Snubbing a (HD) Remaster of a game by choosing to just play the original instead: People do this?

[Flame Lord]

It depends sometimes. I personally would be fine playing a remaster because most of the time it's pretty much the same game but at a higher resolution and with better performance, but some times remakes can kind of go so far that I feel like I'd rather play the original. Shadow of the Colossus is definitely an example of a game I think I'd rather just play the original or remaster of.

 

[Apath]

.

 

[steviestar3]

Raw visual fidelity isn't everything. The SotC remake completely botches the lighting and atmosphere of the original game, despite looking nice in a vacuum. The Crash remasters completely ruined the jumping physics in Crash 1. Even the Spyro remasters fixed the double jump glitch in Spyro 2, which is something many people enjoyed using.

Remasters are cool but they aren't replacements. I don't get why you would be offended that people continue to acknowledge that the original games exist.

 

[Deleted member 43077]

ill play the new version everytime unless its broken/trash. I dont wanna play early 3d games anymore on original hardware, they didnt age well at all. PS2/Xbox (with free resolution upgrade on X) and GC tho is still fine to me.

 

[Deleted member 10737]

i LOVE sotc but i think the remake is an abomination that just puts one foot this side of the original, one foot on the other side of the original, and just shits on the original's style and atmosphere. i fully understand why someone would ignore the remake and replay the original instead.

 

[Lackless]

Halo Anniversary definitely has a different visual tone. I still like it, but I find myself using the original graphics about half the time I'm playing.

Click to shrink...

They made the same mistakes they did with Halo 4 & 5. The art style is too "noisy". It's been a common complaint for their games for a while. Fortunately, from what we've seen from Halo Infinite so far, they seemed to have addressed it. Firing (or "resigning" lol) their art lead for Halo 4 & 5 probably helped too.

 

[MrWindUpBird]

Sure. I own both Devil May Cry games on the PS2. There is no reason for me to spend $40 on the PS4 remaster when I can just pop the disc into my PS2 whenever I want.

 

[zma1013]

It's doesn't mean someone's being snobby if they want to play the original version over a remaster/remake. There are many reasons to do so.

Some people like to get a perspective reference on the original before they go into a remaster/remake better compare.

Some people want to experience the game as it was originally made.

The original versions may be cheaper and/or they may not own the new system the remaster/remake is on.

Sometimes the original version is the superior version. Remasters/remakes can often screw things up, provide a worse experience, or change the artstyle and tone and feeling of the game completely. (Silent Hill HD Collection bugs, arguably the Dark Souls 1 remaster depending on who you ask, Halo Anniversary ugly art change and even issues with the original graphics mode that's missing effects, Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes and crazy John Woo shit that wasn't in the original and music changes that change the mood of the scene and gameplay additions that straight up break some boss fights)

Some remakes change the gameplay entirely so it's nothing like the original. (The upcoming Final Fantasy 7 remake and Resident Evil 2)

 

[Geist 6one7]

You have to take it on a case by case basis. For example The Tales of Symphonia PS4 "remaster" was 30fps compared to the 60 on GameCube, no thanks.

 

[Deleted member 31873]

I don't know anyone who does this.

Frame rate in PS2 Shadow of the Colossus is awful. PS4 version runs at 60fps on the Pro if you've set it up right.

 

[Johnny Cage itS]

If I'm coming to a game for the first time that's been on multiple platforms and has multiple versions, I'll usually do some research on what's genuinely agreed upon as the best version. Remasters have the potential of being a great way to experience a game, but sometimes they fail to capture the original game's magic (Silent Hill HD Collection, Metal Gear Solid HD for Vita).

Shadow of the Colossus is a tricky one, because there were some huge improvements in that one. The only thing that they messed up (in my opinion) is Wander's face. Everything else feels like a huge improvement.

And small nitpick, you meant snubbing, not snobbing.

Click to shrink...

Great answer, thanks, I agree with everything you say here, and I am not claiming that EVERY HD REMASTER is better than its original, but in this particular case with SotC, and especially if you haven't experience the game before, as a first timer to this game, I honestly think it'll be a pity to play the original, and I say this as a someone who considers the original PS2 version as one of his fav games of all time, as someone who has played that version most over the other ones.

Also thanks on fixing my poor grammer, "Snubbing" I hope a mod can fix it.

I don't know anyone who does this.

Frame rate in PS2 Shadow of the Colossus is awful. PS4 version runs at 60fps on the Pro if you've set it up right.

Click to shrink...

Thank you! (As someone mentioned in the previous page) This scenario is more akin to choosing to play the PS3 version of Red Dead over the Xbox One 4K version of it, whilst given a choice.

 

[Deleted member 41931]

Just because something has more modern tech behind it doesn't mean it's going to be for the better

 

[boris_feinbrand]

Nothing wrong with wanting to play the original version. Black Mesa never replaced Half Life for me. REmake never replaced RE DC for me, and neither will RE2 Remake replace the original.

It's like music. Modern covers all have better sound quality but don't replace the originals, despite being technically better in every measurable way.

Art doesn't get obsolete just because a technically better version comes around.

 

[Regulus Tera]

The lighting engine in Wind Waker HD is trash and no amount of quality of life improvements will convince me to play that version instead of the GCN one when the art style is like the number one reason that game is remembered.

 

[Santar]

I completely understand OP's friend.
I want to play the original first, to see the games as it was originally meant to be seen by it's original creators. With all the original art, sound and design.
A remaster and a remake (if it's just new visuals) are just a (very often) sloppier copy of the original. In the original the creators intent was to create something from scrath. In the remaster, the intent is to copy someone elses work.
Look at the Arkham remasters. Because the new devs didn't understand the type of shir the Joker was wearing they just cganged his shirt!

Imagine how the original devs at Rockstar must feel knowing that those sloppy remasters are being presented as their games.

Imagine going to see the Mona Lisa only to find it's another less talented artists version of the painting.

 

[ThatsMyTrunks]

How so? I thought the vita versions were great. Just because of no 60fps?

Click to shrink...

Lower resolution than the original game, bad framerate, non analog controls for situations designed for analog buttons. Also it's missing a few too many buttons, for my taste.

It's the ideal way to play Metal Gear 1 and 2 on MSX, though.

 

[leafcutter]

Sometimes the remakes are better in technical ways, but the spirit of the original is lost in translation. You end up with different games that are both good, but a lot of people will prefer the original.

Metroid 2 is a good example of this.

 

[BriGuy]

The Super Mario All Stars remakes feel kind of odd compared to the originals. It's not just the buggy jumping, but the muted choice in colors and weird recreation of the music make the experience off-putting.

 

[Raww Le Klueze]

Because sometimes the HD remaster is Silent Hill?

 

[Sonicfan059]

I do both. I only ever played the demo of CTR but with it coming out again I'm getting the original before the remake to play both. (Also because of the superior Naughty Dog startup than lame Vicarious Visions)

 

[SturokBGD]

I enjoy playing all the various versions, remakes/ports and originals. Back in the 1980s we're get ports of games across platforms of vastly different levels of technology and I always found it interesting to play them all. I mean let's say obvious playing the arcade version of a game was optimal, but it was cool to see what the ZX Spectrum version was like, vs the Atari ST version, vs the NES version.

 

[tokyostomp]

I play all 4:3 games stretched to 16:9.

Don't @ me

 

[zma1013]

I play all 4:3 games stretched to 16:9.

Don't @ me

Click to shrink...

Just press Zoom while you're at it too.

 

[ZeroCoin]

It comes down to knowing yourself. If you are the type of person that enjoys the ways games have been modernized and can't go back to older generation of games, obviously a remake/remaster would be preferred over the original. If you can enjoy games regardless of, or even because of, those quirks, then playing the originals is perfectly fine. OP definitely needs to worry less about how others enjoy games though.

 

[Calverz]

This kind of got me triggered, I was talking to a friend that's significantly younger than me, ( a generation gap) I grew up with the NES, he grew up the days of PSOne and PS2... He's played most of the PSOne and PS2 library, loves them etc. but to my surprise, he hasn't played Shadow of the Colossus yet. I've finished about 60% of Shadow of the Colossus back when it first was released on PS2 in late 2005. Now I was so excited when the HD remaster of it and ICO came out for the PS3 about 5 years later. I remember buying the game, now with nicer visuals....to replay it again until completion.

Being who I am, someone who mostly buys games but never gets around playing them....I never did play my PS3 copy of SotC....Fast forward another 5-6 years, now the totally remastered, visually stunning PS4 version came out, and for every new (console) iteration of this game, I always gave myself a pat on the back for being lazy and never playing the older version. (bit of a graphic whore here) Long story short, this same situation has bestowed me with the remasters of God of War III and The Last of Us... As beautiful as these games were on the PS3.. They look even more stunning on the PS4...Also despite me playing most of the Crash Bandicoot games on the PSOne back in the day, I really enjoyed revisiting the games recently on the PS4 visual makeover. And can't wait to play the new Spyros.

More importantly; for me, the 60 fps upgrade in some of these games cements the decision on why I should be playing the modern versions and not touch the old ones, despite having a copy of them collecting dust on my shelf.

So.. long story short, when I asked my dude here (Who owns a PS4) if he has played Shadow of the Colossus ( I was expecting a "Yes" answer) and he said "No"... I kind of got really excited for him.."Oh wow, you should now definitely play the PS4 ver..." -"Actually I want to play the original version" My immediate reaction to that was like the maid lady from Get Out "Noo no no no no no! Noooo!".gif

I admit, I still haven't got around playing the PS4 version of SotC, and I don't know much about what they improved, but I do know the clunky controls were refined and maybe even the frame rate? This scenario made me think, (Unless a remaster of a game is totally botched by the devs.. Which I myself can't think of any remasters I played that were) (save cost and price of buying the new one) Is there any reason to play the original version of a game, when there is a new, superior version of it readily available to play?

Click to shrink...

Some people dont want to pay £40 for a game that they can get for £5. Why cant you accept that not everybody is a graphics whore?

 

[Robin]

Remakes often aren't always better in every sense of the word. A lot of games had really strong aesthetics that got stepped all over in remasters. Which is just one example, there are plenty of reasons to play an original even when a good remaster exists. Twin Snakes comes to mind. I think Twin Snakes is a nifty game and there are some really goofy fun things about it, it deserves to exist, etc. But it's not faithful, at all. Do remasters have to be faithful to be good? No. But it's a perfectly reasonable reason for wanting to play and experience the original.

In another example here, I can't say I'd blame people for preferring one of these to the other.

 

[NuclearCake]

Sometimes a remake is just worse than the original. The most recent example being the Ratchet and Clank remake which is in no way a good substitute for the original.

 

[StereoVSN]

SotC is an interesting example since I feel that Remake looses some of the atmosphere due to somewhat changed colors/graphics. It feels more desolate to me on the PS2 version.

Bioshock remasters weren't the best either I felt.
So it depends. Sometimes remakes don't feel the same or even be as good as OG.

 

[molnizzle]

A trigger is: something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to the event of her/his original trauma. Triggers are very personal; different things trigger different people. The survivor may begin to avoid situations and stimuli that she/he thinks triggered the flashback.

A trigger is not: something that slightly upsets you/makes you angry

Click to shrink...

It's silly to try and fight this. "Trigger" is used as the OP uses it way more than it's used as you want it to be used. That's what it means now.

 

[SprachBrooks]

I will always go with the remastered version unless there's something horribly buggy about it. So far, I've not come across any in the ones I've been interested in.

 

[NuclearCake]

I play all 4:3 games stretched to 16:9.

Don't @ me

Click to shrink...

Why would you do this to yourself?

 

[Accoun]

I play all 4:3 games stretched to 16:9.

Don't @ me

Click to shrink...

Are you an old Counter-Strike pro?

 

[Uhyve]

With some games this makes sense. But with SotC, there's no reason to ever play the PS2 version unless you really want to play in 4:3 at 20fps. The PS3 version is pretty much just higher resolution, better framerate and widescreen.

 

[Huey]

Lower resolution than the original game, bad framerate, non analog controls for situations designed for analog buttons. Also it's missing a few too many buttons, for my taste.

It's the ideal way to play Metal Gear 1 and 2 on MSX, though.

Click to shrink...

For sure - but it's portable MGS. I don't really think of that version as putting itself forward as some definitive version, it's main attraction is it's on the vita. The ps360 versions were the true remasters.

 

[Jer]

I play all 4:3 games stretched to 16:9.

Don't @ me

Click to shrink...

You are a monster.

I had a friend that watched sports like this. It was the worst.

 

[ThatsMyTrunks]

For sure - but it's portable MGS. I don't really think of that version as putting itself forward as some definitive version, it's main attraction is it's on the vita. The ps360 versions were the true remasters.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but this thread is about why you would play the original over a remaster. I'd recommend MGS2 and 3 on PS2 over the Vita remaster. The Vita version is a bad way to play.

 

[Version 3.0]

I generally would prefer to play the original. I want the same experience that others had, that made the game popular enough to get a remake at all.

I'm rarely even interested in a remake unless I played the original, then I'm all over it. But sometimes the attention for a remake inspires me to pick up the old game.

 

[Johnny Cage itS]

I completely understand OP's friend.
I want to play the original first, to see the games as it was originally meant to be seen by it's original creators. With all the original art, sound and design.
A remaster and a remake (if it's just new visuals) are just a (very often) sloppier copy of the original. In the original the creators intent was to create something from scrath. In the remaster, the intent is to copy someone elses work.
Look at the Arkham remasters. Because the new devs didn't understand the type of shir the Joker was wearing they just cganged his shirt!

Imagine how the original devs at Rockstar must feel knowing that those sloppy remasters are being presented as their games.

Imagine going to see the Mona Lisa only to find it's another less talented artists version of the painting.

Click to shrink...

So basically in your humble opinion (most, if not all) remakes (redos) in video games have the result equivalent to this??

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

i LOVE sotc but i think the remake is an abomination that just puts one foot this side of the original, one foot on the other side of the original, and just shits on the original's style and atmosphere. i fully understand why someone would ignore the remake and replay the original instead.

Click to shrink...

What ridiculous hyperbole, people seriously still cannot get over that the Sotc is as good as the original just because "something something goal post move I don't like the lighting" (it's just a high quality implementation of any modern games lighting do you think those are abominations?) or worse, extreme nerd nitpicking of a models face you barely see.

 

[maximumzero]

If I already own a game, why would I pay another $60 to play the same thing? If it's a remake like Spyro or Crash that's one thing but if it's just a simple port like the PS3 to PS4 remasters nooo thanks.

 

[Akela]

Can't really say the animation is much of an improvement.

And as people have said, the remake makes huge changes to the overall aesthetic of the game through the lighting which is much less stylized and washed out as the original, no longer having the slight purple/green tint of the original. And it's a bit disappointing since if you look at The Last Guardian you can see how in some ways it ends up looking much closer do a direct evolution of the original Ico/SoTC aesthetic then that of SoTC's own remake.

 

[Nooblet]

The generation gap is irrelevant here, not sure why you brought it up. Infact it'd have made more sense if you were the one insisting on playing the old one and he wanted to play the new one because the old one looks terrible now something that newer generation might now like.

Regardless, some people prefer to play the original creation. But yes there are times when the rerelease is unquestionably superior i.e. TLoU remaster, Uncharted remaster. But also times when the rerelease is terrible i.e. Silent Hills. Or times when rerelease leads to different opinions due to change in art style i.e. SoTC, Halo

 

[atomsk eater]

Not all HD remakes are better. People have already brought up examples of really buggy remakes, there are some where gameplay has been altered in a way that makes things harder than intended. My fiance is playing Katamari Reroll and insists that jumping onto things is made much harder than it was originally. I think I've heard similar complaints about grabbing and holding on to colossi being harder in SOTC's remake, due to framerate changes (not super clear on that).

I also think it's perfectly all right to have an interest in playing games as they were originally released, without modern-day improvements.
Sometimes the only thing they have over the original is looking better, which might not be the most important thing to some people.

 

[Deleted member 2620]

I think it's totally reasonable to want to play an original release, especially if a re-release has, say, redone assets by a new team.

 

[Johnny Cage itS]

The generation gap is irrelevant here, not sure why you brought it up. Infact it'd have made more sense if you were the one insisting on playing the old one and he wanted to play the new one because the old one looks terrible now something that newer generation might now like.

Regardless, some people prefer to play the original creation. But yes there are times when the rerelease is unquestionably superior i.e. TLoU remaster, Uncharted remaster. But also times when the rerelease is terrible i.e. Silent Hills. Or times when rerelease leads to different opinions due to change in art style i.e. SoTC, Halo

Click to shrink...

SotC is a game that excels in artistic vision, story narration and atmosphere, a 16-17 year old gamer may appreciate all these more than a 6 year year old boy can. How the fuck is the gen gap NOT irrelevant here? What are you going to tell me next? Godfather Part II is equally appreciated by a kindergartner as much as it is by a 30 year old film buff?

I am more concerned about him having the best gaming experience in this particular game, be it narration, visuals and immersion ( good, uninterrupted controls and frame rate) So no, it wouldn't make sense for me to recommend him the PS2 copy that I am more familiar with than the new (critically acclaimed) version... Just as I wouldn't want someone to watch my grainy, 4:3 VHS copy of Godfather as their first The Godfather viewing experience, if I want to them to watch the movie and appreciate the film for its narration, dialogue, characters etc.

 

[BAN PUNCHER]

A trigger is: something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to the event of her/his original trauma. Triggers are very personal; different things trigger different people. The survivor may begin to avoid situations and stimuli that she/he thinks triggered the flashback.

A trigger is not: something that slightly upsets you/makes you angry

Click to shrink...

 

[monmagman]

This happened to me a while back when I was prepping to play Arkham Knight,thought I would run though Asylum and City first again(I loved those games).

Wait,what's this.....shiny new remasters on PS4(I've still got my PS3 hooked up but I found them cheap so why not I thought).

Wrong.........what the hell had they done to Arkham Asylum,a right hatchet job that's what.Its now raining outside.....why?.....and get this,it only rains on Batman,lol.....everyone else bone dry!?!

That plus blue glowing bodies randomly popping up and it was back to the PS3 versions for me!

I like remasters but when the people porting the game mess with the original artistic integrity of the developers vision then thats not ok.

 

[Drakhyrr]

It depends on a lot of things. How much has been changed? How good was the original game considered and how good is the remake considered to be?

I do favor playing the original games first, unless there is a remaster\remake that is very faithful and just better. In the case of SOTC, for example, there is the original PS2 version, the PS3 remaster and the PS4 remake (of sorts). I will skip the PS2 version in favor of the PS3 version, as it is basically the same with higher res, stable framerate, widescreen. I will not, however, skip the PS3 version in favor of the PS4 version. It's different enough that I will leave it for later.

On another case, I thought about playing the original Yakuza before Kiwami. However, Kiwami seems to be faithful enough, plus apparently you couldn't play the original with japanese voice acting, so I'm skipping that.

 

[Lindsay]

Updated versions not always the best version as loads of people have been saying. This goes at least all the way back to Mario 3 on SNES, if not further still! The Yakuza remakes have both upsides and downsides over the originals so I'd never call 'em definitive. They're just a different version. A big example of an updated port of a game gone bad is Sonic the Hedgehog for the GBA. Its got the spin dash but its an extremely bad port all around. Who'd wanna play that version over the original?

 

[Deleted member 2620]

Another perfectly good reason: not wanting to have to absorb and weigh a million online arguments on the pros or cons of a given release.