Yes I think we do need/want them while it is debatable on whether certain remasters are good or bad. That is another discussion for a later date. But remasters are a great way for old and new fans to enjoy a game. Old fans can relive the past and emotions of playing that game that they always loved. New fans whom have never heard or were apprehensive about diving into a new series can enjoy the game just as much as the old fans.
Remastering a game is more than giving a game a fresh coat of paint, fixing any problems. But also shows that most triple a devs aren’t soulless robots. Or that smaller devs poured love and passion into it. Seeing how a lot of remasters are coming or already out it begs the question.
How long does it take for a remaster to be acceptable 4 or 30 years? . Some people would say ten years is to early and others would say its to long. I’m in the middle when it comes to this question though I have swayed on both sides. So I understand when as an example people say “The last of us doesn’t need a remaster” or “the last of us remastered is great”.
How can you tell if a remaster is a good one? Passion. Can you feel the passion that was put into the remaster?. Can you see how much time and love was put into the game though you could say that about any game really. But when it comes to remasters its something just that little bit more special but if you feel that same passion that the person who made this felt?. Passion is how you can tell a great remaster from a dumpster fire that was the Jak and daxter trilogy on the PSP.
To summarize I believe that remasters are a great way to inject a franchise with some adrenaline. To please the old fans and gain new ones that is my opinion.
<p>I’m just a guy who loves games, writing and coming up with bad jokes. </p>
<p>I’m the most professional unprofessional</p>