HD Re-releases, Remakes, and Reimaginings: Quick Cash-ins VS Earnest Effort

            The recent slew of HD re-releases has got me a little upset.  Before I get started though, let me say this.  No, I don't have a problem with ports or re-releases.  I'm not a purist who thinks that games were best on the consoles they were released on.  Re-releases serve a valid purpose in exposing a new audience to old properties and in gathering together games spanning many different consoles and putting them in one easy to use package.  However, what I hate is the blatant cash grabbing, the lack of care brought to bear in the games being re-released, and above all else, laziness.

If a game series can be re-released, companies will re-release it.

            Let me try to explain.  I was a big fan of the Final Fantasy compilations on the Playstation.  Each one either improved the graphics of it's previous incarnation or included a game that had never been released outside of Japan.  Even Final Fantasy Chronicles, which was almost a straight port of Final Fantasy 4 and Chrono Trigger, returned Final Fantasy 4 to its original difficulty and gave Chrono Trigger a boatload of extras for players to unlock, including new cut scenes, musical tracks, and a way of keeping score of how many endings had been unlocked.  With each of these re-releases, there was effort put into the package, as new content or whole new games were released.  What made the originals unique was preserved and at times improved.  Now, compare that to recent fare.

A Final Fantasy re-release before Square started handing those out like tissue paper.  It actually offered a more difficult experience and a number of extras for both games.

            The Silent Hill HD collection gathered only two games together.  Two games from the same console generation.  Two games which were originally already backwards compatible with the Playstation 3 before that was removed due to corporate greed.  But, how were the remakes?  Atrocious.  The games worked fine in their original states, but the "HD improvements" introduced a ton of graphical and audio glitches, removed some of the atmosphere that the originals had created, and required patches from day one for decade old games.  My simple question has to be, if I could still find Silent Hill 2-4 in stores as of 2012, why did this even need to exist?  It was far poorer quality and did not gather any of the more wayward games, like Silent Hill: Origins from the PSP or the original Silent Hill from the Playstation.

An HDcollection released in 2012 botched so badly that it looks laughable compared to the original release over a decade earlier.

            Once again, compare that to a good collection.  The Mega Man Anniversary Ccollection on the Playstation 2 gathered over eight Mega Man games together, spanning three console generations, with some that were never released outside of Japan.  The games had no errors, played just as faithfully as they did on their home consoles, and were preserved graphically.  This kind of collection is what I love.  Something like the Devil May Cry Collection which only gathers three games from the same console generation...yeah, I can let that slide since it was an entire series at the time, but my question still remains.  If you won't add anything extra, won't gather together games from far apart, and can, in fact, make the properties poorer for it, why are you even re-releasing these games?  The simple answer is money.  Companies bank on nostalgia and word of mouth from older games to sell these re-releases which are relatively inexpensive to make compared to creating a whole new AAA game, and continually churn them out.  Look, I get it.  Companies need money to survive and I've already said before, use it or lose it when it comes to IP.  I'm still waiting for a Breath of Fire or Suikoden Collection.  But honestly, I think that we give collections a bit too much of a free pass.  Especially compared to remakes or reimaginings.

This is how a collection or re-release should be.  Check the box art.  10 games on 1 disc.

            That brings me to my second point in this discussion.  Remakes and reimaginings.  Often, they requires a thousand times the work of re-releasing a compilation set, but because they deviate from the previous game, they get a lot of flak.  Examples of this are the Wild Arms remake, Wild Arms: Alter Code F, the Lufia 2 remake, Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals, and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, the remake of the original Silent Hill.  Now, the big difference between a remake or a reimagining and an HD re-release is this.  A re-release may touch up the graphics or add extras and Easter eggs , but it doesn't change the game.  Sometimes, this can be for the best, as some games are classic.  However, too often, I think that gamers don't appreciate the sheer audacity and courage it takes to make changes to these properties, which are considered almost sacred by their fans.

Wild Arms, the original

Wild Arms remake.  Can you see the effort?

            The three games I just mentioned drastically altered how their respective games were played while still keeping true to the spirit of the original.  And this, I think, is the whole point.  Trying something new with a property while being faithful to fans in their own way or fixing what was broken with the property to begin with.  Ben "Yahtzee"Croshaw, from Zero Punctuation on the Escapist, put it best when he described Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as, "This is everything a reboot should be.  Something not afraid to fix shit that didn't work."

            Going in a different direction from the original with a remake is not necessarily a bad thing.  New story bits, a fresh take on game design, or just fixing problems that were in the original allows gamers to experience something more polished as well while giving the game a new coat of paint.  These design choices take effort and courage, as even slight deviations can be seen as betrayals.  One major point of contention in Silent Hill: Shattered Memories was the lack of ability to defend oneself or the fact that enemies only appeared in certain sections of the game.  True, this may have deviated from the atmosphere of dread and constant danger that the original espoused, but it also allowed for a tighter, more focused psychological narrative.

Say what you want about the game changes to Silent Hill Shattered Memories, at least it made the effort to try something new.

            Of course, one doesn't have to rock the boat all that much to make a remake work.  The Dragon Quest games on the Nintendo DS are ports of their NES and SNES counterparts, only with better graphics.  However, a number of nagging issues have been addressed.  There is no longer a need to shut down the system while saving, there was additional content added to the games to help iron out story bits, and there is a better translation of the dialogue.  This is how a faithful remake can be done safely.  Keeping what fans know, I.E. the characters, story, and game design, while ironing out problems in the originals.

Dragon Quest 5 before remake

Dragon Quest 5 after remake.  It's the same game, just prettier and more polished.  As it should be.

            Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrels does the exact opposite.  It greatly alters the aesthetic, gameplay, puzzles, and changes the story somewhat, but manages to keep the characters, the villains and the overall feel of the game consistent with the original.  This allows gamers who have played the original to enjoy something new and fresh, while allowing easier access to the world of Lufia for fans who didn't get a chance to play the original.  It would have been simplicity to keep the same translation, same game design, and even the basic look of the game, making it just a straight port, but Neverland, the developers, decided to take a risk and offer the same familiar characters gamers loved in a fresh new adventure.  That took courage for the decision and a ton of effort, as the entire game was redesigned from scratch.

Lufia 2 in its original form

Lufia 2 remake.  It's like night and day.  A straight up RPG vs an action RPG.  Imagine the risk Neverland took in remaking this game.  That took courage.

            The point I am trying to make here is the difference between the worthwhile and the mundane.  I want gamers to understand the difference between earnest effort and a cheap cash in.  I give plenty of praise to remakes, but honestly, I love collections.  The Sega Genesis Collections on the PS2, PS3, and Xbox 360 have some of my favorite games of all times on them.  I got to play Megaman 5 and 6 for the first time with the Mega Man Anniversary Collection.  And the Capcom Classic Collections included some amazing old gems I'd never get a chance to play anywhere else.  But here's the thing.  Those collections had a large number of full games together at once, with additional functionality, Easter eggs, and secrets to unlock.  The Mega Man collection had about 10 games, some of which were unlockable.  The Capcom Classics Collections had over thirty games a piece, with trivia for each.  Even the Devil May Cry Collection gathered at least all three games in the series up to that point with the added content of Devil May Cry 3's Special Edition.  But look at recent releases.  Zone of the Enders, while great, has only two games on it and a demo of the new Metal Gear Solid.  Ico Collection, two games.  Silent Hill Collection, two games.  There were two God of War Collections, each with only two games.  Infamous collection, two games and a DLC code.  This is lazy.  The Infamous collection in particular offends me since there is no point to it.  Both games are still easy to find in stores and both can be bought online on the PSN.  It's a cash grab and a thinly veiled one at that.  If you're going to re-release, make it worth the player's wild.  The most recent God of War Collection, God of War Saga, includes all five games in the series, remastered.  That's five games from three different consoles.  Game companies KNOW how to re-release games.  They are merely seeing how cheap they can go and still make money.

Did we really need this remake?  The extra episode was released as DLC and doesn't even come on the disc.

            Now, look at the reimaginings or remakes released in recent years.  The most recent as of this date is DMC, which tries to reboot Devil May Cry.  While I don't much care for the tone, the combat is smooth and polished, the controls are acrobatic and make the player feel powerful, and it has multiple options for play.  Yet many fans still cry foul over it, to the point where they petitioned the government to have it banned.  I can understand being offended if a remake betrays the conventions of the original and I'm kind of in the camp that DMC's story does, but...it's a game.  It's meant to be fun.  If the effort was put in to make it enjoyable, then don't just shove it aside for a crappy re-release just because you disagree with minor bits.

Look, I hate the new Dante too, but c'mon...give the game credit.  This looks bad ass.

            Another one is the Final Fantasy 4 collection on the PSP.  This graphically enhances Final Fantasy 4, the somewhat panned Final Fantasy 4: After Years, and adds in a new scenario to bridge the games.  Whatever your opinion is on the near constant re-releasing and porting of Final Fantasy 4, give credit where credit is due.  The game's graphics are painstakingly gorgeous, with better sound, additional scenarios, and all the gameplay features of the original.

            Can you see what I am saying?  The game industry banks on nostalgia to make money.  They know it will.  However, if you KNOW something is going to sell, why bother to improve it?  That is the logic I see them working by, especially with re-releases like the Silent Hill collection.  My plea to gamers and the industry is this.  Recognize laziness or ineptitude and refrain from supporting it.  Either the industry will step up its game with these re-releases or they will stop abusing their properties and provide better experiences with their new games.  The truth is, players have the game industry by the short hairs.  If they refuse to buy a game, then they dictate with their money that ineptitude, laziness, and cash grabs will not fly and the industry will have to improve or it will crash again.

Can we not encourage the haphazard re-releasing?  These games weren't even half a decade old when this came out.

And a few years later we get ANOTHER re-release, with all the games on it.  This is what a God of War Collection SHOULD have been to begin with.

            Also, recognize effort.  Gamers, put aside your pride over a series you love and learn to love a remake for what it is.  It's a game and it's meant to have fun.  If it's poorly designed, then don't buy it, don't support it, but if it is good, just different from what you've expected, then don't try to destroy it out of some puritanical loyalty to the original.  The original was already made.  Give credit where credit is due to the new property.

            There is nothing wrong with nostalgia in gaming.  Often, the past is both enjoyable and can educate.  Collections, remakes, and reimaginings are our doorway to the past.  But take off your rose tinted glasses and recognize that sometimes you should demand better.  Just because something claims to be a re-release or an improvement does not automatically make it better.  Be informed and if the product is shoddy, don't support it.  So long as we remember the games we love, companies will continue to try and make money off them.  There will always  be another re-release.

Limitations: Why the 16-bit Generation has the Best Games Ever

            First, let me apologize for being away so long.  Work is stealing my soul as well as my time.  Anyway, somehow, I managed to get this piece composed this piece, so let’s talk video games!

            Okay, the title of this article may set off a few people’s alarm bells.  First, let me tell everyone to relax.  This isn’t going to be a rant about why the SNES or Sega Genesis is the best system ever and the game industry was better when during the 16-bit generation.  Some of my favorite games are from later generations, especially the PS2.  However, I think that in the rush to improve and make graphics more photo-realistic, music more symphonic, and gameplay more complex, that something important has been lost.  I think that many games have lost their way because there is just so much that can be done with modern technology.  Some people may argue against that.  That having a huge sandbox to explore is amazing for game development, offering near limitless possibilities.  However, in my mind, knowing ones limitations is just as important as having the boundless freedom to explore and do as one wish’s.

Okay, we've got all this space to design!  So, umm...where do we actually go?

            And really, that’s why I have such admiration for the 16-bit era.  Its limitations.  The games in the 16-bit era managed to gain enough power as opposed to the 8-bit that they could expand and push the boundaries of what games at the time could do, creating prettier sprite based graphics, gameplay and AI that was more complex, and music that was less pixelated and more symphonic.  However, there were still clear limits to what could be done and the game designers had to work within those limitations to get the best out of their games without making them impossible to fit onto the console.  This meant that programmers had to put a great deal more care into their game design. 

Most of the time a great deal of care was put into game design...translation...sometimes fell by the wayside.

             With increased space, stories could become more complex and scripts more well refined.  However, because of the limitations, the story was carried more on the weight of the script rather than the performance of those reading it.  It allowed the players to create their own voice or interpret the script in their own way.  Likewise, composers had some space to flex their musical muscle, however music couldn’t be ripped from outside sources and had to rely on the sound chip within the console, so most music had to be original or at least converted in such a way that was pleasing to hear.  Along that same line, it did not take scores of orchestras to record the music or dozens of composers, as what could be done was so limited.  And most importantly, the sprite based graphics of the 16-bit era used graphical tricks that were cheap and easy to implement as opposed to the time consuming process of 3d modeling.  A single 3d model can take days, or even weeks, to create, render, rig to look and act natural, and even more time if it needs to emote.  However, with sprite based gaming, a set of pixels just needed to be altered and the character could look like they were laughing, crying, in pain, exhausted, etc.  These graphics were pleasing to the eye and allowed much more expression than 8-bit sprites, which were limited in color and detail.  However, they were not so complicated that it took an excessively long time to create them.

Remember when games could look pretty without a billion polygons?  Yeah...those were good times...

             The point I am trying to make with this tirade is that instead of bloated budgets for gaming which focused more on graphical fidelity and realism or on game design that is complex and unwieldy, 16-bit games had to be lean, using simple tools to achieve great feats.  The two Lufia games on the SNES, for example, had some of the most devious logic puzzles in all of gaming and they managed to do it using a simple system of lifting, pushing, and pulling objects.  In modern games, however, a puzzle game without a physics engine would be laughed out of the room.  What is easier to design and less prone to hiccups?  A physics engine that has thousands of variables or a simple system of pushing, pulling, and lifting that is based on a simple grid based puzzle system?

Simple, devious, and without the need for a physics engine...Why aren't we making more puzzles like this again?

            If nothing else, modern games have also proven how advances in technology can make games more beautiful.  People have given Heavy Rain, Modern Warfare 3, and other games which focus on realism heavy props for their graphical power.  However, how many systems can use those without delays?  How many computers can play graphically taxing games like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 without significant upgrades?  And how ridiculous will these purported realistic graphics look in twenty years when graphics are even more advanced?  Worse yet, however, is the propensity for excessive cut scenes.  Now, there is nothing wrong with cut scenes in games.  They can move along the plot or pump up the player for a confrontation, however using them as a crutch, focusing on graphics over gameplay or storytelling, is folly.  I think that an emphasis on using the latest toys and making things look pretty has made people forget what the core of game design is all about.  Substance over graphical flair.

Yes, Metal Gear 4, you're very pretty...now how about some gameplay with my 30 minute cut scenes?

            A number of people may argue against the idea that limitations are a necessary part of good game design.  Like how such limitations will hamper a game’s fun factor by hurting atmosphere, gameplay, music, etc.  However, take a look back at the game industry during the early 2000s.  Many of the games which endure are not the realistic ones, but those that use cartoony, cel-shaded, or alternative graphical schemes to the more realistic ones.  Jim Sterling made a brilliant argument on the Escapist about this, saying that the best games for HD televisions were not the grim, gritty, and realistic, but the colorful, cel-shaded, and lively.  Games like Rogue Galaxy, Killer 7, and Final Fantasy Tactics still look as good today as the day they came out.  And many games thrive on limitations.  Horror games in particular.  In Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2, there were a huge amount of limitations that needed workarounds for the games to function properly.  Pop in graphics were common.  So, to hide the pop in, they world was draped in an eerie mist or in darkness or in snow that hid the monsters and made the players feel both alone, and surrounded, creating an atmosphere of crushing dread.  Forcing games to work within limitations often brings out the best in them.  By comparison, the modern Silent Hill games after Silent Hill 4 have been lacking some of the atmosphere of the previous ones, because the monsters have to be so well defined in their grotesqueness, the graphics need to pop and be eye catching, and the voice acting has to be spot on. There is no room left for the scary atmosphere created by the mist, snow and darkness of previous games.  Although, some people do seem to be learning from such mistakes, as games like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories or Silent Hill: Downpour indicates.

Would you believe one of the most terrifying experiences in gaming was born of necessity rather than graphical fidelity?

             Others may argue that it would be impossible to create 16-bit style games with the same sensibilities that we have now and that they are a relic because of their limitations.  However, I also dispute this claim as well.  Modern programming teams have created 16-bit style games using tools such as RPGmaker or other game engines to experiment with 16-bit games in ways that, while not implemented during the 16-bit generation itself, are still ground breaking and creatable without a bloated budget.  To the Moon, for example, is a game that looks, on the surface, like a Final Fantasy 6 style RPG.  However, it actually is a graphic novel style of game that is more closely related to a point and click adventure.  It focuses on tight writing and the emotional poignancy of the graphics and music to deliver a moving experience.  Lone Survivor, on the other hand, creates a claustrophobic 16-bit world that uses tricks learned from the 16-bit generation to inspire a world of surreal horror which is genuinely terrifying and unsettling.  So, one question I might ask is that, if these games are easier to create than mainstream games, can be just as much fun, can experiment more than their contemporaries, and are cheaper to both make and for customers to buy, then…why don’t we see more 16-bit revivals?  Lone Survivor is available on Steam and To the Moon from Freebirdgames.com but both are somewhat niche titles that have not met a huge level of financial success.  However, 16-bit games in the modern era that achieve success are growing less rare.

16-bit.  Modern Sensibilities.  Damn scary.  We need more of this.

             A number of 16-bit style games as well as other games that embrace their limitations have been created recently that are both innovative and successful.  And, perhaps most importantly, exist outside the bloated AAA games market.  Cthulhu Saves the World was a game that was built to look like a 16-bit RPG and was heavily praised for its writing, game design, graphics, and music, all of which used the same tricks of its forbearers, such as swapping out sprites to emote or create unique appearances and looped animations for walking or simple expressions.  Terraria is a beloved exploration based action RPG which uses a sprite based 16-bit aesthetic and game design to create an engrossing experience.  More surprisingly, it was crafted by only 2 people over 4 months.  Even the graphically impressive Dear Esther knew its limitations and gave people the freedom to move, but to find the story, left them with little else they could do.  These games, have met with critical and commercial success precisely because they used their limitations to create a unique experience and focus on a specific aspect of their game design, be it story with Dear Esther, customization and exploration with Terraria, or solid game mechanics with Cthulhu saves the world.

Four months in the making and 200,000 sold in its first week.  Take note, AAA developers.

             One of the reasons I love 16-bit games and games from the PS1 and PS2 over the PS3 or high end PC games is that they embraced their limitations to a degree and knew when to stop.  Their scripts had to be tighter, their game design more innovative, and their music less hackneyed and repetitious.  Often times, modern game design tries to do everything and fails to really stand out or fails to be enjoyable as a whole.  Granted, this is only my opinion, however, I think that to forget ones limitations is to invite folly.  You do need space to stretch.  My favorite game, Odin Sphere, uses sprites that could never fit on a 16-bit system and would only really be possible on the Playstation 2 or greater.  However, if you get too much space, you probably won’t know what to do with it all.

Bloated game design also raises the bar for entry.  In the days of the Commodore 64, people could create their own homebrew games that they could sell.  While I believe the Commodore 64 was very limited, it showed that regular people could learn programming and build games.  Modern AAA game design requires up to 4-6 years of school in a specific skill, such as modeling, photoshop, etc. to even get an entry level position.  However, if something like Terraria is any indication, it is possible to build and put a game on the market in less than half a year with simpler tools that anyone can use.

Ultimately, I don’t think the game industry needs to return to its 16-bit roots.  I love 16-bit games and I’d love to see more.  I’d love for Actraiser, or Terranigma, or Final Fantasy 6 to return to grace, but they’ve had their time in the sun.  We need to keep moving forward.  However, forcing people to create a game that needs a million units sold to make enough money to repay all the time and effort put into it is just not good business.  Limitations on what game developers can do or CHOOSE to do could lower the bar for entry into the games industry, allow innovation, as cheaper games give more opportunity to try new ideas, and give them a tidy profit that doesn’t require a huge team to work on.  This is why Indie games are so good for the industry.  They know their limits and work within them to create the best experience possible.  While I am not sure exactly where, I do recognize that the web series Extra Credit has tackled this issue far better than I from a business perspective, but it bears repeating.

These games had their time in the sun.  I don't think the world needs to return to 16-bit.

Yet, we can make games like this much easier now than in the 1990s.  Why don't we make more?

 On the whole, I think that 16-bit games exemplify this kind of ideal perfectly.  Most took no more than a year or two to create, as opposed to the abysmal 2-5 year cycle of modern AAA games, most used simple concepts, such as turn based combat or simple eight directional over head movement to experiment with established formulas and create new ones, and it gave aspiring artists and composers a chance to stretch their legs without having to work themselves half to death.  And if the game industry is to survive, major publishers need to start embracing these kinds of design practices.  They need to give AAA style attention and funding to smaller games which can be produced quickly, but which also have the necessary quality and fun factor behind them.  Games which embrace their limitations to do certain things very well.  I don’t think all games need to be like this, in fact the landscape of gaming would change for the worse if that were the case, but publishers should at least dabble in it.  Otherwise, the game industry will have a revolution where the AAA market is toppled by the indie developers and digital distributors.  Which…on second thought, might not be too bad for us, the consumers.

Once again, any material that people believe I have used inappropriately or without permission, please contact me and I will address the issue.  Otherwise, I hope some fun was had reading my take on games and their limitations.