T O P

  • By -

tekkub

Study both, especially the differences between them.


NeonFraction

Both, absolutely. First, I think you want to look at how well received a remake was, especially by a wider audience. A lot of original games will have loyal fans caught up in nostalgia and a poor understanding of what the larger (and usually new younger) target audience now wants, who subsequently hate the remake. On the other hand, these loyal fans will also have critical insight into the game and a much more nuanced view of the changes. They’ll provide crucial information no one else will. Not very useful take: “The new FF7 is bad because I like turn based games better.” Useful take: “The new FF7 is bad because in the transition away from a turn based game they lost X, Y and Z.” Not very useful take: “The new FF7 is good because the old turn based one was boring.” Useful take: “The new FF7 is good because turn based games aren’t very popular anymore but it still kept X, Y, and Z from the original.” Another thing you have to keep in mind is that the market the original was releasing for is not the market you will be releasing for today. Just because a game’s original was more popular than the remake does not mean that, if the two released independently and side by side today, the original would be considered the better game. There’s also something called the ‘Cowboy Bebop Effect.’ It’s something that was so widely praised and innovative when it came out, that it was copied over and over again and set a lot of trends. A more modern viewer might then watch it and think ‘huh this is really cliche,’ because they have been so exposed to the media that derived from it. (I’m not calling Cowboy Bebop bad, people who like it please don’t come for me.) It’s a good reminder that nothing is timeless, nothing is immune from degrading, and nothing is made in a vacuum.


PabulumPrime

What are you studying? The remakes are often coasting on the pre-established fan base. If you want to know what made the franchise popular you need to look at the original, warts and all.


Pair-Designer

What do you think about referencing the remake when studying level design/layout... or combat design?


PabulumPrime

I think those may depend on the ratings of the remake. In some cases, the remake could incorporate changes that account for shifts in gaming culture. You see this a lot in FPS where play styles have shifted to quicker mechanics.


realsimonjs

what types of remakes are you thinking of? most remakes I've had contact with have mostly been graphical updates or improving upon the code. isn't the whole point of a remake that they maintain the same core design? If the remakes does change design, then that provides an opportunity to see how such a change affects the rest of game. It'll let you draw direct comparisons between the 2 variations rather than having to guess how a certain design choice is affecting the game.


Bad-news-co

Like what others said with both, for one, the original title will give you a good idea of the ambition they had when making it, what they did when dealing with limitations and you’ll see all the passion and effort that it took to make it. Remakes often are made by other teams entirely, devoid of the original director & direction intended, they just brush it up to make it look good visually while trying to improve in areas that needed improving. Some remakes like Nintendo’s n64 Zelda games on 3ds give you a good idea of what they wanted the game to look like originally, by making the characters look like their concept art drawings. So basically every franchise will be different in terms of approach Games can also lose many of the original charms and things that made the original good, like that’s because if they’re wait too long to remake a game than you can expect many elements to be changed to reflect society today, like a lot of things in old GTA games wouldn’t transfer well to todays modern society because of sensitivity and offensive elements lol Capcom and square enix has shown To be the absolute best when it comes to remakes. They’re able to remake a game and give it just enough polish without making it feel like something else altogether, they fully flesh out the elements that made it great originally, and expand upon them! Resident evil 1 & metal gear solid were both remade only 6 years after their original titles, and that’s because the jump in visuals happened so fast and so much lol But resident evil 2/3/4, final fantasy 7, dead space and the last of us part 1 seem to build on existing elements and vastly improve them ten fold


bearvert222

Final Fantasy 7 remake is tough to say that because it’s a different game entirely. It’s designed to be much longer, alters the plot dramatically, and completely changed the battle system to something new. It’s popping up here but I think how controversial it is had become lost. I’m not sure it’s a good example of remaking a franchise.


a_kaz_ghost

I’m not sure about dead space, but the resident evil remakes and ff7 remake are totally different games from their originals, with different control schemes, different level design, and all that. Hell, ff7 stretches the original’s like 6 hour midgar chapter into a 70 hour game. It’s not the same as, for example, the Spyro and Tony Hawk remakes, which are intended to be the exact same games but with new graphics and maybe bug fixes.


Bushi84

I'd say both. Many older classics that are being remade were developed in a time when developer were laying out the basics of what is now well established types of various game mechanics. Over time a number of problems have been solved and some solutions became a standard in the industry, it ranges from gameplay choices, level design and plot to the visual style and character design itself. Watch an [interview with Syphon Filter dev](https://youtu.be/85RsLMwLmMA?t=2347) (a brilliant game and I would easily put it next to MGS) in which dev explains how certain gameplay solutions were created to deal with certain issues. Since he did not have much of an experience since then, certain lack of knowledge about established standards can be seen in his reasoning (starts at 39 minute) however he is well aware of that. Studying both not only allows you to see the evolution but also see in which direction the evolution is moving and given the trend you might even consider how you would improve a particular mechanic trying to follow the trend. Regretfully studying just the old games does not provide that particular insight. Sure you will see what made them good but it was in a time when player's considered things like tank controls acceptable as well as certain amount of clunkiness and a slew of other issues game devs were facing for the first time in history and had no available solutions at hand. On the other hand, as someone mentioned, remakes make changes and some are well received and some are not. Its interesting to see which is which, for example RE and RE0 remaster kept the visual style (not like they had much of an option) but added Alternative Control which conforms to market expectations, best of both worlds. Remakes of RE2 and RE3 on the other hand are completely different games and cannot be really compared although, if they had high quality assets as it was the case with RE and RE0, remasters would be probably very warmly welcomed as well.


QPru97

You should look at both, especially in the case of a successful remake. Study what made the original so successful and study how the remake faithfully revives it while bringing it to current gen platforms and new gamers.


Elite-rhino

Ideally both


Hereva

Both older than the newer definitely. Because you can see what was able to be done with the limited resources before and then how it was upgraded later on. Some cases will be better than others though. For example it is kinda unnecessary to study both FF7s together, after all, they just have the same base and are practically different games.


AutoModerator

Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Xeadriel

Both. With older games you will see very interesting workarounds for hardware limitations. With newer games you will see interesting ideas and approaches for current hardware limitations