There is this trend in the video game industry that I quite dislike: giving a remake (or a complete reboot) the exact same title as the original game. There is Dead Space (2008), and then there is Dead Space (2023). There is Demon’s Souls (2009), and there is Demon’s Souls (2020). There is The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening (1993), and The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening (2019).
This practice becomes even more absurd when numbered titles are thrown into the mix. There is Final Fantasy III (1990) and Final Fantasy III (2006). There is Resident Evil 4 (2005), and Resident Evil 4 (2023). And most recently at the time of writing, Silent Hill 2 (2001), and Silent Hill 2 (2024).
The film and TV industries do this as well, and I don’t particularly like it there, either. The first example that comes to mind for me is Battlestar Galactica. Most people who talk about Battlestar Galactica talk about the 2004 series, not the 1978 original. In this case, the remake has practically taken over the original work when it comes to mentioning it in conversation. If you say Battlestar Galactica, most people tend to think of the 2004 version, so you have to say “the original, 70s Battlestar Galactica” instead. This is not to say that this is the case with every remake — in fact, in the grand scheme of things, it is quite rare that a remake “replaces” the original like this — but it does happen. I’m not too worried people will forget classic video games any time soon, but I have heard people talk about how good “Resident Evil 2” is, without any further clarification. Based on what they were saying, they were talking about Resident Evil 2 (2019).
The original Resident Evil 2 versus the 2019 remake (comparison by Nick930).
So why have I talked about the naming convention of remakes for three paragraphs? Partially, because I just personally really dislike the practice, but also because having the exact same name might give you the idea that it is a very similar product to the original. Perhaps a modern take, but more or less the same experience. Play this, and you know what everyone has been talking about for the past 20 years. Get to know the classic. This is perhaps what I dislike most about it all.
There is this idea that comes up again and again in interviews and articles related to video game remakes: bringing these classics to a new generation, or updating their gameplay for a modern audience. Similarly, from the player side, you might hear things like "I never played X, but I've always wanted to, so I might give the remake a go."
This is all well and good in theory, but there is just one problem, which I’ll point out with an excellent quote about Silent Hill 2 from an article by Kayin, which I wholeheartedly agree with: “The Silent Hill 2 Remake is not Silent Hill 2. SH2 Remake is a pretty substantive remake. If you play it, you haven't caught up on Silent Hill 2, you played a different game.”
The original Silent Hill 2 versus the 2024 remake (comparison by GameSpot).
This is to say nothing of the quality of the remake. Many recent remakes are exceptionally well made games in their own right, but they are fundamentally not the same as the original works. More often than not, they aren’t even that close. As an example, the remakes for Resident Evil 2 and 3, as well as Silent Hill 2, all changed from fixed camera angles (or partially fixed camera angles in the case of Silent Hill 2) to an over-the-shoulder camera, which alone makes them very different experiences. On top of this there are character design changes, level design changes, even story changes. The remakes can be good — and many of them are — but they are their own thing.
In other words, playing through the 2024 Silent Hill 2 does not give you the experience of having played Silent Hill 2. It gives you a reimagining of Silent Hill 2. A new take on Silent Hill 2. But it is not Silent Hill 2 (naming convention semantics aside). Similarly, playing Resident Evil 4 (2023) is not the same as playing Resident Evil 4 (2005). Even Demon’s Souls (2020), considered by many a very faithful remake, differs from the original in many important aspects, such as color grading, lighting and mood, sound design, UI, and even environment and character design, all of which contribute to a very different feeling experience, even if the core gameplay and level design are almost identical to the original.
The original Demon's Souls versus the 2020 remake (comparison by Nick930).
I want to stress that I’m not writing this to tell anyone to stop buying and playing remakes. There are many I have personally enjoyed (Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 1+2, Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII Reunion, even Demon’s Souls despite my many gripes about it), and some I’m cautiously optimistic about (Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater). As previously mentioned, many remakes are quite well made, and they can be fun, compelling, audiovisually impressive experiences. Some can even breathe fresh air into an aspect of the original game that was either dead or on life support, such as Demon’s Souls online features.
I’m not writing this because I think remakes are inherently bad (though I fully admit that I’m quite negative towards most of them), but because I want to emphasize the value of the original works behind those remakes. Not as relics of the past to be modernized and improved upon, but rather as timeless, classic works of art to be enjoyed, appreciated, and celebrated.
I firmly believe that good game design doesn’t have an expiration date. This is why I have always advocated for re-releases and ports to modern systems instead of full-on remakes, or even remasters. I believe that if a game was considered good back when it first released, there is a very good chance that it is good now. Not good for “its time.” Not good “considering the limitations they had to work with.” Just good. Genuinely good.
Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater versus the original Metal Gear Solid 3 (comparison by IGN).
I played Silent Hill 1 for the first time almost 20 years after its original release. The only thing I knew about it back in the day was that it was a horror game that my cousins had, but I never got around to playing it as I wasn’t all that into horror at the time, and I had my hands full with Metal Gear Solid and Crash Bandicoot 3.
I played the game on original hardware (sadly not on a CRT monitor, but otherwise as close to an authentic 1999 experience as I could get), and I loved it. It didn’t feel outdated. In fact, the most amazing thing about it was that, to me, it was a completely new game. And a great one at that. The camera angles were artistic and deliberate, the desolate town of Silent Hill was hauntingly beautiful, and the strange dialogue and voice acting added to the game’s unique atmosphere. The way you had to pause the game to see your health was interesting, the combat was oppressive yet satisfying, and the puzzles and the story were fascinating to unravel. It was weird and wonderful (and obviously scary), and quickly became one of my favorite games.
I had a similar experience with Silent Hill 2 (whose story I had luckily avoided spoilers for over the past 20 years), and classic games that I missed back in the day like Chrono Trigger, Planescape: Torment, and (believe it or not) Final Fantasy VII were all a joy to play for the first time 15-20 years after their initial releases. FFVII not having a third-person over-the-shoulder camera like the remake didn’t make it outdated. Turn-based combat didn’t make these games outdated. I would even argue that the graphics of these games, which were clearly made by incredibly talented artists back in the day, are just as beautiful now as they were then.
Final Fantasy VII versus Final Fantasy VII Remake (comparison by Nick930).
The only real problem when it comes to playing classic games in my eyes is the lack of proper modern ports, or “remasters” that make the original game worse (either graphically or functionally). For classic games that are available and fully playable, though, I don't think remakes should be used as replacements (but again, if you aren’t interested in playing a classic game, and just want to enjoy the modern, different-but-similar game, go for it).
“Friction” is something that has come up often in recent game development discussions, and I think it’s a big factor when it comes to classic games that are available to play. There are a lot of people that don’t care to learn an entirely new (to them) control scheme, or a gameplay style or mechanic that has fallen out of favor in the recent AAA gaming space. The other point of friction with classic games would be the "outdated" or "ugly" graphics, but if you think a game is ugly, I don’t think much can be done about that (though if you have somehow learned to love an art style you previously thought was ugly, let me know!). Mechanics, however, you can learn to appreciate — even enjoy.
I think most of the friction with older games comes down to habits and familiarity. Many modern games, such as Horizon, God of War, Alan Wake 2, and all of the aforementioned horror game remakes, use basically the same control scheme and camera setup with minor variations. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as there are a lot of game design differences to be played with within these constraints, and it is certainly easier to pick up a new game when you immediately know how to play. But that’s precisely where the friction comes in. People want it to be easy to pick up a new game. They don’t want the friction. Or at least that’s what many game studios and players seem to think.
Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War (2018), and Alan Wake 2 (screenshot from walkthrough videos by MKIceAndFire).
I’m not going to delve further into the game design friction discussion as I already have here, but suffice it to say that if most of the games you play play more or less the same way, a game that handles differently might not just feel different, but because you are not used to it, it might feel clunky, even outdated. I would however like to challenge this notion, and encourage you to approach the game on its own merits, without comparing it to a game from the future, designed by a completely different team with different ideas.
People were just as capable of good design in the past as they are now — some might even argue they were more capable, with fewer established design and graphical “standards”, shorter development cycles, and greater freedom to innovate and experiment. If you do give classic games the attention they deserve (most of them are considered classics for a reason), you might just find your new favorite game — even if it was released over 20 years ago.
This piece was partially inspired by Kayin's article "Why Do You Want To Play a Remake?", which I quoted near the beginning of this one. We share a lot of very similar sentiments regarding this topic, but if you enjoyed reading this one, I highly recommend checking out their article as well.
Comments