Last week, we looked at the 2002 Resident Evil Remake for the GameCube, a game I believe to be one of the greatest of all time. In that review, I talked a little bit about the gaming industry's obsession with remakes, especially in recent years. That led me down a massive rabbit hole, one I wanted to explore a little bit deeper here.
There are times where it feels like literally every popular game from the 90's has, or will get, a remake, or at least a remaster. Final Fantasy VII, Secret of Mana, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, the original Resident Evil Trilogy, the list goes on and on. And it's continuing to grow. Remakes of Silent Hill 2, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, The Witcher and a boatload of others are on their way. At this point, it's not even just big-name games either. They are, honest to God, remaking Lollipop Chainsaw. Let that sink in. There's a Joe & Mac remake on the way too. Remember them? Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that they aren't just remaking AAA level games. I'm pretty excited for the remake of the original Front Mission, which will be the game's first official release in the U.S. But the bottom line is that remakes are everywhere now and they don't seem to be going away any time soon. I think that is both positive and negative.
Remakes have always been a part of the gaming universe, even if they haven't always been that popular. I still believe the RE remake was the start of the modern obsession with them, but it wasn't first remake, not by a longshot. The oldest actual remake I saw on Wikipedia's list was a 1991 remake of PC game King's Bounty for the Genesis. There were older games on said list, but I'm not sure I'd consider them remakes. I guess we need to establish just what exactly constitutes a remake, or at least what I consider to be a remake, and how it's different from a remaster or reimagining. To me, a remake updates the graphics, sound and presentation of a game without outright changing them. It keeps the core story and gameplay elements of the original while adding slight improvements and modern touches. Maybe it also expands on the narrative or adds some new story elements. I think the first RE remake is still the perfect example of this. Final Fantasy VII Remake barely fits, it's almost closer to a reimagining than a true remake. A reimaging uses the original as almost a baseline but is at its core a completely new game. Sonic Mania is probably the best example of this that I have looked at. Lastly, we have remasters, these usually just do things like clean up minor glitches or upscale a game to HD. I don't have a problem with these, but I don't really consider them remakes in the truest sense.
But again, we have to ask why have developers, and gamers, become obsessed with remakes in recent years. The first and most obvious answer is they sell well. If remakes didn't move units, then developers wouldn't make them. But they do, and they often make studios tons of money. The Resident Evil 2 remake has sold more than 10 million copies in just three years. That's not an easy thing to do, especially when you consider the original hasn't even cracked 5 million (though I couldn't find if this was just the original PS1 version or if it included all of its ports). Final Fantasy VII Remake sold 3.5 million copies...in three days. Demand for these remakes is obviously huge and it doesn't show signs of slowing down. In a lot of ways, these are like licensed games of old, where they don't even have to be good for people to buy them. That being said, a lot of these remakes are critical darlings as well. So why would gaming studios stop developing them. If I was doing something that got me good press while also making me gobs of money, why would I stop doing it?
The nostalgia factor is also clearly at play here, though I think it's a bit more complex than most people make it out to be. Yes, remakes clearly use nostalgia to get gamers to buy them. But you have to look at which games are being remade. They aren't remaking 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation games all that frequently. It's mostly 5th gen stuff. I've said before how I believe the 5th and 6th generations to be where gaming started to become more respected as a hobby. For a lot of people in their 20's and 30's, this is where they really started getting into gaming. Yeah, I grew up with 3rd and 4th gen consoles in my house, they were my first video games and I played a ton of them. But the 5th generation is the first one where I was truly "there" from day one. But it's not just that my contemporaries and I got on board the gaming train, it's that we stayed on board. People were starting to see video games less as toys and more as a media format. I believe this change in mindset lead to more people sticking with gaming into adulthood. It's not that the older generations didn't have video games, but many of them put their Atari or NES away in the attic with their Barbies and GI Joes. Again, video games were just toys after all. And why target new games at people who aren't playing anymore and who haven't in decades. Why do a remake of Pitfall or Jungle Hunt or whatever when there is not demand for it. That's not to say none of those people play video games anymore, but I would guess there are far fewer Generation Xers that played video games into adulthood than there are millennials. So, that's who developers target.
Remakes aren't just about exploiting nostalgia though. It's no secret that the "aged poorly" crowd love to bash 5th generation games as having aged poorly or impossible to play. I think I made it clear that I very much disagree with that sentiment. I will admit there is some level of truth to saying that the graphics aged poorly, though I don't think that's really what happened. There were a lot of ambitious games created during the 5th generation and it sometimes felt like they hardware just wasn't capable of presenting them as intended. In many ways, it feels like remakes provide developers an outlet to create the games the really wanted to 20 and 30 years ago. Again, I can't think of better examples than the Resident Evil remakes, both the GameCube remake and the more modern ones. That doesn't make the originals bad, and it doesn't mean those games aren't worth playing. If anything it's a credit to them that they are still must play titles even without the ideal technology. By the same token, it doesn't mean the remakes are better than the originals by default, though they do have inherent advantages. I guess the point of this all is that the 5th generation kind of hit the sweet spot between when gaming was starting to find mainstream popularity and when 3D technology wasn't quite perfected. As such, it offers a combination of games that have huge fanbases and games that are prime targets for remakes. 4th gen games are considered the peak of 2D technology, earlier games are too simple and later games largely don't feel like they need to be remade.
So, what do all of these remakes mean for the gaming industry? Well, it does point to what I believe are some serious issues. For one, it's a bit indicative of the lack of innovation in the industry as a whole. It seems like every game that comes out now is either a sequel or a remake. It's why I kind of want to actually play Elden Ring, I don't normally love From Software games but it's at least a new IP that attempts to do something different. Sequels are a reality of any media format but having so many remakes points a bit more towards developers banking on nostalgia to keep themselves relevant. I'm most certainly not against that to some degree and I'm not about to join the chorus of wannabes and edgelords who think everyone should let go of the past and exclusively play whatever cookie cutter FPS or open world game they told you is the greatest of all time this week. But you have to be able to move forward while also honoring the past. Speaking of which, the remake obsession largely does honor the past...but it also kind of disrespects it in a way. It's almost like saying "all of those old games weren't good enough and we need to make them better." I love a good remake, but so many of these games were outstanding as they were and didn't need to be updated.
That said, there are plenty of good things that come from all of these remakes. Of course it's awesome that a lot of these series are being introduced to new generations and continuing to remain relevant. But I think the biggest positive, and the biggest indicator that this is about more than just nostalgia, is that an overwhelming majority of these remakes are really good to great games. Sure, there were plenty that missed the mark. Remakes of Ducktales, Turtles in Time and Secret of Mana were massively underwhelming. But a majority of them are top quality titles with huge budgets that are very clearly crafted with care. Would I have done Final Fantasy VII Remake the same way square did? No. But was it still an awesome game? Absolutely. Developers could absolutely release complete junk and still make money hand over fist. But they very clearly put their all into most of these remakes. Many of them are held in high regard by fans and critics alike, which is truly an amazing feat.
At the end of the day, I do think that video game remakes do more good than harm for the industry. I really do wish there weren't as many of them as there are, but I do like the fact that so many of them are quality titles. They provide a gateway for newer gamers to get into old school games while providing old school gamers something they want. I'm not going to say that remakes aren't about money or nostalgia exploitation, but I will say they aren't ENTIRELY about money or nostalgia exploitation. I still believe modern games need more innovation, and I would still like to see more new IPs. Developers need to calm down a little bit with the remakes, but they certainly shouldn't stop making them altogether, especially if they continue to be of such high quality.
Comments
Post a Comment