Remasters have been a big trend in gaming over the past few years, and it’s easy to see why. Taking a classic game and making it even better (or at least prettier) seems to be a winning formula, and usually is a good way to reintroduce the game to a new generation. Bad remasters, on the other hand, do the exact opposite. They alienate new people and make a beloved game worse.
Sometimes, this isn’t too big of a deal because the remaster is treated as a seperate game, almost like an inferior port. The XIII remake was a complete disaster, but the original game was still fully playable, had basic online support, and is still sold by the studio that made it. So you can’t really say it “ruined” XIII. It just made an inferior product based on XIII.
But what about the other side of the equation? The remasters that totally overwrite and replace classic games. Stuff like “The GTA Trilogy: Definitive Edition.” Which completely replaced the original releases on all major platforms for sale, and would “patch” the original versions in a user’s library to be the new one. Unless you already have the original files, you couldn’t play the games as they were. This wasn’t a necessary change either – the original 3D GTA games ran fine on modern computers and could easily be ported to any modern console. It was done only as a marketing strategy.
Not only is this frustrating for players, but it also causes a lot of problems:
- If you have an older or weaker computer that can’t handle the new system requirements, you’re completely locked out of a game you paid money for, being forced to either find a complicated way to revert to your old version or just stop playing the game altogether. Either way, you’re now locked out of playing online with your friends if it’s a multiplayer game. It does the exact opposite of what a remaster should do: make a game more accessible and enjoyable.
- It erases the original work that people loved, discarding the hard work of the original designers and making the work, as it existed, inaccessible. Like painting over a classic work of art, or writing over a famous novel. This would be bad even if the remaster were good, and if the remaster misses the point of why people loved the game in the first place, it becomes downright tragic.
- It causes major problems in the modding community, as players are forced to pick between different versions of the game depending on what mod they want to play, or are locked out of playing certain mods entirely because they can’t play the newest version.
- From an ethical and legal standpoint, it’s dubious at best. Taking away a product or service someone paid for and replacing it with something else is a gray area that many would argue should be against fair trade laws. Places like the EU are considering legislation to ban the practice completely. If it isn’t legally fraud, it’s difficult to argue isn’t akin to it from a moral standpoint. You can always offer refunds, but that’s not exactly an ideal solution for either party.
So, what should be done? Simply put, publishers should be held accountable for things like this, either commercially or legally, and they need to have enough respect for their customers, their developers and their works of art to not go around erasing things. Customers should also hold companies accountable, speak out and demand change when they see it happen.
If your goal is to preserve classic games, that means preserving them as people remember them, not just “updating” them based on modern desires or standards. New and old versions should co-exist. For example, Diablo II Resurrected did it perfectly, as well as the Starcraft Remaster. The examples of those releases should be standard for all to follow.