Skip Navigation
32 comments

  • It really depends.

    Some games are so old that the technology needs to be sorely updated for modern gamers to be able to understand the controls, and "upating (the controls) for modern audiences" can be good.

    Further, older games often have some pretty awful stereotypes in them that don't need to be preserved so we can remember them.

    I know Disney's Bambi isn't a video game, but I'll use it as an example that's being re-made. Bambi was made in 1942, and a massive amount of cultural references and ideas just don't make as much sense in the modern era. There are literally things young people today would be like "what now?" in films that old. Sometimes "updating for modern audiences" is removing stuff that just doesn't make sense anymore, or people don't recognize or understand.

    Even further, it used to be that "getting updated for modern audiences" was the norm. Anyone remember that hokey fucking Romeo & Juliet with Leonoard DiCaprio in the 90's? Yeah, that was "updated for modern audiences" and it was a smash fucking hit. Back then, updating for modern audiences meant setting it in Verona instead of Venice and swapping swords for guns.

    Like if you're dealing with games that were always meant to frustrate and offend like Postal 2 or Conker's Bad Fur Day or Redneck Rampage, you're probably not gonna have a lot of people happy to "update for modern audiences" but there's not much to update about campy schlock humor anyway.

    So yeah, sometimes its not great, but I think the worries about it are overblown.

    In movies there used to be a joke about how "the black guy always dies first" in action/horror movies because it held true for a long time. Black characters were given bit-roles that were quickly written out of movies. That is no longer the case, but you don't see movies that don't kill off black characters right away as being advertised as "updated for modern audiences" because that's just silly.

  • Was it System Shock? Then yeah, it probably could use some love.

    Was it Turok? Then hey, HD Dinos can be cool.

    Was it Okami? Then why not, giving it some polish and getting it playable on PC is worthwhile.

    Was it Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Spyro, or Crash? Then absolutely, again for having them playable on PC at the very least.

    I think all of these are examples where it makes sense to give them an update because various controls or even systems of today just don't work with the old versions. All of these examples were also done pretty well overall.

    On the other hand, I'm more conflicted on games from the last 10-12 years or sooner. Especially if it's like The Last of US Remastered where it just isn't supported well.

    But then again, I appreciate getting Spider-Man and Horizon: Zero Dawn on PC, and I believe we only got those because of the remasters? But I would not be buying another remaster of either for PC in even 10 years from today, because what point would there be?

    All in all, I think there are many examples where it "is technically fine", but if it's not done well then there was never a point in the first place. The Tony Hawk ones kind of fit here, as they partly feel really good and partly feel really janky - it's nice having them on PC but they are no where near as polished as the other games I mentioned

  • Definitely for me big alarm bells.

    Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it's visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.

    But that quote specifically tells me "the game has been changed for current day sensibilities" and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.

    I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don't think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn't happen and I feel we're just pretending it isn't what it truly is when it's changed.

    I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.

    BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.

    • It does tell you that it's been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.

      And it's not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.

      Granted, it's harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I'd argue "for modern audience" updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).

      Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include "modern audience" updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.

      • Interesting but I do think things are a little different:

        • A lot of people seem to be commenting about how a remaster is about changing atmosphere or visual changes. And I agree with you. But OP is asking specifically about games with the quote "for modern audiences" in the game and that quote is not added for the visual or control or minor game design changes, but instead specifically to tell you it's removed the "isms" out.
        • I think your point about isms makes sense, it's just that I'm of the opposing view. That I think the "isms" have been removed out is like censoring a painting or movie. Sure it's easier to digest, but what made the media so poignant is sometimes the rawity of it.

        I guess I don't think you're wrong, just that I think it takes away from the original media for the only reason that "it sells more if we can widen the audience".

        For me the ideal would be you could choose between the two. How the game was originally made but with the updated graphics/control/design. Or the new one that removes any isms to placate people's sensibilities.

        I don't think however my preference would happen because it goes against the idea of "hay we can sell more if we tell everyone we removed everything controversial about the game". So I guess your idea solution is probably the best middle ground :)

  • I haven't actually noticed this happening before now. My immediate reaction is if it is changes driven by the original creators I'd feel quite positive about it. Love to see personal growth. When driven by the studio though, I'm a bit more skeptical.

    Either way, this is why modding should be protected. Let folks play historical/modern/hyper-weird versions of the game they love.

    • When driven by the studio though, I’m a bit more skeptical.

      This is a really good point. When it's in the hands of the creators, you're still dealing with people who know what they were creating.

      A lot of the stuff that people complain about are hamfisted attempts by corporate flunkies to make the game "appeal to a wider audience" as opposed to actually caring about removing unnecessary or offensive material in a constructive way that doesn't lessen the original impact of the piece of media.

      Corporations never decided that women, black people, latinos, and LGBT were humans with inherent value to them simply from existing, but rather, they decided that "Oh shit, we're leaving money on the table by not marketing to these groups or hiring them." It's all about dollar-signs. It's why corporations will fly the Pride Flag in June on Twitter... Just not on their Saudi Arabia Twitter corporate account. The corporates don't care about the issues, they just care about getting your labor and your money, in other words, extracting value from you.

      And attempts to extract value from you are where hamfisted attempts at making pieces of media "more appealing to everyone" by trying to shove as much strained "diversity" (the corporate kind, not the real kind) in there as possible in hopes to increase sales.

      ...on the other hand though, some of the original creators simply never grew up and are just obstinately wanting to continue to offend people for no good reason other than getting off on triggering other people. Like I'd have more hope from a remake from Neil Druckmann over John Romero, for example.

  • Since this year is looking to be the first year in monster hunter history without a new release (ironic since it's the 20th anniversary of the series) people have started imagining the possibility of Capcom re-releasing older monster hunter games that are no longer on the market.

    As a natural continuation of this, people have speculated on how they would handle these re-releases. The most popular opinion, and one I share, is that they should absolutely not touch the game content. Modernized controls, re-opened multiplayer servers, maybe a slight graphical touch up, and if we're getting really fancy possibly implementing multiplayer monster health scaling, but anything beyond that would be damaging the reason people want to play these games, which is that they're the old monster hunter. They're weird, clunky, and sometimes jank as hell but that's their charm. They also lack all of the quality of life improvements that came in the 5th generation, however those annoyances that were whisked away come Monster Hunter World were truly part of the identity of those older games, and any new release should absolutely keep them in. It may turn away many newer hunters but it's about preserving the history of monster hunter more than anything.

    Anyways tl;dr yeah "updated for modern audiences" can be concerning regarding the preservation of the history of these games. If you mean shit like removing slurs and stuff though I'm all for it.

32 comments