• MrFinnbean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago
    1. I don’t think we should try to re-introduce those games to new audiences

    Well if we disagree on this deep fundamental level i dont think we can have real discussion about this, as my personal opinion is that stories i love should be made as easy as possible for people to reach. Like i would love people to read book Kalevala, but its written in old Finnish so i think its completelly fine for make the book more easily approachable for the masses by translating it to todays English, even if it looses a lot by turning the writing to prose.

    1. A remake by definition I just want to say there is no real definition for remake.

    if we spend resources on remakes (and sequels) then we are robbing the current generation from having their own formative experiences. I want to see new IPs come out that try new and different things and move the medium forward.

    This goes more to the business end too. Its not zero sum game and making remakes dont mean companies stop making new games.

    Like activision tasked Vicarious vision to make Crash remakes and because those did allright they were comfortable to let Toys for Bob make comoletelly new Crash game. The remake indruduced the Crash games to new audience. Without that push the new game would most definedly did worse than it did. (It was profitable, but not as much as investors wished).

    Same with resident evils. Both remakes and new installations are being produced at the same time and they help to make the engine better everytime.