XIII Remake Was Received So Poorly That The 2003 Original Actually Sold Better Last Week (UK)

For the love of all that is holy, they have a chance to address the feedback and do it properly. Even if it means a further delay.

Lol...falls out of chair lololol!

"Let's remaster this game, but do it poorly, and change the unique, cel-shaded comic book style of the original so that it looks more like Fortnite! Because that's popular right now, and it will TOTALLY attract younger gamers!" - some executive, probably

Ah, yes: the remake that undoes the thing that made the original game famous.

In 2026, they'll remake The Witcher 3, but it'll just be a boss gauntlet with no story.

What do they expect when they launch on a console that had a major upgrade the same week. Silly business sense to me (or no sense perhaps)

Here's the link to the apology from Microids that Ryan thought wasn't worth including in the article:

https://www.microids.com/official-statement-by-microids-playmagic-regarding-xiii/

I bet they strategically avoided mentioning the art style because they don't want to pump funds into backpedaling and reappraoching the art style.

i still have the original xbox version. the fact that it had bots in multiplayer made me play this game for dozens of hours.
my best friend and me always made a teamdeathmatch game against as many bots as possible on one certain map. first team with 500 kills wins. hardest difficulty. so good

I hate that game publishers are now releasing “roadmaps”. It’s something they should have left in the office where it belongs. Soon enough online games will require a daily Scrum meeting of gamers, with some we’re already partway there!

That's what you get for making a remake that isn't as good as the original, even when the graphics sucks compared to a 17 year old game (which looked amazing, let's be honest).

But still, selling more of the original is impressive, and I mean really impressive to sell fewer copies of the new one

Good. Lazy developers who release broken stuff shouldn't be rewarded. I hope they lose a pile of money.

The comments on the other link asked, "Why even remake the game, people can just play the original," and all I could think was, "I don't even have my old GameCube anymore. Purchases through vc were going to revolutionize nintendo gaming."
I had so much faith in buying emulations. . .

The remake here is terrible... the original aesthetic is a large part of what set it apart from the competition. I mean, could you imagine if there were a remaster of Silent Hill 2 for PS3 and Xbox 360 where they just removed all of the fog? Right, Konami?

Konami? Konami......... where's Mary?

I would have bought this remake or even a remaster of this game, but as it stands, I am not going near this product, especially at that price.

Publishers really need to understand that if their product isn't finished, they shouldn't be trying to sell it, and that their pricing needs to match their quality and effort.

Unless you're nintendo, in which case, you go ahead and dump three roms and charge full price.

With poor sales and the online backlash can anyone really see them getting to the end of that 'road map'. .

@Richnj
Did you just call out Nintendo on a nintendo fan site for something that pretty much all games companies do!!!

I doubt the devs are lazy, more likely it's the suits not wanting to hire enough devs and give it enough time. The art style change was a poor decision.

What a mess. Imagine being on the crew for this and seeing it slowly come together, knowing that the fans aren't gonna like what they see.

I feel sorry for the developers, at least they tried to bring a cult classic back

Ubisoft behind this abomination, by any chance?

Well - glad I held off when there was a discount pre-order option on GoG for the PC version ... just had a bad feeling about it. Instead I replayed the original PC version last weekend and while it is far from perfect it remains charming and has a solid art-style that made it stand out in 2003 (just as things were starting to move to constantly ‘dark & gritty’ self-serious shooters!)

As someone who is a huge fan of the original and loves the graphic novel series, I pre-ordered the remake. I always thought it looked pretty dodgy, but I told myself that the worst it will probably be is the exact same game but with updated visuals... Oh, how wrong I was! Literally the biggest waste of £40 ever. I literally played it for 5 minutes and it was utter crap, so I just played the original instead.

All I wanted was a basic remaster! The game never needed a remake. It just needed the textures and visuals cleaning up, resolution increased and for the checkpoint/save system to be fixed.

I was looking forward to this game because I enjoyed the original but I didn’t know it had already released

I believe this qualifies as an EPIC FAIL 😆

It's a good thing No More Heroes didn't get this treatment, the PS3 remake version look just as terrible. I'm glad they gave us the original Wii style for Switch instead of the disgusting PS3 release.

They can suit themselves, but most of the time you won't catch me getting (or, if you account for giveaways and bundles, at least separately buying) a game on PC if it's already coming to Switch, an allegedly "better-playing" classic or not.

The fact that the 2003 version was €2,50 on steam also helpt alot i think.

@RazumikhinPG their apology is completely worthless when they state "In its present state, XIII does not meet our quality standards". You cannot say that but also take your customers money anyway

I can’t remember who said this to EGM or Next Generation, but I think it was Howard Lincoln after he left Nintendo and he believed “If you make crap games, you deserve to be slapped upside the head.”

If someone can find the quote, it is appropriate for Ubisoft to heart this with the abortive filth they’ve given us.

If only it was possible to play Warcraft 3 in oldstate

@HotGoomba___Rebrand such words of wisdom

@dew12333 Nintendo's version of this practice is particularly egregious. And this being a nintendo fan is all the more reason to call Nintendo out on it. This shouldn't be a safe space or echo chamber, and Nintendo is far more likely to get a free pass here when it shouldn't.

And don't worry, I do the exact same on Pushsquare and Purexbox.

@BirdBoy16 lol

How would he know this?

Fortnite looks good how does this look like fortnite.

@Richnj I assume that's a half-baked attempt to call out the Super Mario 3D All-Stars collection. The problem is, what you accused them of doing isn't at all what happened. Not only are there numerous small changes in the games, they're presented visually better than ever before, the full sound track is there as well and saying they charge "full price" is wildly misleading, considering it would be "full price" if it were one game. As it stands, they're charging about $20 per game, which is a fine price. And yes, I'm sure you can offer examples of other games that are cheaper and did more. Yes. That's gaming. The price isn't fixed based on game length or graphical quality. Xenoblade 2 doesn't cost $300 just because it's five times longer to 100% than Super Mario Odyssey. Game pricing is mostly based on company recognition and game popularity, plus industry standard for modern physical releases. There are some minor exceptions, but most companies are going to put a $60 price tag on a game they put out. Whether it's worth it is up to the consumer. I could easily day all companies not making 200+ hour RPGs are screwing their customers with egregious sales tactics by selling these 5-20 hour single player AAA titles for $60. But the people playing The Last of Us or Uncharted or Luigi's Mansion.. it's up to them to determine if $60 is a fair price. Nintendo or Sony aren't commiting some irrefutable sin because they make shorter or simpler games and charge $60 for it. It's business, filling a demand.

And honestly, while I might think some of those aren't worth $60 (including other Nintendo games, like Link's Awakening or even Smash Ultimate) to me, I absolutely think the 3D All-Stars collection is worth it. Super Mario Galaxy alone being playable without a Wii Remote, on a handheld, portable and with the resolution bumped up so it looks better than ever.. honestly, I'd probably pay $60 for that. But with Sunshine and 64 included, it's a dream collection.

Nintendo doesn't need to be called out so it doesn't get a "free pass". They offered a product people wanted at an expected and reasonable MSRP. And for those that don't want it, they don't have to buy it. And to be frank, having a 100+ hour package available at a set price and not nickel and diming with DLC and microtransations is nice. That's the stuff that really needs to be questioned.

@Deltath 50 Gold Points have been added to your My Nintendo® Account.

@Deltath "And yes, I'm sure you can offer examples of other games that are cheaper and did more."

There's a reason for that. And it has nothing to do with quality of graphics, or length of the gaming or any other bogus strawman. It's all down to extent of work and the cost of the port's production.

Nintendo or Bethesda paying a handful of guys to port over legacy titles does not equal the same amount of work or production cost as, say MS hiring 5 different studios to work on a collection of 4 games with one of those games being remastered.

By using your logic, Bethesda could have and should have, charged $20 for each of the Doom ports. Just as much work, if not more has been put in to those porting efforts. And I guess the MCC should be priced the same, despite having substantially more work put in to it? (though coincedentally, is cheaper than all stars 3D). It's a simple concept. Not all port projects are of the same calibre, and the pricing should reflect the work that went in to porting. I pretty muhh spelled it out in my first post.

And if Nintendo overcharging is just them "putting out a product people want" then you can't also complain about microtransactions in the same sentence, as I could easily argue that those things are also just companies "putting out products that people want". You can argue that lots of people bought all stars 3D, but lots of people buy COD and pay in to Fortnite. Doesn't excuse that Nintendo did nickle and dime you, you just gave them a free pass.

I originally got the XIII remake on PC, held off playing it for a week, then got a refund for it on Steam. I then ordered a copy of the original Gamecube release, decided that's the better way to play it.

Not surprised. It was only £2 on PC last week.

@Richnj Honestly, most people would be fine if some of the Doom ports or MCC were $20 per game. I wouldn't pay that but I don't particularly like shooters in general so I wouldn't buy them for $5 either. Realistically, the cost of porting it isn't the only thing that gives it value and you act like it is. Even if it were LITERALLY free to port for them, that doesn't take away the value of the product. Galaxy is also significantly newer, longer and more expensive of a game than many of the ones you mentioned. It also isn't available anywhere but the Wii or Wii U, meanwhile Doom can be played on virtually every platform under the sun. Availability and demand are real elements of business.

Also, you say that the extent of the work and the cost of the production is what should determine the price. Maybe this is true. Maybe. But it literally isn't how the entertainment business has worked virtually in any category. A song on itunes isn't cheaper or more expensive based on any factor of the production value or cost. Movie theaters don't charge less for tickets for lower budget films versus the 500 million dollar blockbuster movies. DVDs and Blurays or digital movie downloads, same thing. Books aren't priced based on length or time to create or money spent on it. And by and large, games from AAA developers work at a set MSRP. It's true that in recent years some studios have opted to charge less, but one company choosing to charge less on a particular collection is them doing something nice for the consumer that should be appreciated, not used as a reason for why everyone else MUST do the same or they're somehow taking advantage of the consumer.

To be honest, games are insanely cheap as is. In terms of cost to produce and what goes into them, it makes very little profit compared to most other businesses and it's one of the ONLY industries in the world that has had its products get progressively cheaper as time goes on despite insanely sharp increases in cost to produce. $60 for Super Mario 3D All-Stars is about $14 less than what was charged for Super Mario 64 by itself when it was launched, counting for inflation.

So while I won't sit here and tell you that it isn't great that a company chooses to charge $40 for a collection of some sort instead of $60, I do think $60 for this particular is a good and fair deal for three amazing games with some decent improvements. Microsoft undercharging for something doesn't mean Nintendo is overcharging for something else.

Meanwhile, I do think charging $60 for something like Captain Toad Treasure Tracker (which in some ways is actually worse than the original) IS overcharging. Similar could be said of New Super Mario Bros U. Deluxe, especially since four player multiplayer in that game was ruined in some ways. I don't think either of those are worth that price. I don't feel the same about the 3D collection.

As for DLC and microtransations, my issues with that aren't about whether or not they're nickel and diming me, per se. It's more the idea of being sold an unfinished product. Some is perfectly fine, some of it isn't. Hopefully the legitimately shady stuff will fall away and people won't support it. But I don't see that being the case with the 3D collection.

@HotGoomba___Rebrand I agree

@Deltath If there was some sort of "Video Game Government" with politicians like Senators, Mayors, Governors or whatever you'd have my vote. Well spoken!

No cell shaded graphics? No purchase from me. That was the one thing that really stood out about this game.

Maybe on their "roadmap" plans they can just include the original game as an option for free and I would buy this then.

@Big_Fudge "surely you have to take into account the work that went into the original game, not just the port"

No. Just straight no. Because we're talking about remasters and ports. The original game already had a launch and price tag. The original already had its production costs covered and profit made.

The remasters and ports are entire different projects from the original release, done years apart. You may have spent $20m making the original game, but you only spent $500,000 on a remaster. Expecting to be paid the same amount for these two efforts is scummy.

And as I was pointing out, the forms in which these remasters take can drastically differ. From dumping the game with minimum effort, to complete overhauls of the graphics and sounds, game play tweaks and even much larger scales. The latter obviously taking up far more effort, money, and time to complete. In a world where cheaply and haphazardly dumping three games on to a disc and calling it a day can be called the same as a total overhaul of a game, then why should devs even bother trying? They might as well poorly re-release all titles, because you'll have fanboys defend the low effort, and any potential bugs and issues because "yeah but the original releases were great titles, so I'd pay an arm and a leg for any version".

Remember, we're on an article about a remake that didn't meet the standards of the gamers or the devs, yet it was shoved out for sale. Because the publishers have been told by gamers that the strength of the brand and the original game can sell bucket loads rather than just judging a game based on its remaster/remake/port effort. All Stars 3D, its success and low effort contributes to failures like XIII. And all the posts in all stars 3D's defensive is just hurting the game's existence, rather than justifying it as far as I'm concerned. Because giving a free pass to one encourages others to try the same.

I have a PC copy of the original. Never really got into it honestly. But I still have the option to give it another go

I got the original and remake for $17 for PC on a sale. The original would have been $11 alone. I didn't even know they were remaking it until I saw that bundle. The original still holds up because it isn't a realistic style and because of that I haven't even tried the remake yet.

I had this preordered on Switch, thankfully it was delayed. Then I saw the reviews for the other versions. I'll be sticking with the original as well now.

Dear god they look like Fortnite characters.

I heard the employees and game director are ex Big Red Button of Sonic Boom fame 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Richnj Although Nintendo always releases quality products, at least there's that.

@liveswired of Sonic Boom fame

Yeah, let's call it "fame", LOL

P.S. I bet that in 2020 is possible to release a game with the style of the actual comic book (which is beautiful: way more detailed and "realistic" than the cartoony cel shaded original version of the game), and that's what the developers should have done, I'd pay full price for a game like that.

@NovaPrime When talking about new releases that's true. The issue is how they've been handling ports. The Wii U ports are over priced, though I'd conceed it's only by £10-15 when additional content has been added, but that jumps up to about £25 when it's a pretty straight port. The biggest elephant in the room is all stars 3D. There's nothing wrong with the game itself, but when taken with context of its pricing and extremely limited availability, it becomes a very sleazy product.

@Big_Fudge Simple question. If Nintendo released two versions of Mario 64. One was an up rezzed port, the other was a full on remake. Would you price them both the same?

Tbt the original wasnt that great either. This remake reminds why i never buy ubi games.

@Richnj 3D All Stars' limited availability is certainly questionable, but IMO the price is right: it's 60 euros for three big games, 20 euros each.

P.S. The cartridge is now 45 euros for Black Friday.

@Richnj Hi, I respect your opinion of course, it's just the timing here. I mean you are comparing this rubbish to three great games for one price, not really the same. You also talk in your comments about 'worth', which is extremely objective, as we all generally hold a different amount of worth to things and with various factors dictating it. Taking it from Nintendo's perpective, Did they sell well? Did they make profit?, so it would appear the worth they put to the product matched with consumers. But I totally get that you held a different worth to that game, did you buy it?
I also see 'fans ' as people that favor something particularly over others, I think it lots of cases people are fans of gaming and not just nintendo. Maybe if you had my blind love for nintendo then you would be more justified by their actions.

I don't get it. I mean, I expected them to screw up technically, as they did with Blacksad, but I did expect them to respect the source material a bit more. A remaster more or less. My expectations were low, because they did Blacksad as well, but if it was functional, I'd have considered getting it. My expectations were about zero once I saw the first gameplay trailer, and below zero once I saw the first gameplay video on stronger hardware. Yet still, it hurts a bit. I was looking forward to replaying XIII on the Switch. All they had to do was make it run well on Switch and add gyro aim, for me to eventually get it. Can't be that hard, it's a Gamecube generation cell shaded fps. It should easily run at the Switch's resolution 60 fps, even with some more shadows and stuff.

@NovaPrime I'd say Galaxy may be worth €20. But I think if Mario 64 had dropped as a stand alone digital release for €20, while undoubtedly it would have been successful, probably would have raised a lot of eyebrows.

@dew12333 I did not buy the game. Though, I have found out my partner has bought it me for Christmas. So even though I have Mario 64, and Galaxy 1&2 on Wii U, I'm going to gratefully accept it and take the opportunity to play through the games again but with my son.

And yeah, blind love, especially for a company, is not my thing. I don't particularly believe it to be a healthy attitude.

@BenAV Hey I'd take that the only reason I was hyped for the remake getting a switch port is cause I didn't own a GameCube and wanted to experience XIII