Reinventing the wheel

Copyright (c) Noelle Adams. All Rights Reserved.

The remake. It’s been a tradition in the film industry for decades, and now the concept is becoming increasingly common to gaming. But is it a good thing?

It’s not surprising that game remakes are only just starting to appear, when compared to movie revamps. Film has a 60 year head start on video games as a popular entertainment form. Technically gaming is only in its third decade of high profile existence, having gained popularity in the 1980s with the first console explosion.

Now, the gaming industry is approaching middle age, feeling a little tired, and largely lacking fresh ideas. In a creative funk, the industry has turned to past successes for inspiration. Today’s remake involves taking a classic title and revamping its graphics, controls, and even storyline, for the fussy consumer of today’s Pixel Shader Age.

There are obvious advantages to producing remakes. For one thing, regardless of their feelings towards the finished game, fans of the original will start generating hype from the moment the project is announced. Developers have a pre-assembled group of potential buyers.

Then there are the “newbies” who may have missed the original game, but know of its classic status. Remakes let people appreciate a title they might otherwise never get to experience, such as old DOS games that struggle on new systems. More importantly, today’s remakes quite literally smooth away the rough edges of yesterday’s games, helping to satisfy gamers’ desires for natural movement and stunning graphics.

A recent example is Tomb Raider: Anniversary, released in June to celebrate a decade of Lara Croft action. Anniversary was essentially a remake of the dated looking 1996 original, created with the advanced Legend game engine.

On Xbox Live, gamers can now play the original Prince of Persia platformer, but polished with graphics from 2003’s Sands of Time.

Sometimes the gap between an original game and its sequel is so large that it’s easier to consider the follow-up a remake than a continuation. Such is the case with Blizzard’s StarCraft II, most likely set for release in 2008, 10 years after the original. Sure there’s story continuation, new units and a colourful new 3D look, but what can the game offer in terms of “new” gameplay? Especially since the Dawn of War series so thoroughly transformed sci-fi real time strategy. Surely StarCraft II is then more about a visual overhaul of StarCraft I for today’s gamer, and less about attempting anything groundbreaking?

Then again, is innovation important? We’re all used to interviews where developers simply regurgitate a press release about how revolutionary their game is. Rarely is that claim true. You have to wonder then which is better: Lying blatantly about “newness”, or quietly rehashing a winning formula?

In the end, that’s what remakes boil down to – contentment, sometimes even laziness, on developers’ part to revamp what already works, instead of creating something original. And it’s up to you to decide if you’re willing to pay full price for a prettier version of something you already played 10 years back.