I think it’s important to distinguish Remakes from Remasters. Cause games that are just remastered with updated graphics but don’t change anything, definitely not. But remakes could add new things and stuff so maybe? But I lean on the side of no.
Interesting perspective you've. it made me think about how developers already have a "cheat sheet" to work with. However, I'm completely on the opposite end. I believe remakes absolutely deserve GOTY noms if they truly deserve it. I was asked this when RE2 Remake was nominated. So many people said that it didn't deserve it because it was just a remake. But the remake is a completely different game from the original RE2 back in 98. It was made from the ground up, as was the case with RE4. The mechanics, the graphics, the gameplay are essentially brand new. It's almost like saying King Kong 2005 is the same movie as King Kong 1933 or King Kong 1976. Good video though. It really gave me some things to consider.
That's a great point. That's kinda how I feel about the Final Fantasy 7 remake. Like, I guess it's a remake but at the same time it's not really a remake. It's kinda complicated haha
I personally believe they shouldn’t and there’s precidence of it from other award shows. The Grammy’s added a rule that 70% of an album has to be original to be eligible for nomination after Taylor Swift started doing the Taylor’s version albums and I think game award shows should follow their example. Otherwise, it’s a slippery slope to game companies never innovating and just rerealesing the same five games over and over as award bait.
Oh wow, that's a great point! I had no idea that the Grammy's did that, but it makes sense. And I totally agree. I'm NOT saying that RE4 is bad. I just don't want remakes to be awarded at the same level as new titles. Thanks for the comment, I love it!
@@partypanda17 Yeah, I mean, they wouldn’t remake these games if they’re not good and have a preexisting fanbase that will pay for it so it’s sort of an inherent advantage. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Nier Replicant got Best Score as the entire soundtrack was remixes. It’s a good soundtrack but should we be awarding music that came out a decade ago over music made that year? I really don’t think so. I’m not against them adding a Best Remake/Port category tbh, there’s so many of them nowadays that you can probably fill in the category. They can replace it with the asanine Most Anticipated lmao. Like, why are we handing out awards to games that haven’t even come out yet?
That’s a good point, I like it. I think if a remake is changed enough then it should get some sort of recognition. I guess personally I just really like new stories cuz I think they make the game feel fresh to me, even if it’s a sequel haha
@@partypanda17I don’t think it’s cheap. Look at RE4, the game isn’t an original idea. Well you can say that about any game. However, it’s easy to mess up a game than improve on it. It did that and more. It feels like a different experience. I can boot up both and I don’t cling towards the other. I just started another play through of RE4 remake and I’m think of play the OG while I’m doing that and see how I feel about both
So any safe sequel like Spider-Man 2 then too? I don't think you can apply this to remakes like RE4. Yes the game uses the setting and gameplay elements to an extend but RE4 remake plays and feels different on every level. Everything is done from scratch
Nahh Sequels are way harder, you gotta Top the previous Game what might be way harder to achieve, Spider Man 2 is a great example for that, even though it improved in most aspects, the game still got shit because it used the same Map.. which should be obvious. While a remake, sure puts some improvements in it and of course a fresh paint, in its core its gonna be 80-90% of what already existed. They already know, how the Levels needs to look, the atmosphere, gameplay, story etc. .There isn‘t much creative thinking involved in that, because again they got a Blueprint for the win to follow.
@@danielwick6088 but the template is there already. The level design and layouts changed for the RE remakes, as did the controls and shooting mechanics. Spider-Man 2 plays exactly like Spider-Man 1, just like Elden Ring plays the same as all the Souls games.
The fact that you're showing RE4 footage then Link's Awakening footage and then talk about how all you need to do is some QAL improvements and fresh coat of paint shows how poor your understanding is and how you seem to be blurring the lines between remakes and remasters. Like RE4 and maybe to an extend Dead Space and then the rest of the clips are literally just remasters tells me you don't understands the difference. RE4 did not just get QoL changes or a fresh coat of paint. Outside of the village square just about EVERY area in the game has been changed and redone not resembling the original layout. Gameplay is very different and many narrative changes have been done. Changing as much about RE4 as they did was arguably bigger risk then makings safe sequel like Spider-Man 2 or GoW. And it's not an automatic success. RE3 remake was very poorly received. You say remakes can just take the winning formular and carry it over, but didn't Nintendo basically ran with just about everything that made Breath of the wild good? I'd argue RE4 remake has more changes and work done than Totk(really good game still). The underlying physics and a lot of areas from the map are straight from Botw. I am NOT saying that sequels don't deserve to be nominated by any means. I'm just saying that if sequels that re use most of the previous games gameplay and assets can be nominated so can a remake that just about had everything be re-done and changed on it, FROM scratch.
Re: RE4 ... did the story change? Did the fundamental gameplay change (is it still a 3rd person shooter)? Did the assets change beyond rebuild of textures/models? No one's saying there wasn't a lot of work put it, but the studio didn't start from scratch. There weren't weeks of development on storyboards, months spent on character and asset design, or money on market research (and way less on marketing the product). Remakes and remasters are essentially the same in all those regards. Neither are new products. Re: Tears of the Kingdom is a sequel, and no one has made the argument against sequels being eligible. The story is not the same as BotW, nor are the gameplay mechanics entirely the same, nor is exploration limited to the same map, nor are characters and dialogue the same as BotW, etc. Playing both games are not equivalent, whereas playing both RE4 (the original and remake) releases provide much the same experience in plot, mechanics, weapons, strategies, exploration, characters, dialogue, etc., except now with a fresh coat of paint and a minor dodge mechanic. Dgmw, I too think RE4 is one of the best games in gaming history and should be revered as such, but it's not a game from 2023. I know this because I played it on Wii in 2005.
@@donovanzanz LMNAO oh god where to begin "Re: RE4 ... did the story change? " Yes it did. They made a lot of changes. and have re written a lot of the cast. "Did the fundamental gameplay change (is it still a 3rd person shooter)? " Yes. using 3rd person shooter as your criteria is already flawed unless you wanna say Vanquish plays like Dead Space. I don't recall being able to walk while shooting, having the option to stealth kill, having reworked knife etc. I could go on. The fact that you say nothing but a minor dodge mechanic was added proves you're not honestly worth having this conversation with. You're purposely dismissing facts to further your arguments. "Did the assets change beyond rebuild of textures/models? No one's saying there wasn't a lot of work put it, but the studio didn't start from scratch. " What are you on about? Not a single assets was recycled. Everything you see and hear in this game was done from scratch. Likewise Totk re used environmental models, most of links models and most enemy models. But I can see you're ignoring that and lying out of your ass over Re4 for your argument. A lot of internet discourse around Totk is that it feels much like a fancy expansion pack. The internet hive mind hyped the game up but the game at its core carries botw's DNA. Something you're trying to bash RE4 for. Looks like You're Nintendo fanboy. Time to mute this because I don't think I wanna read your poor response.
@@mizurazu I just have one question in response (and it's not "why do you harbor such hatred for Nintendo?"): What's the name of the game? Is it Resident Evil 9? No? Hmm. I wonder why that is. I'll just say this for the benefit of anyone else reading (because I couldn't give a shit less what you angry fanbois are on about). Dead Space is one of my favorite games of the past 20 years. The remake should not be up for GOTY this year because it's a game from 2008. The Mass Effect series is one of my top 3 favorite franchises. If Legendary Edition (even if it were a "complete remake" as we have with RE4) were up for GOTY in 2021, I would have said the exact same thing I'm saying here. It's not a game from that year, it was a series of games from 2007, 2010, and 2012, respectively. If that seriously gets you so butthurt that you're willing to throw a tantrum like a 12-year-old, then maybe you need to find a less stressful new hobby ...
I think it’s important to distinguish Remakes from Remasters. Cause games that are just remastered with updated graphics but don’t change anything, definitely not. But remakes could add new things and stuff so maybe? But I lean on the side of no.
Interesting perspective you've. it made me think about how developers already have a "cheat sheet" to work with. However, I'm completely on the opposite end. I believe remakes absolutely deserve GOTY noms if they truly deserve it. I was asked this when RE2 Remake was nominated. So many people said that it didn't deserve it because it was just a remake. But the remake is a completely different game from the original RE2 back in 98. It was made from the ground up, as was the case with RE4. The mechanics, the graphics, the gameplay are essentially brand new. It's almost like saying King Kong 2005 is the same movie as King Kong 1933 or King Kong 1976. Good video though. It really gave me some things to consider.
That's a great point. That's kinda how I feel about the Final Fantasy 7 remake. Like, I guess it's a remake but at the same time it's not really a remake. It's kinda complicated haha
I personally believe they shouldn’t and there’s precidence of it from other award shows. The Grammy’s added a rule that 70% of an album has to be original to be eligible for nomination after Taylor Swift started doing the Taylor’s version albums and I think game award shows should follow their example. Otherwise, it’s a slippery slope to game companies never innovating and just rerealesing the same five games over and over as award bait.
Oh wow, that's a great point! I had no idea that the Grammy's did that, but it makes sense. And I totally agree. I'm NOT saying that RE4 is bad. I just don't want remakes to be awarded at the same level as new titles. Thanks for the comment, I love it!
@@partypanda17 Yeah, I mean, they wouldn’t remake these games if they’re not good and have a preexisting fanbase that will pay for it so it’s sort of an inherent advantage. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Nier Replicant got Best Score as the entire soundtrack was remixes. It’s a good soundtrack but should we be awarding music that came out a decade ago over music made that year? I really don’t think so.
I’m not against them adding a Best Remake/Port category tbh, there’s so many of them nowadays that you can probably fill in the category. They can replace it with the asanine Most Anticipated lmao. Like, why are we handing out awards to games that haven’t even come out yet?
they should just redo the game awards and give goty to ffxvi, then ill be happy
yes, if sequels that dont change much (exept story) can be nominated, then why not remakes that change so much
That’s a good point, I like it. I think if a remake is changed enough then it should get some sort of recognition. I guess personally I just really like new stories cuz I think they make the game feel fresh to me, even if it’s a sequel haha
I think remakes should be eligible for awards but not game of the year.
Exactly. Great games, but giving them GOTY seems kinda cheap :/
@@partypanda17I don’t think it’s cheap. Look at RE4, the game isn’t an original idea. Well you can say that about any game. However, it’s easy to mess up a game than improve on it. It did that and more. It feels like a different experience. I can boot up both and I don’t cling towards the other. I just started another play through of RE4 remake and I’m think of play the OG while I’m doing that and see how I feel about both
No
A remake is kinda like having all right answers for the Final Exam and even thou your Prof is aware of this, he will still reward you for it 😅
Exactlyyyy
I dunno. You could apply the same logic to sequels or spiritual successors. Elden Ring is basically Dark Souls 4
So any safe sequel like Spider-Man 2 then too?
I don't think you can apply this to remakes like RE4. Yes the game uses the setting and gameplay elements to an extend but RE4 remake plays and feels different on every level. Everything is done from scratch
Nahh Sequels are way harder, you gotta Top the previous Game what might be way harder to achieve, Spider Man 2 is a great example for that, even though it improved in most aspects, the game still got shit because it used the same Map.. which should be obvious. While a remake, sure puts some improvements in it and of course a fresh paint, in its core its gonna be 80-90% of what already existed. They already know, how the Levels needs to look, the atmosphere, gameplay, story etc. .There isn‘t much creative thinking involved in that, because again they got a Blueprint for the win to follow.
@@danielwick6088 but the template is there already. The level design and layouts changed for the RE remakes, as did the controls and shooting mechanics. Spider-Man 2 plays exactly like Spider-Man 1, just like Elden Ring plays the same as all the Souls games.
The fact that you're showing RE4 footage then Link's Awakening footage and then talk about how all you need to do is some QAL improvements and fresh coat of paint shows how poor your understanding is and how you seem to be blurring the lines between remakes and remasters. Like RE4 and maybe to an extend Dead Space and then the rest of the clips are literally just remasters tells me you don't understands the difference.
RE4 did not just get QoL changes or a fresh coat of paint. Outside of the village square just about EVERY area in the game has been changed and redone not resembling the original layout. Gameplay is very different and many narrative changes have been done. Changing as much about RE4 as they did was arguably bigger risk then makings safe sequel like Spider-Man 2 or GoW. And it's not an automatic success. RE3 remake was very poorly received.
You say remakes can just take the winning formular and carry it over, but didn't Nintendo basically ran with just about everything that made Breath of the wild good? I'd argue RE4 remake has more changes and work done than Totk(really good game still). The underlying physics and a lot of areas from the map are straight from Botw. I am NOT saying that sequels don't deserve to be nominated by any means. I'm just saying that if sequels that re use most of the previous games gameplay and assets can be nominated so can a remake that just about had everything be re-done and changed on it, FROM scratch.
Re: RE4 ... did the story change? Did the fundamental gameplay change (is it still a 3rd person shooter)? Did the assets change beyond rebuild of textures/models? No one's saying there wasn't a lot of work put it, but the studio didn't start from scratch. There weren't weeks of development on storyboards, months spent on character and asset design, or money on market research (and way less on marketing the product). Remakes and remasters are essentially the same in all those regards. Neither are new products.
Re: Tears of the Kingdom is a sequel, and no one has made the argument against sequels being eligible. The story is not the same as BotW, nor are the gameplay mechanics entirely the same, nor is exploration limited to the same map, nor are characters and dialogue the same as BotW, etc. Playing both games are not equivalent, whereas playing both RE4 (the original and remake) releases provide much the same experience in plot, mechanics, weapons, strategies, exploration, characters, dialogue, etc., except now with a fresh coat of paint and a minor dodge mechanic.
Dgmw, I too think RE4 is one of the best games in gaming history and should be revered as such, but it's not a game from 2023. I know this because I played it on Wii in 2005.
@@donovanzanz
LMNAO oh god where to begin
"Re: RE4 ... did the story change? "
Yes it did. They made a lot of changes. and have re written a lot of the cast.
"Did the fundamental gameplay change (is it still a 3rd person shooter)? "
Yes. using 3rd person shooter as your criteria is already flawed unless you wanna say Vanquish plays like Dead Space. I don't recall being able to walk while shooting, having the option to stealth kill, having reworked knife etc. I could go on.
The fact that you say nothing but a minor dodge mechanic was added proves you're not honestly worth having this conversation with. You're purposely dismissing facts to further your arguments.
"Did the assets change beyond rebuild of textures/models? No one's saying there wasn't a lot of work put it, but the studio didn't start from scratch. "
What are you on about? Not a single assets was recycled. Everything you see and hear in this game was done from scratch. Likewise Totk re used environmental models, most of links models and most enemy models. But I can see you're ignoring that and lying out of your ass over Re4 for your argument.
A lot of internet discourse around Totk is that it feels much like a fancy expansion pack. The internet hive mind hyped the game up but the game at its core carries botw's DNA. Something you're trying to bash RE4 for. Looks like You're Nintendo fanboy.
Time to mute this because I don't think I wanna read your poor response.
@@mizurazu I just have one question in response (and it's not "why do you harbor such hatred for Nintendo?"):
What's the name of the game? Is it Resident Evil 9? No? Hmm. I wonder why that is.
I'll just say this for the benefit of anyone else reading (because I couldn't give a shit less what you angry fanbois are on about). Dead Space is one of my favorite games of the past 20 years. The remake should not be up for GOTY this year because it's a game from 2008. The Mass Effect series is one of my top 3 favorite franchises. If Legendary Edition (even if it were a "complete remake" as we have with RE4) were up for GOTY in 2021, I would have said the exact same thing I'm saying here. It's not a game from that year, it was a series of games from 2007, 2010, and 2012, respectively.
If that seriously gets you so butthurt that you're willing to throw a tantrum like a 12-year-old, then maybe you need to find a less stressful new hobby ...