Here's a game I wish they'd revisit: Racing Destruction Set.
As regular readers would know, my childhood in gaming was spent around a Commodore 64 - whilst not a big deal in the US it was however important enough in both Europe and Australia (y'know, places that don't matter) had had many interesting and unique games available. One such was the superbly titled Racing Destruction Set, courtesy of a company called Electronic Arts.
As the title suggests, this is racing game - and one which involves trying to sabotage your opponents efforts through any means necessary. As well as being a great two-player game, it even boasted a track-designing feature and a gazillion options.
But really, mere words can't do the features of Racing Destruction Set justice: Instead, they can be better exemplified with this video:
So there was certainly a lot going for Racing Destruction Set: Aside from track building, there was vehicle selection, gravity selection (GRAVITY!), terrain selection and a race/destruction option, the latter incorporating oil slicks and landmines. With so much options and freedom of choice for the player (this was back in 1985 mind you) it does seem mind-boggling that such an approach hasn't been replicated in the years since.
Last week I made a post talking about Super Mario Kart where I lamented how many clones that damn game inspired and how none of them really succeeded in replicating, let alone besting, the winning formula. And it always struck me that no one was looking back to Racing Destruction Set. I mean why not? If a formula can work so well, why not take the formula that made Racing Destruction Set, give it some fantastic graphics and you'll have game that can a serious competition for the untouchable Super Mario Kart.
Indeed, I thought back then that those wanting to replicate Super Mario Kart shouldn't be doing so - They should be doing something new with the formula. In fact it always struck me that if people wanted to usurp Super Mario Kart, they should try implementing a Track Builder - I mean I would've bought it - yet it is funny how took nearly twenty years before someone else thought the same with the PS3 game ModNation Racers.
Interestingly enough during research for this post I did find that Racing Destruction Set did indeed get a remake in the form of the SNES game RPM Racing - this led to a sequel called Rock N Roll Racing which is of some historical significance as being the first game made by a fledgling company that would later become Blizzard. So maybe there is some interest in keeping the original C64 game alive but I don't recall either game being a big deal.
So yeah, remake Racing Destruction Set. There certainly seem to be some great ideas in work and certainly worthy of dusting off and repackaging for younger gamers to see what their comrades did years before..
Showing posts with label remakes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label remakes. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Not having a blast
Here's something I came across on youtube: Footage of Xenon 2000 - a modern rehash of the classic Amiga shooter Xenon 2 for Windows:
I've fond memories of playing Xenon 2 in high school - I remember, in particular, the organic/technical graphics, the upgradable ship and, of course, the rockin' soundtrack which accurately replicated Megablast by Bomb the Bass.
Looking at the above footage I have to wonder WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!?! Look at this! Everything looks stiff and dull, the environments are criminally boring, the ship looks dumb and the soundtrack is just something generic and lifeless! Did the Bitmap Brothers have a fall out with Tim Simenon or something?! Really, Xenon 2 without the Megablast just really isn't Xenon 2 at all (it made up half the title for fuck's sake!).
You know I never heard of this remake until I saw the above youtube clip - and it would appear for good reason. Still, I suppose it's another case of when a remake ignores what made the original work and the end result is a complete bastardization.
When will they ever learn?
I've fond memories of playing Xenon 2 in high school - I remember, in particular, the organic/technical graphics, the upgradable ship and, of course, the rockin' soundtrack which accurately replicated Megablast by Bomb the Bass.
Looking at the above footage I have to wonder WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!?! Look at this! Everything looks stiff and dull, the environments are criminally boring, the ship looks dumb and the soundtrack is just something generic and lifeless! Did the Bitmap Brothers have a fall out with Tim Simenon or something?! Really, Xenon 2 without the Megablast just really isn't Xenon 2 at all (it made up half the title for fuck's sake!).
You know I never heard of this remake until I saw the above youtube clip - and it would appear for good reason. Still, I suppose it's another case of when a remake ignores what made the original work and the end result is a complete bastardization.
When will they ever learn?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Suit yourself
As I was working on my list of My Favorite Gaming Heroes I heard that the Leisure Suit Larry IP has been dusted off and is set to make a return. And unlike the debacles that were Magna Cum Laude and Box Office Bust, Larry creator Al Lowe has returned and in full creative control.
And whilst I would rather new IPs being developed I do find something to like in the way that this is going: With the man who created Larry in charge it seems a welcome opportunity to erase the aforementioned duds from history. The idea that Larry is back in the hands of the man who made him and away from the people who made the terrible games is also a triumph of IP everywhere.
In addition to this announcement comes the news that the previous Larry titles will be remade and a new Larry title will be on it's way. Now normally, I would frown at the idea of remakes but here I don't mind... just as long as they:
a) take the opportunity to fix some of the errors and problems from the originals
b) maintain a degree of graphical/animation quality akin to LSL7 and
c) retain the LSL4 joke.
But there does arise a potential problem: Larry is essentially a product of his time. In the late eighties and the early nineties, anyone who was going out of their way to get laid was seen as creepy, pitiful, pathetic and a loser. Thus much of the fun from the games stemmed from Larry's efforts failing in various ways and the character himself getting his just desserts.
Nowadays, that idea has been challenged with both the arrival of the nerd/geek subculture and the notion that anyone trying to get laid isn't a loser but more along the lines of a diamond in the rough (ie American Pie). Thus the Larry of yesterday is going to come across as being completely unlikable in the era of today.
There may be a way around this problem with Larry being rewritten from a smarmy perv to a lovable, luckless, 'tomorrow's another day'-esque character. But will it work? How much can one tamper with a workable formula before the potential buyers start smelling BS?
Personally I would like to see what becomes of this plan: I can hope that some of the flaws in the original games be fixed (seriously, some of the puzzles tend to kill the gameplay horribly) but it would be interesting to see a character get a new lease of life in an industry where such things are rare. Has there ever been a character from a previous generation go under a dramatic revamp and work in a completely new generation?
Okay, apart from this guy....
And whilst I would rather new IPs being developed I do find something to like in the way that this is going: With the man who created Larry in charge it seems a welcome opportunity to erase the aforementioned duds from history. The idea that Larry is back in the hands of the man who made him and away from the people who made the terrible games is also a triumph of IP everywhere.
In addition to this announcement comes the news that the previous Larry titles will be remade and a new Larry title will be on it's way. Now normally, I would frown at the idea of remakes but here I don't mind... just as long as they:
a) take the opportunity to fix some of the errors and problems from the originals
b) maintain a degree of graphical/animation quality akin to LSL7 and
c) retain the LSL4 joke.
But there does arise a potential problem: Larry is essentially a product of his time. In the late eighties and the early nineties, anyone who was going out of their way to get laid was seen as creepy, pitiful, pathetic and a loser. Thus much of the fun from the games stemmed from Larry's efforts failing in various ways and the character himself getting his just desserts.
Nowadays, that idea has been challenged with both the arrival of the nerd/geek subculture and the notion that anyone trying to get laid isn't a loser but more along the lines of a diamond in the rough (ie American Pie). Thus the Larry of yesterday is going to come across as being completely unlikable in the era of today.
There may be a way around this problem with Larry being rewritten from a smarmy perv to a lovable, luckless, 'tomorrow's another day'-esque character. But will it work? How much can one tamper with a workable formula before the potential buyers start smelling BS?
Personally I would like to see what becomes of this plan: I can hope that some of the flaws in the original games be fixed (seriously, some of the puzzles tend to kill the gameplay horribly) but it would be interesting to see a character get a new lease of life in an industry where such things are rare. Has there ever been a character from a previous generation go under a dramatic revamp and work in a completely new generation?
Okay, apart from this guy....
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Magnificent Seven
I feel like I'm the only one in the universe who's not wanting SqueeEnix to remake Final Fantasy 7. Now I have played FF7 and found it quite enjoyable but this was on my own terms: If I came late to it (2009 was when I actually sat down and played it for real), it was the intimidation factor: The accolades of the game and the continuing popularity of the game (practically unheard of in gaming before or since) raises the level of expectation to near impossible levels - so much so any newcomer would go in expecting to find Jesus.
SqueeEnix have steadfastly refused to remake FF7 and their reasons are sound enough: Namely the cost involved, building the whole thing over from scratch and the key people behind the original now scattered into different avenues. But still the fans persist to have their demands heard, you'd think they were holding a building full of people at gunpoint.
I've expressed some of thoughts already from suggesting that the prospects of remakes could be put to better use fixing the games of the post FF-7 era and how a game you played at ten years old being remade won't make it better but really, I give up: Why do you people want FF7 remade? What, hasn't there been any better games released in the fourteen years since? It's already on the PSN so it's not like it's not readily available and not getting played. Is it really the Nirvana of JRPGs that anything else isn't worth it (although I hear Xenoblade Chronicles is pretty cool)? Is it because it's so good that no other JRPG designer - not even SqueeEnix themselves - have no hope in hell of matching it, let alone surpassing it?
Yes it sold millions, yes assisted Sony in it's rise to power but at the end of the day so what? The game did it's job so why can't we just walk away and leave it?
In fact, the longed for revamp of FF7 makes an interesting counterpoint to the recent Star Wars release on Blu-ray. Here, George Lucas has enough money to do whatever the hell he likes but his attention is still focused on the thing that made him famous. And with the Blu-ray he is still mining for hard nerd cash that people will gladly hand over without a second thought.
BUT! The Blu-rays have been tampered with yet again into something that makes the original release near unrecognizable. Many fans are calling foul and getting into the rage that only nerds can muster. People are furious that George has been tampering continually with something they adored and wish he'd stop.
So I put this question to you FF7 fans: Is this what you want?
Do you want your favorite game tampered with?
Do you want something you loved being raped and repackaged?
Do you want to hand over your dollars to someone who doesn't give a toss what you think?
Do you want to support a company who's staying afloat through their single moment of glory?
Do you want to support a company who can't seem to move on from that single moment of glory?
Do you want so many childhood memories forever ruined?
But really a game still hailed with such fervor after fourteen years, and a few generations, seems to suggest the person in question haven't played anything else since
That being said, maybe it's high time we all started living in the present.
SqueeEnix have steadfastly refused to remake FF7 and their reasons are sound enough: Namely the cost involved, building the whole thing over from scratch and the key people behind the original now scattered into different avenues. But still the fans persist to have their demands heard, you'd think they were holding a building full of people at gunpoint.
I've expressed some of thoughts already from suggesting that the prospects of remakes could be put to better use fixing the games of the post FF-7 era and how a game you played at ten years old being remade won't make it better but really, I give up: Why do you people want FF7 remade? What, hasn't there been any better games released in the fourteen years since? It's already on the PSN so it's not like it's not readily available and not getting played. Is it really the Nirvana of JRPGs that anything else isn't worth it (although I hear Xenoblade Chronicles is pretty cool)? Is it because it's so good that no other JRPG designer - not even SqueeEnix themselves - have no hope in hell of matching it, let alone surpassing it?
Yes it sold millions, yes assisted Sony in it's rise to power but at the end of the day so what? The game did it's job so why can't we just walk away and leave it?
In fact, the longed for revamp of FF7 makes an interesting counterpoint to the recent Star Wars release on Blu-ray. Here, George Lucas has enough money to do whatever the hell he likes but his attention is still focused on the thing that made him famous. And with the Blu-ray he is still mining for hard nerd cash that people will gladly hand over without a second thought.
BUT! The Blu-rays have been tampered with yet again into something that makes the original release near unrecognizable. Many fans are calling foul and getting into the rage that only nerds can muster. People are furious that George has been tampering continually with something they adored and wish he'd stop.
So I put this question to you FF7 fans: Is this what you want?
Do you want your favorite game tampered with?
Do you want something you loved being raped and repackaged?
Do you want to hand over your dollars to someone who doesn't give a toss what you think?
Do you want to support a company who's staying afloat through their single moment of glory?
Do you want to support a company who can't seem to move on from that single moment of glory?
Do you want so many childhood memories forever ruined?
But really a game still hailed with such fervor after fourteen years, and a few generations, seems to suggest the person in question haven't played anything else since
That being said, maybe it's high time we all started living in the present.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Unlucky Seven
...blah blah big news blah blah Final Fantasy X blah blah PS3 remake blah blah....
Now that we got that out of the way, reaction this surprising announcement seems to be a mixture of delight and disgust. And whilst people getting irate over decisions made by SqueeEnix is nothing new, the loudest voices of disgust come from those who wanted a VII remake. Good lord are people still demanding this?
Okay firstly, FFX for the PS3 is not a remake. No, it's a straight up port only in HD.
Now we got that out of the way....
Secondly, as SqueeEnix have said before, remaking FF7 would involve starting over from scratch and a large budget. Conversely revamping FFX in HD thus seems more easier and less costly on their end.
Thirdly, no one's really missing out on anything: FF7 is still available on the PSN the last time I checked.
Fourthly FF7 is pretty much lightening in a bottle: It happened and it's probably never going to happen again - no matter how much the fans want it to nor how hard SqueeEnix try with the Final Fantasy games since. It's a standard that can't be met so why bother? Why not just walk away from it and move on?
And finally, Aerith's not going to come back. She did her job of extracting an emotional response from the player better than anyone could've hoped for so let's just let her rest in peace - and just because the PS2 revamp of Phantasy Star 2 offered the resurrection of Nei, doesn't mean FF7 has to do the same.
Really, the more I look at this notion of remaking Final Fantasy 7 the more it become clear that people are after the same experience they had when they were ten years old. That being said, let me tell you something kids: When I was ten years old, I played Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64. I played it, loved it, and was my gateway drug to the worlds of both RPGs and Dungeons & Dragons. Years later it got a remake - but it was one many people would rather forget.
Now that we got that out of the way, reaction this surprising announcement seems to be a mixture of delight and disgust. And whilst people getting irate over decisions made by SqueeEnix is nothing new, the loudest voices of disgust come from those who wanted a VII remake. Good lord are people still demanding this?
Okay firstly, FFX for the PS3 is not a remake. No, it's a straight up port only in HD.
Now we got that out of the way....
Secondly, as SqueeEnix have said before, remaking FF7 would involve starting over from scratch and a large budget. Conversely revamping FFX in HD thus seems more easier and less costly on their end.
Thirdly, no one's really missing out on anything: FF7 is still available on the PSN the last time I checked.
Fourthly FF7 is pretty much lightening in a bottle: It happened and it's probably never going to happen again - no matter how much the fans want it to nor how hard SqueeEnix try with the Final Fantasy games since. It's a standard that can't be met so why bother? Why not just walk away from it and move on?
And finally, Aerith's not going to come back. She did her job of extracting an emotional response from the player better than anyone could've hoped for so let's just let her rest in peace - and just because the PS2 revamp of Phantasy Star 2 offered the resurrection of Nei, doesn't mean FF7 has to do the same.
Really, the more I look at this notion of remaking Final Fantasy 7 the more it become clear that people are after the same experience they had when they were ten years old. That being said, let me tell you something kids: When I was ten years old, I played Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64. I played it, loved it, and was my gateway drug to the worlds of both RPGs and Dungeons & Dragons. Years later it got a remake - but it was one many people would rather forget.
Friday, September 16, 2011
X-Factor
The big news at the moment has been the recent announcement that Final Fantasy X will be remade for the PS3 as a HD revamp.
Now I’ve already expressed my thoughts on game remakes and I still feel a sinking feeling in my stomach even as I typed that previous sentence out. BUT! (and this is a big but) I’m not willing to condemn remakes altogether – because I would like to see someone remake a game purely because they felt they could do better a better job the second time around.
In the thirties Alfred Hitchcock made the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much – only to be so unhappy with the finished product that he made the movie again twenty years later when he relocated to Hollywood. Similarly, Hideaki Anno is currently working on a new Evangelion anime only this time without the restrictions of budget and time – thus granting him the freedom to tell the story he wanted to tell all along.
Has anyone in the gaming industry ever used such a motivation?
So far, Final Fantasy 1-4 have all had significant revamps on various systems: More often than not with a new graphical coat of paint and some new goodies added. Not a bad idea and I suppose it’s worth giving people a chance to find out what they might have missed out the first time around (not to mention to prove Final Fantasy isn’t all Cloud and Sephiroth).
But with the progression of each Final Fantasy it does arise the inevitable question of VI and VII. VI I would like to see revamped to, if anything, reclaim the title of BEST FF EVA from it’s upstart younger brother. But I couldn’t care less about VII – Sure people may clamor for a graphical upgrade but what else can you do? True a more coherent narrative would be nice but there is little I can think of where VII could be improved – which, I have to admit, may attest to the game’s staying power fourteen years on.
But no – SqueeEnix aren’t really caring for VI and VII – instead they’re straight for X.
Now if SqueeEnix are intent on revamping their previous Final Fantasy titles, then eventually they’ll arrive to the post-VII era. Namely, VIII, IX, and XII – indeed the revamp of X may suggest they’re already there. Now these titles are important because whilst VII was a big hit that may never be replicated, everything Final Fantasy that’s followed has split opinion like never before. I have never seen people react to the post-VII Final Fantasy games with both such ruthless condemnation and such passionate defending. Whilst everyone has good words to say about many Final Fantasy 1-7 (well maybe not II), the same people have such strong opinions about 8-onward.
But here’s the point I’m trying so laboriously to get to: What if SqueeEnix remade the post-VII Final fantasy games and actually made them better? If people are willing to defend them with passionate fervour, then there must at least be a good game in there despite the walls of criticisms. So why not take the opportunity to get rid of the elements that didn’t work? Can anyone imagine an VIII with a coherent narrative, likeable characters and a less tedious management system? How about a IX with the mood from the first disc (and maybe the second) carried all the way through and better thought put into Kuja and Garland?
A remake I’ll buy is one where the makers realised what didn’t work and ditching such elements altogether. So with regards to the new X why stop at HD graphics?
Thus, in the vain hope that someone from SqueeEnix is reading this, I present some suggestions on how this Final Fantasy X can be improved:
- Get better English voice actors!
- Ditch Blitzball!
- In fact ditch the minigames altogether (or at least make them less tedious and more, oh I don’t know, FUN?)
- Bring back the open world! And maybe open up some of the towns so we can explore some more!
- Get better English voice actors!
- And how about getting rid of the laughing scene while we’re at it?
- And how about scrapping that post credits epilogue with Tidus? Kinda undermines the emotional kick to the guts that was the ending (and the less I’m reminded about X2 the better).
- Did I mention the English voice actors?
(seriously, get these guys: They seem pretty good!)
Now I’ve already expressed my thoughts on game remakes and I still feel a sinking feeling in my stomach even as I typed that previous sentence out. BUT! (and this is a big but) I’m not willing to condemn remakes altogether – because I would like to see someone remake a game purely because they felt they could do better a better job the second time around.
In the thirties Alfred Hitchcock made the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much – only to be so unhappy with the finished product that he made the movie again twenty years later when he relocated to Hollywood. Similarly, Hideaki Anno is currently working on a new Evangelion anime only this time without the restrictions of budget and time – thus granting him the freedom to tell the story he wanted to tell all along.
Has anyone in the gaming industry ever used such a motivation?
So far, Final Fantasy 1-4 have all had significant revamps on various systems: More often than not with a new graphical coat of paint and some new goodies added. Not a bad idea and I suppose it’s worth giving people a chance to find out what they might have missed out the first time around (not to mention to prove Final Fantasy isn’t all Cloud and Sephiroth).
But with the progression of each Final Fantasy it does arise the inevitable question of VI and VII. VI I would like to see revamped to, if anything, reclaim the title of BEST FF EVA from it’s upstart younger brother. But I couldn’t care less about VII – Sure people may clamor for a graphical upgrade but what else can you do? True a more coherent narrative would be nice but there is little I can think of where VII could be improved – which, I have to admit, may attest to the game’s staying power fourteen years on.
But no – SqueeEnix aren’t really caring for VI and VII – instead they’re straight for X.
Now if SqueeEnix are intent on revamping their previous Final Fantasy titles, then eventually they’ll arrive to the post-VII era. Namely, VIII, IX, and XII – indeed the revamp of X may suggest they’re already there. Now these titles are important because whilst VII was a big hit that may never be replicated, everything Final Fantasy that’s followed has split opinion like never before. I have never seen people react to the post-VII Final Fantasy games with both such ruthless condemnation and such passionate defending. Whilst everyone has good words to say about many Final Fantasy 1-7 (well maybe not II), the same people have such strong opinions about 8-onward.
But here’s the point I’m trying so laboriously to get to: What if SqueeEnix remade the post-VII Final fantasy games and actually made them better? If people are willing to defend them with passionate fervour, then there must at least be a good game in there despite the walls of criticisms. So why not take the opportunity to get rid of the elements that didn’t work? Can anyone imagine an VIII with a coherent narrative, likeable characters and a less tedious management system? How about a IX with the mood from the first disc (and maybe the second) carried all the way through and better thought put into Kuja and Garland?
A remake I’ll buy is one where the makers realised what didn’t work and ditching such elements altogether. So with regards to the new X why stop at HD graphics?
Thus, in the vain hope that someone from SqueeEnix is reading this, I present some suggestions on how this Final Fantasy X can be improved:
- Get better English voice actors!
- Ditch Blitzball!
- In fact ditch the minigames altogether (or at least make them less tedious and more, oh I don’t know, FUN?)
- Bring back the open world! And maybe open up some of the towns so we can explore some more!
- Get better English voice actors!
- And how about getting rid of the laughing scene while we’re at it?
- And how about scrapping that post credits epilogue with Tidus? Kinda undermines the emotional kick to the guts that was the ending (and the less I’m reminded about X2 the better).
- Did I mention the English voice actors?
(seriously, get these guys: They seem pretty good!)
Monday, July 18, 2011
Rocket Man
Recently, I got on XBLA and downloaded the demo of the Rocket Knight Adventures revamp. Call it a curiosity: I remember playing the original Rocket Knight Adventures on the Sega Megadrive when I was a kid and thinking it was ace – And indeed, years later, I can safely say that this is a Megadrive game that actually holds up pretty well nearly twenty years later.
So I played through the demo but it left a rather mixed reaction. Sure the high def graphics are nice to look at and the platforming mechanics are still there but for some reason, the thing seems to lack…. Well….. heart.
One thing that endured Rocket Knight Adventures to me is it had a lot of creativity: I liked the various legions of pig-baddies and the various machines they had on board to stop Sparkster. Sadly, this creativity doesn’t seem to be present in the demo as the machines are absent and the baddies are all wolves – none of either have the character that made the original so appealing.
Also, I liked the fast action, the thrill of flying and the various efforts to mix up the action. And in a way, this new version doesn’t seem to have any of this: Instead of fast paced, flying action, it just comes across as being a standard issue platformer.
Which thus begs the question: What was this game trying to accomplish? Was it a remake? Or was it doing something new with the IP? Either way, I heard that this game was made not by Konami but by an English developer who (and don’t quote me on this) were motivated not by playing and loving the original but most likely for the sake of a paycheck.
And boy, even in a demo, does it show
So I played through the demo but it left a rather mixed reaction. Sure the high def graphics are nice to look at and the platforming mechanics are still there but for some reason, the thing seems to lack…. Well….. heart.
One thing that endured Rocket Knight Adventures to me is it had a lot of creativity: I liked the various legions of pig-baddies and the various machines they had on board to stop Sparkster. Sadly, this creativity doesn’t seem to be present in the demo as the machines are absent and the baddies are all wolves – none of either have the character that made the original so appealing.
Also, I liked the fast action, the thrill of flying and the various efforts to mix up the action. And in a way, this new version doesn’t seem to have any of this: Instead of fast paced, flying action, it just comes across as being a standard issue platformer.
Which thus begs the question: What was this game trying to accomplish? Was it a remake? Or was it doing something new with the IP? Either way, I heard that this game was made not by Konami but by an English developer who (and don’t quote me on this) were motivated not by playing and loving the original but most likely for the sake of a paycheck.
And boy, even in a demo, does it show
Monday, March 21, 2011
Reboot this: Loaded
Remakes and Reboots are certainly popular amongst game developers: It would seem that just as long as there is an instantly recognizable name attached to the product, it would sell enough to make a decent amount of dosh.
Some gamers may grow frustrated with such moves, wishing the developers would instead make their own IP but such a move is not without it's risks: It is indeed a very long and costly process that developers should aim to making something worthwhile. Having some flop is indeed the last thing developers want so there is always the comfort zone of working on an already established name.
A valid argument for the continued presence of the Reboots but I propose a middle ground: I would like to see a reboot built on risks. I want to see a reboot of a failed idea. I want a bad game taken and transformed into a good game that no one thought possible.
Any idea can work just as long as it's handled by people who know what they're doing. By way of example, the 80's film Xanadu was a notorious flop when first released but now it's been regenerated as a hit Broadway musical. And keeping with the movie theme, I thought Hancock had a good idea behind it, shame the execution was rather lousy.
So, in what could evolve into a series, I present a post on what games I would like to see re-energised. May I present the PS1 game, LOADED!
Loaded was a launch title for the Playstation. A top down shooter, it told the tale of six crims busting their way out of a futuristic prison as bloodily as posisble.
it didn't do much to show off the processing power for Sony's new beast but it certainly had a lot going for it: The game had a macabre sense of humour about it, the character designs where great (courtesy of Vertigo comics), the music was superb and boasted involvement with Pop Will Eat Itself and there was no shortage of action. Indeed, Loaded must be the bloodiest game ever made with no shortage of gore and blood. It seemed juvenile and lacking in substance but it had a charm to it that still works for me to this day: After all, it's a great way to vent some anger.
Loaded divided critics: some thought it dumb whilst others enjoyed the fun factor. Nevertheless it was a big seller: enough did get a sequel, Re-Loaded. But this wasn't well received as it's predecessor. A third title, Fully Loaded, was planned but didn't materialise. And thus the saga of Loaded ended there and then (although apparently both Loaded and it's sequel are on their way to the PSN).
So why remake this game? Some possible reasons:
- Fun. Many games these days are stern and serious. You don't see a game that doesn't take itself seriously. I welcome any game that walks a macabre path which other games avoid.
- Action. Gamers have been crying out for a return to when a shooter involved turning off your brain and shooting dudes. All eyes are currently looking to Duke Nukem Forever as some great white hope but will anyone challenge him?
- Characters. Loaded boasts some wonderfully kooky characters and some excellent character designs. The kind that are crying out for a well-written script and some manic voice acting.
Any takers?
Some gamers may grow frustrated with such moves, wishing the developers would instead make their own IP but such a move is not without it's risks: It is indeed a very long and costly process that developers should aim to making something worthwhile. Having some flop is indeed the last thing developers want so there is always the comfort zone of working on an already established name.
A valid argument for the continued presence of the Reboots but I propose a middle ground: I would like to see a reboot built on risks. I want to see a reboot of a failed idea. I want a bad game taken and transformed into a good game that no one thought possible.
Any idea can work just as long as it's handled by people who know what they're doing. By way of example, the 80's film Xanadu was a notorious flop when first released but now it's been regenerated as a hit Broadway musical. And keeping with the movie theme, I thought Hancock had a good idea behind it, shame the execution was rather lousy.
So, in what could evolve into a series, I present a post on what games I would like to see re-energised. May I present the PS1 game, LOADED!
Loaded was a launch title for the Playstation. A top down shooter, it told the tale of six crims busting their way out of a futuristic prison as bloodily as posisble.
it didn't do much to show off the processing power for Sony's new beast but it certainly had a lot going for it: The game had a macabre sense of humour about it, the character designs where great (courtesy of Vertigo comics), the music was superb and boasted involvement with Pop Will Eat Itself and there was no shortage of action. Indeed, Loaded must be the bloodiest game ever made with no shortage of gore and blood. It seemed juvenile and lacking in substance but it had a charm to it that still works for me to this day: After all, it's a great way to vent some anger.
Loaded divided critics: some thought it dumb whilst others enjoyed the fun factor. Nevertheless it was a big seller: enough did get a sequel, Re-Loaded. But this wasn't well received as it's predecessor. A third title, Fully Loaded, was planned but didn't materialise. And thus the saga of Loaded ended there and then (although apparently both Loaded and it's sequel are on their way to the PSN).
So why remake this game? Some possible reasons:
- Fun. Many games these days are stern and serious. You don't see a game that doesn't take itself seriously. I welcome any game that walks a macabre path which other games avoid.
- Action. Gamers have been crying out for a return to when a shooter involved turning off your brain and shooting dudes. All eyes are currently looking to Duke Nukem Forever as some great white hope but will anyone challenge him?
- Characters. Loaded boasts some wonderfully kooky characters and some excellent character designs. The kind that are crying out for a well-written script and some manic voice acting.
Any takers?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Remake it so
For today I thought I'd share my thoughts on the thorny issue that is remakes.
Everyone has an opinion on this don't they? More often than not it is groans of disgust that old ground is being worked over, memories of childhood pleasure being irrevocably ruined and no one has the balls to come up with something new.
Personally, I can see both sides of the remake debate. On one hand, it presents a good opportunity for gamers to discover something that may have slipped their view the first item around: Older gamers can find something they didn't previously know about and younger gamers can something that made their comrades turn cartwheels over. As long as a formula works (and isn't tampered with too much), it can still keep working. And indeed, as long as there is a graphical upgrade, any old game can give any newer game a run for it's money.
On the other hand, game developers want something that can sell: Like any other project, making games is certainly not a cheap venture (how Jonathan Blow happened to have 250,000 lying around to make Braid is beyond me) so what you need is something that will return the investment. And that is no easy task seeing as gamers themselves tend to have attention spans that last no longer than five minutes.
So what do I think is a successful remake? The remake of Sid Meier's Pirates on the Xbox and Wii. I did try Pirates on the Commodore 64 back in the day but I found it stiff and unimpressive. On the Xbox however, I found it heaps of fun and quite easily to get lost in. As is my understanding the changes have been minor other than a complete graphic upgrade. But what does it matter? I've enjoyed playing Pirates and it is interesting to note the remake getting through to me when the original didn't.
A remake can work if the people understand what made it work the first time and not touch it further. A remake can be ruined by people adding too many changes and/or trying ever so hard to please fans of the original. But what I'd like to see is a remake done by the original developers who feel that they could've done a better job the first time around. Alfred Hitchcock did such a thing with the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much so I would like to see someone in the games industry with that kind of balls.
Ultimately though, I feel time spent on remakes would be better spent on developing new franchises to muck around with. Which is why I'm glad I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on my Xbox 360 and not some Baldur's Gate Redux (or something).
Everyone has an opinion on this don't they? More often than not it is groans of disgust that old ground is being worked over, memories of childhood pleasure being irrevocably ruined and no one has the balls to come up with something new.
Personally, I can see both sides of the remake debate. On one hand, it presents a good opportunity for gamers to discover something that may have slipped their view the first item around: Older gamers can find something they didn't previously know about and younger gamers can something that made their comrades turn cartwheels over. As long as a formula works (and isn't tampered with too much), it can still keep working. And indeed, as long as there is a graphical upgrade, any old game can give any newer game a run for it's money.
On the other hand, game developers want something that can sell: Like any other project, making games is certainly not a cheap venture (how Jonathan Blow happened to have 250,000 lying around to make Braid is beyond me) so what you need is something that will return the investment. And that is no easy task seeing as gamers themselves tend to have attention spans that last no longer than five minutes.
So what do I think is a successful remake? The remake of Sid Meier's Pirates on the Xbox and Wii. I did try Pirates on the Commodore 64 back in the day but I found it stiff and unimpressive. On the Xbox however, I found it heaps of fun and quite easily to get lost in. As is my understanding the changes have been minor other than a complete graphic upgrade. But what does it matter? I've enjoyed playing Pirates and it is interesting to note the remake getting through to me when the original didn't.
A remake can work if the people understand what made it work the first time and not touch it further. A remake can be ruined by people adding too many changes and/or trying ever so hard to please fans of the original. But what I'd like to see is a remake done by the original developers who feel that they could've done a better job the first time around. Alfred Hitchcock did such a thing with the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much so I would like to see someone in the games industry with that kind of balls.
Ultimately though, I feel time spent on remakes would be better spent on developing new franchises to muck around with. Which is why I'm glad I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on my Xbox 360 and not some Baldur's Gate Redux (or something).
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Golden Goose
Last week I talked about remakes so today I’d talk about it some more.
Recently, Goldeneye 007 has touched down on the Wii. Billed as a remake of the classic Goldeneye 64 for the N64, this was indeed a surprise when it was originally announced and no doubt had more than a few Nintendo devotees both alarmed and angered. But on paper, the idea of remaking Goldeneye 64 has a lot going for it: 1) With Nintendo and Rare parted ways there’s no way we’ll ever see the original turn up on the Virtual Console, 2) there’s no denying that Goldeneye 64, despite its importance to console FPS’s, hasn’t aged too well and 3) the opportunity for online play would be welcome addition.
So in this case, a remake could be a good idea - But at the same time, any good idea/intent can fall flat on it’s face.
I was talking to a friend recently –he’d just picked up this remake and he seemed disappointed with the finished product. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the game as not being a patch on the original.
So is it impossible then? Impossible to recapture the spark that made the original work so well? Or isn’t it far more easier to dismiss a bold idea without giving it a chance?
Personally my money’s on the latter. But, I can’t draw my own conclusions about he remake without playing it– and that will have to wait until Christmas.
Stay tuned….
Recently, Goldeneye 007 has touched down on the Wii. Billed as a remake of the classic Goldeneye 64 for the N64, this was indeed a surprise when it was originally announced and no doubt had more than a few Nintendo devotees both alarmed and angered. But on paper, the idea of remaking Goldeneye 64 has a lot going for it: 1) With Nintendo and Rare parted ways there’s no way we’ll ever see the original turn up on the Virtual Console, 2) there’s no denying that Goldeneye 64, despite its importance to console FPS’s, hasn’t aged too well and 3) the opportunity for online play would be welcome addition.
So in this case, a remake could be a good idea - But at the same time, any good idea/intent can fall flat on it’s face.
I was talking to a friend recently –he’d just picked up this remake and he seemed disappointed with the finished product. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the game as not being a patch on the original.
So is it impossible then? Impossible to recapture the spark that made the original work so well? Or isn’t it far more easier to dismiss a bold idea without giving it a chance?
Personally my money’s on the latter. But, I can’t draw my own conclusions about he remake without playing it– and that will have to wait until Christmas.
Stay tuned….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)