Being at only a few days from another Remake *slash* Enhanced Port in the name of Chrono Trigger on the NDS, and almost done with Star Ocean PSP, I was thinking back of several good games from former Square and Enix that probably will never get a remake/port, but were still alot of fun to play. So here's a small list of those I remember.
Soul Blazer trilogy
I call it a trilogy due to some similarities, themes and ties in the stories and characters, it's almost unmistakable that they were done by the same groups. The trilogy contains Soul Blazer, Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma. Sadly, Terranigma never reached US despite English localization due to Enix USA closing doors during the SNES/PS1 eras.
The main theme went around souls and rebirth. Soul Blazer had you visiting worlds and dreams to rebuild the towns and their inhabitants. The main character was the envoy of 'god', which amusingly also had similarities with Actraiser it seems. You received the help of souls for spells and various abilities like seeing invisible things, and could talk to plant and animals. The theme was around rebirth, as various dead people seemed to be reincarnated as animals in the worlds you visit.
Illusion of Gaia had you visiting the world to dispel the cloud of darkness over it. The main character had the ability to transform into the bodies of warriors he borrows the souls from along the story, which makes you use their different abilities as you progress. While the theme was similar, the main thing that seems to tie in with Soul Blazer is when you collect the 50 red gems around the world. The extra dungeon it unlocks has for boss the very first boss of Soul Blazer, in a similar killing strategy and stage.
Terranigma also dwelled in rebirth, but this time on a whole new level. This time it wasn't a fantasy world, it was OURS. Opening Pandora's box literally throws you into a quest to bring back the world as it was, which makes you speed through the entire evolution of the world and the upbringing of plants, animals and humans, down to helping some important history figures to make their contributions, such as voting on the next King of France, helping Wright create his airplane or Edison with electricity. It probably holds the most enigmatic and sad ending I've seen.
Each of these titles would be worth a remake or a port. In fact, I'd love to see them, but seeing their age and te relative obscurity and lack of huge sales or visibility like the mainstream series received, maybe bundle them together a single NDS cart would be wise.
Secret of Mana
This one is not a surprise at all. Considering they took lenghts to actually remake the very first game from the GameBoy to the Gameboy Advance (originally Final Fantasy Adventure) to Sword of Mana. And seeing they decided to get Chrono Trigger out, why not Secret of Mana now?
Sadly while the mana series is popular, not sure they will consider it for a full remake. Maybe an enhanced port, seeing that's all they gave Chrono Trigger. It would still be a welcomed re-addition to the gaming world, as Secret of Mana definitely was an epic quest to play, and even better it could handle 3 players!
Any other title you think would be worth another chance?
Showing posts with label Remake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Remake. Show all posts
Friday, November 21, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Port vs Remake
Yes, two posts in two days! I'm on a roll.
*ahem* Anyway, today I decided to write down once and for all my stand about what makes a port and a remake. It's a subject of many debates on the forums as wether a game should be considered a port or remake. In the end, it's just your personal opinion on it, but I think it's better when you can offer an educated opinion at least.
Let's start with the very basic definition of them :
Port
A port is when a game is taken from one console to the other, without a generation gap or little differences. For example, adapting an Xbox game to the PC is a port.
Remake
Remakes are when a game is made on a console of a different generation, which requires some changes in the way it's coded. A good is Wild Arms : Alter Code F, from the PS1 to the PS2 version.
Now that's fine and all, but when you look at the very basic definition, that's where some confusion can be created. The definition of remake implies that if they are created on another younger console, it's a remake. Thus Final Fantasy 4-5-6 on PS1 were remakes. Most people will agree that it hardly constitutes a 'remake' when you play it, and they are right. But we're talking about the basic definition here.
In reality, most people will consider a remake if it changes the game in major ways while keeping the story and basic gameplay the same. For example, Final Fantasy 1 from it's NES days didn't change much when it was ported to the MSX and PC in Japan, but the Wonderswan version had alot of changes. We're talking mostly bugfixes along with an upgrade in graphics and music. The PS1, GBA and PSP versions were essentially ports of that Wonderswan version, but still can be considered remakes of the original for all intents.
We could add to the remake definition that it also requires recoding the entire game. The FF4-5-6 on PS1 had no such thing done, only small additions for saving to a memory card. Otherwise, the game was more or less a ROM slapped on a CD, complemented with FMV and art galleries. Graphically, musically and gameplay wise, nothing had changed, not even most of the bugs and glitches.
On the other hand, the GBA version of these same games seem to constitute a remake in that aspect. The code looks like it may have been redone rather than adapted, as most of the bugs were fixed (and in certain cases new ones appeared). Graphically they are essentially the same, musically they needed to be downsized from the strong SNES music player to a more limited GBA music player, but otherwise the game looked and sounded so alike that people wouldn't think about it being a remake.
To add to the confusion about the whole port versus remake, let's hop back to ports. Ports are supposed to be when games are made on the same generation of consoles, for example if you took the various versions of Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES and Genesis, they had very little differences. Some ports were a little more odd, like Bart vs the Space Mutants that was on the NES and the Genesis, talk about a generation gap!
Nowadays it's even worse. The 360 and PC essentially are made on the same architecture, making ports easy between the two. Change a few things, add some graphic options and there you go, PC version. But the PS3 is built on a more complex architecture, and alot of developers have troubles porting their games to PS3 because of it. For example, while there is a Dynasty Warriors 6 on both PS3 and Xbox360, Warriors Orochi 1 and 2 were made on Xbox360 and PC, yet only on the PS2. There is no PS3 version, which seems to indicate that they didn't want to bother with recoding or adapting the game for the PS3, while they could just reuse most of the graphics and the engine they built with the previous games on the PS2.
So basically, a PS3 game needing to be recoded would almost constitute a remake rather than a port. Confusing enough yet?
In conclusion, how about you call it whatever you feel like, and stop trying to categorize it? Are you going to play it if it's not a port or a remake? If you're not going to play it, don't bother us with it either! If you're going to play it, what does it matter if it's a port or a remake?
*ahem* Anyway, today I decided to write down once and for all my stand about what makes a port and a remake. It's a subject of many debates on the forums as wether a game should be considered a port or remake. In the end, it's just your personal opinion on it, but I think it's better when you can offer an educated opinion at least.
Let's start with the very basic definition of them :
Port
A port is when a game is taken from one console to the other, without a generation gap or little differences. For example, adapting an Xbox game to the PC is a port.
Remake
Remakes are when a game is made on a console of a different generation, which requires some changes in the way it's coded. A good is Wild Arms : Alter Code F, from the PS1 to the PS2 version.
Now that's fine and all, but when you look at the very basic definition, that's where some confusion can be created. The definition of remake implies that if they are created on another younger console, it's a remake. Thus Final Fantasy 4-5-6 on PS1 were remakes. Most people will agree that it hardly constitutes a 'remake' when you play it, and they are right. But we're talking about the basic definition here.
In reality, most people will consider a remake if it changes the game in major ways while keeping the story and basic gameplay the same. For example, Final Fantasy 1 from it's NES days didn't change much when it was ported to the MSX and PC in Japan, but the Wonderswan version had alot of changes. We're talking mostly bugfixes along with an upgrade in graphics and music. The PS1, GBA and PSP versions were essentially ports of that Wonderswan version, but still can be considered remakes of the original for all intents.
We could add to the remake definition that it also requires recoding the entire game. The FF4-5-6 on PS1 had no such thing done, only small additions for saving to a memory card. Otherwise, the game was more or less a ROM slapped on a CD, complemented with FMV and art galleries. Graphically, musically and gameplay wise, nothing had changed, not even most of the bugs and glitches.
On the other hand, the GBA version of these same games seem to constitute a remake in that aspect. The code looks like it may have been redone rather than adapted, as most of the bugs were fixed (and in certain cases new ones appeared). Graphically they are essentially the same, musically they needed to be downsized from the strong SNES music player to a more limited GBA music player, but otherwise the game looked and sounded so alike that people wouldn't think about it being a remake.
To add to the confusion about the whole port versus remake, let's hop back to ports. Ports are supposed to be when games are made on the same generation of consoles, for example if you took the various versions of Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES and Genesis, they had very little differences. Some ports were a little more odd, like Bart vs the Space Mutants that was on the NES and the Genesis, talk about a generation gap!
Nowadays it's even worse. The 360 and PC essentially are made on the same architecture, making ports easy between the two. Change a few things, add some graphic options and there you go, PC version. But the PS3 is built on a more complex architecture, and alot of developers have troubles porting their games to PS3 because of it. For example, while there is a Dynasty Warriors 6 on both PS3 and Xbox360, Warriors Orochi 1 and 2 were made on Xbox360 and PC, yet only on the PS2. There is no PS3 version, which seems to indicate that they didn't want to bother with recoding or adapting the game for the PS3, while they could just reuse most of the graphics and the engine they built with the previous games on the PS2.
So basically, a PS3 game needing to be recoded would almost constitute a remake rather than a port. Confusing enough yet?
In conclusion, how about you call it whatever you feel like, and stop trying to categorize it? Are you going to play it if it's not a port or a remake? If you're not going to play it, don't bother us with it either! If you're going to play it, what does it matter if it's a port or a remake?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)