For a PC gamer - hardly ever worth it in my opinion.

A notable exception - the Special Edition versions of Monkey Island 1&2, and Day of the Tentacle.
And even that may be because I never played the originals and so am not attached to them.

For consoles it's a different thing as was already mentioned - because new consoles cannot always play old games as they were.

My biggest disappointment about remasters, at least in my experience, is that they never fix the little problems that the fans wish that they would fix. I get that they are 'remasters', nor 'remakes', and so the intention isn't to alter the game really, just to make them look better, but with some games a little change or too would make them a lot more enjoyable, especially for long time players.

Take Bioshock, for example. A fantastic game, but with some real flaws. The end boss battle, for example, is *terrible*. But to fix this would be a fair bit of work (especially since ideally they would scrap the boss battle and add a different final battle), and changing it would alter the Bioshock experience which would really annoy some purists. But Bioshock also suffers from the endless tedium of the hacking mini-game. Many people complain about this. And in Bioshock 2 they fixed this by having hacking simply a matter of the player stopping the pointer/needle on a certain part of a scale. Easy to use, over too quickly to be tedious, plus it did away with the stupidity of Bioshock's world seemingly standing still whilst you played it's hacking mini-game.

And if the remaster of Bioshock 1 had had the method of hacking from Bioshock 2 (or at least an option for this change), then it would have pleased many people, myself included.

And I am a massive fan of the Batman: Arkham games. And those games, utterly fantastic as they mostly are, have their flaws too, including the lack of randomness of 'Predator' areas (these areas are called 'Predator' areas because Batman picks off the enemies one by one). When you enter a predator area, then if you've played through the game a few times, then you know where each enemy starts, and all of their patrol routes. If the remasters of these games (so far only the first two have been remastered) had added a little randomness here, then it would have really helped the games' replayability factor.

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

short explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30UOtKTLHs

Most "Remasters" just re-escalate the system requirements so the game requires a new computer again. It resets the exclusivity of the "high end gamer" club.
I feel fortunate that I bought Dark Souls before they "remastered" it. I wouldn't have been able to play it if I was stuck with the remaster.
Today I finally have 1 PC that could run the remaster, but I'm still glad I can run it on something older. I would not trade versions.

I have the old Skyrim on Steam, and had no interest in the graphical remaster of that game either. Only reason I bought it is because the remaster is on GoG (so it frees me from Steam's online DRM and moving target OS requirements). I'd actually be interested in an "UnRemastered" patch for the Remaster just for lowering the system requirements back to original, while keeping it free of online-DRM.

I heard a rumor about a remaster of Red Dead Redemption. I might like to buy and play that game someday. But I doubt they'll keep selling the original version if they "remaster" it, and I can't imagine there's anything wrong with the oh-so-ancient 12 year old graphics of the original. Even if there is - I'd still rather play the original version that everybody else played and liked. Call me a purist.

So basically I don't like remasters of digitally published games, because it tends to cut off the supply of the original.

Now if we're talking about an old physical disc based game, then I don't see those type of updates threatening. Those games are out of print anyway and the existing copies are physical, so it doesn't change the availability of the original version.
Something like a GoG update for an old Win95 game that lets it run on Windows 10 obviously does have a point. I don't expect GoG to get into the business of supporting legacy systems, but I do wish they'd consistently provide a binary of the original disc (with no support offered for it). Occasionally they do.

=========
amateur psychology analysis:
Remasters help people to feel vindicated in their fandom of the game.
They make the game feel "relevant" again. A game that has the hype of current advertising, and that pop-culture "influencers" are talking about and playing, immediately feels more worthwhile than playing something old and forgotten. People want to be part of the group, and a remaster provides the signal that it's cool to play and talk about that particular game again.

It's similar with TV - why do most people have a preference for watching a new show instead of a DVD collection of an old one? Because the new show feels like a group activity, they can talk about it with their friends and such.

Only Remaster I own is the C&C one which I think was worth it.
I mostly got it for the new music and lesser extent the behind the scenes footage they found and included.

Personally I prefer original graphics, its bit part of the games charm. But I can understand people without old hardware wanting support for games to scale with modern monitors. Likewise having games work on more modern systems.

One surprising benefit with C&C for me was multiplayer over internet which of course dos 9x games never really had built in. Means I don't have to wait for me and my brother to be in the same physical location for a game

Remastered graphics: no
Remake that only makes minor adjustments to the story/style so it's essentially the same: no
Remake that changes the entire gameplay to get me to play again: yes
Unlimited supply of mods made by creative people that turn the original game into a real masterpiece: HELL YES!

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.

I don’t mind either really. There have good and bad examples of both. From reading all your answers this comes down to our personal experience and nostalgia.

I will say one thing, remasters and remakes has allowed my kids to get into the older games without having to battle with clunky controls or graphics that were just a little bit too raw. My eldest who is 20, has become a massive Resident Evil fan. They tried the original of RE2 on my PlayStation, but the tank controls were a step too far. We played the 2016 remake of the original and it was a great experience for us.

robertmo3 wrote on 2023-10-12, 08:32:

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

short explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30UOtKTLHs

yes indeed, a good example of a "relatively recent game, which is already high definition and just isn't going to become all that much more visually impressive"

not a critique of the work done, looks great etc, but in terms of gameplay, immersion and so on - nothing really changes

shamino wrote on 2023-10-12, 21:52:

========= amateur psychology analysis: Remasters help people to feel vindicated in their fandom of the game. They make the game […]
Show full quote

=========
amateur psychology analysis:
Remasters help people to feel vindicated in their fandom of the game.
They make the game feel "relevant" again. A game that has the hype of current advertising, and that pop-culture "influencers" are talking about and playing, immediately feels more worthwhile than playing something old and forgotten. People want to be part of the group, and a remaster provides the signal that it's cool to play and talk about that particular game again.

It's similar with TV - why do most people have a preference for watching a new show instead of a DVD collection of an old one? Because the new show feels like a group activity, they can talk about it with their friends and such.

i think there's some good insight in there, especially about bringing something into the "now" so that players can feel part of a social scene again and feel the buzz of the 'new' to some extent

add to that a slight barrier that i think exists among gamers who only know HD, old games seem too far away - a bit like the first generation that only watched color tv and recognised b/w as 'old'

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-10-13, 06:56:

The thing is for modern PCs and displays, older games often don't support 16:9 aspect ratio and high (today considered normal) r […]
Show full quote

The thing is for modern PCs and displays, older games often don't support 16:9 aspect ratio and high (today considered normal) resolutions.
..
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.

i'd be fine with older games showing up 4:3 with black edges as an option too

about the PS3 and Xbox 360 - yes you'd need one to play the originals as emulation seems far off so i can see remasters as a commercial means to make old games available on new consoles

for the PC games of that era though, they just don't benefit from it as most games from later 2000's on already look good and on newer systems all graphics can be maxxed out

Unless it's getting a useful UI overhaul, nothing with proper widescreen and high definition support really needs a remaster..

My son has a pretty up to date rig and plays various "modern" games and while on a side-by-side comparison of course the newer games look better but not mind blowingly better like we saw in the jump between 1999 and 2009. (which is when I stopped /paused gaming) .

Just like the 1:1 "live action" remakes of the House of Mouse I never really saw remastering as anything but a cash grab.
Maybe if they throw in the old game with better compatibility I would do it but otherwise I am biding my time when I can fire up my Athlon and party like it is 2009 again....

Just because nobody mentioned it before ... RTX Remix :
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/rtx-remix/

Now you can remaster games by yourself ... in theory.

Personally, I'd like some 320x200 classics being "remastered" to 640x400.
In case of DOS games, VBE may allow it without changing platform.

I think remasters can be good to make games more available and for better quality of life.
Ofc it all comes down to how the remaster is handled if the developers don't do it justice its just a waste of time and money.
Look at quake 2 , that was an example on how to do it right and it brought quake 2 to way more people.

DerBaum wrote on 2023-10-13, 11:33:

Just because nobody mentioned it before ... RTX Remix :
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/rtx-remix/

Now you can remaster games by yourself ... in theory.

that's it - i'm remastering Tekwar!! 😀

Jo22 wrote on 2023-10-13, 12:43:

Personally, I'd like some 320x200 classics being "remastered" to 640x400.
In case of DOS games, VBE may allow it without changing platform.

actually that is interesting - were any dos games re-leased with updated 640*400 or greater dos graphics that they had previously not been capable of (and were textures updated etc)?

IMO remastering only makes sense on consoles without backwards compatibility. For PC, it makes no sense at all. So many Windows games still play fine on modern operating systems, and if a game doesn't work "out of the box" there is almost always some fan made patch or something to get it working. And then you have DOSBOX for DOS games.

For games that run at a fixed resolution, there are integer scaling apps that make them look fantastic yet feel authentic at high resolutions. Games like Fallout 1/2 or the Infinity Engine games look wonderful at native res cleanly scaled up to 1280x960.

I've often "forced" myself to go back and play the original releases of older games, even when there is a more convenient remake/remaster available, and it's given me a greater appreciation for games in general. I've discovered that a lot of old RPGs are a joy to play with no grinding required at all, even though everything on the Internet suggests that RPGs before 2000 or whatever were massive boring grinds. If I had just played the remakes/remasters, I probably would have just assumed this was true. For example, I had a ton of fun playing through the DOS version of Wizardry 1-3&5, games that I otherwise would have assumed were completely dated grindfests, but actually ended up being some of the most enjoyable games I've ever played (well, at least part 1 and 5).

Remasters of older pre-widescreen era games are definitely bit more interesting since there's a bigger technological step from the original. Remasters of newer games, first thing I notice is they're really good at reminding you how old your computer is if you're running a PC initially bought in eg. 2009, even if slightly upgraded.

A while back I actually made it through Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered from 2016, original is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare from 2007, with a PC with 4 GB of RAM, official minimum is 6 GB of RAM. Maps took something over 5 min to load, lots of lag when they loaded initially, took a while for lag to settle down, until I made it to area on another side of the map when lag started again. Recently managed to get my hands on an extra stick of 2 GB of RAM, it cut load times in half, still forever in contrast to the original where it takes seconds. That and still about 1 GB of data is swapped to page file by the OS. No huge lags during gameplay, except maybe one or two occurrences on one bigger map, mission Shock and Awe.

System requirements are definitely bigger shock to me than visuals, for which in such action game you'd have to slow down to appreciate as it feels similar to the original, maybe updated lighting stands out more at first glance. Sometimes they also change some aspect so it is just different, eg. in this case, Imran Zakhaev has sort of kinder look to him, which doesn't fit the character. At least that's how it looks to me.

That reminds me I started playing COD:MW again this year (not the remaster) only to ragequit (AGAIN) at the stupid sniper mission where you have to fend off wave after wave of hostiles. That game has absolutely SHIT mission design, and seeing it came out in 2007 I really fail to understand why it had the huge impact and following it did. Bad Company dumps all over this hot mess. It is mediocre at best, and utter trash at times. I guess the multiplayer was fun or something, but even that I can't see being better than Bad Company..

appiah4 wrote on 2023-12-28, 06:16:

That reminds me I started playing COD:MW again this year (not the remaster) only to ragequit (AGAIN) at the stupid sniper mission where you have to fend off wave after wave of hostiles. That game has absolutely SHIT mission design, and seeing it came out in 2007 I really fail to understand why it had the huge impact and following it did. Bad Company dumps all over this hot mess. It is mediocre at best, and utter trash at times. I guess the multiplayer was fun or something, but even that I can't see being better than Bad Company..

At the end under the ferris wheel? I beat that game several times even on the hardest difficulty. What worked out for me on that part is hiding in that small ticket box or whatever. It still sucks, but at least that's good cover. All CoD games up to 4 had a mission like that. Like the Pegasus Bridge mission in the first one and Hill 400 in the 2nd. All of them only works if you play as a dirty camper and hide in a place where the enemy can only shoot at you from one direction.