|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Dec 21, 2018 11:39:09 GMT -5
Full disclosure, the place I heard "FF1 PSP is definitive" was on a video by the Achievement Hunter. His exact words were that he did research and came to the conclusion that the PSP version was definitive, so its open for interpretation (myself and others in the comments for that video disputed that). Brutal Doom being definitive was something the people on the Shmups forum (which I used to be a member of) used to say. jackcaeylinA lot of movie directors have claimed technology hampered their intentions for films (in particular this was George Lucas' reason for doing constant special editions of Star Wars). Most of the rest you have a point about, it probably does hurt that gaming is a comparatively younger medium and that sometimes ports can be interesting or actual improvements, which isn't really something that happens with movies except in fringe circumstances (although nowadays, there's Remake Hell where every other film that comes out these days is a remake... and very often people don't know there's an original, which is rather horrifying). |
|
|
|
Post by Imaginaut 32-b on Dec 23, 2018 14:47:40 GMT -5
I tend to prefer collecting/playing the original version of a game on the original hardware. I'm much more fussed about owing a nice copy of Panzer Dragoon or NiGHTS Into Dreams for the Saturn than I am the PS2 discs of same, even though the PS2 versions have some nice improvements (graphical updates). And if I go to play either, I'm going to boot the Saturn discs even though i own the PS2 discs and also have a working PS2 hooked up.
I also tend to consider the definitive version the version the original developers intended the gamer to play, so that tosses out console ports released much after the fact, or as part of a compilation. Though that leads to splitting hairs. The developer would possibly have made a much different game if a PS2 development kit was available to them instead of a Saturn kit.
On the other hand, I own plenty of enhanced ports and remakes and am fine with therm if they're for a system I prefer playing (PS1 or Saturn instead of Genesis or SNES, for example). So I guess I don't have a consistent position on the issue. I'm more purist than not, but I'm flexible about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by alphex on Jan 1, 2019 22:43:01 GMT -5
1. Gaming is a much younger medium than film. It has been around for around 40 years; film has been around at least 100 years. Obviously the learning process for certain genres is still in process - take, for example, versus fighters before and after Street Fighter 2. Adventure games before and after Monkey Island. Console shooters before and after Halo. 3D action adventure games before and after Ocarina of Time. 3D platforming before and after Mario 64.
However, not all is said and done after that singular release - there is still to be learned from the mistakes these games made. Now, this ties in with point 2...
2. Gaming and movies do fundamentally different things. Both want to convey something, but the technical limitations and common practice affects gaming way more. If you control a game in a manner you are not used to, everything will feel counterintuitive - movies on the other hand are not interactive. Movies that are still well-regarded usually offer a level that has the technical limitations not hindering the movie - a badly done Godzilla rip off will not be among them. Unless they are stylized, better technology just means "easier to do the same thing" for games.
3. Very few movies are outright remasters, most of them take on the same basic idea and have a different approach with it. Games often offer remasters or remakes which recreate everything that worked faithfully and only update what didn't work. You can't even do that with movies because of the linear narrative vs. gaming; you can't just change chunks of the movie and have it be the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Jan 2, 2019 0:20:46 GMT -5
3. Very few movies are outright remasters, most of them take on the same basic idea and have a different approach with it. Games often offer remasters or remakes which recreate everything that worked faithfully and only update what didn't work. You can't even do that with movies because of the linear narrative vs. gaming; you can't just change chunks of the movie and have it be the same thing. I imagine Director's Cuts and extended editions would be the closest equivalent in movies... though those rarely deal with any perceived technological shortcomings and more with creative compromises made for the original theatrical release format (Star Wars special editions being the obvious example, though by now pretty much everyone agrees that the CGI aged much worse than the original effects.) |
|
|
|
Post by nerdybat on Jan 3, 2019 8:03:12 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.)Honestly, I do think Brutal Doom turning into weird and misplaced power fantasy directly correlates with it's creator being an person of "interesting" views (for the lack of better words) - while majority of other people see it as a fun, wacky cathartic diversion, he does appear to be the kind of guy who enjoys grotesque violence of his creation at face value. |
|
