How do you feel about the expression "updated for modern audiences" in remasters and remakes? : gaming

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

It really depends.

Some games are so old that the technology needs to be sorely updated for modern gamers to be able to understand the controls, and "upating (the controls) for modern audiences" can be good.

Further, older games often have some pretty awful stereotypes in them that don't need to be preserved so we can remember them.

I know Disney's Bambi isn't a video game, but I'll use it as an example that's being re-made. Bambi was made in 1942, and a massive amount of cultural references and ideas just don't make as much sense in the modern era. There are literally things young people today would be like "what now?" in films that old. Sometimes "updating for modern audiences" is removing stuff that just doesn't make sense anymore, or people don't recognize or understand.

Even further, it used to be that "getting updated for modern audiences" was the norm. Anyone remember that hokey fucking Romeo & Juliet with Leonoard DiCaprio in the 90's? Yeah, that was "updated for modern audiences" and it was a smash fucking hit. Back then, updating for modern audiences meant setting it in Verona instead of Venice and swapping swords for guns.

Like if you're dealing with games that were always meant to frustrate and offend like Postal 2 or Conker's Bad Fur Day or Redneck Rampage, you're probably not gonna have a lot of people happy to "update for modern audiences" but there's not much to update about campy schlock humor anyway.

So yeah, sometimes its not great, but I think the worries about it are overblown.

In movies there used to be a joke about how "the black guy always dies first" in action/horror movies because it held true for a long time. Black characters were given bit-roles that were quickly written out of movies. That is no longer the case, but you don't see movies that don't kill off black characters right away as being advertised as "updated for modern audiences" because that's just silly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

"updating (the controls) for modern audiences" can be good.

My only experience of that is when they removed grid based movements from New N' Tasty and forced players to use the analog, trying to walk felt horrible.

But something like the first 2 Fallouts on the other hand can really use a controls overhaul.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But something like the first 2 Fallouts on the other hand can really use a controls overhaul.

Those were literally on my mind! I know Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II got some updated control schemes more recently, including gamepad support, but it seems my favorite Fallouts are still stuck in the past.

God damn it what I would give for a modern Fallout in the style of Baldur's Gate 3. It breaks me how Bethesda has ruined that series.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you're looking for Wasteland. They shared a lot of DNA already, and they've got different senses of humor, but Wasteland still has a black comedy angle.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I like the Wasteland games, but something about being alone in the wasteland felt so much more dangerous...

Part of why I liked Fallout is that it (for the most part) dispensed with the party and had you running on your own.

They had a handful of companions you could pick up in 1 & 2, but it was mostly lone gunning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

As in most RPGs, having more actions was always beneficial, so I for sure always had companions in Fallout, even though they were AI controlled and often got in the way. At least Wasteland just gives you control of them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Verona instead of Venice

The original was also in Verona, Baz Luhrmann's one was in "Verona Beach" or something like that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

The commentary said they wanted to do rival criminal gangs, which would have made a lot more sense than the construction magnates they went with, but my guess is they realised West Side Story already did it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Both updating the controls, and removing stereotypes, should be optional, at most behind a parental lock.

Some historic material is evil shit, and some people may understandably not want to get exposed to it... but it shouldn't be some censor's decision which scholars get access to the historical originals, while everyone else only gets the PC mush of the moment.

Everyone should have the option to see as much evil as they want, no more, no less.

Going back to your Bambi example, I learned a lot about 1942 US by watching the now censored scenes, much more than by just listening to the opinions of those who condemned them.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

I agree with this sentiment in respect to the idea that you're actually trying to learn something from what you're looking at. I agree, because I felt the same way when I watched censored WWII cartoons. If you're willing to learn from them, that's great, but here's the thing.

Not everybody is taking away the same things.

What you take away from it isn't what everyone takes from it. While you might rightfully not be a giant piece of shit yourself, there's a lot of people who are.

My personal example is growing up with the Grand Theft Auto series. As a youth, I thought concerns with it were more or less overblown, and I was more or less right, for the most part.

However, after the torture scene in GTA 5 and talking to a wider community about it, I started to realize a lot of people weren't learning anything good from that scene other than how to torture people, and a perverted glee in being able to do so.

And that's where I begin to worry, because while like, I'm in the middle of an Evil playthrough of Baldur's Gate 3, like... It's hard to feel real "glee" at being evil. Many of the decisions I make tend to make me go "awwww" inside, but I tell myself "I can't get caught up in that if it's an evil playthrough." And in that sense is where I agree, because like, yeah, I should be allowed to play evil if I want.

But the reality also is that a lot of people don't care about the nuance and are looking for reasons to be pieces of shit, looking for dark things to make fun of, and are generally going to take horrible justifications from what they do learn, and yes, that does worry me a bit.

while everyone else only gets the PC mush of the moment.

You realize that while there might be some hamfisted attempts at this, that not all of them are so hamfisted, right? This statement doesn't inspire confidence that you see that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, tried replaying first Soul Reaver, I just couldn't, it felt clunky af

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Was it System Shock? Then yeah, it probably could use some love.

Was it Turok? Then hey, HD Dinos can be cool.

Was it Okami? Then why not, giving it some polish and getting it playable on PC is worthwhile.

Was it Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Spyro, or Crash? Then absolutely, again for having them playable on PC at the very least.

I think all of these are examples where it makes sense to give them an update because various controls or even systems of today just don't work with the old versions. All of these examples were also done pretty well overall.

On the other hand, I'm more conflicted on games from the last 10-12 years or sooner. Especially if it's like The Last of US Remastered where it just isn't supported well.

But then again, I appreciate getting Spider-Man and Horizon: Zero Dawn on PC, and I believe we only got those because of the remasters? But I would not be buying another remaster of either for PC in even 10 years from today, because what point would there be?

All in all, I think there are many examples where it "is technically fine", but if it's not done well then there was never a point in the first place. The Tony Hawk ones kind of fit here, as they partly feel really good and partly feel really janky - it's nice having them on PC but they are no where near as polished as the other games I mentioned

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Lot of much more constructive answers here but I just wanna say that if you update a game so it no longer has unintuitive controls then I'm all for it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That’s really all I ever want updated on old games. Trying to play Goldeneye with the original control scheme these days is not cool

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

If you haven't heard of it, the canceled (but leaked) Xbox 360 remaster is the best way to play this game right now. Works perfectly in Xenia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Try Katamari Damacy on tank controls.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I'm currently replaying Gothic 1. Even modified to bring it up to Gothic 2's standards, the pain is real.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Definitely for me big alarm bells.

Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it's visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.

But that quote specifically tells me "the game has been changed for current day sensibilities" and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.

I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don't think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn't happen and I feel we're just pretending it isn't what it truly is when it's changed.

I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.

BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It does tell you that it's been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.

And it's not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.

Granted, it's harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I'd argue "for modern audience" updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).

Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include "modern audience" updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Interesting but I do think things are a little different:

A lot of people seem to be commenting about how a remaster is about changing atmosphere or visual changes. And I agree with you. But OP is asking specifically about games with the quote "for modern audiences" in the game and that quote is not added for the visual or control or minor game design changes, but instead specifically to tell you it's removed the "isms" out.
I think your point about isms makes sense, it's just that I'm of the opposing view. That I think the "isms" have been removed out is like censoring a painting or movie. Sure it's easier to digest, but what made the media so poignant is sometimes the rawity of it.

I guess I don't think you're wrong, just that I think it takes away from the original media for the only reason that "it sells more if we can widen the audience".

For me the ideal would be you could choose between the two. How the game was originally made but with the updated graphics/control/design. Or the new one that removes any isms to placate people's sensibilities.

I don't think however my preference would happen because it goes against the idea of "hay we can sell more if we tell everyone we removed everything controversial about the game". So I guess your idea solution is probably the best middle ground :)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I haven't actually noticed this happening before now. My immediate reaction is if it is changes driven by the original creators I'd feel quite positive about it. Love to see personal growth. When driven by the studio though, I'm a bit more skeptical.

Either way, this is why modding should be protected. Let folks play historical/modern/hyper-weird versions of the game they love.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When driven by the studio though, I’m a bit more skeptical.

This is a really good point. When it's in the hands of the creators, you're still dealing with people who know what they were creating.

A lot of the stuff that people complain about are hamfisted attempts by corporate flunkies to make the game "appeal to a wider audience" as opposed to actually caring about removing unnecessary or offensive material in a constructive way that doesn't lessen the original impact of the piece of media.

Corporations never decided that women, black people, latinos, and LGBT were humans with inherent value to them simply from existing, but rather, they decided that "Oh shit, we're leaving money on the table by not marketing to these groups or hiring them." It's all about dollar-signs. It's why corporations will fly the Pride Flag in June on Twitter... Just not on their Saudi Arabia Twitter corporate account. The corporates don't care about the issues, they just care about getting your labor and your money, in other words, extracting value from you.

And attempts to extract value from you are where hamfisted attempts at making pieces of media "more appealing to everyone" by trying to shove as much strained "diversity" (the corporate kind, not the real kind) in there as possible in hopes to increase sales.

...on the other hand though, some of the original creators simply never grew up and are just obstinately wanting to continue to offend people for no good reason other than getting off on triggering other people. Like I'd have more hope from a remake from Neil Druckmann over John Romero, for example.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I was excited to play the remake of my all time favourite game Mafia 1, but it only lasted for about 20 minutes. They put utterly pointless additions in and the AI was somehow way dumber despite being 20 years newer.

Wtf is a ram keybind for car driving?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This is exactly the game that came to my mind when reading title. I loved old Mafia, but the remake? It's not a bad game, but it lost like 90% of atmosphere original had. Like those cop chases that are utter joke that doesn't belong to the game.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think I read about that remake. Did they also change the soundtrack or am I tripping? I loved Mafia 1 back in the day, and the Django Reinhardt songs in the original were iconic.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

I didn't get far enough to consider that, but considering licensing issues in remasters of other games, it wouldn't be surprising at all.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I started playing the last of us 2 remastered. I didn't play the original (but did play 1 remastered). I don't know if it was modified "for modern audiences", but it would depend a lot.

Having more characters from Asian or African descent would please me. Making it look more like the (in my opinion) excellent tv series would be less great, but understandable. Removing the whole "military is bad" arc (like they did in the tv show), would suck.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They already remastered it? Isn't it only a few years old? Or did they call the port to the next generation of console hardware a remaster?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Got released in 2020, but Wikipedia said development started in 2014. PS5 version is called remastered, no idea how much is different.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Since this year is looking to be the first year in monster hunter history without a new release (ironic since it's the 20th anniversary of the series) people have started imagining the possibility of Capcom re-releasing older monster hunter games that are no longer on the market.

As a natural continuation of this, people have speculated on how they would handle these re-releases. The most popular opinion, and one I share, is that they should absolutely not touch the game content. Modernized controls, re-opened multiplayer servers, maybe a slight graphical touch up, and if we're getting really fancy possibly implementing multiplayer monster health scaling, but anything beyond that would be damaging the reason people want to play these games, which is that they're the old monster hunter. They're weird, clunky, and sometimes jank as hell but that's their charm. They also lack all of the quality of life improvements that came in the 5th generation, however those annoyances that were whisked away come Monster Hunter World were truly part of the identity of those older games, and any new release should absolutely keep them in. It may turn away many newer hunters but it's about preserving the history of monster hunter more than anything.

Anyways tl;dr yeah "updated for modern audiences" can be concerning regarding the preservation of the history of these games. If you mean shit like removing slurs and stuff though I'm all for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think the gaming industry has not existed for long enough for this to be a thing. Chrono Trigger & Chrono Cross are just as good today as they were 20-30 years ago, same for Baldur's Gate or Jazz Jackrabbit.

One example comes to mind is Oddworld: New and Tasty. It's fairly faithful to the original game, but at the same time the updated 3d rendered graphics failed to portray the same mysticism & gloominess. (and yes I have played Odyssey just recently on my retro PC) Not saying no one has pulled this off, but it's like Resident Evil is the only one I can think of.

There are VERY FEW games where pop culture references need to be updated so much that this is worth it. It's better to just make a new game with a completely new plot then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

remakes ar. cool remasters can suck.my dick

[+] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

[deleted]

Gaming