I'm conflicted about this. For a mainly PC gamer, I only encounter with minor difficulty running older games on a modern PC (I did more while I was a Windows user than now as a Linux daily driver). But still, I do most of my pre-2010 gaming on nostalgia/retro PCs.
The thing is for modern PCs and displays, older games often don't support 16:9 aspect ratio and high (today considered normal) resolutions. I'd consider an optional patch the most preferable way to play old games, but that's the least profitable for publishers. Then comes the remaster. If it stays side-by-side with the original version, I don't mind. But if it replaces the original, I see that as an issue. Especially that it's not uncommon that the remaster is inferior or releases having the "modern game plague", being unfinished and buggy. Especially especially, if it replaces the old version for the people who already owned it.
So in the best case scenario, the remaster shares store shelves with the original instead of replacing it, I sort of think it's worth it if the game is old and inaccessible enough and the remaster respects the original. On the other hand, I generally see them as wasted resources companies could spend on making brand new good games instead of making games I already played to death prettier.
The Mafia definitive edition games were great, existing side-by-side with the original, even giving it to owners of the originals for free.
For Bioshock, it's alright, existing side-by-side with the original, but the remaster being paid for everyone.
The Metro Redux games were bullshit. They were remasters of brand new games, could have been a free updates, instead they were paid upgrades replacing the originals in stores.
The GTA trilogy's definitive edition was worse, older games being replaced by the remaster in stores while being inferior to the originals.
The Saint's Row IV Re-elected was even more worse. It replaced the original even for those who owned it while being inferior to the original.
gerry wrote on 2023-07-26, 07:28:
what's strange too is sometimes the "they should remaster this" comment is made on a PS3 era or relatively recent game, which is already high definition and just isn't going to become all that much more visually impressive
i wonder if its because younger gamers have grown up with PS3 and later era graphics and for them anything prior to that looks so blocky and "old" that it's mentally filtered out of their play list unless given the same appearance as games they have grown up with, might be, i could understand that
The PS3 era is a completely different matter. PS3 emulation is very resource intensive which makes backward compatibility difficult. The games look well enough and mostly aged okay, but I think backward compatibility through emulation won't bi viable until at least the PS7. And there comes the previously mentioned issue. Spending resources to keep old games playable for essentially free is a lot less profitable if at all, than remastering them and making people pay upwards from $70€ for them.
As a PS3 owner, I'm perfectly fine with the games' PS3 quality and find the upwards from $70€ upgrade cost too much. Though I also consider that price for modern large scale games to be too much as well.