|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Dec 17, 2018 3:49:00 GMT -5
I can't recall if I started a topic with this subject before... I feel like I have, but if I have I don't remember it. But yeah... something that bums me out (hypocritically so after the "ports you prefer" thread, admittedly) is how many times I hear of an updated remake being called the "definitive way to play Game X." For example, I've seen the comments (not here specifically, just around the web) that: Final Fantasy 1 PSP/GBA is the "definitive" version of Final Fantasy 1. Brutal Doom makes the original Doom (or purist source ports like Chocolate Doom) obsolete. If you're gonna play Wizardry it should be the SNES version. And on and on and on. Thing is... well, sometimes these sentiments are onto something, but at the same time I find them a little weird. First of all there's the comparison to the film fanbase, where film buffs will go nuts if you colorize a Black and White movie, or add CGI to a film that originally did not have any. I never got why games were different (though apparently, this wasn't always the case--apparently when Sierra remade a lot of their old games in a point-n-click interface, people complained. Yet nowadays this kind of thing is lauded. I'll at least give Sierra this much credit: Compilations usually included both versions so you could pick your poison... kinda literally in some cases, since this WAS Sierra after all. Remember to save first!) The other thing that bothers me is that a lot of times these "definitive versions" aren't just enhanced graphics or gameplay patches, they sometimes actively change the experience. Final Fantasy 1 especially bothers me in this regard (I'm less bugged by Brutal Doom since its just a fan mod), because the GBA and PSP versions make fundamental changes--most notably the magic and that the air castle is no longer a space station but just a generic castle in the clouds, because Square didn't want people to think they were actually cool before the 16-bit days apparently... the robots are still there tho, inexplicably. Anyway, has anyone else ever had this reaction, IE a "you're totally missing out if you don't play the original version" reaction? (And, errr... is it contradictory of me to be fine with Chocolate Doom?) |
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Dec 17, 2018 4:06:54 GMT -5
The film comparison doesn't quite work since they're not (as) interactive and generally a much smaller time investment.
But yeah, it happens depending on the game. I tend to prefer older versions for their aesthetics and them being impressive considering the more limited hardware. 8-bit RPGs are kind of crap though so I can see why one wouldn't want to go that far back with them except if they're using hacks/codes.
|
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Dec 17, 2018 4:40:56 GMT -5
8-bit RPGs are kind of crap though Don't make me pull out the Laconian Sword! [actually the values of 8-Bit RPGs is something I probably talked about before and probably should do so again, but probably not in this topic... not until page 2, anyway] |
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Dec 17, 2018 5:18:31 GMT -5
Ha! That's no match for my golden pantaloons.
Yeah I recall having that discussion a while back.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsparil on Dec 17, 2018 9:31:38 GMT -5
First of all there's the comparison to the film fanbase, where film buffs will go nuts if you colorize a Black and White movie, or add CGI to a film that originally did not have any. I never got why games were different (though apparently, this wasn't always the case--apparently when Sierra remade a lot of their old games in a point-n-click interface, people complained. Yet nowadays this kind of thing is lauded. I'll at least give Sierra this much credit: Compilations usually included both versions so you could pick your poison... kinda literally in some cases, since this WAS Sierra after all. Remember to save first!) The other thing that bothers me is that a lot of times these "definitive versions" aren't just enhanced graphics or gameplay patches, they sometimes actively change the experience. Final Fantasy 1 especially bothers me in this regard (I'm less bugged by Brutal Doom since its just a fan mod), because the GBA and PSP versions make fundamental changes--most notably the magic and that the air castle is no longer a space station but just a generic castle in the clouds, because Square didn't want people to think they were actually cool before the 16-bit days apparently... the robots are still there tho, inexplicably. Anyway, has anyone else ever had this reaction, IE a "you're totally missing out if you don't play the original version" reaction? (And, errr... is it contradictory of me to be fine with Chocolate Doom?) With movies, people only complain if it's done poorly which was the case with early colorization specially with the stuff Ted Turner was trying to do in the 80s which is as this sentiment comes from. It looked absolutely awful with poor color and destroyed detail. It's the same thing with rereleases with added effects. Absolutely no one complains about the changes in the Empire Strikes Back because they're subtle unlike A New Hope or Return of the Jedi. Movies are remastered, restored, reedited or remade all the time to acclaim if it's done well. It's only crass commercialism like the Turner efforts that actually draw ire. There really is no reason to play the original versions of the Wizardry games because the SFC versions don't actually take anything away and make the experience pleasant. Same goes with the SMS version of Ultima IV. You gain almost nothing by playing an earlier version. The Sierra remakes still get some complaints because some minor content was lost with the removal of the parser. This is a little bit of an issue with LSL1 as it had a much larger than usual amount of parser remarks, but less so for the others. With FF1, as has been discussed repeatedly, versions earlier than the GBA remake have incredibly significant bugs that completely outweigh other changed aspects. There aren't a lot of purists because many original versions really are made totally obsolete by newer ones as the positive changes definitely do outweigh whatever changes are more arguable. Plus, I think you're overstating how often official faithful remakes actually change anything. FF1 is very much the exception. There are also situations like Fire Emblem Echoes where the later support system was added, an additional starting character and the turn wheel but then people complained that the maps weren't changed as they're considered more boring than later ones. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Dec 17, 2018 10:31:11 GMT -5
With movies, people only complain if it's done poorly which was the case with early colorization specially with the stuff Ted Turner was trying to do in the 80s which is as this sentiment comes from. It looked absolutely awful with poor color and destroyed detail. It's the same thing with rereleases with added effects. Absolutely no one complains about the changes in the Empire Strikes Back because they're subtle unlike A New Hope or Return of the Jedi. Movies are remastered, restored, reedited or remade all the time to acclaim if it's done well. It's only crass commercialism like the Turner efforts that actually draw ire. There really is no reason to play the original versions of the Wizardry games because the SFC versions don't actually take anything away and make the experience pleasant. Same goes with the SMS version of Ultima IV. You gain almost nothing by playing an earlier version. Actually, Sega Master System Ultima IV seems almost pointless to me because well, graphically its the same as the EGA graphics for the PC version, and I forget if it had music (there's a fan patch to add those to DOS and I think Commodore 64 already had it), but there is one thing that to me instantly makes playing on DOS preferable... the ability to do things just by hitting a hotkey on a keyboard. Although granted with most console ports of PC RPGs you have to live with things being turned into menu-driven affairs, but in many cases there's at least some differences to justify it (I'd say Ultima III:Exodus on NES is a good case where you should play both the NES and PC versions because they're so different), but in SMS U4's case I feel like I'm playing a DOS game just using a controller. There was a homebrew port of Ultima III to the Gameboy Color which had the same problem--same as the PC original mostly, just all the commands had to be put on really long menus. Which... actually now that I think about it, this is kind of the counterpoint to purism since it demonstrates its possible to be too pure in the wrong circumstances. I do know that I dislike the aesthetic of the DS Fire Emblems, and would much rather play either the Famicom original or the SFC Monshou no Nazo if I was gonna get my feet wet with the series. That's very much a personal gripe though--I dislike a lot of modern anime art. |
|
|
|
Post by jackcaeylin on Dec 17, 2018 17:08:06 GMT -5
The title was a bit misleading to me, because I know the term "purist gamers" as gamers that play games unpatched, which is a subculture of gamers that play games in "lowest possible spec mode".
I also say that the film comparison doesn't work. Movies exist over 80 years, but people that started with the Dreamcast aren't even 30 years old. There is not a big generation gap of culture, especially because games move faster than movies with its technology evolution. You aren't even restricted with the medium regarding movies, but there is a restriction with console gaming. People tent do be lenient with ports or different versions of games, because some consoles (Armstrad, SharpX etc.) had only certain possibilites and the versions of games never intended to be exactly the same thing regarding visuals or gameplay, due to the console restrictions. People are used to it, because it is a thing that existed for a long time. Besides, movies have kinda an all access approach. You can buy a DVD player from an unknown brand and watch a movie (or play a Visual Novel) and watch it how you wanted, but you don't have the possibility with games. Some stuff is impossible to find and you have to pleasure yourself with the medium that you have, otherwise you don't have the access to the product. I think, this is also a point why people tend to be lenient.
From the mind of humans and from a economy approach gaming had a vastly different history and view, thus purism has a different ideology in gaming, if you compare it with movies.
Regarding the aging thing. There is a certain part in the brain that prefers always the same visual thing, if you are used to it and you are confronted with something completely different, then you can feel lost, but in gaming, you never had an homogenous look, escpecially with all the console generation transitions. I mean, I sometimes see people that complain about the look of certain ports like at the Steam port of Fire Emblem VI, because it looked like RPG maker phone game. Most people would be quiet, if the technology would be the same or marginally better as the initial version. Games had a history of being different at different consoles and people are used to it. It is an ideology that was established for eternity. Gamers have the mindset that graphics will always improve. We are used to it, we are used to see products in better graphics or in different visual styles. It is like a painting. Some people make Cyberpunk versions of Mona Lisa and humans like it, because paintings were constantly evolving in different ways. I would put games in the same category.
The only "purist gamers" that are constantly mad...... are those people that cry, if their "waifu" has more clothes or different body structure than in the initial version. (also censoring)
Yours sincerely
Jack Caeylin
|
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Dec 17, 2018 17:31:18 GMT -5
Brutal Doom makes the original Doom (or purist source ports like Chocolate Doom) obsolete. Can't say I get the impression a lot of people say that. Besides, it's just a visual mod. I would say that zDOOM probably makes the original obsolete for a lot of people, though I always play DOOM with the original 'grainy' graphics. |
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Dec 17, 2018 17:42:06 GMT -5
Yes, agreed 100% regarding Brutal Doom. It really messes with the gameplay balance as well. I tried playing TNT: Evolution with it once and couldn't get past the second or third level. Personally, I like playing without vertical aiming or jumping as well, the former being required in Brutal Doom and the latter being strongly encouraged.
As far as source ports, nowadays I'm usually in a retro mood, so I either play Vanilla on my Retro PC or Chocolate on something else. Sometimes I enjoy playing on a TV using a gamepad and I'll usually use GZDoom for that. Or any excellent mods requiring more advanced features will often necessitate ZDoom/GZDoom.
Quake though... I'll usually just use Quakespasm.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZenithianHero on Dec 17, 2018 19:06:29 GMT -5
I seen definitive versions of games automatically given to PC versions because of mods/fan patches. Skyrim for example. Sounds like a cynical approach to telling people what version to play because if you have to mod it constantly what point are you playing the original intended game by the developer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Dec 18, 2018 1:16:28 GMT -5
Brutal Doom makes the original Doom (or purist source ports like Chocolate Doom) obsolete. Can't say I get the impression a lot of people say that. Besides, it's just a visual mod. I would say that zDOOM probably makes the original obsolete for a lot of people, though I always play DOOM with the original 'grainy' graphics. Brutal Doom makes a lot of, frankly, extremely unwelcome changes to gameplay that make a lot of maps far more difficult than they need to be, while simultaneously slowing everything down in the name of...I suppose a somewhat misplaced power fantasy. No, I don't need to see myself punching the head off a zombie in ultra-slow-motion while I'm still taking hits from his buddies nearby, nor do I need to hear the "suffering" of the wounded imp that I dealt enough damage to kill but is still randomly sitting there whining. All that said, I don't play Doom unmodded. I just don't like Brutal Doom. If I'm going to utterly ruin the finely-honed balance of the megawad of the month, I'd prefer it to be with additional depth, like say, the Doom Roguelike Arsenal, Guncaster, Psychic, or Hideous Destructor. (And this doesn't even get into how awful of a person Brutal's creator is, but this is absolutely not the thread for it, so I won't elaborate here.) |
|
|
|
Post by Bumpyroad on Dec 18, 2018 3:51:43 GMT -5
Regarding the aging thing. One of the theories is that, what you're into during your teenage years becomes your preference for the rest of your life. This applies to music, but I think this also fits here. |
|
|
|
Post by jorpho on Dec 18, 2018 9:25:25 GMT -5
I reckon there's many cases where a developer would have liked to do things in a particular way but just ran out of time and resources. It's rather more difficult to throw endless amounts of time and money at a film – except maybe in the case of an animated film, or with more recent practically-animated SFX extravaganzas. Of course, sometimes circumventing limitations of time and resources leads to ingenious artistic solutions – but sometimes it doesn't. Did you know Jon Burton actually released his own patch for Sonic 3D Blast recently? info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_3D:_Director%27s_CutFinal Fantasy 1 PSP/GBA is the "definitive" version of Final Fantasy 1. Is that really a thing people say..? I had the impression no one particularly cared for FF1 GBA. |
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Dec 19, 2018 17:57:49 GMT -5
Can't say I get the impression a lot of people say that. Besides, it's just a visual mod. I would say that zDOOM probably makes the original obsolete for a lot of people, though I always play DOOM with the original 'grainy' graphics. Brutal Doom makes a lot of, frankly, extremely unwelcome changes to gameplay that make a lot of maps far more difficult than they need to be, while simultaneously slowing everything down in the name of...I suppose a somewhat misplaced power fantasy. No, I don't need to see myself punching the head off a zombie in ultra-slow-motion while I'm still taking hits from his buddies nearby, nor do I need to hear the "suffering" of the wounded imp that I dealt enough damage to kill but is still randomly sitting there whining. All that said, I don't play Doom unmodded. I just don't like Brutal Doom. If I'm going to utterly ruin the finely-honed balance of the megawad of the month, I'd prefer it to be with additional depth, like say, the Doom Roguelike Arsenal, Guncaster, Psychic, or Hideous Destructor. (And this doesn't even get into how awful of a person Brutal's creator is, but this is absolutely not the thread for it, so I won't elaborate here.)I guess I must've confused it for something else when I made that post, though I struggle to think what I confused it with. But yeah, Brutal Doom also isn't my kind of thing. And there's no point in turning it into gore porn either. |
|
|
|
Post by eatersthemanfool on Dec 21, 2018 6:24:58 GMT -5
Yea I wouldn't call brutal doom the definitive way to play, but I do enjoy it from time to time.
I've said before that I think the GBA port of FF6 is the definite way to play that, though I do totally understand that the music pisses some people off because the GBA soundchip isn't great.
|
|
