Batman Arkham Asylum/city Remaster - coming this year

gizmo

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I don't think the hate is aimed at remasters in general, more the perceived need to remaster games that are still relatively young and fresh (Arkham Asylum is 2009 and City is 2011) These are huge games available on tons of platforms already, There are people who didn't own a seventh gen console or a PC, but it does seem like taking the piss when publishers are "remastering" games still hot from the printing press... And because there's been such a drought of big games since the 8th gen launched, there's the perception that it's catalog is full of older games you may already have, which can be annoying after dropping several hundred euro on the machine.

What i feel really NEEDS a remaster (and need really is the key work) are older, not so readily available titles. Imagine a remastered collection of Jet Set Radio/Jet Set Radio Future, or the Soul Reaver games, maybe include the option of more contemporary control schemes or alter design and other issues from the first time round...a true "remastering", not just slap HD all over it.

Well it comes down to the fact that not all remasters are created equally. In the case of Batman, the devs have the noticeably better PC version to build upon so it hopefully won't just be a 1080p60 remaster but one which includes the higher resolution textures and effects from the PC version and also some of the nice PhysX effects which could be moved GPU side.

As for the examples you gave, I'm a massive fan of the Soul Reaver games but they don't need remasters, they would need a full blown remake to really get the benefit out of another release.

johnny_ultimate

I made this comparison in another thread, but to me 'remasters' are no different than a Blu-Ray or theatrical re-release of a film. If there are legitimate improvements that can be made, it's advantageous to fans and newcomers alike. In games even more so than film, given the pace at which technology improves. If you're indifferent, you simply don't have to engage with the whole thing - the great thing about a 'free market' (as bothersome as that phrase is) is you have choice.

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I made this comparison in another thread, but to me 'remasters' are no different than a Blu-Ray or theatrical re-release of a film. If there are legitimate improvements that can be made, it's advantageous to fans and newcomers alike. In games even more so than film, given the pace at which technology improves. If you're indifferent, you simply don't have to engage with the whole thing - the great thing about a 'free market' (as bothersome as that phrase is) is you have choice.

No, that's not how it works. If I don't need or want to play those games, I have to complain bitterly about how developers are ruining gaming by releasing them. Did you not get the memo on this?

CiDeRmAn

I would be cynical and say that a remaster is a way, not to service fans, but to generate an extra income stream from minimal outlay.
And, with the Batman games, it seems to be the same.
It also appears to fill out an otherwise rather anaemic games shelf, in the shops, so instead of a handful of exclusives and the usual mutilplatform annual releases, you have a rather large percentage of remasters/HD releases/compilations on the shelves for the PS4/XB1.
It was a practice made more palatable back in the PS2/PS3 eras when the shelves were jam packed with original titles, but now it seems that the schedules are more full of "Remeber this great game you played? Well here it is again" except now it can't be claimed that "HD" is a feature, because it was HD to begin with!
And, of course I'm not obliged to buy them.
But I can see that teams who might otherwise be engaged in new development are instead tasked with producing ever more remakes of games that are barely old to begin with.
And so it does p1ss one off somewhat, especially when you have a shiny lovely PS4 sitting there with bugger all to play on it, at least until this weekend!

All that being said, there was something pretty excellent about Arkham Asylum, while I could leave the sequel tbh. The first one was very impressive, loved the environment and how tightly designed it was, almost to a Dark Souls degree, there are worse things to find oneself playing while awaiting something new and AAA on a next gen system.

johnny_ultimate

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I would be cynical and say that a remaster is a way, not to service fans, but to generate an extra income stream from minimal outlay.
And, with the Batman games, it seems to be the same.

And why not? If you could generate extra income with minimal outlay, surely you would too? Speaking from a business perspective it makes sense, and there's a solid playerbase who will benefit from the practice. What's the harm? As you say, none of us are under any obligation to buy or play it as we can clearly evaluate the reasoning behind the release. And it's not exactly like the Batman games were greenlit in the first place with wholly non-commercial, artistic motivations :pac:

But I can see that teams who might otherwise be engaged in new development are instead tasked with producing ever more remakes of games that are barely old to begin with.
And so it does p1ss one off somewhat, especially when you have a shiny lovely PS4 sitting there with bugger all to play on it, at least until this weekend!

These games do not require large teams, a mere fraction of those employed on a brand new title as almost everything is done already. The only ones that would are ground up remakes, where you need a whole or closer to whole team back on board. For the most part the creative designers, artists etc... are most likely working away on other new games (which, as an aside, are taking longer and longer to produce and more and more money to make - surely other significant factors in keeping a franchise financially lucrative during the lengthy down times between proper sequels).

Again, I feel there is one simple fact that negates any frustration about a Batman series remaster: we're getting a brand new title before it's released, so it's not impacting on the continuation of the series.

CiDeRmAn

No fun coming herd if we didn't have the craic and disagree!
No, Batman is less of a problem but there does seem to be a never ending stream of older titles being released.
While Nintendo seem content to release such games via online services the others seem to prefer the premium of a physical release.
Metroid Prime Trilogy is a release on the WiiU of a enhanced release on the Wii of a trilogy of which two were on the GameCube.
And they charge €20 for it, a tenner of you got in early.
Ah, each to their own.
I'd be happy to pick up a physical copy of the Mario Galaxy series in HD if they were good enough to release it.

kunst nugget

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

No fun coming herd if we didn't have the craic and disagree!
No, Batman is less of a problem but there does seem to be a never ending stream of older titles being released.
While Nintendo seem content to release such games via online services the others seem to prefer the premium of a physical release.
Metroid Prime Trilogy is a release on the WiiU of a enhanced release on the Wii of a trilogy of which two were on the GameCube.
And they charge €20 for it, a tenner of you got in early.
Ah, each to their own.
I'd be happy to pick up a physical copy of the Mario Galaxy series in HD if they were good enough to release it.

Tbf, there's been good discounts on some of those remasters on the PS Store over the last while with the Sleeping Dogs one being around €12 in the deal of the week recently.

Stone Deaf 4evr

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbf, there's been good discounts on some of those remasters on the PS Store over the last while with the Sleeping Dogs one being around €12 in the deal of the week recently.

Exactly this, most of em are reduced in price, I think the recent DmC remaster was about €40, considering that all the DLC is included, thats a pretty good deal.

Also, the funny thing about DmC is that, whilst it got good reviews, it got a mauling from the mostly ignorant masses of the internet, which no doubt put a lot of people off buying it in the first place. Now people are getting a chance to see the game looking as good as it can outside of a gaming PC.

CiDeRmAn

Sleeping Dogs, not that hot tbh, isn't it a True Crime: Honk Kong game but got renamed?
It was discounted very very quickly on release, not dissimilar to Thief in that regard.
Still, €12 for a GTA clone isn't bad, though I reckon it's PS+ fodder for sure in the not too distant future.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Sleeping Dogs, not that hot tbh, isn't it a True Crime: Honk Kong game but got renamed?
It was discounted very very quickly on release, not dissimilar to Thief in that regard.
Still, €12 for a GTA clone isn't bad, though I reckon it's PS+ fodder for sure in the not too distant future.

It was a good game and nothing more. And relatively new.

It never needed a 'remaster'. They need to change the naming convention to 'upgrade'.

IMO a remaster should be a definitive version of a near perfect game but should also include all additional content and DLC to make it a worthwhile purchase.

super_furry

The problem here is that it seems to most people that these remasters are coming at the expense of new games. We're 1 months into the current generation and it seems that Bloodborne will be (to my mind) only the second genuinely excellent new title on both consoles after Titanfall. In that time we've seen little else but safe sequels, indie games and remasters of games people played years ago.

Pac1Man

Borderlands 1 could be on the horizon "if the fans demand it".

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/borderlands-1-could-come-to-xbox-one-ps4-if-fans-d/1100-6426119/

"One potential problem, Pitchford said, is that the original Borderlands runs on a different game engine than Borderlands 2 and The Pre-Sequel. This means there would be "some work involved" to get the game running on Xbox One and PS4..."

Although unconfirmed as of yet, this is a perfect example as to why needless remasters of games that were released on both platforms last gen, two years into a new console's life cycle are a load of bollix.

FaoiSin

I think people who feel there are a lack of games to play on PS4 and Xbox One must not have tried any of the fantastic indies out there. There are more games on my PS4 than I can get round to playing. They are also quite cheap which is nice!

CiDeRmAn

JeaicMaG wrote: »

I think people who feel there are a lack of games to play on PS4 and Xbox One must not have tried any of the fantastic indies out there. There are more games on my PS4 than I can get round to playing. They are also quite cheap which is nice!

Or they could buy a WiiU!

Or go old school with a PS2, lots to play there!

kunst nugget

super_furry wrote: »

In that time we've seen little else but safe sequels, indie games and remasters of games people played years ago.

That's a problem that's likely to persist as the cost of development of games keeps on rising and developers become more risk averse.

kunst nugget

Pac1Man wrote: »

Borderlands 1 could be on the horizon "if the fans demand it".

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/borderlands-1-could-come-to-xbox-one-ps4-if-fans-d/1100-6426119/

"One potential problem, Pitchford said, is that the original Borderlands runs on a different game engine than Borderlands 2 and The Pre-Sequel. This means there would be "some work involved" to get the game running on Xbox One and PS4..."

Although unconfirmed as of yet, this is a perfect example as to why needless remasters of games that were released on both platforms last gen, two years into a new console's life cycle are a load of bollix.

So, you're giving out about a game that hasn't even been remastered yet but might potentially be if the developers see there is enough interest from people to see it being released on the current gen consoles?

Stone Deaf 4evr

JeaicMaG wrote: »

I think people who feel there are a lack of games to play on PS4 and Xbox One must not have tried any of the fantastic indies out there. There are more games on my PS4 than I can get round to playing. They are also quite cheap which is nice!

I'll be 100% upfront and admit that as a console gamer, I've largely ignored indie titles, mainly because my time is limited and I want to be playing the (so called) cream of the crop AAA titles. The current gen has definitely opened my eyes a bit to what else is available if you look around. There's something to be said for simple, 8-10 hour experiences that are different from the usual run and gun affairs

FaoiSin

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

I'll be 100% upfront and admit that as a console gamer, I've largely ignored indie titles, mainly because my time is limited and I want to be playing the (so called) cream of the crop AAA titles. The current gen has definitely opened my eyes a bit to what else is available if you look around. There's something to be said for simple, 8-10 hour experiences that are different from the usual run and gun affairs

I feel that they are easy to overlook but with the amount of them I get with PlayStation Plus I've grown fond of them

K.O.Kiki

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Exactly this, most of em are reduced in price, I think the recent DmC remaster was about €40, considering that all the DLC is included, thats a pretty good deal.

Also, the funny thing about DmC is that, whilst it got good reviews, it got a mauling from the mostly ignorant masses of the internet, which no doubt put a lot of people off buying it in the first place. Now people are getting a chance to see the game looking as good as it can outside of a gaming PC.

:rolleyes:
It got a mauling from fans of the first 4 games because they made Dante an unlikeable pr*ck, gutted the Style system, and released it at 30fps on console.

And then the devs threw hissy fits when loyal gamers wouldn't bend over backwards & accept their "vision" (which damn near killed Devil May Cry).

---
And back on topic, the 7th-gen consoles were 3-4 years past their shelf-life already, with devs having to cut corners in many areas to squeeze a bit of performance/quality out of their titles.

I for one welcome all these remasters as long as they get them running on a MINIMUM 720p60 (1080p60 preferred).

Stone Deaf 4evr

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

:rolleyes:
It got a mauling from fans of the first 4 games because they made Dante an unlikeable pr*ck, gutted the Style system, and released it at 30fps on console.

And then the devs threw hissy fits when loyal gamers wouldn't bend over backwards & accept their "vision" (which damn near killed Devil May Cry).

---
And back on topic, the 7th-gen consoles were 3-4 years past their shelf-life already, with devs having to cut corners in many areas to squeeze a bit of performance/quality out of their titles.

I for one welcome all these remasters as long as they get them running on a MINIMUM 720p60 (1080p60 preferred).

It got mauled from the very first screenshots that were released, showing dante with black hair. :rolleyes:

bugs

I actually found dmc's new Dante quite amusing. The same general character but without the increasingly camp look. Some minor missteps in the game but mostly a solid effort and I'd hope that ninja theory get another shot at it.

gizmo

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

It got mauled from the very first screenshots that were released, showing dante with black hair. :rolleyes:

Yes, there were many people who didn't like the character redesign when it was unveiled with the trailer and accompanying line-up image. A redesign, by the way, that was mandated by Capcom, not just done by Ninja Theory. It was deemed wholly unnecessary for a character that was, well I don't want to say iconic, but most certainly established.

However, most of the enduring dislike of the entry, by actual fans at least, was focused on the changes made to the core gameplay mechanics as well as the drop from 30fps to 60fps. To dismiss that as ignorant outrage by people only judging it by the aesthetic changes is, well for want of a better word, ignorant.

But hey, good news I guess!

johnny_ultimate

Can't say I ever found Dante a particularly endearing character in the original games anyway, more a straightforward personification of the games' devil may care attitude. Characterisation and story were far down the list of what I played those games for anyway, so I wouldn't count Dante among the untouchable icons of gaming. Although while there's always something to be said for taking an established franchise in new directions (it's sometimes important to piss off fans if it makes for a better end product - honestly we don't get nearly enough of it), it must be done for the right reasons, not just a marketing team declaration.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Yes, there were many people who didn't like the character redesign when it was unveiled with the trailer and accompanying line-up image. A redesign, by the way, that was mandated by Capcom, not just done by Ninja Theory. It was deemed wholly unnecessary for a character that was, well I don't want to say iconic, but most certainly established.

However, most of the enduring dislike of the entry, by actual fans at least, was focused on the changes made to the core gameplay mechanics as well as the drop from 30fps to 60fps. To dismiss that as ignorant outrage by people only judging it by the aesthetic changes is, well for want of a better word, ignorant.

But hey, good news I guess!

Yeah, as bad as the changes to the story and characters were, I could have accepted a new continuity if it was still good. But they changed so much of the gameplay and dumbed it down a lot. And the story/character changes weren't just aesthetic, some cutscenes made me downright embarrassed to be playing the game, particularly the slug monster fight.

There's different, and then there's just bad.

Pac1Man

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, you're giving out about a game that hasn't even been remastered yet but might potentially be if the developers see there is enough interest from people to see it being released on the current gen consoles?

Correct.

Whether or not the game is released is not the point. Reading Pitchford's quotes highlights their whole ethos behind releasing these remasters: if it makes money it makes sense.

Is a remaster of Borderlands 1 really required after the recent release of The Handsome Collection? I don't believe so.

I would much rather Gearbox put their efforts into a new Brothers in Arms game.

kunst nugget

Pac1Man wrote: »

Correct.

Whether or not the game is released is not the point. Reading Pitchford's quotes highlights their whole ethos behind releasing these remasters: if it makes money it makes sense.

I'm failing to see what the problem is here…

gizmo

Pac1Man wrote: »

Correct.

Whether or not the game is released is not the point. Reading Pitchford's quotes highlights their whole ethos behind releasing these remasters: if it makes money it makes sense.

Is a remaster of Borderlands 1 really required after the recent release of The Handsome Collection? I don't believe so.

I would much rather Gearbox put their efforts into a new Brothers in Arms game.

They are putting their effort into a new BiA game, Furious 4 is in active development. They're also actively developing a new Borderlands entry as well as just having shipped the Homeworld Remasters with, I believe, more work still to do on the multiplayer side.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Pac1Man wrote: »

Correct.

Whether or not the game is released is not the point. Reading Pitchford's quotes highlights their whole ethos behind releasing these remasters: if it makes money it makes sense.

Is a remaster of Borderlands 1 really required after the recent release of The Handsome Collection? I don't believe so.

I would much rather Gearbox put their efforts into a new Brothers in Arms game.

TBH, the omission of Borderlands 1 struck me as odd, specially considering that they're the 'true' titles by the original team, whereas wasn't the presequel outsourced?

Pac1Man

gizmo wrote: »

They are putting their effort into a new BiA game, Furious 4 is in active development.

That is no longer a BiA game after the backlash the first reveal received. It is simply called Furious 4 and is a brand new IP.

Varik

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

TBH, the omission of Borderlands 1 struck me as odd, specially considering that they're the 'true' titles by the original team, whereas wasn't the presequel outsourced?

Not a reason for why it was excluded but the name is due to the fact that these are the games with jack in them.