For all intents and purposes it is a ‘new’ game. With most of it’s audience being new, there’s no substantial frame of reference from which expectations can be subverted. And in a way it’s faithfulness was not only integral, but the only way they could have done it.
SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS PS2 VS PS3 UPDATE
Live A Live was a fantastic update of a lost classic, very clearly made to be *the* version of the game that exists for most people. If we take last year’s Live A Live as an example of one end of this spectrum and Final Fantasy 7 Remake as the other, we will inevitably find more remakes taking the form of the former rather than the latter. Developer intent plays a huge part in how we approach these things. It’s not available on modern platforms, so unless you have a physical copy and original hardware, good luck, buster! I hope you understand why this is a problem.
SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS PS2 VS PS3 PS3
The digital version of its HD remaster will soon vanish with the closure of the PS3 store. The problem with Shadow of the Colossus in particular is that the PS2 original remains locked to that console. The changes may not bother me as much as they do some of you, but I do understand what they are and why the distinctions matter. Many will argue until their voices are hoarse that the small changes in art direction fundamentally change the tone of the whole experience, and while I don’t agree with this in totality, I certainly don’t think of the modern versions of these games as the ‘definitive experience’.
While I have no experience with either, I’m sure the same will be true for EA’s recent Dead Space remake. It's never a simple case of improvements across the board, there are things I think it does better, but also things that have been lost in the transition. While I really loved Bluepoint’s Shadow of the Colossus remake, it’s paramount that it be treated as an entirely separate game.
You can currently play both versions on the same console if you wish, and for me this should be the standard.Ī number of remade classics have effectively replaced their originals by virtue of accessibility. Its ubiquity on almost every console under the sun as well as its current continued presence on digital distribution platforms means that we all should be able to play a version of Capcom’s original vision of the game whenever we want. I'm far from concerned about the future of the original Resident Evil 4. Resident Evil 4 Remake certainly to me feels like a faithful interpretation of the original both visually and mechanically but it is not a carbon copy, nor should it be treated like the definitive version of the game by anyone, regardless of how you feel about either iteration. Small unassuming features, quirks of the original architecture, or striking visuals built upon technological constraints that get wholesale abandoned as soon as more processing power becomes available. As long term fans of the things that are getting remade know all too well, these ‘replacements’ inevitably miss something in the translation. One problem faced by long term fans of the things that are getting remade is that the language around the marketing for these games so often treats them as a replacement for the original thing. However, with the context of an ever tightening circle around contemporary IP, and rights-holders able to remove whatever they own from public consumption at the drop of a pin, now more than ever do we need to examine the relationship between remakes and the greater issue of games preservation, which leads me to rather foolishly attempt to answer the burning question: Nice little touches here and there designed to appeal to both new and returning players, while feeling very much like it’s own thing, for better or worse. Certainly from the demo I played last week there's a lot of care and polish that has been put into it. In a few days, Capcom’s shiny new remake of the game will launch, and initial impressions sound rather positive.
0 kommentar(er)
