For or against, elaborate please.

I can agree that no game is sacred and should never be remade, with a caveat. Any remake/update of a game should come with it's original version included.

I think there's a place for making older games more accessible. Consider some of the first person games that require you to modify the .ini file just to make them WASD friendly. But also consider, there was a time when the current controls weren't standard and that evolution is a part of gaming history.

As for a candidate, Daggerfall. for two reasons.

1. Morrowind was a great middle ground between Daggerfall and Oblivion/Skyrim styles.
2. Both updating and playing with the random dungeons would kill the developers and infuriate the players.

Christianity itself is depressing, so I'd call it realism.

I don't think I can subscribe to thinking a certain game might have not deserved getting a makeover. It's supply and demand, and I'm sure studios are gathering information whether a remaster is going to be profitable and worth while, so I can't say there is a game that didn't deserve it. If nothing else, I enjoy playing the newer versions of the games that solve previously known issues, look better, and run on newer OS's without trouble.

Homeworld 1 & 2. I don't think they needed a remaster of this extent. From a sales perspective I understand the desire for it, to make it more appealing to modern gamers (and make more money from it), but the magic of the originals is still strrong with me.

The Last of Us. The original was already very pretty to look at, the remaster was only slightly better. It was far too early for a Remaster, still ... it sold over a million copies so what do I know.

deleted

Someone told me once that vampire the masquerade, bloodlines badly needed a remaster because the graphics were "uglier then piss".

The last thing anyone wants is a better looking example of that *thing* in the sewers segment where you're trying to meet up with the Nosferatu. It's disturbing enough as is.

Maybe this is somewhat offtopic, since I'm starting with a game that I think *would* benefit greatly from a remake, but here it goes (apologies in advance):

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. As much as I love the Crystal Dynamics LoK series (I don't think Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain is *that* good, to be fair, but that's a matter to be discussed somewhere else), particularly the first in the series, Soul Reaver, I do believe time hasn't been too kind to it. The graphics were nothing special even for its time, and despite the nostalgia "charm" we gamers tend to find in everything we grew up playing, they aged poorly, making the game look really ugly and janky today -- said "early 3D charm" notwithstanding --; although there's no denying a lot of effort and relative polish was put into it, back in the day, it simply doesn't hold up that well, now. Secondly, and arguably most important, the controls. While drawing inspiration from the original Tomb Raider games, in terms of gameplay, it isn't as clunky as those, having ditched tank controls altogether in favor of a more natural relative-to-camera control scheme. Having said that, though, and while admitting it was a step up from Tomb Raider, the controls are far from being perfect and I've actually known a few people who simply couldn't get into the game because of that. Movement is slow and extremely clunky, combat is boring and eventually becomes more of a chore than anything else. Panning the camera is definitely possible but more likely than not you're just leaving it alone, since it's not that well implemented a system. Now, Soul Reaver is *not* a short game, especially considering it's a classic action-adventure. Playing a game for an extended period of time should be an enjoyable experience, but due to how ugly it looks and how slowly it controls, playing Soul Reaver can be a bit of a chore, at times. Most of us can look past all of this because the lore, world building, character development, story, voice acting and quality of writing are some of the best to ever feature in any video game, PERIOD. But I can absolutely understand how many folks aren't able to get into it.

Soul Reaver would greatly benefit from a remake that addressed and resolved these issues. Plus, with today's tech, they could merge Soul Reaver and Soul Reaver 2 together, thus fulfilling Amy Hennig's original plan for the game(s), all the while avoiding that absurd and abrupt cliffhanger ending of the first game. Maybe they could even include some aspects that were left out of of the games due to lack of proper tech, lack of time, lack of funding. Obviously, they would have to tweak and balance gameplay elements of both games, so they would play the same, as one single game.

And, mind you, I'm not even being too greedy: just make the game look and play like Legacy of Kain: Defiance, which I think still looks and plays great to this day (just... get rid of the sometimes annoying and cumbersome fixed camera angles of Defiance, and you should be good to go). One could argue this game doesn't need a reboot -- it doesn't. The story, themes and writing are some of the best and more engaging and unique in any video game. They're pretty much flawless. Keep all that. Just fix those things that no longer work that well today. Or don't, I'll still be playing it all the same. :P

As for a game that doesn't need a remake (but got one, anyway): Grim Fandango. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Double Fine released Grim Fandango -- one of (if not THE) best adventure games ever made -- for a whole new generation of gamers who probably wouldn't have found out about it otherwise. Sure, you could still buy it on eBay and whatnot but, let's face it: it was mostly pirated, anyway. It's nice to have it available for purchase (legally) in digital form, and as much as some of us hate it, being released on console opened it up to a whole segment of people who wouldn't have experienced its awesomeness otherwise. And that's a good thing, on my book.

But did it really deserve a remake? Well, in my opinion, no. The game still looks gorgeous in its original form, due to the beautifully drawn and animated pre-rendered backgrounds and the cartoonish style of the 3D models. Sure, they made it crisper and added some bells and whistles, but did it *really* look *that* bad on the eyes, originally? I honestly don't think so. When it comes to the controls -- and, yes, this is a very divisive topic --, I prefer to play Grim Fandango using the original tank controls. I appreciate the original team's "clean screen" design, and if you're going to use traditional point & click controls, you're not getting that, as you'll always have to have a mouse cursor (at least) on screen. This isn't an action game, it's relatively slow-paced, so I think tank controls suit it well. Plus, while you're looking at the mouse cursor while pixel-hunting the scenarios, you're missing out on one of the things I really loved about Grim Fandango: how Manny reacts to hotspots by looking at them, setting his eyes on the nearest interactable spot and turning his head while you move, like one would do in real life. This aspect kind of gets lost without the tank controls, in my opinion, and actually makes the game a slightly little itty bit worse. Oh, and those art déco borders to fill up the black bars on each side of the screen? I'm glad they opted to maintain the original aspect ratio and went with a 1:1 remake, but I found the borders to be somewhat distracting overall.

I welcomed the developers' commentary, the artwork, the extras. I really did. They did some good things with this remake (and also some questionable ones, ones which I won't get into, since they've been addressed aplenty as it is). But was it in such a dire need of a remake? Lots of classic LucasArts games managed just fine for the new generations with just a digital release (Sam & Max Hit The Road, for instance -- which still look beautiful and plays... fine, I guess?), and I think Grim Fandango would do just fine with a digital release of the original.

So, there you have it, folks. Sorry for the WALLOFTEXT.

Happy gaming, everyone!

Isn't the entire idea of Bloodlines is that it is set in a somewhat ugly, imperfect realm?

Don't know about titles that don't need or deserve but..

Darklands would be awesome with improved graphics, don't get me wrong it doesn't need to leave the pixel realm, it just need a little bit of polish, modernized controls for the younger enthusiast and modern screen resolution support.

GEM!