On Video Game Remakes...

Remember when I spoke of Nintendo's reluctance to remake "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?" Well yeah, they're remaking it.

My first thought was "ugh." Nobody likes remakes, right? I mean, honestly, what is the reaction to pretty much every remake you've ever heard of? Usually something along the lines of... well, "ugh." They're remaking Buffy the Vampire Slayer for christ's sake, a series that ended in 2003, 2004 if you count the "Angel" spinoff. At this rate, movie remakes are going to overtake original content.

So ah, why all the remakes? Well, I considered a list of recent and upcoming games that I've been interested in buying, and came up with "Splatterhouse," "Mortal Kombat," "Marvel vs. Capcom 3," "Gunblade N.Y./L.A. Machineguns," "Time Crisis: Raizing Storm," "LittleBigPlanet 2," and "Batman: Arkham City." All of them ports, remakes, or sequels to long-running franchises. The only exceptions are "LittleBigPlanet 2" (though I DO mainly want to use it to remake Rocket Knight Adventures levels) and "Batman: Arkham City," which is still a sequel (and because the first one gave me ten out of ten bat-boners). So, I mean, I guess I can't complain to much. There's clearly an appeal. Hell, there's clearly an appeal to Hollywood's remakes too; if they didn't sell, they wouldn't keep it up.

So, why haven't we seen more video game remakes? Now, let me get one thing out of the way: we have seen many video game remakes... just not to the extent Hollywood has taken things. And note that I'm not going to quantify that, look up statistics for movies v. video games or the like. I'm going with my gut, which says tons of movie remakes, not many game remakes. That's the way it FEELS, right guys?

Well, for one thing, can it be that the industry is too young? The movie industry is something like 100 years old, and the game industry is less than half that (and the first decade was bleeps and bloops on the Atari). When Peter Jackson wants to remake 1933's King Kong, he's got 70 years between the two. Anyone who had a childhood connection to King Kong is either dead or Arnold's grandpa. They've since closed the gap, but even when they remake things like "Friday the 13th" or "A Nightmare on Elm Street," teenagers in the 80s are pushing 50 right about now... from a money-making standpoint, preserving their childhood memories isn't worth anything, and I doubt 50-year-olds give a flying fuck that the guy from "Watchmen" is playing Freddy now. They've got mortgages and stuff.

The demographics are different for the gaming industry. In America anyway, the three largest impacts in attracting new players were the 8, 16, and 32-bit eras (and we may be seeing a new one with the "motion control generation"). The NES brought children back to gaming after the industry crashed in the early 80s. The Genesis' bitching marketing appealed to those same children, now teenagers, and brought in more. The PlayStation appealed to those teenagers, now college kids, and brought in more. That's kind of the "base" the the current American game industry is built on. So, from child in the NES era to child in the PlayStation era, we're looking at demographics now from age 23 to 33. For that age group, there is that kind of childhood connection... if it means anything at all to the producers of these games, then it might be a deterrent. It might also be that kids this young might take umbridge to remakes of their childhood... kids today go to remakes, but its usually remakes of other, older peoples' childhoods. Oh, take all of my demographics with a big heaping bowl of salt, this is just some off the head theorizing.

Also, it might just be that games don't need remakes like movies do, because we've got sequels. Look at the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. What if, instead of doing a remake, the producers decided to do a sequel? Well, you need to write original new characters and get an original cast, and returning cast members have to not be old. You need to make sure your story takes into account all of the tacked on crap of the later Elm Street movies, and find a way to avoid the stigma of double digit horror movie sequels being terrible. From an artistic, practical, and money-making standpoint, a remake makes more sense. Now, look at the "Super Mario" franchise. Bowser kidnaps the princess again, script done. All your actors are digital. You don't need any of the original production team (well, except for Miyamoto, but hell, look at "Metroid Prime," where what was essentially an all new team developed a faithful, wonderful installment). Sequels in the game industry carry no stigma, in fact, games tend to get better in subsequent installments (or at least not significantly worse). So, no need to remake, just make Mario 15. And let's not get started with the "Mega Man" franchise.

And honestly, the difference between video game sequel and remake is pretty slim. Take, for instance, the jump between "Super Mario Bros. 3" and "Super Mario World," and the jump between the original "Resident Evil" and the Gamecube remake. Compared to the original, the "REmake" has more new content than "Super Mario World" has over SMB3. See, the video game industry moves faster than the movie industry, with new advances in technology and gameplay philosophy spreading very quickly. Compare it to the movies; sure, the new "Nightmare," had better special effects to work with, but, at the end of the day, the cinematography and storytelling in the industry were at the same level as they were in the original "Nightmare." Video game remakes might not be as "offensive" in that regard.

Finally, do we mind video game remakes as much as movie remakes? I mean, does anyone wish the "REmake" hadn't come out? What about that enhanced port of the GameBoy "Kirby" in "Kirby Super Star?" The "GoldenEye" remake was fun, right? Totally different feel from the original.

Honestly, I think it isn't about the content of the remakes themselves. As with the sequels to which nobody really bats an eye at, they tend to deliver in the gameplay department. I mean, a fun game is a fun game, right? I think the main problem is the feeling of being manipulated. The new "GoldenEye" is a terrific, often fresh-feeling game, but they could have done an original Bond game that was... well, exactly the same as the one they released, without the old name. We have a lot of entertainment options, and just having a quality game isn't enough to succeed, so they put a name we recognize on the box, and hope it drags us in. And we recognize what they're doing, and that's why we resist.

Or not. I don't know. It's a very... muddled thing, video game remakes.

But still, remaking "Ocarina of Time?" Come on guys. I mean, come ON. Placing bets on the inevitable "Final Fantasy VII" remake right now.