Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

I'm nowhere near close to disregarding the game based on no footage, a teaser of Darth Revan standing in a room and a few blog posts. A controversial writer also doesn't necessarily mean a bad writer and Aspyr have had my trust instilled in them before due to their excellent work on Star Wars remasters, so it's nice seeing them being given a project to make from the ground up with both Lucasfilm and Sony's backing.

There are a lot of ways to f*ck a KOTOR remake up, but under this kind of developer specifically I feel safe in saying they won't.

@TheFrenchiestFry
It does seem there's truth to what you just said. Upon further investigation it seems the "NOT KOTOR" when read in proper context of the entire thread is not specifically dismissing the game. Without that context it sounded like, "what's your favorite Bioware game" with the answer being "NOT KOTOR" as if to say, "anything but THAT".

Doesn't address all my concerns with her but it does make me feel more confident.

I wouldn't equate having concerns with automatic dismissal. It would have to have a very serious problem to automatically dismiss. But I can't say I'm fully confident either. I've seen these activist types so many times before, and they have a tendency to use their positions of influence to preach their dogma and virtue signal.

As long as the writing isn't changed, I'm happy. Don't really care what her personal beliefs are so long as it doesn't crossover into the game.

https://www.play-asia.com/summer-in-mara/13/70ewzh

Wow !
Summer in Mara will get physical release too on PS4 due to 29 Nov 2021. 😀

Just make a new Star Wars RPG ffs. When a game is held in such high regard, how can a remake deliver? I know FF7 Remake seemed to go down well, but that's a game not as consistently well regarded as KOTOR.

I’m more curious for DQ 12, since it could hopefully end up not being a generic rpg that just constantly plays it safe with the story. I like dragon quest’s spin-offs, but my main issue is the main series, which I tried to get into, but got a bad taste in my mouth while playing. The story of 11 was way too predictable, being the standard generic jrpg story that’s been done time and time again.. and while that is the point of the series, it’s still kind of annoying to me.

The gameplay wasn’t really a strong suit in 11 either, given that it was just the same old system used over 20 years ago, and the option to move around the battlefield offered nothing, and had no reason to exist in the first place.

I’m hoping 12 is more innovative, with a better story, better music that isn’t ear bleeding, and a better battle system, that doesn’t get rid of the turn-based structure, but supplements it and actually makes it more interesting to play as a result.

Seems Sony is releasing NVMe drives with heat sink but under a different brand? Nextorage?

Hopefully they hold up better than those Vita memcards. I’m not quite sure why they wouldn’t brand it under Sony or even PS. Why use “Nextorage”?

I generally prefer remakes over remasters. The original game still exists, so why not take a risk with the remake? At least it'll be somewhat of a new experience instead of the same game, but just a little prettier.

@Octane
I already experienced it from FF III NDS version.
FF III NDS version was pretty different than FF III NES version and I like FF III NDS than the NES version.

@Octane That is why Resident Evil 2 Remake is one of the greatest Remakes ever made It changed so much and it was really terrifying to play for the first time. I loved it!

If it was like Resident Evil 1 HD Remake it would not have that impact.

I’m still of the opinion that Final Fantasy 7’s remake ruined the term remake, making people expect a reimagining of a game, instead of a graphical upgrade that was made from the ground up. I’ve seen people call the Diamond and Pearl remakes a remaster, even though remasters are games that are reskinned with better textures, and not made from the ground up.

@VoidofLight I honestly think even further than that Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy added a crap ton of confusion as to what to label as "remaster" vs. "remake". Sony when promoting the game at PlayStation events kept using phrases like "remastered from the ground up" to market it to people when in actuality both Crash and Spyro are basically remakes with very little in terms of actual assets carried over from their PS1 counterparts.

Bluepoint is also subject to debate for whatever reason because their remakes use the original game's source code during development to have the physics and movement of characters closely mimic the original game, but they're so graphically and stylistically overhauled that calling them remasters is kind of underselling them, especially in the case of Shadow of the Colossus PS4 and Demon's Souls PS5

Yeah, unfortunately remake can mean quite a variety of things .... Which includes the reimagining for FFVII Remake or the Pixel Remasters, which clearly are remade completely
For any such games I'm interested in, I have a good look to work out just what they're doing & whether it'll be worth me getting

Oh no, people want a remake to be interesting now, how sad. : (

@kkslider5552000 I mean FFVII and Resi 2 are kind of interesting in the fact they're not really remakes. They're more like reimaginings of old games that share very little mechanically with their predecessors and I think it creates the expectation every remake has to follow suit when that doesn't really need to be the case so I see what he's saying

FFVII and Resi 2 are basically new games all things considered. They're new games based on old games that haven't aged gracefully. FFVII even forgoes adapting the original plot one to one and basically kind of branches out from being a remake in the traditional sense altogether by the time the ending happens

@kkslider5552000 It’s not that, but I take issue with people who are calling something that is a remake “not a remake” because it’s not drastically different from what came before.

@Zuljaras The remake of RE1 was wildly different from the original game. They fashioned one of the scariest survival horror games of all time out of something that, even at the time, seemed like a cheesy b-movie.

@Ralizah That is true but it was more of a remaster not a remake. By that I mean the fixed camera angle was still there, the tank controls with some modern twist, the same inventory options almost the same combat.

Other than that the new additional levels and puzzles were amazing - the graveyards, the crimson heads, Lisa Trevor etc.

But when you compare it to the remake of RE2 it was night and day.

I wish I could say the same about RE3 Remake

@Zuljaras No, it was definitely a remake. It's pretty clear it was a from-the-ground-up remake of the original, and also one of the most gorgeous games on the Nintendo GameCube. In terms of tone and narrative, I'd argue it diverges from the original more fully than RE2R ever did. They just didn't needlessly move away from the aspects of the original that worked, like the fixed camera angles or tank controls.

Mechanically, RE2R obviously feels more different from the original since they opted to make it more of a modern action-shooter with survival horror elements (and because it's a big-budget game from 2019, where RE1R was a big-budget game from 2002). It's just unfortunate they added in really annoying stalker elements and ruined the zapping system features by not making it where the two character campaigns connect.

@Ralizah Maybe it was the change in the perspective but RE2 Remake was way scarier for me than RE1 Remake. The darkness and the sounds coming from it were chilling.

It was RE3 Remake that dropped the ball. It was very underwhelming and it had the potential to be great if they didn't CUT so much from the game.

There's a difference between a remaster, a remake, and a remagining.

A remaster applies a new master to the source. Like with music. It's already recorded. Just re-mix the balance of the various components to produce a new master without changing the original content. Aka resolution updates, framerate increases, better audio, etc. The goal is a faithful reproduction without changing the source.

Remakes re-make the exact same game from from ground up. It's not trying to create something new, it's simply trying to RE-make something which already exists. Build in a better engine, offer better graphics, smoother controls, new musical compositions, etc. The goal is a faithful modernized reproduction by remaking the source.

Whereas a reimagining takes the source material as inspiration, but adds creative liberty to change it in whatever way they see fit. The goal is not a faithful reproduction. The goal is to create something new but familiar.

There are a lot of remasters wrongfully labeled as remakes and a lot of reimaginings wrongfully labeled as remakes. "Remake" seems to be the go-to descriptor nowadays for just about everything. And even some actual remakes have been called remasters.

None are an objectively superior choice. But sometimes people don't want a reimagining. Sometimes people love the source material and just want it modernized. They don't want the thing they love changed on the whim of whatever new studio is handling development. Other times people may actually want a reimagining. Maybe there's not as much emotional attachment and there's room for exploring new narrative and gameplay elements.

I, however, usually prefer remasters or remakes. When a game is a masterpiece, I don't like seeing devs mess with perfection via reimaginings. Maybe it turns out well... maybe it doesn't. And even if it does, will it still elicit the same nostalgia if it's been changed too much? And that's just the thing- it's not usually something I want to see the dice rolled on. But that's just me. I don't mind a little liberty taken here and there, but major changes to gameplay or story... at that point just make a new game. That's not to say there haven't been reimaginings I loved. There have been. But if I had a preference of choice beforehand, I wouldn't choose to risk it.