Do Remasters Make the Originals Pointless?

[BonkersTheAutomaton]

As we all know.  The Crash Bandicoot: N'Sane Trilogy came out just over a month ago and received both critical and commercial praise from reviewers and consumers alike.  It is still currently in the top 10 charts of both The United States of America and in The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is still currently unavailable in most UK retailers to purchase brand new and physically.  It became so popular that it even out ranked sales of Horizon: Zero Dawn, an original intellectual property by Sony Computer Entertainment that received a lot of advertising.  Needless to say, this game was a success for Sony and Activision who are now looking into maybe making more remastering' for I.P.s that they own, the Spyro The Dragon trilogy comes to mind for me personally although nothing has been confirmed.

But this those raise a reasonably big question that I'm surprised nobody has yet been talking about.  Those who grew up playing Crash Bandicoot primarily played the original trilogy that was available on the Playstation 1.  Some of you may have grown up with Crash Bandicoot: and the Wrath of Cortex, Crash Twinsanity, Crash of the Titans or maybe even Crash: Mind Over Mutant but for most people it was the original PS1 trilogy.  As obvious as it may seem, these were the games that got remastered in the Crash Bandicoot: N'Sane Trilogy.  So that brings up my topic, is there any point in even going back to the original games anymore since we have a remaster that in most situations those everything the original trilogy did, just better?  I do mild retro game collecting and have the original trilogy on my PS1 but no longer see the point in having them and now I feel as though my money was slightly wasted because I might never going back to them.  The same could be said for other remastered titles out there such as Metroid: Zero Mission for the Nintendo Gameboy Advance or perhaps the upcoming Mertroid: Return of Samus for the Ninendo 3DS.  Persona 4: Golden for the Sony Playstation Vita (and Sony Playstation T.V.) is considered to be the definitive version of Persona 4, a Role Playing Game by Atlus Company Limited, therefore is there a point in playing the original Persona 4 on the Sony Playstation 2?

Those anybody sort of understand where I am coming from?  I love remasters as much as most people out, but when you can get all 3 Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank games on the Sony Playstation 3, do you not question whether there is even a point in collecting the original games?

Too long, didn't read?  Do remasters make the orignials pointless?

Thank you for reading.

[RedFox99]

You actually make an interesting argument. I mean more than likely the original will probably be seen as redundant if maybe the remake is overall better. People who grew up with the original may still hold regards for it for the sake of nostalgia. 

[Apollo Chungus]

Not inherently. It largely depends on a case by case basis.

For starters, there's the quality of the remaster/ports. Despite the intention of the porters to make the best possible version of the game, things can go wrong during the development process and things that were perfectly fine in the original version are screwed up in the remaster. The Silent Hill HD Collection is an infamous example of this, with graphical glitches resulting in the game looking unfinished (such as the series' iconic fog being removed), audio clipping and crackling on a regular basis, and framerate issues so bad that it's become pretty common knowledge for Silent Hill newcomers to avoid this collection at all costs. But even games/collections that aren't so bad still have their problems; Sleeping Dogs has a worse framerate on the PS4/XO than the original PS360 version; the Prince of Persia Collection on the PS3 is prone to crashing if connected to the internet;PC re-releases/remasters tend to have issues with mapping the controls to game pads; the list goes on.

In addition, there's also changes that could be made to the remaster, due to legal issues, attempts at 'improving' the original, etc, that meddle with things fans actually liked (to be fair, this wanders into the realms of personal preference, which means these aren't automatically bad). I remember playing the Ace Attorney Trilogy and noticing a few lines that were changed from the first game, which was a shame considering how good some of them were (the 'old cheese' bit from Rise from the Ashes doesn't have the quite the same impact in the new version). The music for the Dragon Ball Z Budokai HD Collection had to be completely changed (considering the composer was since found out to have a long history of plagiarism), but that soundtrack defined the game for a lot of people, who would be understandably soured by the change. Even tweaking the visual style, as seen in the director's cut for the first Broken Sword, messes with what made the original great for some folks.

I do believe remasters can be great thing; they allow more people to check out a game that might have otherwise passed them by; they can fix up technical errors and maybe even add content to make for the 'true' version of that game; they allow nostalgic players to relive memories without dealing with the expenses/issues that come with trying to find or play old systems/games. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the original release, even if there are improvements. Like I said, it's best to look at the remasters on a case by case basis, taking into account the quality of the remasters, changes made, and one's own personal preferences.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

As a PlayStation fan, I will say that it's not completely pointless owning the originals.. Do not get me wrong, I've pretty much moved onto playing my favourite PS2 titles in their retrospective collections if they have one (Jak, Ratchet, Sly, Kingdom Hearts etc). However, a lot of these collections aren't done anywhere near perfectly and typically have issues that make you go back to the originals. Jak & Daxter is pretty much perfect remastering except for the texture issues on Kor in Jak 2, Sly I hear has sound issues (although I haven't seen/heard/noticed them through my playthroughs on the collection), and Ratchet is absolutely glitchy to an insane level, to the point where numerous videos have flooded the internet showing the numerous new glitches.

Gladiator HD would be another good example where the porting job was absolutely botched from the PS2. Ratchet Gladiator had the usual 60 fps smoothness that the usual Ratchet titles have. On PS3, not only did it get cut down, but there's numerous sections where it drops even further despite being on more powerful hardware. There's also the cutscene clipping issues, the glitches (Including a intentional game breaking glitch that I got that caused me to lose a save file and an entire day of work collecting skill points for the platinum).

Really, it's down to what you can tolerate. If you can handle minor issues (Ratchet collection's issues are admittedly numerous, but non-harmful. You can still play it perfectly fine and enjoy it without gameplay hindered, it's Gladiator/Deadlocked HD that got hit bad), then the remasters can serve the purpose fine. Some games like Kingdom Hearts should be played with the remasters as it's the only way to access the Final Mixes and there's no major bugs in the remasters. I don't really mind if remasters replace the originals honestly, as long as it makes things more accessible to new players or older players wishing to replay the games and not have to track down old copies. 

[JezMM]

Yeah this is very much a case by case basis thing.  Considering many say that the hitbox issues in N Sane Trilogy make the game harder, clearly there is some disparity there.

 

Personally the only remasters to recent memory I can honestly say make the original near-pointless would be The Last of Us and Twilight Princess.  Every other remaster I can think of that I've played in the last few years there is at least one thing that makes it hard for me to say it's rendered the original irrelevant.  With Wind Waker it was the softening of the visuals.  With BioShock 1&2 it was crashing issues and an inelegant replacement for the opening cut-scene and original credits sequences.

 

I do think if developers can, they should always include the original version of the game they are remastering in a remaster (even if just as a secret unlockable) just for preservation's sake, lest the original be "overwritten" by the remaster in the history books.

[E-122-Psi]

Keep in mind nostalgia and style also come into play. Often when remaking the game, the style and aesthetics of the game are altered and often elements of gameplay are refined, and whether they do a better job or not is subjective, especially gamers who are used to the original. N Sane Trilogy noticeably has different feeling physics in places (eg. making all three games have uniform weight and tightness) and all of the cutscenes and models have been remade (some of the characters look quite different and a lot of lines, though identical, are delivered in a totally different manner) which makes it VERY divisive to many fans of the original games.

I also remember some delivered complaints towards Super Mario 64 DS due to the translation to different consoles, believing the game didn't play as smoothly on DS touch screen and D-pad (the 3DS due to having a circle pad, makes it better received, though not universally), along with being forced to switch between characters with different move sets and physics at times.

[Agie]

As someone who owns a few remasters myself, I can definitely agree that it's a case-by-case basis. And Ryan is on-point with the Jak remaster, at least the first one; have yet to get to the other two.

 

I admit, I sold my PS2 copies of some games I got remasters of. Kingdom Hearts I and Jak & Daxter have good enough remasters I don't feel so bad about it.

 

But the Sly trilogy has some sound issues like off-sync music, and even tiptoeing sounds that play where they're not only not supposed to, but didn't. The off-sync music issue is a problem with be boss battle with Mz. Ruby; made an otherwise none-too-difficult boss pretty hard.

 

And yes, this is minor, and to someone who never played the originals, they might not think twice about it, but it was enough to make me wish I had kept the PS2 copies. I've thought about rebuying the games more than once.

 

As for Ratchet & Clank, I never did get to the PS2 originals, but I will say the remasters are most certainly playable and enjoyable games in their own right. Deadlocked's remaster, I only had the game crash once, but I did bump into some texture issues.

 

And I admit, while I'm in no hurry to get the PS2 versions of the first three games, since as Ryan said, the issues, while numerous, are pretty minor stuff, and stuff you wouldn't even think about if you never played the first three originally, but Deadlocked had issues even I, as someone who never played the PS2 version, made note of. So I did think about snagging the PS2 original of Deadlocked at least, not only to avoid these issues, but also for a physical copy.

 

And as for the N. Sane Trilogy (which I classify more as a remake than a remaster), I will say they're all good games in their own right, if not hair-rippingly hard at times. I never played the PS1 versions, though I admit, I thought about it. Like with the Ratchet games, though, I decided I'm not in any hurry to get the originals, but it doesn't mean I won't snag them someday.

 

Heck, I even wanna talk about Banjo-Kazooie's remaster; a damn-near perfect port, but 4J Studios dropped the ball when they removed one cutscene and screwed up another. I heard they may have fixed it in an update (don't quote me on that), but apparently, said update hadn't been carried over to Rare Replay's version, at least not at first.

 

Of course, after certain personal issues hit, I mainly decided that the better financial decision is to snag remasters of games I don't already have. Maybe the odd one here and there where I love the series enough to wanna support it, or if they fix a significant issue with the original, or heck, just add new stuff significant enough to be worth my attention, but otherwise? I'll hang on to the originals if I already have them, and maybe get the remaster for someone who never experienced it if the remaster's issues aren't significant.

[molul]

Crash Bandicoot: N'Sane Trilogy: yes, it makes the originals pointless.

Sonic 1, 2 and CD remasters: again, yes (once you've tried 16:9, 60fps, etc, there's no turning back).

Monkey Island 1 and 2 remasters: they weren't good enough to take you away from the classics, although you can switch to the original view anytime while you play, so... Well, you can stick to the remasters for compatibility.

Starcraft 1 remastered: it updates graphics and also makes the game compatible with modern computers, so yes, makes the originals pointless.

 

I'm really fond of the remaster concept as long as it brings something really worth the money. The Sonic remasters for mobile are probably the best remasters I've seen so far. And still, they were too close to the originals. For instance, I wouldn't have had any problem with adding sprite rotations for loops and slopes (they are included in Sonic Mania).

[Scott]

It's definitely a case-by-case basis. But when modern remakes of games from the last generation take out their redundant multiplayer and all multiplayer achievements alongside it (Assassins Creed Ezio Trilogy/Bioshock trilogy) then they win over the originals in my books 

[Mr Loopone]

In theory, a remaster (or a port/an enhanced port as they used to call it in the olden days, even a remake in some cases like with N Sane Trilogy) should make the originals less of an incentive due to better performance, a higher resolution, an increased polygon count or better textures and usually some bug/control fixes. They should be the best version and makes playing the game on the original console redundant. As it turns out, it isn't always that way. It depends on the developer, the game and even the system.

Now since I don't have a PS4, I can't personally talk about those remasters (e.g. Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Prototype, Uncharted Collection, WipEout Omega Collection), but I have heard some turned out great such as the Uncharted Collection but missing out on the multiplayer and the WipEout one that combines both the PS3 and the Vita game into one, some have issues but perhaps better than the original console versions of the game and some well are better on the original due to performance issues (e.g. Prototype). I think it goes, if it's done by Bluepoint it is worth buying since you know that you are getting a good remaster but if its done by High Voltage Software, they can be problematic. Some are hit and miss like Virtous where they did good with the Final Fantasy games but have problems say doing the Batman ones.

As for the PS3, they are often greater value since they included 2-3 games rather than just the one but not always since sometimes the originals are cheaper. Plus because I no longer have a PS2, I get to experience many of the best series. Not just the PS3 but also games on the Vita, 3DS, Wii U. I imagine it is the same for people who have a PS4/Xbox One playing these games. It is also great because some of these games weren't originally released in Europe or had a bad PAL port and can experience what the Americans/Japanese were playing.

While I haven't played the originals of the Ratchet & Clank series, the HD trilogy did the job of experiencing the series and didn't notice the glitches or the missing content until I looked up online. Similar thing to the God of War/Metal Gear games but didn't encounter glitches. I think that I only encounter one crash in R&C 3 but gameplay does vary and someone might experience lots of problems with game, variables indeed. Killzone while having little bits of stuttering every time something new loaded actually controlled/aimed better (the original version that I didn't play and Killzone 2 that I did play had dodgy hit detection and aiming), it was a decent game. I was extremely pleased when I played the Sly trilogy that the bad slowdown on the swamp hub of the first game was fixed however it does have some crash points (2 and 3 are guilty of this) and that boss was harder due to input lag in the game. Taxman did a great job with the Sonic games. I also have Okami, Jak & Daxter trilogy, Final Fantasy 10/10-2, Devil May Cry Collection, Splinter Cell Trilogy (based off the superior Xbox/PC versions rather than the PS2/Gamecube versions), Kingdom Hearts 1.5/2.5, Odin Sphere but yet to play on them to make a judgement. So much of the time, yeah the remasters are better or do the job just fine.

I can even talk about the HD versions that came out shortly or even the same time as the other multiplatform releases by the original developer. You know like Last of Us on the PS4, well there were a fair few of that style remaster during the early days of the 360s life despite some are just a resolution increase when the 360 was technically the best console at that time period (from 2005-2007). I can talk about Need for Speed Carbon having better graphics running at a higher resolution, performance and even extra stuff. Burnout Revenge has extra graphical effects and an extra car since the game looked pretty good to begin with. Then there's the case of extras such as Bully. Plus the ability to install them via the hard drive too preserving the disc and the disc drive. Sadly the originals are still worth getting due to those versions are much more expensive to buy and the improvements might not be enough for someone to consider buying them.

The originals however sometimes do have some merit of keeping and not just because it is cheaper than the remaster. Sometimes features/music had to be removed due to legal reasons and if you like that feature/song, then it might be a bit upsetting. They might even ironically have a higher frame rate. People didn't get the Dragon Ball HD collection because of the music changes. Many people kept the original version of GTA: San Andreas due to music removal, physics/control changes that the mobile/PS3/360 version had and even Hot Coffee if you was lucky enough to have the 1st print. Ninja Gaiden/Ninja Gaiden Black is another where fans prefer the original compared to Ninja Gaiden Sigma due to the changes. Prototype 1 and 2 were better on the PS3 due to the higher frame rate as well as less input lag/frame pacing. Fans keep playing the original Gamecube version of Tales of Symphonia due to double the frame rate compared to every version afterwards. There are even some that prefer the original versions of Conker and Majora's Mask due to the changes but those are more personal preference. Then there's the case of the Silent Hill games where the HD remaster was a disaster and even having the Xbox version of the 2nd game is miles better than the PS3/360 collection. Why was it a disaster? Based of an early version of the game since Konami doesn't keep their source code (a really common problem in games), missing graphics and effects that badly affects the atmosphere of the games, glitches, changed the voice acting in the 3rd game annoying the fanbase and done by a studio who were known for handheld/mobile games rather than a specialist. Even more strange considering that they had access to Bluepoint (Metal Gear) and Hexadrive (PS3 patch version of Zone of the Enders 2) who happened to be two of the best in that area.

Then there are games that degrade every time it gets ported, Sonic Adventure is one where the original Dreamcast version is considered the best. DX (a type of remaster) added features, better character models and could run at a higher frame rate but did some graphical cutbacks, some glitches plus sometimes running worse and then it got worse every time DX got ported in terms of glitches and controls. In terms of movie comparison, the original Star Wars trilogy is often one where the fans prefer the original releases rather than the Special Editions and tweaks that changed some of the movie.

Namco were perhaps some of the earliest that did 3D remasters very early on the PS2s life of arcade games. Tekken Tag Tournament has much better graphics than the original arcade since it is running on better hardware (the arcade is more closer to PS1 than PS2) and had a couple of balance tweaks (the PS3 version is also great but does have a few music placement issues apparently). Time Crisis 2 had extras and some of the graphics have improved and a higher polygon count however the graphics removed a lot of the colour from the game changing the graphic style completely from this to this (the most colourful shot in the entire game). The voice acting was also changed as well and the subtitles have been removed which is bad for hard of hearing people. Sadly the arcade original is very hard to get and has not been ported, if Namco ever ported the original I'll happily take my money. I don't know about 500GP aka MotoGP though. Even the GTA games on the original Xbox could be considered remasters due to the improved graphics, higher polygon count, slightly better frame rate and custom radio yet kept them close to the originals compared to the later mobile/PS3/360 remasters, they were also released later than the PS2 originals and the PC ports.