/v/ - Video Games

They could have just used the assets in the DaS3 engine with fixed poise and it would have been great.

>>14775208

That goes far beyond just patching a few things here and there. That's a legit remake. Not saying I agree or disagree, it's just not relevant to what I'm addressing. I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with making a few changes to a re-release just as there's nothing wrong with patching a game.

>>14775194

Except you have to pay to play this "patch" for a game you already own and they are removing the original so you can't play the intended experience. Fuck off corporate slave

>>14775293

Yeah, for me it was like having no right to an "upgrade" special price at DMC4SE when I own the original.

>>14775293

>>14775308

You're missing the point here. However you feel about the DS Remastered is irrelevant. I'm addressing that it is irrational to be against any company making changes to any video game when it's re-released. If you can't get past the DS Remastered being the example for some strange reason, then consider the re-release of Halo 2. People were mad as fuck when they took out moon jumping (or whatever it's called) when that was something that could have just as easily been removed in a patch.

>>14775194

DS1's remake is not well done and the lightning changes don't look good.

You have to look at this on a case by case basis instead of making dumb broad generalizations.

>>14775358

Broad generalizations are exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying it's irrational to just be against making changes to remakes, remasters, ports, and re-releases full stop. I'm saying you should take it on a case by case basis. So thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

>>14775371

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying you're painting the community as generally being against changes. That's the broad generalization I'm talking about.

On a case by case basis, the example you mentioned seems to have a justified reaction.

Silent Hill collection's backlash is more than justified.

Devil May Cry received some mild backlash but it's mostly well accepted.

Some remakes can be good like Pokemon HGSS and OoT 3D where the improvements outweigh the negatives. I can't go back to Gen 2 after playing Soul Silver since it's a flat out improvement on the right places such as Kanto being less empty. There are some remakes are vastly inferior to the original like what Atlus has been shitting out, Etrian Odyssey 2, Radiant Historia and SMT Strange Journey are such examples as they do things much worse. Their positives like your standard QoL improvements don't make up for what they did wrong such as on-cart DLC and making the story much worse.

>>14775404

I think the problem here is how stuff like DaS1R is not the same as a proper remake.

>>14775418

Remakes generally receive far poorer reception than just a disappointing remaster. DS1 Remaster's issues isn't the fact that it's not a remake.

We're angry that they pricing this for full fucking price, and even angrier that people are buying

>>14775404

With the OoT 3D, they chose to keep all beneficial and fun glitches in the game while only taking out the 'bad' bugs. A decision I fully support. However, OoT 3D is a single player game. In the case of the DS1R and the Halo 2 Remake (or whatever it was named), they're multiplayer. So imagine that OoT was a competitive game as well. I would then fully support them taking out "fun glitches" such as the infinite sword glitch. Which would be something that would be removed in a patch. Which is the crux of my argument. Anything that could/would have been removed in a patch is fully justifiable to change in a re-release.

>>14775194

>Why are people so against remakes/remasters, or hell, even ports, changing some aspects of a game?

I think people are tired of remasters in general, and this is just building on that anger. Think of it like the Star Wars remasters. Though, I do agree bugs should be fixed in remasters, but only bugs that detract from gameplay (like if SSBM removed wavedashing)

>>14775470

(like if SSBM removed wavedashing that would be bad*) I mean

>>14775470

>>14775472

>(like if SSBM removed wavedashing that would be bad*) I mean

Glad you made that correction. Otherwise I would have thought you were retarded.

I agree with you. But my issue is why someone would be against a change, not whether or not they were against it. Let's use your SSBM-wavedash example. If they did make a remaster and took out wavedashing and someone criticized that change by saying, "Taking out wavedashing was a mistake. It really lowers the skill cap." That's a perfectly fine and legitimate argument. What's not, however, is if someone criticized that same change by saying, "THEY TOOK OUT WAVEDASHING??? HOW DARE THEY MAKE ANY KIND OF CHANGE??? ANYTHING SHORT OF THE EXACT SAME GAME WITH UPDATED GRAPHICS IS AN ABOMINATION!! REEEEEEE"

>>14775447

I thought it was 40 flat, 20 if you already have prepare to die edition. Unless thats for consoles, then oh well. Doesn't seem worth it either way, unless you're heavily into pvp

>>14775541

It's 20 if you own PtDE, yes.

>>14775508

>But my issue is why someone would be against a change, not whether or not they were against it.

Because there's no guarantee that the original version will be preserved, and that leaves the possibility that an unfaithful second release will be the only accessible version. It also means that new players will be introduced to a potentially inferior version of that game, which will skew the general perception of it. I would have thought the Star Wars comparison >>14775470 made that clear.

>>14775561

That exact same argument can be made with a patch. "Now that From patched DS, the original experience is gone forever. No longer can new comers ninja flip in Havel's armor." Again, you can be against specific changes, but being against any change is a clear double standard.

>>14775571

>That exact same argument can be made with a patch.

>Again, you can be against specific changes, but being against any change is a clear double standard.

I was also talking about patches, so it isn't. I don't want to see games patched beyond recognition either.

>>14775194

Remasters are done long after the talent left. Pajeets that don't care do them, which is why they turn out shitty.

>>14775208

DS3 poise > DS1 poise

I just want a playable PC port, if they give me that I will pirate.

People are annoyed at remasters as they are low effort cashgrabs for the most part. DS Remastered is just the latest but the Souls fans are typically a bit more elitist and gatekeeper than other fanbases. Combine that with a remaster that actually makes the game look worse, will make it easier with improved rolling and more summons and shoving DSIII's PvP into DSI and people are understandably pissed. Lets not even talk about them removing PTD edition so PC players will never be able to legitimately play the original Dark Souls.

>>14777718

Remasters are especially unnecessary at this day and age because gaming technology has gotten seriously stagnant. Remastering a 7 year old game in the 90s and early 2000s would've made sense, but doing it now with Dark Souls, you just get the exact same game with a fix modders have made available since the release on PC.

The DS PvP community is not a reasonable or rational group and thus their input is irrelevant. Organized PvP is part of what killed the series.

>>14775194

>That gif

The weapon applies knockback based off your direction. The reason that area proved trouble for so many reason was because they would tilt their shield inwards to hug the wall, so when the arrow hit them they would be launched outwards. Tilting yourself towards the archer would actually protect you just fine.

>>14777799

This. PvP killed the series.

>>14777741

This too. Its laziness to a T.

>>14777741

The one I really didn't understand was The Last of Us seeing a "remaster" slightly over a year after it originally debuted on the PS3.

>>14776001

Found the DEX fag