>>1791980 Your hand might have slipped?

>>1791971 I see them everywhere I go It's majestic 12 I tell you They're trying to control the narrative

>>1791793 Really? I was completely unaware of this. I guess the way I see it is this remaster will likely just come and go and will probably underperform making the execs think the franchise is dead or something. As much as I would like Jenson's story to be completed, at the same time in my opinion it's alright if the franchise just stopped where it's at. The political landscape is really volatile for me personally to trust any modern studio to take a crack at a game like Deus Ex gameplay or story-wise. Besides, the original still holds up for the most part and can be fixed up or even modernized relatively easily with mods. To me, this remaster is pointless and the completely wrong way to make an attempt at revitalizing the franchise.

>>1786363 I'm 100% sure nobody involved in the making of this game has gotten a dime from it for over 2 decades ago.

I can't believe they dared to show this on stream. This industry is a joke.

>>1794199 Having seen the stream live, it was shown very quickly and immediately ushered aside. I think the lead-in, trailer, release date and cover, host reaction, and subsequent lead-in for the next game was all within 50 seconds. It was also sandwiched into a quickie block near the beginning, not given its own segment like Let It Die 2 or Saros. A Deus Ex remaster should be a big deal, the marketing people at PlayStation must have known it simply didn't look good but for some contractual reason had to showcase it anyway. >Here's a updated, modern Deus Ex! >Anyway, here's a Halloween tie-in game!

>>1786063 >India makes another horrible remake/remaster Can this just stop already?

>>1794212 I think youre exaggerating a bit for how popular Deus Ex currently is. Unfortunately nobody cares about the series except for +35 year olds dads and young weirdos like me.

>>1791771 <Took you long enough to find me, Jensen. Thought those shades came with GPS. >…No. It can’t be. Faridah? <Yeah. In the flesh, what's left of it. Don’t look so surprised. I told you I was hard to kill. >I watched you burn. Carried that weight every damn day. <You think a black-budget death ever sticks? They scraped me off the asphalt, wired me back together, and sold me to whoever was bidding. Guess we both learned what a body’s worth once it’s in pieces. >Who? <Belltower, FEMA, pick a logo. They slapped steel on me I never asked for, chained me to a stick, and told me to fly. I’ve been running their ghost ops ever since. >All this time… Why didn’t you reach out? <Because the second I spoke your name, some machine would’ve flagged it. And then we’d both be corpses no one bothered to footnote. Silence was survival. >I never stopped looking. After Hengsha… after everything, I still thought I failed you. <Jensen, you weren’t the one who pulled the trigger. But guilt’s always been your favorite augmentation. >I never asked for this. <Neither did I. That’s the punchline, isn’t it? They write the war, we just get drafted. You got headlines. I got shackles with rotor blades. >And now? <Now the mask is off. The government doesn’t need illusions anymore: they own the cops, the courts, the corps. Hell, they owned us, too. >You sound like you’ve surrendered. <No. I sound like I know the odds. Still charging headfirst into a rigged table? >Someone has to knock it over. <Yep. Still the same stubborn bastard I remember. >And you’re still here. Maybe that means there’s something left to fight for. <Careful. Almost sounds like you believe in happy endings. >I believe in unfinished business. And you, Malik… you were always more than another regret. <…Damn it. You always knew how to rope a girl into a suicide run. >Then let’s make it count. Let’s haunt the bastards who did this. <Damn straight. One last ride. Your pilot’s back on duty.

OLD MEN RUNNING THE WORLD

>>1800777 That's terror.

>>1794281 >Vishnu's Fall >A Brief History of the Indian Crisis >...after the bombing, Indian officials issued a series of stern warnings to Pakistan that were rebuffed with denials of responsibility and dire threats that any attempt to use the bombings as a pretext for military action would be met with force in kind. From the viewpoint of the present-day historiographer this was a crucial event, a game of brinksmanship that had been played between Pakistan and India many, many times before and so, while tragic, it is also easily understood how clear signs of the impending catastrophe might have been ignored. >"Like two kids shoving each other on the playground," said historian Alistair Brooks. "You never expect them to come to blows." >That was before Pakistan began the trials of the "Calcutta 16" and both nations descended into a maelstrom of political upheaval that would eventually culminate in the exchange of nuclear warheads...

>>1802393 That's... that's not true, right? ...right?

>>1802393 10/10 edit. >>1802805 If we count indie games, most likely not. If we only count AA and AAA studios, still probably not, though maybe it's 80% if we count remakes AND sequels like asscreed or ~FIFA~~ FC. There is this report from MTM about remakes, an interesting bit of it is that 85% of those asked(1500 in this case) have played a remake or remaster without having played the original. Now it doesn't say that those 85% ONLY played remakes without playing the original, only that at one point they did. Technically I am also guilty of this, because I played Ace Attorney on an emulated DS, instead of the original GBA game that is japanese only. Now from a glance, it seems like normalfags really are engaged with remakes, which is no shocker to me. I can't post the PDF as it's over 30MB, and I don't know how to compress stuff like that, so here is a link to download it. https://143410189.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/143410189/Remake%20-%20Remasters/MTM_Remake_vs_Innovate.pdf If this doesn't work, here is a temporary link to download it. https://limewire.com/d/uUCcc#Je7NueD6aT

>>1802830 I think that's true of just about everybody. A lot people have played games they probably didn't even realize were remakes; Wolf 3D is a remake of an old microcomputer game from the early 1980s, Spelunkly HD is a remake of a freeware game, Portal is sort of a remake of Narbacular Drop, and a ton of NES and SNES games were remakes of older computer or arcade games. Yes, remakes, not just ports though they had plenty of those too

>>1802830 >1,500 respondents I hate hate hate HATE these stupid statistical analyses that don't even scrape a 10k sample of the population and most likely just concentrate them on a very specific part of the population. I can tell you this much, though, the average gamer right now is late twenties - early thirties and has probably played like five games total before going on Reddit to talk about the "ludonarrative dissonance" in some JRPG he has never played.

>>1802911 You'll be happy to know that the creators of the "public opinion poll" openly admitted that the intention of their act was to create narrative consensus, not to determine (or care) about what people actually believe. POPs have always been used by governments, in conjunction with the media that report on them, to force people to think and act in desired ways.

>>1802858 Depends how you define "port" and "remake." If you want to count those 8 and 16 bit games as remakes, I think you're really pushing the definition. If you're just saying remake because they had to be remade from the ground up, then technically ports barely existed then. Putting a game on different hardware almost always involved remaking it from the ground up. But everyone still looks at Donkey Kong for Atari and sees it as a port, even though it's quite different due to the porting process. Things like Super Mario All-Stars and Ninja Gaiden Trilogy are seen as remakes today, even though technically they are the same as almost any time a game was ported back then, and even moreso when a game was ported in the '80s. As for Wolfenstein 3D, that pushes the definition of "remake" in a different direction. I'd argue it's more like a sequel or reboot. But either way it begs the question of how we define a remake. There are many NES games that had the same names as arcade games, but were actually totally different games. Ninja Gaiden, Rygar, Strider, etc.. Are they remakes? I think it's a bit silly to not treat them as fully different games, so in effect, sequels. Castlevania has many games that tell the same story, but are totally different games. But Vampire Killer gets called a port, Haunted Castle is ignored or treated as a totally separate thing, the X68K game gets called a remake, and Castlevania IV gets called a sequel, even though they're really all technically the same sort of thing. And then there's Chronicles, which I would call a remake of the X68K game, it's very close to being the same game remade for new hardware, and it includes a port of the original with it. There's also Punch-Out!!, which has an arcade game and an NES game with the same name, but only casuals think of the NES game as a port or remake, and bigger fans seem to think of it as a sequel. How about Sonic the Hedgehog? There are three games released in 1991 with the same name, and the same story, and some of the same level themes, but totally different level layouts. Nobody who knows what they're talking about thinks the 16-bit game is the same as the 8-bit games. Are the 8-bit versions of Sonic 1 ports or remakes or sequels? And even big fans don't seem to realize that the Game Gear and Master System versions actually have pretty significant differences in level layouts, moreso than the later 8-bit games. Nobody would call them sequels, and I suppose one would be a port of the other, but it's a very different port, even more than most Atari arcade ports. Then there is also Sonic the Hedgehog (2006). Same name. Must be a remake right? Well obviously not. It's a sequel. But the same year, an actual remake came out on GBA, called Sonic the Hedgehog: Genesis, but it sucked. But why is this a remake and not a port? It uses almost all the same assets as the original. It's much closer to the original than, say, Mario Bros. on NES vs Mario Bros. in arcades. Then there is the Sonic 1 remake for mobile devices, which runs on a new engine but uses the same assets but feels exactly the same as the original, and then that got ported to various new hardware in Sonic Origins. I guess what I'm getting at is what makes something a port or a remake or a sequel? I think if your definition of "remake" relies on story, that's silly when it comes to video games. Obviously Castlevania IV is more than a remake of Castlevania I. But I also think it's silly to get too technical and say if you don't use a substantial amount of the same assets or code it doesn't count as a port, because obviously arcade ports existed on the Atari even though they were practically all remade from the ground up and looked very different. I think ultimately it comes down to artistry. I think what makes the most sense is to automatically call it a sequel if the gameplay is significantly different, if it isn't intended to feel like the same game. Wolfenstein 3D is not meant to feel like the same game as Castle Wolfenstein. Ninja Gaiden on NES was meant to trick kids into thinking they were buying the arcade game, but once they started playing, it wasn't meant to actually make them feel like they were playing the same game. Some games, like Ratchet & Clank (2016) blur the line a bit, where it has many old levels, but some new ones, and a story with a similar plot but told very differently. But it's also full of references and even a framing device that act as if you know the original game (and the movie). Everyone calls it a remake, but I think it is better to err on the side of caution and call it a sequel. You can't play the "remake" and feel like you played the original, just with better graphics or whatever. They're too different. For ports vs remakes, though, I think the distinction is even more difficult. Resident Evil on Gamecube (from what I can tell. I haven't even played it) apparently feels pretty similar to the original but with fancy graphics and stuff. It sure looks different. Everyone calls it a remake. But it's no different technically than the process of porting Pac-Man to Atari or even Nintendo, and nobody calls Pac-Man on those consoles a remake. Is it because they're more like de-makes? Then what about console versions that are actually better than the arcade games they were ported from? Soul Calibur is a favorite of mine, but nobody says the Dreamcast version isn't a port, even though it has new stuff that makes it better. Or how about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game? The NES version is literally called "The Arcade Game," but obviously the graphics and sound took a huge hit, and it was no longer four player, but it also had a bunch of new content. So what is it? A port? It was sure advertised as such, but it blurs the line. A remake? Nobody thinks of it as that even though technically it is. I said that if a game has enough new content it should be treated as a sequel, but does this game have enough new content? All of this is really very subjective, because ultimately games are art. But because so many different forms of both art and technology go into making games, defining remakes of them is harder. With movies, everyone seems to say if it has the same basic plot, it's a remake, even though obviously it's remade from scratch in almost all cases, except for ones where they use the same script, like when Vince Vaughan was in that shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. But movies like that are seen as pointless and redundant, whereas video games like that are for some reason eaten up by retards.

>>1803445 I prefer the distinction of remake/remaster while a port can be both. A remake would be when you redo the game from scratch, while a remaster is when you already have the game and add some extra levels, update the graphics just a bit, if it was 30FPS, make it 60FPS and so on. For example, it's the difference between the PS2 port remaster of Yakuza 1 on PS3 vs the remake called Kiwami, also on PS3, or the Shadow of the Colossus remaster on PS3 vs the remake on PS4. I also think it's ridiculous to say that if the gameplay differs then it's a sequel. What does that mean? That Resident Evil 2 remake is actually just a sequel to RE 2 on the first Playstation? That SIlent Hill 2 remake is just a sequel to the original SH2? That makes no sense to me. You would be right with something like Final Fantasy VII, but that is an exceptional case. As for ports, if it's as simple as recompiling the game to work on console and PC, or to go from PS4 to PS5(Last of US 2) then it's closer to a remaster, while if you have to make the game from scratch to get it working then it's closer to a remaster. That was very common in the NES/SNES days, but a more recent one, would be the Ace Combat 7 port on Switch, where they had to redo the entire game, to somehow fit on the Switch specs. The biggest problem with remasters right now, is that devs don't want to do remasters, instead they would rather do a remake as that is more work for their team and the studio can afford to pay it's employees longer. The Electric Undercastle made a good video on this subject with the Demon Souls remake demake, so have this webm.

>>1803695 >That Resident Evil 2 remake is actually just a sequel to RE 2 on the first Playstation? That SIlent Hill 2 remake is just a sequel to the original SH2? I haven't played these particular examples, but from what you're saying, yes. Because games are about gameplay, so if the gameplay is different then it's a new game. To use the story as a base is crazy, or else we have to pretend that Castlevania, Vampire Killer, Haunted Castle, Chronicles, and Caslevania IV are all the same games. No, they're all sequels, except for arguably Vampire Killer, since it was being made at the same time as the original. But it's a totally different game. The others are all sequels and nobody argues about it because the localizers gave them all different names. But they all have the same story, and in their original language they're all just called Castlevania. I don't think that's enough to call them remakes. They're clearly sequels. So you're saying ports can be either remakes or remasters, and it's not its own third category? I think I agree that a remaster is essentially kind of port, but are all remakes ports? You'd call most '80s ports remakes right? Or demakes, if you want, but of course a demake is a type of remake. So does that mean modern remakes that are supposed to be better also ports? You used Resident Evil 2 and Silent Hill 2 as examples. You'd call them ports, then? I'm not into RE but it's been popular here lately and people seem to be saying the later remakes are really quite different games. Don't 2 and 3's remakes not even have tank controls? I find it hard to say they're ports at that point. And from the definition you gave, I think remakes should be ports. I think they sound more like different games. But of course I could just be misinformed on those games. But as far as I can tell, they're closer to being equivalent to Castlevania on Super Nintendo (which has the same name as the NES game in Japan), which is clearly a sequel, so much that the localizers called it such, because people (rightly) didn't give a fuck about story back in the day, so they could see the gameplay was very different, therefore it's a new game. I don't think game sequels need to have new stories, or stories at all. Tetris 2 is a bad game, especially compared to the original Tetris, but it's still a sequel and not because of story. So is Hatris. Mario Kart doesn't have a story, and if you want to pretend it does, then they all have the same story. But obviously we know that's a series full of sequels, not remakes, even though they all tell the same story of Mario and his friends driving cars.

>>1803741 Sorry, I am very tired with IRL shit, so I am unable to write too much, hopefully someone will be able to engage with you further, but I still want to express my point of view (╥‸╥) >So you're saying ports can be either remakes or remasters, and it's not its own third category? Personally I am fine with seeing them as their separate category, maybe two categories with some ports acting closer to remasters while others are closer to remakes. Porting a game to both Xbox 360 and PS3 is probably neither of them. >but are all remakes ports? No, as you could have a game released on PC in the 90s then remake it again from scratch in 2020 also on PC. Now if you want to talk about operating systems, drivers and eras of PC, then imagine someone remaking Wolfentein 3D in the DOOM engine, or DOOM in the Build engine. Theoretically one could do the same thing on a console generation, but I can't think of such examples, only that it could be done, maybe someone could remake Mario 1 in the Mario 3 engine on the NES. >You used Resident Evil 2 and Silent Hill 2 as examples. You'd call them ports then No, I call them remakes, same with Kiwami, Demon Souls on PS4 or Kiwami on PS3/PS4. >Don't 2 and 3's remakes not even have tank controls? Yes, it's why I think of them as remakes, but don't think of them as sequels. Two more points I would like to mention, back in the NES/SNES era, game titles and numbers were almost arbitrary. Nintendo could take some random game, slap a Mario paint-coat on it, and call it Super Mario Brothers 2 in America. They could also take a game called Final Fantasy VI and call it III. You mentioned Castlevania, there was an anon, who made a post that was basically how bullshit the Japanese naming convention was, and that they almost never had a unified name like in the west, so caring too much on what they decided to call games back then, might not be all that productive. Calling a game Ninja Gaiden on the NES, was probably more for marketing/drawing in customers, if you say it differs that much from the arcade version. I remember the AVGN video on Dragon's Lairs on the NES, which widely differs from the arcade version, and again, I think it was more to attract gullible customers. On my second point, when thinking of remakes/remasters, I try to compare them to music and movies. For music, a remaster is when you, well, remaster the audio, maybe remove some static noise from the recording booth, and try to make it as close to the original as possible. A remake is when someone else does the song, Fly Me To The Moon is a good example of that, there is the Ballard version, the Synastra version, Bayonetta version, Neon Genesis Evanghelion version and so on. With movies, remaster is when you maybe do some color correction or film restoration, to make it "Bluray DVD" quality tier. A remake, is when you redo a movie with different actors, like say Total Recall or Nosferatu for a more recent example(there is also the 1970s Vampyr). It won't be a shot by shot recreation of the original movie, and there may or may not be significant differences, but in most cases they are treated as remakes and not sequels. Now with movies, there is also stuff like Director's Cut, or how the Cinema version, might have been cut down when it got "ported" to home TV, especially when the TVs where 4:3, but this is getting messy, and might be something akin to a "port". Maybe it's because music and movies don't really have "ports", but mostly remakes and remasters is why I don't think too much in terms of ports when discussing games, but I will admit there may be a distinction, and I am too tired right now to argue against. There is also stuff like a Director's Cut when it comes to vidya, but that is probably just marketing, Tales of Destiny Director's Cut is just a remake of the PS1 version. I am going to bed right now, so if I do give a reply, it will be tomorrow. Good night anon.

>>1803817 >You mentioned Castlevania, there was an anon, who made a post that was basically how bullshit the Japanese naming convention was, and that they almost never had a unified name like in the west, so caring too much on what they decided to call games back then, might not be all that productive. That was me. My whole point is that names don't determine what is a sequel or remake. Castlevania: Bloodlines is called Vampire Killer in Japan, but it's obviously a sequel to Akumajou Dracula. The MSX game called Vampire Killer in Europe is called Akumajou Dracula in Japan, but it's a totally different game than the earlier released Akumajou Dracula on Famicom. If it's a later released game in the same series, and not a port or remake (I think it's absurd to say Vampire Killer for MSX is either), then I think it's a sequel. >Calling a game Ninja Gaiden on the NES, was probably more for marketing/drawing in customers, if you say it differs that much from the arcade version. The arcade game is a beat em up, while the NES game is a platformer. There are ports of the beat em up version for home computers, but they suck. And of course technically they're remakes. They're done from the ground up technically, with only artistic decisions being taken from the arcade game. But yes, there are many games like Ninja Gaiden or Dragon's Lair on NES, and I do think it was done for marketing reasons, but Ninja Gaiden NES is an excellent game, and pretty much everyone loves it more than the arcade game it tried to trick kids into thinking it was. So it can't be disregarded. But what is it? A sequel? A remake? A port? It was sold like a port, but it's so damn different from the original that it's hard to call it that. And what about the later 3D series, which began with a game just called Ninja Gaiden. Is that a remake? I think it's just as much a remake as Wolfenstein 3D, but of course I think it's a little silly to actually consider Wolfenstein 3D a remake. I think really it should be considered a sequel. >For music, a remaster is when you, well, remaster the audio, maybe remove some static noise from the recording booth, and try to make it as close to the original as possible. So it's when you keep the original stuff and just try to perfect it. But at a certain point could it start becoming a remix? >A remake is when someone else does the song, But people can remake their own things. Many artists do later versions of their own songs that are quite different (but still obviously based on the earlier versions). A-Ha's famous version of Take On Me isn't their first version, for example. They just kept re-doing it until they got a version that was a hit really the video helped a lot, but that's not the point. There are also film directors who have remade their own films. Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much, for example. DeMille remade The Ten Commandments. Really, for music and movies the concept of a remaster is totally different to games, because it's literally taking the master copies and altering them. That's why Star Wars fans got mad that George Lucas literally altered the master copies of Star Wars. The originals literally don't exist anymore. This doesn't work quite the same with things that are originally made digitally. A digital copy can be made exactly the same as the original, but that isn't the case with analog things like film, there is generation loss. So really the term remaster doesn't even make sense for video games. It doesn't even really make sense for movies or music originally recorded digitally and not onto film or tape or some other analog medium. To use another Star Wars example, Attack of the Clones was the first major film recorded digitally. It was literally made in 1080p, so it cannot be remastered in the same way as the original films, which were on real film. The most they can do is digitally upscale them, but even that isn't actually going back to the master film and altering it, cleaning off dirt, etc., it's just making a new copy with a computer guessing how to add additional detail that was never there in the original recording. Of course a remake in films is a term used often, but even then there are times when it gets a little more blurry. Like lately I've seen people say Heat is a remake of LA Takedown (both by Michael Mann), but they certainly aren't as close as some other remakes. Rather I just see it as a director taking concepts he already used but refining them further and making a second film with them. Then again, there are some remakes that get kind of far from the original but nobody argues about. King Kong (1976) gives the characters different names and jobs, but everyone acknowledges it's a remake. King Kong vs. Godzilla and King Kong Escapes do the exact same thing, having the same character archetypes, just with new names and jobs, go to Kong's island, capture him, and bring him back to civilization, but nobody says they're remakes. I guess because he fights Godzilla and Mechanikong at the end of those, instead of just fighting some airplanes. Or what about this modern trend of taking the same basic plot and ideas but referencing the old material as canon so it can count as a sequel? The Force Awakens pretty much has the same plot and archetypes as A New Hope, only it sucks. The new Naked Gun is a remake but also technically a sequel. There have been tons of examples, and I'm not counting "reboots" that are usually just new adaptations of source material that has already been adapted before. You know an interesting example? Planet of the Apes. The original is a rather loose adaptation of a book, then it got four sequels and two TV series in the same continuity. Then the 2001 remake is a somewhat loose adaptation of the original film, clearly taking elements that are original to the film and not the book. But then there are the new Planet of the Apes movies. They are remakes, but not in the way people think. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was marketed almost like a prequel, but it's not, it's a remake of the fourth movie, Conquest of The Planet of The Apes, which shows how the apes took over. Rise's sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, is a remake of the fifth film, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, where the now organized ape society battles humans who are starting to mutate and lose their humanity. Then the two latest films aren't remakes, they're original stories which are sequels to two remakes. I'm still waiting for them to catch up and remake the original film (and book, and 2001 remake) where astronauts show up and find the monkey planet. If it were me, I'd combine it with elements from the first sequel, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, and make a movie that remakes both at once. >Movie ports I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that whenever you used to see "This film has been formatted to fit this screen," typically on TV broadcasts, VHS, and early DVDs, those would count as ports. They're changing the films to work in another format. Clearly still the same movies, but those changes are rather significant, and some directors would take it seriously. >Director's Cuts Sonic Adventure DX: Director's Cut wasn't even directed by the guy who directed the original. I think when there is a rerelease of a game with altered content, that is rather analogous to alternate cuts of movies. There are Director's Cuts, of course, but there are other alternate cuts of movies. Peter Jackson released the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions and called them such because he considers the theatrical editions to be his preferred versions. Those are his director's cuts. But he also directed extended editions because he knew the fans wanted them (and everyone involved would make more money). There are also weird things like the Halloween 6 Producer's Cut, which is way better than the theatrical cut. Not by the director, and still bad, but much better. Or other "Extended Editions," many of which the directors don't like, but fans seem to be okay with. Alien is a somewhat famous example. Or how about The Exorcist: The Version You Haven't Seen? The 2000 rerelease, with new stuff by the original director, which famously got laughs in the theater because modern audiences didn't find it scary. Still, sequences from it, like Regan running up the stairs, became classic. I guess my point is that alternate cuts of movies happen for all sorts of reasons, and some are good and some are bad. I think this leaves them clearly analogous to rereleases of games with altered content. So you said you don't think all remakes are ports, but are any remakes ports? I think the answer must be yes, due to so many early games that really defined what a port is technically being remakes. How about remasters? Are they all ports? Shadow of the Colossus on PS3 is much closer to the original version than, I don't know, Donkey Kong Jr. on Atari, but nobody would say the latter isn't a port. How about if a game has enough alternate content? Is Sonic Adventure DX a port? It's a director's cut, but does that preclude it from being a port? I think it's a bit silly to say it isn't a port, even if it has a bunch of new content, and a bunch of problems that make fans prefer the original.

It is better to use a spectrum to classify remakes, ports, remasters, and similar re-releases because many games include varying degrees of change that don't fit neatly into rigid categories. Let's look at some examples: Star Fox 64 (1997, N64) vs. Star Fox 64 3D (2011, 3DS) Though both share the same core gameplay, the 3DS version includes sufficient new content and features to be classified as a "'remake'" rather than just a remaster or port. >updated graphics >new gyroscope play control (If you don't like it, you can go back to the original N64 controls) >re-recorded voice lines >same music composition, but with a different sound font >Score Attack mode (Lets players replay any mission individually to chase high scores unlike the original game, where players had to complete levels in one sequence to earn medals.) >saving mid-mission (In 64, if you had a power outage or shutdown happen during a mission, progress was lost) Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES vs. the Super Mario Bros. trilogy of games on NES This release fits best as a lighter remake with enhanced presentation while preserving core gameplay and content. >Updated 16-bit graphics & sprites >Same music compositions, but with a richer SNES sound font >Ability to save anywhere and resume progress >Original levels remain unchanged >Core gameplay remains faithful to the NES originals Super Mario Bros. Deluxe on the Game Boy Color A faithful port with enhancements. It retains NES graphics and the original sound font for core gameplay but adds extras and tweaks unique to the handheld experience. Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3 + 4 (2025 Remake) It's more of a regressive remake since it's on a new engine >imposes strict two-minute timed challenges on every level, eliminating the original’s exploratory and free-play vibe >UI design is more flat and bland compared to the originals >Chicago level was removed >Demoness, among other skaters, were removed >completely different soundtrack Silent Hill: HD Collection (PS3 & Xbox 360) This is a regressive remaster as you're playing the same games from the original PS2 releases, but they've made changes that soul the experience >new voice actors (You can switch between the original and new voices for 2, but not 3. If you think Heather's new voice is awful, too bad, you can't change it) >updated textures (The "Welcome to Silent Hill" sign in 2 using the Comic Sans font as an example) >bugs not present in the original PS2 releases

>>1802805 By 2052 it will be.

>>1794515 >I watched you burn. stopped reading right there because even in my first play through, she always lived. The same with Meryl, Ocelot could go jerk off with Liquid's arm for all I care.

>>1802858 I think Metal Gear Solid could be considered a remake and a damn good one at that.

>>1804642 No, Metal Gear 1 and 2 need a remake not Solid or Rising.

>>1804642 If you consider Metal Gear Solid a remake then you have to consider GTA III a remake, and that's ridiculous, even though part of GTA I does take place in Liberty City. In fact, you'd have to call all three PS2 GTA games remakes of the original game. And of course IV, V, and VI are then remakes of III, San Andreas, and Vice City. They're all closer to being remakes than Metal Gear Solid is.

>>1804658 "Be considered AS one," not "be considered FOR one," anon.

>>1786063 Why is it all so glossy? It looks like an early PS2 game that tried too hard. What exactly was the thought process of this abomination's creation?

>>1805441 Looks nothing like an early PS2 title It looks like Doom 3 or FEAR, but way worse

>>1805441 >>1805532 It looks like someone just installed a really shitty graphics mod on top of the game, like half the stuff you'd find in the late 2000's for HL2 or Oblivion.

I think some games should have a remake, not a remaster, but an actual remake, Omega Boost being one them, Omega Boost needs a remake. Everything else needs a source port, including Deus Sex, Unreal, Clive Baker Undying and American McGee's Alice, source ports are superior to remasters because it opens the possibility for modding tool and QoL features.

>>1787032 remaster is a meme word for what we used to call enhanced ports. look at Soul Reaver on Dreamcast, for example. Shit was a "remaster" if we gauge it by its enhancements, but no one called it that because the term hadn't been memed into the mainstream yet.

Honestly, I think JC looks fine. not good, but not egregious like Paul or Leo Gold. Gunther looked okay too at a distance. Still ain't buying this garbage. Hopefully they don't delist the OG. I already have it on Steam, personally, but anyone interested should buy it asap just in case