Monday, July 20, 2009
Game Remakes, Re-Releases, and Re-Imaginings
Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software has posted an article over the weekend about one of the major benefits of a developer having the rights to their own intellectual property (IP) - something of a rarity outside of indie gaming: The Joy of Re-Releasing Old Games
This topic can be a little bit divisive, and Jeff does a good job of addressing some of these concerns.
It's amusing to me that our little hobby has become so big and has enough history that the idea of delving back into it has finally had its time come. And I think it is a good thing for game players as well as the game developers. Well, I guess I mean the "IP holders." Because in general - in mainstream - the developers don't own the IP they create and so they get jack squat for benefits.
But there are three different approaches that we could talk about here: Re-releases, remakes, and re-imaginings.
Re-Releases
I've shelled out quite a few greenbacks over the last year on older games that have been ported or re-jiggered for modern hardware. XBLA, GOG.com, WiiWare, and GameTap all have some great old classics that have been returned from the past via emulation and maybe just a touch of enhancement (such as with XBLA's achievements being added). I remember in 1996 or so picking up "The Kilrathi Trilogy" --- the older Wing Commander games retrofitted to work under Windows 95 - with some enhancements to sound and music on top.
That's a classic re-release to me: A re-launch of an old game for new audiences and new technology, but with very few - principally cosmetic - changes.
Remakes
Then you've actually got remakes. To me, this is a massive overhaul of the original codebase. A lot of fan-created projects (alas, many of which get a Cease-And-Desist just as they approach completion) are attempts to "remake" old games with new and improved graphics, sound, interfaces, and bug-fixes. It kinda sounds to me that this is the direction Jeff Vogel is going with Avernum (I never played the original Nethergate, so I can't tell if his recent re-release was really more of a "remake," but I assume so).
While I use the term for the lack of a better word, I don't think it necessarily implies a complete re-creation of an old game from scratch. I mean, if nothing else, you are basing the new game on old gameplay and concepts; often existing art and sound; and possibly existing code as well. For me, a "remake" is simply a massive overhaul of the original code. The recent release of The Secret of Monkey Island - Special Edition for XBLA and PC falls squarely in this category. I think a few "platinum edition" releases of games fall into this category as well.
And this is probably the category that generates the most complaints - as well as plenty of fan requests. How many people would love nothing more than a visual and UI overhaul of a game like X-Com or older Ultima games? Yet many gamers - convinced that "newer is always better" like the marketers keep telling us - consider this a rip-off. Apparently major overhauls of old games should be given away for free or something.
Re-Imaginings
This is a fairly recent concept in games. Game makers are sometimes going back to classic series, hitting the "reset" switch, and making a game that could qualify as a sequel, except that it has cut all sense of continuity with the previous game(s) and starts fresh. The PS3 game Warhawk and the upcoming reboot of the Mechwarrior franchise might both be considered re-imaginings of classic games (or game series). Perhaps Spiderweb's own Avernum could be considered a re-imagining of the Exile series.
This is a fairly risky move with intellectual property. The reason you are using the old property is that there is an existing fan base and the developers do not want to violate or jeopardize that goodwill. Yet the whole point of the re-imagining is to reboot the series and jettison all the old baggage and start fresh with new ideas and a new vision that will grab new audiences. If you go too far, you might as start over fresh with a new IP. Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes is a soon-to-be-released game for the DS which just leaves me scratching my head as to why they bothered to slap the "Might & Magic" label... it sounds like some marketing idiot's lame idea that they slapped in at the end of development.
Where I Stand
As a fan, I think I'm not too far from the norm. When I find a game (or novel, or movie, or TV show) that I love, I find myself wanting, "More of the same, but different." I'm also a bit of a retro-gamer, and I usually don't find it terribly difficult to see past antique graphics and interfaces to enjoy an older game. Usually.
So I'm actually a bit of a fan of all three approaches. I do not believe that newer is necessarily better - and I am happy modern gamers now have a chance to the games that are the ancestors of (and in some limited aspects, superior to) the modern blockbusters they now enjoy.
I've been thrilled with the chance to finally delve into some older games that I'd had at best a passing acquaintance with in the past through some of the downloadable re-releases. I've forgotten much of The Secret of Monkey Island, so I'm enjoying the "Special Edition" almost as much as a brand new game. And I am really excited about the Mechwarrior franchise reboot, and would love to see the same thing happen to some other classic series (Wing Commander re-imagined, anybody? Just nothing at all like that horrible movie, please).
So - speaking as a player - I say, "bring 'em on."
Labels: retro
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:09 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Ya owning your own IP is definitely a great thing if your are able to make your IP into a good franchise.
I own the IP to my games... then again I'm not so sure if sony or microsoft even cares that I own the IP to Yellow Bear, HAHA. So until they come knocking with with a few mill for the IP to Yellow Bear I don't think my game IP does me much.
Really though if you do have a mildly successful game and someone is only offering 2x what you grossed for the IP then I wouldn't sell it since you can keep the money rolling in if you play your cards right.
I own the IP to my games... then again I'm not so sure if sony or microsoft even cares that I own the IP to Yellow Bear, HAHA. So until they come knocking with with a few mill for the IP to Yellow Bear I don't think my game IP does me much.
Really though if you do have a mildly successful game and someone is only offering 2x what you grossed for the IP then I wouldn't sell it since you can keep the money rolling in if you play your cards right.
I can't wait to get a chance to re-play the new Monkey Island. I just checked metacritic and the worst review, an 80, by gamespot was still very positive.
This is an interesting follow-up to your post comparing game and filem remakes. At the risk of being boring, here's my take on translating your terminology here into its file equivalent:
"Re-release": the same term used in film would in fact be comparable. A film might be brought back for a theatrical run decades after its original release, or might be released on DVD after a long delay. Such re-releases for film might be occasioned by someone digging up a previously lost, high-quality print of the film, or they might be the end result of a restoration and digital re-mastering project. In the latter case, a film "re-release" starts looking a little bit more like a game...
"Re-make". Here, as I said in the last thread about this, the game/film terminology overlaps but signifies two different concepts. A film "remake" is almost always the equivalent of a game "re-imagining". An old film touched up with remastered film and soundtrack wouldn't be considered a "remake", but a "re-release"; for a game, however, these cosmetic changes would qualify it for the "remake" title. There are border cases, though, like the original Star Wars films, which went beyond remastering and updated the effects and added new content. Perhaps a re-cut version of a film, like a Director's Cut, might be analogous to a game "remake", but I'd actually say the closer analogy would be to a "special edition" game with extra content added. Film remakes, unless they recreate the original line-for-line and shot-for-shot (e.g. Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" remake comes close), are really more like "re-imaginings".
Speaking of which: "re-imaginings" are where we really see the stark contrast between games and film, and where this long digression becomes less than completely boring (to me at least). If a film "remake" is analogous to a game "re-imagining", what woudl a film "re-imagining" look like? Well, in film I think it's understood that nobody would make a "remake" unless it were also a "re-imagining". Film is driven by story and images. If you find somebody else's film compelling, why remake it? You can make a new film as an homage to the old one, or you can rip the old one off. But if you're going to just remake it with updated special effects or whatever (the rough equivalent of a game "remake" with better graphics), then your movie is going to be boring. Of course, Hollywood has been churning out movies just like this, so I guess that disproves my hypothesis. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the film equivalent of the game "remake" is just a very bad film remake. Remaking one of the very few spot-on perfect action movies in history using John Travolta and Denzel Washington in place of Walter Mathau, for instance. No new ideas, no new perspective, just faces off more recent covers of the tabloids and bigger explosions.
My point, I think, is that while a game can offer replayability based on the underlying mechanics while benefitting from smoother, more pleasing graphics, a genre film is primarily narrative-driven, so remaking it with bigger explosions doesn't do anything to improve the central feature, i.e. the narrative. If you're not adding new ideas, there's no reason to pick up the new film. With a game, though, the original ideas may already be perfect and enable repeated enjoyment with improved graphics.
"Re-release": the same term used in film would in fact be comparable. A film might be brought back for a theatrical run decades after its original release, or might be released on DVD after a long delay. Such re-releases for film might be occasioned by someone digging up a previously lost, high-quality print of the film, or they might be the end result of a restoration and digital re-mastering project. In the latter case, a film "re-release" starts looking a little bit more like a game...
"Re-make". Here, as I said in the last thread about this, the game/film terminology overlaps but signifies two different concepts. A film "remake" is almost always the equivalent of a game "re-imagining". An old film touched up with remastered film and soundtrack wouldn't be considered a "remake", but a "re-release"; for a game, however, these cosmetic changes would qualify it for the "remake" title. There are border cases, though, like the original Star Wars films, which went beyond remastering and updated the effects and added new content. Perhaps a re-cut version of a film, like a Director's Cut, might be analogous to a game "remake", but I'd actually say the closer analogy would be to a "special edition" game with extra content added. Film remakes, unless they recreate the original line-for-line and shot-for-shot (e.g. Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" remake comes close), are really more like "re-imaginings".
Speaking of which: "re-imaginings" are where we really see the stark contrast between games and film, and where this long digression becomes less than completely boring (to me at least). If a film "remake" is analogous to a game "re-imagining", what woudl a film "re-imagining" look like? Well, in film I think it's understood that nobody would make a "remake" unless it were also a "re-imagining". Film is driven by story and images. If you find somebody else's film compelling, why remake it? You can make a new film as an homage to the old one, or you can rip the old one off. But if you're going to just remake it with updated special effects or whatever (the rough equivalent of a game "remake" with better graphics), then your movie is going to be boring. Of course, Hollywood has been churning out movies just like this, so I guess that disproves my hypothesis. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the film equivalent of the game "remake" is just a very bad film remake. Remaking one of the very few spot-on perfect action movies in history using John Travolta and Denzel Washington in place of Walter Mathau, for instance. No new ideas, no new perspective, just faces off more recent covers of the tabloids and bigger explosions.
My point, I think, is that while a game can offer replayability based on the underlying mechanics while benefitting from smoother, more pleasing graphics, a genre film is primarily narrative-driven, so remaking it with bigger explosions doesn't do anything to improve the central feature, i.e. the narrative. If you're not adding new ideas, there's no reason to pick up the new film. With a game, though, the original ideas may already be perfect and enable repeated enjoyment with improved graphics.
Absolutely! There are a ton of old games I'd love to play again, and for the most part, I'd just like improved graphics (sorry, but I've been spoiled, I guess) and the capability of running the games on my computer. OK, some interface improvements, too - especially for old games which didn't use a mouse.
I'd pay good money for a remake/re-release (depending on the updates needed). You mentioned X-Com: UFO Defense and the early Ultima games, and they might top the list, but there are so many, many more. In some cases, the franchise is still going strong, but I'd like to buy remakes of the old games, anyway. I'd certainly buy remakes of the first two Elder Scrolls games, and Civilization II, as well (Civ IV is a fine game, but I still play the earlier version).
The original Warlords and Master of Orion (still my favorites, rather than the sequels), the two Magic Candle games, Worlds of Ultima, Starflight 2 (I never played the first one), the SSI "Gold Box" games,... the list goes on and on. And that doesn't even include games that had huge potential, but were fatally flawed. For example, I'd gladly buy Darklands again, if they just changed the cookie-cutter locations, so that there was actually a reason to go anywhere.
Unfortunately, "re-imaginings" leave me cold. If I loved the original game, why would I want huge changes made to the gameplay? OK, for a sequel, you have to make enough changes so that it actually seems to be a new game, not the same old game played over and over again (the big problem I have with Spiderweb Software). But for a re-make, they needn't even pretend that it's a new game. It's just the old game made available for new players (and us old-timers who loved it originally).
Post a Comment
I'd pay good money for a remake/re-release (depending on the updates needed). You mentioned X-Com: UFO Defense and the early Ultima games, and they might top the list, but there are so many, many more. In some cases, the franchise is still going strong, but I'd like to buy remakes of the old games, anyway. I'd certainly buy remakes of the first two Elder Scrolls games, and Civilization II, as well (Civ IV is a fine game, but I still play the earlier version).
The original Warlords and Master of Orion (still my favorites, rather than the sequels), the two Magic Candle games, Worlds of Ultima, Starflight 2 (I never played the first one), the SSI "Gold Box" games,... the list goes on and on. And that doesn't even include games that had huge potential, but were fatally flawed. For example, I'd gladly buy Darklands again, if they just changed the cookie-cutter locations, so that there was actually a reason to go anywhere.
Unfortunately, "re-imaginings" leave me cold. If I loved the original game, why would I want huge changes made to the gameplay? OK, for a sequel, you have to make enough changes so that it actually seems to be a new game, not the same old game played over and over again (the big problem I have with Spiderweb Software). But for a re-make, they needn't even pretend that it's a new game. It's just the old game made available for new players (and us old-timers who loved it originally).
Links to this post:
<< Home
