What should a remake do?

[NekoKnight]

Shadows of Valentia has been released in the west and has been met with a mixed reception. While some enjoy the unique approach it has to gameplay, others criticize its map design and other gameplay elements.

Was SoV a good remake, and more importantly is it a good game? While on some level I think a remake should be as faithful as it can be to the original, I think bad game design should be worked on, even if it means fundamentally altering the way the original functioned. What is a game if it's not fun?

This is a question about all remakes. How faithful should a remake be?

Edited May 25, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Azure Sen]

A lot of what a remake should do depends on the game in question, but in general a remake should expand and improve upon the original without removing too much of what made the original game what it was. Echoes benefited from the massive character design, aesthetic, and story overhauls because Gaiden itself was fairly lacking in those departments, but conversely I would have liked if Echoes had made more changes in the gameplay department, for example.

[saisymbolic]

I haven't played SoV, so I can't really comment on it in a manner a person who has played it can. However, from what little footage I've seen of it (as I'm watching a play through of it), SoV does some things good and some thing bad. Overall, I would say that it's an average remake.

So, onto your next question. I'll start my answer with: a bad remake is one that takes the original game and simply gives it a fresh coat of paint.

That's what most remakes tend to do from my experience, and it's the wrong approach, in my opinion. I think that, in order to have a good remake of an older game, developers should examine each mechanic of the original and work to refine them with their modern audience in mind, while also striving to keep the essence of the original game in tact. Let's be honest: the things that may have worked in the 80's and 90's will most likely not work nowadays; not changing the things that "don't work" shows a lack of effort or attention from the creators (in my opinion). But, at the same time, I don't mean to "dumb down" a game's game play mechanics or story to cater the majority or to change the things that do work just to change them.

It's kind of complicated to explain, to be honest.

Here's a video to better explain how I feel. Mainly when the guy is talking about the DOOM remake at the very beginning of the video.

[Vaximillian]

Didn’t play either Gaiden or Shadows, but Shadow Dragon was a well-done remake. A remake must be faithful to the original, otherwise it is not a remake, but rather a spiritual successor.

[MediocreLee]

To me, a remake has to make you feel like you're playing the original game just on a newer interface.  Kinda like Pokemon HeartGold or SoulSilver, those games felt like Gen 2 all over again, just prettier.  They also added more content in which is another good thing a remake can do as well.  I wouldn't mind new character being added into an established story, just as long as they don't break up the flow.  Although, I am okay with large design changes or minor ones, it doesn't matter to me.  As long as a character has a personality and is distinguishable, I'm cool with it.

[a bear]

A good remake is the product of a team that's willing to change ANY aspect of the original. Nothing's sacred. If I want an NES-like experience, I'll go play the NES, thank you. 

Metroid: Zero Mission is my favorite remake to date. Haven't played any of the NES or remade FE titles yet but I'll pick up SoV soon. I'm under the impression that IS prefers to be needlessly faithful, Shadow Dragon being the worst offender. Maybe they oughta have someone who doesn't have a personal history with the originals directing the remakes, nostalgia's a bitch.

[Jedi]

A remake must both adhere to its roots, while trying to modernize some elements I feel Shadows of Valentia did that mostly well, as I find the general gameplay really nice, the dungeons are fun, the characters are wonderful as is the dialog. 

My main issue is the maps themselves.

[Slumber]

The ideal remake, to me, is REmake.

Basically, keep as faithful to the original as possible. Games can be too faithful, though. Shadow Dragon is an example of this, though it implements several new features, none of them offset the fact that the core game is very similar to the original, which was a slow, boring slough by the standards of the time when Shadow Dragon was released.

New Mystery was a much better remake, but some new mechanics(coughcoughMyUnitcoughcough) went too far in distancing itself from the original.

Echoes is a good remake, but it errs more on the side of being too faithful. More variety that we get out of FE nowadays, and touching up a lot of the game's infamous map designs could have done wonders for the game. They did very little to directly address the flaws purely to be more faithful. Instead, they polished the flaws, and kept in newer gameplay mechanics that simply make the flaws easier to swallow.

REmake implements basically all of the advancements the RE franchise had made prior to its release, and it added onto, expanded, and polished the original RE experience. They didn't change the Spencer Mansion much, but they added more. They made zombies a long-term threat by introducing Crimson Heads, which compliment the original design very well.

[Shadow Mir]

I'd say it largely depends on the game in question. Anyways, I say that it should expand upon the original and improve upon the flawed aspects of said original. Another good tying a remake can do is add more content. As far as being faithful to the original is concerned, I don't mind, but there's such a thing as being TOO faithful to the original, with Shadow Dragon being Exhibit A; while it did add several new features, the problem was that most of them were hidden behind a wall of bad design choices, and the core game itself felt outdated.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[NekoKnight]

This may be an unpopular opinion but I believe that gameplay and story should be changed for the better, even if it has to distance itself from the original.

Summoners and crazy terrain might be a part of Gaiden's character but I think most would agree they aren't very fun, and I'd change them in SoV if I could.

In Radiant Dawn, I would rewrite the Blood Pacts (or remove them if possible) so they aren't such writing contrivances. I would keep most of the story the same, however. Just change how we got from part A to part C.

Not all games need drastic changes, and I wouldn't suggest changing anything unless it were a serious weakness from the original (the GBA games are pretty solid but I'd give them a modern support gaining method, for example.)

[Thane]

I say it depends on what game it is, what exactly was wrong in the first place, and so on. 

Of course, seeing as this thread was made with Shadows of Valentia in mind, I'll say they could've definitely changed the gameplay a bit more. I mean all the characters received massive overhauls, they expanded upon the story, implemented things we've never had in the series before, but they kept map design Kaga himself wasn't happy with, including reused maps? Why? 

There are many minor things that Intelligent Systems can fix without ruining the core experience, but didn't in games like Shadow Dragon and Shadows of Valentia (featuring Shadow the Edgehog). However, I'd argue that even core mechanics of a game should be susceptible to change if they were deeply flawed in the original; if we get an Awakening remake in a decade or two, I wouldn't want ambush spawns and the same pair up system. 

[GenericZero]

I have not played Shadows of shadow of Valentia yet, so I can't comment on that, but I feel like remakes should be something like New Mystery of the Emblem. Adding gameplay features and updating graphics are what I expect of a remake. However, even though I enjoyed Shadow Dragon a good amount, they didn't exactly change much when they could have.

4 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

This may be an unpopular opinion but I believe that gameplay and story should be changed for the better, even if it has to distance itself from the original.

I can agree with that. If people didn't like it in the first release, then you can fix it in the remake. As long as it isn't changed too drastically, it should improve the core experience of the game.

[sirmola]

I think that changes are ok, but there are limits. THe bigest one is: Don't change the genre! A surprising amount of rpg remakes change the genre entierly to action rpg, and those rairely go well (at least not from the perspective of the existing fanbase). "Lufia: curse of the sinestrals" is an example of how not to do this. I bring this up because i watched least one SOV review that criticised the game for not doing adding significant real time elements.

Edited May 25, 2017 by sirmola

[Magical Glace]

It should still feel like it has the essence of the original, changing too much results in it no longer being a remake.

Overall, stuff I find okay changes:

• re-balancing units (ie, hypothetical FE6 remake making Wendy/Gwendolyn not atrociously bad)
• adding to the story while keeping it the same at its core, Shadows of Valentia did this very well.
• adding supports to flesh out the cast.
• new playable characters so long as it makes sense for them to be there in context.

And some stuff I'd rather they avoid:

• Avatars, stay out. I never want to see another lord be shafted in their remake for praising some Mary Sue.  Never.  Again.
• Weapon Triangle in FE11 was also a pretty bad choice if you ask me, since in practice most affected enemies use lances resulting in it basically being a handicap for swords.  In other words, don't put things that the gameplay wasn't designed around in them.
• Avoid changing units' classes.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Glaceon Mage

[Interdimensional Observer]

Haven't played SoV yet (I'm in no rush, I have other things I can work through first), but it partly depends on the base game- age and at least the most glaring of flaws should be addressed.

Gaiden insofar as I can tell had a plot as thick as wet tissue paper originally, so going back and adding more to it was fine. Arts were probably a good idea too, seeing how magic originally had all the variety in Gaiden, physical units seem fairly bland in comparison.

There is such a thing as a "reimagining", basically a remake taken to an extreme. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals (a game someone beat to me to punch on) are examples of this more radical approach to taking an old game and changing it to its core.

Then we have things like Super Mario 64 DS, a game which is a faithful remake in many ways, but in others go towards being a reimagining. More Power Stars to collect was great, as were the prettier graphics and frivolous minigames. The addition of the new three playable characters was good, but there were issues with it. Wario was fairly unfun and I never used him except when absolutely necessary, Yoshi faded to the sideline after Mario came in. And Luigi could be just plain broken the way he shattered some old levels with his backwards somersault. I heard the Resident Evil 1 remake and Persona 3 FES both had similar issues arising from them not adjusting the gameplay for the changeup of controls/control over non-MC characters.

Being too faithful isn't the best thing either. Shadow Dragon made a lot of changes and improvements over the original, but they didn't bother rebalancing most of the characters to account for the increase in stat caps. Midia for instance might have been okay in FE1 or even 3, but she is abhorrent in SD with such crap bases.

If I had to name some good remakes Ocarina of Time 3D leans a little on the conservative side, but is pretty outstanding. LoZ: MM3D on the other hand move a bit more the liberally remade but not reimagined, and also gets high remarks. SM64DS was handled well enough to despite the aforementioned flaws. Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town was a nice GBA take on a PS1 classic (which dare I say is potentially better than the highly praised HM64). Odin Sphere: Leifthrasir didn't touch the plot of the original one bit, but made everything look better and overhauled the gameplay, while also leaving the highly criticized original gameplay in at the same time as a Classic Mode. Etrian Odyssey Untold and Untold 2 were pretty good as well with their updating of things. Though more of an enhanced port, I felt Devil Survivor: Overclocked's gameplay touchups were great (Compendium- yay!), but the writing of the 8th days was disconnected and subpar, beyond the rather unusual "be a tyrannical bastard and be the enemy of humanity as well as God" version of Naoya's & Kaido's 8th.

[Shadow Mir]

7 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

Weapon Triangle in FE11 was also a pretty bad choice if you ask me, since in practice most affected enemies use lances resulting in it basically being a handicap for swords.  In other words, don't put things that the gameplay wasn't designed around in them.

That reminds me, before SoV's release, people were entertaining the idea of the weapon triangle being added, which I didn't put any stock in because the weapon triangle didn't exist back then (well, that, and the same issues with it in SD would've reared their ugly heads - for the record, the one axe using class becomes irrelevant after act 2).

[Emeraldfox]

Whatever Shadow Dragon, New Mystery and Shadows of Valentia did is how other possible FE remakes should be handled. In my opinion.

[Tamanoir]

SoV is a remarkable remake. Except for the maps problems (I had more fun with teh DLC training maps than most game maps...), SoV does one thng right : It captures the "spirit" of the original, without falling on the "too faithfull" trap. Dungeons (and Villages in some way) are the best example of this : they are masively different from the original ones (which were all the same and rather boring), but they don't feel out of place. Arts are also a good improvement that adds strategy and don't betray the original. Changing some maps obectives (Something as simple as kill the Boss for major battles), and at least redisigning the reused maps would have helped. Changing the Boss stats wouldn't have been a problem either.

That's also why Lufia : Curse of the Sinistrals was an awfull remake (for what I saw at least. Never wanted to play more than the first map.) Not because they cange some characters massively. Not because they modify the story. Not even really because they changed fight to be more action paced. But because they betraythe essence of the originals. Lufia II is known for its challenging and well made puzzles. And the first dungeon suppress all of this with a stupidly boring QTE (repeatedly push A and B). Instead of building on the game's strength and improving them (and for that, again, changes are OK, and even sometimes necessary. Once again, see SoV's dungeons.), they decided to go on a completely direction, and it resulted in a terrible remake (and it probably wasn't a great game as well...)

If you want to change the core gameplay, at least be honnest, and makes a new game.

As long as it's not exactly the same game (with an additional cot of paint), because I can still play the original if I want to play the original, and not totally different, it's at least a OK remake.

[Godhand]

I would prefer if remakes stayed as true to the original as possible, otherwise, it's not really a remake. Yes, there are obvious flaws in the previous games that could be fixed, but that would alter the feeling of the game. For example, though Gaiden had bad maps and people expected SoV to change that, these bad maps were just part of the Gaiden experience. Making better maps could have certainly made for a better game, but it wouldn't be Gaiden anymore because the game's bad maps are part of its "charm."

The only things that should be changed/updated are graphics, interface, and glitches.

[FireEmblemFan93]

23 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

It should still feel like it has the essence of the original, changing too much results in it no longer being a remake.

Overall, stuff I find okay changes:

• re-balancing units (ie, hypothetical FE6 remake making Wendy/Gwendolyn not atrociously bad)
• adding to the story while keeping it the same at its core, Shadows of Valentia did this very well.
• adding supports to flesh out the cast.
• new playable characters so long as it makes sense for them to be there in context.

And some stuff I'd rather they avoid:

• Avatars, stay out. I never want to see another lord be shafted in their remake for praising some Mary Sue.  Never.  Again.
• Weapon Triangle in FE11 was also a pretty bad choice if you ask me, since in practice most affected enemies use lances resulting in it basically being a handicap for swords.  In other words, don't put things that the gameplay wasn't designed around in them.
• Avoid changing units' classes.

When did Kris over shadow Marth I mean stealing Jagen lines were mean but overall Kris pretty minor. People give avatar to much of a hard time in the fanbase.

[Magical Glace]

1 minute ago, FireEmblemFan93 said:

When did Kris over shadow Marth I mean stealing Jagen lines were mean but overall Kris pretty minor. People give avatar to much of a hard time in the fanbase.

It's more in the way the game treats the Avatar.  The introduction of the game treats them like some super important dude secretly responsible for everything Marth did.  And I hate that.

[FireEmblemFan93]

48 minutes ago, Glaceon Mage said:

It's more in the way the game treats the Avatar.  The introduction of the game treats them like some super important dude secretly responsible for everything Marth did.  And I hate that.

Well I guess that true. Robin was overall important to the ending of the story, he my favorite out of the MUs. Corrin I like him he nice person a bit naive but overall a caring person. He make terrible mistakes in his/her games though.

[Nobody]

I like IS's philosophy on remakes, that is, keeping most of the game the same, but modernising it and adding a few new features. So yeah, I'm happy with the way they handled Shadow Dragon and Shadows of Valentia, though New Mystery was a bit of a mixed bag, since it has that horrible avatar that destroys Marth's character, while gameplay wise it was great.

[Tolvir]

It really depends on what exactly the remake is of. For as much as I loved it, Fire Emblem Echoes could of really updated Gaiden's gameplay experience. They did good with the addition of supports, growth rate increases, larger dungeons, and a few other gameplay changes, but its maps could of been made better. What they did great on was with the story, taking the skeleton of a story that was Gaiden, and fleshing it out the way it did made for a great engaging experience for a game.

At the same time, FFVII is being remade and they already made a pretty big mistake, change the battle system. Unlike Gaiden, FFVII's battle system was loved by the fans. At most a few tweaks here and there, and maybe the addition of movement in combat could of made a difference, but they have practically deleted and started replacing the original battle system, which is going to fall flat on its face because its something fans loved about the game. At the same time, the remake is fleshing out areas of the game like Midgar, and taking characters like Vincent who had little story prevalence and was completely missable if you didnt know about him, an actual connection to the story.

I think every remake should take into consideration the original game, and change what needed to be fixed, and keep what was great. Adding balance changes, tweaks, and even new content should be in the cards. I loved the Dawn of Souls version of FF1 because it added in these challenge dungeons of sorts that were based on FF2-6. It made for a lot of fun and some added substance to the game. Shadows of Valentia did the same with the inclusion of Chapter 6, fleshed out dungeons, and side quests. They should also only have major changes only when it is needed.

[NekoKnight]

2 minutes ago, Tolvir said:

At the same time, FFVII is being remade and they already made a pretty big mistake, change the battle system. Unlike Gaiden, FFVII's battle system was loved by the fans.

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think a remake should hold itself to bad game design just because the original did it but it's an equal sin to change something that wasn't flawed to begin with. Like, I think it would have been bad to take away the fixed hit rates for magic in SoV but I think map design and terrain could have been tweaked to not make it so tedious.