http://www.myspace.com/themosthardcoreusernameever
For anyone who cares.
http://www.myspace.com/themosthardcoreusernameever
For anyone who cares.
The two are not at all related. The only relation is that there are customers obsessive/stupid enough to buy the same product multiple times. Remastering a DVD does not involve nearly the amount of effort required to produce a full-length feature film. However, remaking a videogame for a new platform requires a full development budget, and it usually ends up being a much bigger budget affair than the original production. (Even the savings you get in content generation are not significant, as now the vast majority of the time is spent on asset creation, and not concept production.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
The two are not even comparable.
-Dippy
Just so you know, I'm in support of a remake, I was making a response to someone saying it's laziness on Square's part which it clearly isn't and is something you just pointed out in your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstick
This is the biggest BFD news ever.
I'll never understand why people want games and movies they cherish to be remade.
Great games and movies are memorable experiences that shouldn't age but improve over time. If FFVII is so damn great it should be able to stand the test of time in its current form. Calling it a great game, but admitting it's hard to play today, means it was never great to begin with.
For the record I enjoyed FFVII, but the over-hyped story was about as cliche as it gets -- big asteroid destroys life zzzzz..... It's a solid rpg, but nowhere near what I would consider the best ever.
No offense, but this is a stupid comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Take, for example, one of my favorite games - Silent Hill. The original, for what it was, was a fabulous game. But because part of the game's main element, fear, is directly related to the visual aspect of the game, the game at the time and on the hardware it was on simply could not achieve anything close to what it could now. That in no way, shape, or form means that the original game wasn't any good, it just means that technology has evolved and now the game could be realized far better than it could before.
Or let's say we have an old movie about dinosaurs that was a brilliant film, totally great. The only problem is, it was made back when all there was was stop motion animation, so the dinosaurs look so unreal it isn't funny. There's simply no way that aspect of the movie could stand up over time, because of how far technology has advanced. By your comment, saying that the movie could be remade to be better, because the one lacking part before can now be improved to be what it really should be, means the product was flawed from the beginning. That's a totally unfair comment to make, because at the time it was made, it simply couldn't have done that aspect the way it can be done now.
Let's be honest, while a good game Silent Hill had a lot more problems than graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
IMO the measure of a great game shouldn't be graphics, just like the measure of a great movie shouldn't be special effects.
Plenty of games and films, with aged graphics and special effects by today's standards, are still intensely immersive experiences.
If a game or film loses its effectiveness as its look becomes outdated there was much more wrong with it to begin with.
As a matter of fact I believe outdated special effects and graphics can add to the experience in many ways. Maybe it's just me...
Dude, it's like... let's say Jurassic Park was made in 1920, and it had the same story...
Jump to like 94 when it was made for reals, with all of the same story, and new technology, and not only does it look good, but the story is still the same.
Did that make sense?
Visuals in movies and visuals in games is apples and oranges. Videogame visuals are limited by system specs, which is limited by the ever evolving tech market. In film you simply capture reality through light. It's not even comparable because it's not even close to the same thing.
You could argue the route of special effects, or animated movies, but they aren't hampered by budding console technology and the limitations that come with it. Final Fantasy 7, Mario 64 and a lot of other old games stand up because their level design, stories and other components are a cut above. They didn't spend 40 man teams on the graphics because they didn't need to at the time. They focused more on the design of the levels and the gameplay. So in this sense you can compare games from yesteryear to the present.
Whatever, they're not reinviting the wheel, they're making it look better.
Or how about this:
When you go back and watch Citizen Kane, you do not typically bleed out of your eyesockets.