Remakes: Faithful versus revolutionary

Around the world

Any bumbling time travelling gamers out there are going to have a real tough time figuring out what time they've just stepped out into, what with the spread of remakes, remasters and new games that carry the exact same name as an earlier entry in the same franchise. (Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2? There are other synonyms for 'modern', Activision!) It's getting to a point where we can actually pick up on the type of remake we're going to be getting and critique the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Which is... well, that's pretty much what we're going to be doing as I find myself affronted with this new age question: In the world of video game remakes which is more preferable, the totally faithful adaptation or the revolutionary leapfrog which pushes beyond what the original game imagined? And I am talking about remakes here, not those shiny remasters with their scaled up resolutions and pretty textures!

Remakes don't have to all be totally strict to the confines of the original product, but sometimes they can just use the important bullet points of that original to elicit the same sort of experience out of the player. Take Resident Evil 4, for example. That Remake expands upon the world, totally reimagines and changes the layout of areas to feel more grand, twisting and mysterious, upgrades the gameplay and visual fidelity and drains out a little of the more obvious camp- but it remains the same heart of the game by keeping the same characters, story beats, major landmarks and rough gameplay ideals. You'll still be stunning enemies to get crowd control smashes, but now you'll be careful about swinging that knife because of the durability system. It's a mindful renewal caught between improvements and nostalgia nourishing that takes a very special kind of talent to master. That's just what these games can accomplish after all this time between now and the original.

And then you have remakes like Demon Souls, made without the direct oversight of the legendary Hidetaka Miyazaki and so perhaps the team didn't think it right to make literally any structural alterations whatsoever. Demons Souls is one-to-one with the original in terms of level layout, enemy construction and placement, gameplay presentation and scope. All that has changed is the technology running the game and the art-style bedecking the stages you traverse. Apart from that the new Demon Souls inherits all of the benefits and shortcomings of the original, such as it's distinctly challenging limited healing items and that mandatory one awfully boring boss that every Souls game needs. One might question then, why we even needed this new version of the game at all, and the answer is sound but not exactly sexy. Bringing the game to newer console whilst riding that same positive reputation (elevated to mythos since with the explosion of Souls-like as a genre) allows the product to be seen by many more eyes. The shiner graphics and better frame-rate are a pleasing addendum.

Pokemon games are no strangers to remakes, not least of all because every game is made at least twice in order to capitalise on one of the most tedious marketing gimmicks in gaming. But recently as the franchise has started to get somewhat long toothed, The Pokemon Company have gone the distance of going 'whole hog' down the 'Remake Roundabout' with the reconstruction of Diamond and Pearl. These too where 'Faithful' Remakes that provided simply an updated art style and some essential QOL improvements that modern Pokemon players just couldn't live without. Still, there was an aura of disappointment around the game when it launched. Players felt that not enough ambition was put in to make the game feel new and worth its fresh-game price tag, and newer players just didn't find that special spark of what made the original a classic at all. Such is the danger for those who stick too close to the ideals of being 'faithful.'

Personally I like a remake that isn't afraid to step out of it's own comfort zone a little, to justify it's existence alongside the original, rather than just take it's place as some sleeker, younger replacement. For example, as much as I love the idea of a Persona 3 Remake, I can't just pretend that game doesn't have one of the weakest Social Links in the latter Persona trilogy thanks to come curious writing choices, nor that it's sole dungeon, 'Tartarus', is one of the most mind-numbingly repetitive the series has to offer. Using the lessons of the years that have passed, the successful deconstructions of their own formula that has proceeded the original 3, I remain confidant that ATLUS can work their way around to making Persona 3 Reloaded the best possible way to play- oh wait, the team have already said they're not going to include the Female Protagonist... or the FES epilogue chapter which ties the whole narrative together... Because that wouldn't be faithful to the original release... see what I mean?

But can we extend that same level of scepticism towards the newly announced Super Mario RPG remake? A reintroduction to the first game that brings us 3d sprites for the first time, and beautifully rendered backgrounds... and that's about it. The story, presentation, gameplay, characters, cutscenes, staging, all of that seem identical to the original product. They couldn't even throw in a more clever looking animation for Bowser's transformation scene, he just spins around on the spot like a Dino-World version Wonder Woman. And is that a bad thing? Do fans want anything more from a revisit to the beloved Mario RPG franchise? Probably not, honestly; Nintendo games are so smothered in the perception of 'perfectionism' that they can scoot underneath in these sorts of discussions. Whilst I would want something different, I'm not the core audience, am I?

You wanna know what I am the key audience for? Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater: That there is my game. Here's the thing, the original is an incredible masterpiece of a product that should be reintroduced to the world to remind everyone how good we once had it- but darn if the original doesn't hold up just fine! I mean seriously, I play MGS 3 whenever I get the chance and the game hasn't disappointed me yet, I still come away wowed at what that team was able to make all that time ago: I had hoped a Remake would hold all new wonders to discover, but from what we've seen it would seem that the team are playing things nauseatingly safe. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust Konami to wash their hands after the bathroom: but tracing over the lines of the Mona Lisa isn't exactly what I'd call a resounding leap towards sparkling redemption. Try making something a little new first guys, see where that gets ya!

Ultimately I suppose we all dance around the fact that even embarking on a Remake instead of something fresh is a safe venture. Banking on the established fandom and reputation of a proven idea instead of trying to spark hearts and minds to action with something wholly new, it's obviously not going to drum up a total revolution of creative genius. I just wonder if the auteurs of design who made these original games we venerate so would have risen the way they have if they were stuck remaking the vision of others from decades previously? If we focus ourselves on the past fully, who's left to push us forward so the next age of Remakes is even more revolutionary? I'm still holding out for Modern Warfare Remake Remake, in which the game is an open world life-simulator wherein Captain Price gets to marry McTavish and move to Stardew Valley to start a life of laconic farming.