It seems that for this console generation, porting old games over onto current systems is all the rage. Without reliable backwards compatibility, the market for playing last-gen classics on modern machines is more profitable now than ever before. Whether it's a simple port like Saints Row IV: Re-Elected, a remaster/compilation like Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection or a full-on remake like Ratchet & Clank, there's plenty of examples to choose from.
Let's face it - there's a lot of money to be made from bringing old games back with some kind of improvement, no matter how small or insignificant. Many of these ports and 'remasters' are shipped out as nothing more than quick cash grabs. Dishonored: Definitive Edition, Dead Island: Definitive Edition and Deadpool have hardly any benefits over their last-gen counterparts, but for a lot of gamers the convenience of being able to play something on a newer system is worth putting money down for. Now don't get me wrong, I often fall into the same camp. Having Uncharted, The Last of Us Remastered and God of War III Remastered on my PlayStation 4 means that I never have to go back and spend money on a PS3. Coming straight from the Xbox 360, it's great to finally play the best that Sony had to offer with the added bonus of visual refinements and extra content. Plus, playing classic games like the Resident Evil remake and Final Fantasy VII without having to fork out for original software is bliss.
But with so many serviceable ports and remasters coming out, it's easy to overlook what happens when shit goes south. Which brings me to the worrying case of Batman: Return to Arkham, due to hit Xbox One, PS4 and PC this year. Originally scheduled to drop this month, Warner Bros. pushed the title back indefinitely. How did a remastered package of two modern classics get thrown into limbo the very same month it was supposed to release? Take a look:
Yikes.
It takes a lot of effort to make something look noticeably worse in the year 2016 than it did in 2009. At first I thought that the original and remastered footage was labelled the wrong way around, but nope - it's correct. The comparison is damning, especially when you get to the close-up of Arkham City villain Hugo Strange. How did they screw this up so badly?
Well, let's break down what's actually included with this release. Return to Arkham bundles together Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, the first of four games in the Batman: Arkham series. Originally developed by Rocksteady, both titles were met with high praise from critics and Bat-fans alike for their fun gameplay, rich stories and incredible characters and settings. However, the third entry in the series is strangely absent. Sure, Arkham Origins was developed by a different studio (WB Montreal), but it was packed full of the same high-quality narrative and featured the most atmospheric open-world Gotham City yet. It may not have been the 'origin' prequel fans were hoping for, but it had plenty of incredible moments throughout the game. Origins was marred by technical issues upon release (I had to restart the game six times due to the game freezing and corrupting my save game), but if anything that's a great reason to go back and give it the care and attention it deserves, right?
The trailer boasts that both Arkham games have been recreated in the Unreal 4 Engine, but that's practically become a meme at this point. Plus, in the process of transitioning to a new engine, Virtuos have thrown in inferior models, textures, lighting and more. What's the point in an engine upgrade if the game looks so much so much worse? When glitches like Penguin's black eye are visible in an authorised, approved trailer, you know things are bad. This all reminds me of the abysmal Silent Hill HD Collection - a shoddy mess of visual blunders, unneccessary creative changes and a missing game. Though I doubt Return to Arkham will ever be as soul-crushingly shit as that release, the footage is worrying indeed. Doubly so when you remember that Warner wanted to push it into stores this month. If fans weren't so vocal about the state of the game so far, would they have put a broken release into stores to make a quick buck?
Bioshock is next to join the 'collection' train, bringing all three titles and downloadable content to current-gen systems. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is also seeing a similar port, enhanced with mods and visual upgrades. Well, they call them upgrades...
Comparison by Candyland - see the full video here.
I don't know about you, but that doesn't look right to me. Yes the water physics might be a million times better, foliage might be denser and snow particles might look more natural but whereas the original looks like a cold, unforgiving Nordic land, the remaster looks like someone taped a bag of piss to the camera. Either that or the sun just got way too close for comfort. When your improved graphics, rendering and technical gubbins end up severely betraying the artistry and believability of the world, then you have a serious problem.
But what do you think of the continuous wave of remakes, remasters and ports? Are you sick of old games being resurrected left, right and centre or do you love being able to play old favourites on new hardware? Are the benefits of game collections worth doubling down for or would you rather stick to the versions of the games you know and love? Maybe drop a comment down below and have your say!
No comments:
Post a Comment