The original versions of games are the definitive versions. If you have played a remake, you have NOT experienced the game.
You are experiencing a very similar game with altered mechanics, visuals, music, and sound. This doesn't mean you're experiencing an inferior game, just a different one, and in NO cases the "true" game.
Nintendo has a habit of releasing different versions neither better nor worse.
First time I’ve seen OPs image react to his post
literally nothing about the wind waker remake is an improvement
the anti-aliasing looks shit, the music is downgraded, the triforce collecting is simplified to a retarded point, the fast sail is not even that much faster and ruins the point of sailing to begin with
the only improvement i can think of is playing the wind waker doesn't make you hear the song twice before it activates, but that's about it
SOUL SOULLESS
Do i look like i give a shit? I will enjoy what ever i feel like,nerd.
Still trying to find ways of coping with the new Zelda remake?
And btw, Wind Waker HD is much, much better than the original.
Remakes are among the dumbest things this industry does and in the very few cases its not a travesty it shows how little artistic value the original had.
OLD THING GOOD
NEW THING BAD
UNGA
BUNGAAAAAAAAAAAA
I like both the 3D LoZ OoT and MM remakes but i totally agree with OP.
Doesn't apply to crash team racing remake, it's just better in every single possible way and more than we could ever ask for.
I played the silent hill hd collection and it felt really soulless. Never played the originals
Is this the new "You cheated yourself" copypasta?
I suppose I agree, I'd usually rather play the original first. But in the case of things like Wind Waker it scarcely makes a difference anyway.
OP is just saying they are distinct, and they are.
I'll give an example of how that's relevant; if you want to play a game to understand it's impact on the medium or community, you have to play the original. If you are just trying to play the game for fun's sake then by all means play the remake, just don't use that to come to conclusions about the original, because they are distinct.
okay
After playing the remaster, I will never go back to the gamecube version. The bloom just goes too well to Wind Waker, and sailing was so boring in the original.
underrated
But it's also completely different, which is what OP was actually saying, not "old game good, new game bad". He even said "this does not mean you are experiencing an inferior game"
Cxcept when it comes to Metroid games.
I'd argue that Zero Mission and Samus Returns are vastly superior games than their originals.
Go be a retarded hipster somewhere else.
Ok boomer
Except*
The "point" of sailing was to mask loading times, that's the only reason it was so slow, and why the tiny shitty islands are so spread apart.
Wind Waker is garbage, remake or not.
kek
Reminder
The hardest difficulty in a game is the developer intended difficulty.
He's not even saying old good, new bad. He's saying they're the definitive versions and he's objectively correct. A remake isn't going to totally redefine what a game is. They're just distinct from each other. I enjoy a lot of remakes but when you talk about their significance, only the original factors in.
It's like replacing stock parts on a factory standard car; that upgraded car may be way better, but when you're talking about that style of car you're going to talk about the factory standard.
nah they're different now
>play a game to understand it's impact on the medium or community
Who the fuck does this and not play for fun? Fucking autists...
That is verifiably false, you have to go at retarded speeds only reachables through glitches to actually experience any sort of loading problems.
Correct.
That OP screenshot is bullshit since Wind Waker HD has full dynamic shadows so of course the left side is dark, he's literally in the shade compared to the right where it's just fullbright sunny no matter where he is.
Not to mention the approximate global illumination on the left makes the warm tones from the ground bounce up underneath.
WWHD looks infinitely better than original, purely because of the lighting being actual real lighting.
Every single fucknut that posts about a game 30 years past its prime to say "I don't see what the big deal about Mario is? Like I think its a 6/10 desu"
>hey guys remakes are different
>I'm calling bullshit, it only looks different because it is!
You wouldn't usually, but you can't play a remake and say you understand those things. That's the whole point. It's not like the originals aren't fun either.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying they're not better because they're different? Most areas in Zero Mission were almost identical to the original NES game. But I'll admit that Samus Returns (and AM2R) are very different from Metroid 2, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in a remake. If things are too similar you might as well just call it an enhanced port. I don't consider Wind Waker HD to be a remake at all.
Don't care the hd version was more fun
That's not the point of the image, the point is they removed the cel-shading effect entirely; altering the visual style of the game fundamentally.
I'm glad you like WW HD, but as for whether or not it "looks infinitely better"; that's just your opinion. Now that we can emulate Gamecube and Wii U you can decide for yourself which art style you prefer.
cell shaded WW is timeless, ugly bloom WWHD just looks like ass
the altered lighting also changes the tone of the scene. Link wakes up in some murky looking bloom infested murky lighting, compared to the sunshine of the island, his happy carefree life before everything goes to shit for him
yeah man, Metal Slug 2 is a much more definitive experience than X, I'm sure everyone hates all the sweeping changes made to the game
You can't ever experience the "true" game if you play it years later. Your experience will always be tainted. HL2 at the time was mindblowing, now it's not. No matter how hard you try you will not get the experience I got over a decade ago
The point being that they're so different that they can't be compared, so you can't say one or the other is superior. The originals might be ass but you can't make a direct comparison.
And yeah, WWHD kind of toes the line between remaster and "enhanced" port.
>just let me take everything out of context and
>BOOM out of context
>Are you saying they're not better because they're different?
Better is subjective, better as in it utilizes the technology available at the time? Objectively this is the case is it not?
>Most areas in Zero Mission were almost identical to the original NES game.
Almost but different due to technical limitation.
>But I'll admit that Samus Returns (and AM2R) are very different from Metroid 2
This is what I said, they're all different games, recontextualized.
>If things are too similar you might as well just call it an enhanced port.
This is the only way to develop a definitive edition of a game, by making sure everything is consistent across the board.
>I don't consider Wind Waker HD to be a remake at all.
I believe we call those remastered editions.
Noone's saying that changes are inherently bad, dumbass. But every Metal Slug collection includes both games; because they're different fucking games. You can appreciate those changes because you were able to play the original. Changes aren't always for better or worse, like OP said and is the point of this thread. Changes can be drastically for the better in some cases.
>you can't make a direct comparison.
They are literally remakes, advertised as remakes, and structured around the original games. The comparison is justified.
>This is what I said, they're all different games, recontextualized.
So you're saying, they're remakes. What a revelation you've made!
A game should always be able to stand in it's own merits. Half Life 2 is pretty good but it was always a glorified tech demo. I will say that something like HL2 should always be played bearing in mind it's contribution to the medium, and held in the same respect as it originally was regardless of the personal taste of the player.
Then there’s the adults amongst us who play both and tell newcomers if the remake/remastered version is a worthy alternative/substitute. You fucking preachy faggot. You even TYPE fat, chubby.
Based, people usually defend remakes because they don't have access to the original
>user tried reading...
>it failed!
The one on the left is not original either, but very clearly upscaled on an emulator.
Do it right OP.
>the triforce collecting is simplified to a retarded point
To be fair, the triforce pieces were a tedious slog that almost anyone hated and it's a good thing that they cut it short.
I was born in '92 and some of my favorite games of all time were made in the 80s (early Sierra adventure games in particular). Same goes for movies, some of my favorite movies are from the fucking silent film era. Harold Lloyd is my jam. And my favorite TV show of all time was filmed in the 70s (Saiyûki AKA Monkey 1978)
I disagree that you need to experience something when it's new to truly appreciate it. Great art stands the test of time
Remakes are the definitive edition
OP is just a faggot
That is not even close to true.
There is just no logical sense behind your post.
Even many games will recommend you the normal difficulty and warn you about the hardest.
Absolutely retarded post.
Your personal preference =/= what the dev intended
You absolute autist.
Remakes are not always better. But they're not always worse either. You need to evaluate it on a case by case basis. Otherwise you're just grossly oversimplifying the situation
This game needs a remake the least.
It still looks great vanilla, literally just port it and you are golden.
The original RE2 is hot garbage that has aged like sour cream but the remake is a solid 9/10
>literally experiencing every gameplay aspect
>NOT experiencing the game
full retard
Remakes are always better than inferior original release
OP is just a mentally ill tranny
.
Ah yes bring up the tranny boogeyman when you're losing an argument. I'd expect nothing less from a tranny obsessed dipshit
>*scratches head
They're not remade, they're the same game and everything, just with some graphical changes and gameplay alterations. So...
You're generalizing, there are always exceptions
I find it really strange the people that have this opinion that one version of the game is objectively superior to the other when the metric they are using for how good it is happens to be how much it looks exactly like the original. In which case just play the original.
When the only changes are updates and changes to the graphics then playing a remake is literally the same as playing the original. Unless aspects of gameplay change in which case you can quite reasonably argue that the new version is actually the definitive version of the game if it includes new content.
wind waker hd even runs worse than the original
That's absolute nonsense, most remake at best introduce minor tweaks, it rarely ever fundamentally changes what the game is.
Wind Waker HD is the same fucking game, just with slightly less tedium. Anyone who played it is qualified to talk about and critique "Wind Waker" as a whole, as long as they're aware of the small amount of improvements in the HD version.
Congrats you picked the absolute worst version of Silent Hill to play then jumped on a "it's soulless" bandwagon despite never playing the originals.
Do not even remember what you said previously? You said that the Metroid 2 remakes were "different games, recontextualized". That's the fucking point. Samus Returns and AM2R are not the same games with a few graphical changes, they're complete overhauls. True remakes. The only thing they have in common with the original is that they're based on the same themes and story.
That in my opinion is what a true remake should be. Not "the same game and everything but with some enhanced graphics". That's not a remake, it's a glorified port.
This is really only relevant if you're one of these faggots that treats video games like a chores checklist instead of trying to have fun with them. In the extremely unlikely scenario you ever struck up a conversation about the Wind Waker with someone in real life, it would go exactly the same regardless of which version of the game you played. It's not like you played two different games.
I think Wind Waker HD is ok except the graphics. Bloom is shit, anti-aliasing is shit, but the worse offender is that it butchered game's entire style with entirely different color palette. Blue water is no longer this juicy deep blue, it looks.
They really should've let you option to keep the visuals in tact, they went too far with their little additions that they piled up to an entirely different style.
The term you are probably looking for is remaster.
Remasters are glorified ports. They aren't true remakes
>anti-aliasing is shit
>"waaahhhh wahhhhhhhh i wanna see the pixels!!!!"
Holy fuck, you retarded boomer lmaoooo
Remasters never have been Remakes, they are 2 separate terms for a reason
Yes which is why they are called remasters.
All of them are the same, it's just various excuses publishers use to sell the same game again to morons who will eat it up.
remakes can't be be definitive versions
I agree, but why do we get so many morons calling Ocarina of Time 3D a remake? When it literally uses the same source code as the original.
Do you understand why I'm making a case for myself when this is the retardation I'm up against?
If a remake is otherwise identical gameplay wise and adds more content then yes they absolutely can. Winder Waker HD for example is the definitive version of Wind Waker.
So you think someone who played a gale that not only looks different, but also had less tedious sailing, mandatory and optional quests, and doesn't have the tingle tunner, would have the exact same opinion if the game as someone who played the original?
You aren't posting a "remake" though, that's a remaster.
Whether or not it's better, it's not a remake.
You didn't help your case by using WW as an example as it is a remaster with some new content rather than a remake.
I can understand that, both terms still get muddled up quite a lot even on this board
There's no judging authrority that decides what is and isn't "definitive", art is a matter of taste you brainlet.
imagine being so right about the REmake but so wrong about the OG. We are all entitled to our shit opinions though i suppose.
No they aren't. What about stuff like MGS: The Twin Sneks?
I never called WWHD a remake, you're confusing me with the OP
So you're debating what concepts and terminology to use? Why? What a pointless endeavor.see
>When it literally uses the same source code as the original.
Are you sure about that? Because almost everything in that game looks super different to me.
>Art is a matter of taste you brainlet
This isn't a matter of art. You can argue what version looks better in your opinion but the most updated and complete version of the game is still Wind Waker HD and would also be remake with added content and as such is the definitive version of that game.
You can go suck off that one SOTC fag about art but this has nothing to do with it.
did you just try and use my own post to refute one of my earlier posts? I don't see how either posts I said negates the other
>They think I was talking about how the game looked
Video games are art, no matter how much you attempt to measure the value of the added content, there will always be people who will enjoy the game more without said content, and they aren't any less right than you are.
>This isn't a matter of art.
WWHD is almost identical to the original. So what version you prefer IS a matter of art.
I actually own both versions but I choose to replay the GameCube version each year.
>This retard keeps trying to make an argument about what is definitive into a talk about art and how he isn't wrong
They are free to enjoy whatever they enjoy. Their tastes are their tastes and I never said otherwise you brain damaged retard. It doesn't change the fact that the definitive version of a game is the latest and most up to date iteration of the game. This has nothing to do with feelings. You are essentially trying to argue that an unpatched and buggy mess of a game is just as much the definitive edition of a game as a remaster of it released a decade later which fixed all the issues, updated the graphics and changed some of the gameplay along with titling itself the fucking definitive edition.
It isn't and you are stupid.
My issue is with half-assed remakes like the gamecube zelda ports on Wii U. If you want to look at remakes done right, look at Resident Evil REmake, Metroid Zero Mission, and Pokemon HG/SS
>They are free to enjoy whatever they enjoy. Their tastes are their tastes and I never said otherwise you brain damaged retard.
Good point user. People enjoy what they enjoy.
>It doesn't change the fact that the definitive version of a game is the latest and most up to date iteration of the game.
Oh. I thought you weren't retarded for a second.
>My issue is with half-assed remakes like the gamecube zelda ports on Wii U.
Those aren't remakes. They're enhanced ports/remasters.
Still waiting on my Wind Waker/Twilight Princess/Mario 3D World Switch ports. What gives, Nintendo?
nintendo wants the most money for minimum effort
porting games requires effort, so they sell you shitty emulated SNES games at trickle feed instead
Imagine how many people were excited about the SNES game announcement and then you'll realize what audience they're catering to
Well, that is a pretty accurate summary if what I'm arguing, and the reason I'm doing so is because something that is "unpatched and buggy" might be more enjoyable than something that was released later, depending of the circumstances and the person experiencing it, because there is no definitive metric by which art is judged.
>Zero refutation
As expected. You are free to like one version of a game over another but you are objectively wrong if you think just because you like an older version of the game it doesn't mean the newer version isn't the definitive version of it. The determining factor for what is definitive is being the most feature complete and up to date.
You would have had a path to argue if you had asked at what point do the changes in the newer versions make it a different game and then that would dovetail into a talk about the if something can be considered a remaster or a remake. But of course you are just some fragile ego retard who can't accept that him liking a version of a game doesn't make it a definitive anything nor does it make the actual definitive version not.
>It's art I'm not wrong STOP TALKING EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE LALALALALALA IM NOT WRONG
Alright well I'm done with this conversation. Feel free to kill yourself at your earliest convenience.
oingo boingo, make old game 1080p BAD
Meaningless semantics.
They're games that are doing what a game that was released before has already done, the only distinction is the amount of effort pourred into it.
>Would rather waste hours in changing wind directions and slower travels in exchange for "soul"
I prefer games in their original state over remasters, as well. Games like Silent Hill 2-4 look best in that low resolution because the art direction was tailored around it. Having everything at higher res completely kills the atmosphere.
Hmmm, seems you weren't able to get through this interaction with another human being without strawmaning their argument, maybe next time?
>blah blah blah
>ad hominem attacks
I'm too tired and drunk to argue with you. Just google "worst video game remakes" and you'll see tons of examples that are most definitely not the "definitive versions"
The newest and bestest is not always the greatest. Take the Star Wars Special Editions as an example (pic related). By your logic they're the definitive editions.
>remake adds tons of QoL changes and actually fixes all the problems the original had
>”not the definitive version”
You’re fucking stupid
Is Donkey Kong '94 a remake or are only its first four stages a remake?
Reimagining, the first 4 stages aren't true to the original at all.
that was something to personally discover earlier in this thread, recontextualizing someone's words/taking them out of context wont solve anything and isn't the proper way to hold a discussion
>objectively wrong if you think just because you like an older version of the game it doesn't mean the newer version isn't the definitive version of it
This is subjectivity, you believing that any version is superior.
>at what point do the changes in the newer versions make it a different game
Whenever anything is changed and it is released another time than the original, it is then a different experience to be had and is subject to eye of the beholder.
>dovetail into a talk about the if something can be considered a remaster or a remake
arguing about terminology and concepts are for the birds
>of course you are just some fragile ego retard who can't accept that him liking a version of a game doesn't make it a definitive anything nor does it make the actual definitive version not.
This should be read back to yourself it is for you and you yourself to understand, someday.
they are actually pretty true to the original if you don't know the extra moves that they don't teach you until later in the game
can we all just fuck off and admit
that sometimes the originals are shit
and sometimes the remakes are shit
can we simply do that? is that too much to ask? does everything have to be black and white?
Correct
dark souls 2 vanilla was way better than softs in nearly every department especially balancing. Allowing for +10 weapons after just 3-4 bossfights is insane
It is pretty hard to not do them, even in accident.
>Muhhhhh! Guys! Guys! Stop fighting! I don't have an opinion, and you're all silly for having one!
When I first played it I didn't even know about the 90+ extra levels. I just thought it was another shitty GameBoy port like my shitty Frogger game I had.
I guess I was lucky because I bought it second hand and never read the manual
I have an opinion, my opinion is that we should evaluate all versions of a game on their own merit and not jump to conclusions based on which version is older/newer.
Nice
>re-release Wind Waker
>make it not cel-shaded
>remake has worse frame rate than original
why is nintendo so bad at optimization
In some cases it's better. Look at the AA of the N64 games, for example, the image gets so blurry that it was better to just have the original crispy look.
>Bloom is shit
It completely suits Wind Waker, stop lying.
>Anti-aliasing is shit
HAHAHAHAHA
>butchered game's entire style with entirely different color palette.
I'd belive you actually thought this if you didn't say the water now looks worse.
I don't care.
MGS1 on Ps1 looks like shit and I played the remake on GC instead because it has better visuals.
samus returns misses the point of metroid 2 completely. AM2R did it better, but even that doesn't get the setting completely right
Because they prioritize cheaper, more profitable hardware.
Then they sell us this weak hardware and simultaneously try and give us gorgeous looking games, which the hardware can't handle.
DESU I'm waiting for the Switch 2 so I can play these games at a decent framerate
>layouts aren't the same
>hammer timing is changed
>timer isn't the same
>scoring is changed
>there are 1-ups on the stage
Even ignoring the extra moves, it isn't the same at all.
I enjoyed both games. I thought AM2R was closer to the original, but that's not a huge issue when the overall story and theme was the same. Infiltrate SR388 and eradicate the Metroids. Not hard to screw that premise up. Only thing you have to worry about is if the game is good, which I think both remakes were
I know, I was just misrepresenting your opinion to be a dick.
I thought it was just another dumb GB port like my Frogger cartridge was.
until I got past stage 4.
I guess I can never explain to you my surprise and excitement after realizing that a shitty GB game I spent $10 on at funcoland had dozens of more hours of gameplay that I had ever expected it to.
You're kind of annoying then aren't you? You know it's possible to have legitimate arguments without misrepresenting your opponent via disingenuous greentexts
There's sole minir differences, but it's similar enough for you to see it as the original stage once again.
some day we all get to die
What's the difference between Zelda and Pokemon?
Literally fucking re-releases for previous games while adding nothing and milking the retarded fanbase for all they're worth.
well one is an action/adventure series and the other is an RPG series
>samus returns misses the point of metroid 2 completely
this is a falsehood
the game is just a simplistic boss rush with a bit of exploration, it feels very different from the original metroid, much to the degree that Zelda 2 felt different from the first
Honestly, overall I did not find much difference between AM2R and Samus Returns. They both hit the same notes, and at the end I felt I had received a similar experience. I think they both adapted Metroid 2 well in their own way
>Why yes, I love it when my boat is fucking SLOW, how did you know?
Then my issue is with "enhanced ports/remasters"
Well you know, some zelda games have different gameplay, and they generally attempt to switch up the plot, characters, and structure of the game, pokémon doesn't.
I haven't played Samus Returns, but AM2R was way less creepy than the original. I attribute that to the zoomed in screen and lack of defined areas though.
Using the baby metroid as a power up to get 100% and fight ridley at the end ruins the theming of the game
Despite the contrived AM2R vs SR fan war, I enjoyed both games equally. Metroid threads just want to shitpost. Both games are worth playing
Explain your reasoning
You're right, but I'm not gonna play the first Metroid after playing Zero Mission.
TWW HD is one of the most egregious examples too. It completely butchered the visual style of the original.
which one is the remake?
the one with shadows right?
neither. one is an enhanced port/remaster
Although they're both worth a try, and the original was creepier by a margin, there's certainly moments in AM2R that are fairly creepy, that the original and the official remake cannot replicate. It does a great job laying the ground work for scary moments, and the two official games let you become too powerful, along with hardware limitations (monsters only moving up or down largely) that don't quite have the Oh Fuck that the fan make has. There's too many moments to count in AM2R and I'd say even though they all have merits, it's the best take on the adventure (and it's free).
is that really a hill you want to die on, what are you transgender or something?
well thankfully enough, they're both different enough games to enjoy on their own.
I wasn't upset when SR got announced after AM2R, I was just happy I would get to play another Metroid game. And they were different enough that I wasn't disappointed
I agree, I need to finish SR, close to the end
I'll be sure to play it when I mod my 3ds then.
spbp
That's pretty subjective. I liked exploring, and you could always bribe the fish for info.
no kidding, the SOUL is being removed with these remakes
It's about killing Metroids, and there's a tragic sadness to the last remaining members of the species you just genocided thinking you're its mom.
And having Ridley show up out of nowhere for one last action sequence ruins it.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but capitalizing a certain word makes you seem like a shitposting fuck.
you SUCK
lol tru
The only downgrade of Wind Waker HD is the cold color palette they used. It doesn't make the game feel tropical anymore, but rather set somewhere far to the north.
RE HD Remaster is almost as bad as SH HD Collection desu but capcomdrones blindly ate it up like a good lapdogs they are because they've never played original REmake beforehand, such a joke of a fanbase.
Actual good post