OK. Why would Naughty Dog want to remake The Last of Us this soon?

[CrowingJoe79]

Hell. The game ain't even 10 years old. I mean, FFS. 

 

[Glen-i]

I don't think Naughty Dog themselves pitched the idea.

But the reason is pretty obvious.

It's money. It normally is when it comes to games. Sony have themselves a smash hit in The Last of Us and they want to milk that cash cow as much as they can.

It's the same reason why Nintendo are doing a straight-up sequel to Breath of the Wild, not to mention commissioning Koei Tecmo to make a Hyrule Warriors sequel that serves as a prequel to BotW. That said, it's not seen as blatantly greedy because at least fans will get a new game out of it and even a BotW sceptic like me got some fun out of it. Age of Calamity is legit fun.

The difference with this is that a theoretical remake of such a recent game shouldn't cost nearly as much as most remakes. The Last of Us still holds up as far as it's production values go (I don't care for these kind of games, but that's besides the point).

A remake wouldn't really bring that much to the table. It'd look as good as the second game while maybe bringing a few mechanics to it. But yeah, because it's so recent, there's not much that would feel different. You'll never get a remake that feels fresh out of it. You want remakes that do this well, just look at the likes of Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap.

When this remake came out, the original game was 28 years old! And I legit think it's the gold standard for video game remakes. It's one of the most beautiful games I've ever played. (Seriously, seeing it in motion is something else) Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Rescue Team DX is another good example.

It's impossible to apply that kind of radical shift to The Last of Us, doesn't matter how good your development team is. It's far too soon. So yeah, big profit with relatively little effort is the reason for this.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Glen-i

[CrowingJoe79]

I respected Naughty Dog more than Capcom, as I didn't think they would do this. Like, I wasn't going to rule out a remake ever happening. But I didn't see it happening until way, way far off. Unfortunately, I hope they aren't trying to pull a Capcom. For Capcom has trashed Resident Evil with how much they have milked it. But with The Last of Us, I thought they would have continued using Abby and Lev, or perhaps added in new characters. It's like any post apocalyptic fiction where the universe can be expanded upon. It's so huge that they can keep doing unrelated storylines.

Sadly, that's neither here nor there with the people that kiss up to all of these corporations. It's like they've accepted that they're gonna take just about anything Capcom announces. Hell, I bet they are the same people who thought that Umbrella Corps was gonna do well. 

It failed - miserably! 

[Glen-i]

46 minutes ago, CrowingJoe79 said:

I respected Naughty Dog more than Capcom, as I didn't think they would do this. Like, I wasn't going to rule out a remake ever happening. But I didn't see it happening until way, way far off. Unfortunately, I hope they aren't trying to pull a Capcom. For Capcom has trashed Resident Evil with how much they have milked it. But with The Last of Us, I thought they would have continued using Abby and Lev, or perhaps added in new characters. It's like any post apocalyptic fiction where the universe can be expanded upon. It's so huge that they can keep doing unrelated storylines.

Sadly, that's neither here nor there with the people that kiss up to all of these corporations. It's like they've accepted that they're gonna take just about anything Capcom announces. Hell, I bet they are the same people who thought that Umbrella Corps was gonna do well. 

It failed - miserably! 

I don't think Capcom use Resi Evil anymore than they normally have. It's one of their flagship IP's.

I think you're being quite harsh on Capcom, especially if you're referring to the likes of RE2 Remake. That's a pretty substantial remake when you compare it to the original game. It's not quite the same thing.

[Cube]

Who specifically is making it? Is it the main development team, or is it a relatively fresh team within the company? A remake is potentially a great training tool that can then be sold.

 

Also, that video headline and image is hilarious. They're basically boasting that they make the lowest form of YouTube content available. 

[CrowingJoe79]

I know. They've made the storyline very convuluted, though, which makes it a chore to understand anything anymore. That's part of the reason I lost interest in the series. The games don't make much sense. They are still good games to play. Although if the story is too bizarre, it's off putting as a fan of the old ones. But with The Last of Us, it restored my faith in gaming.

If Naughty Dog insists though, they could lose a lot of fans if they mess it up.

[Glen-i]

9 minutes ago, Cube said:

Who specifically is making it? Is it the main development team, or is it a relatively fresh team within the company? A remake is potentially a great training tool that can then be sold.

Quoting from the article that was posted in the PS5 thread.

Quote

Michael Mumbauer, who founded the Visual Arts Service Group in 2007, recruited a group of about 30 developers, internally and from neighboring game studios, to form a new development unit within Sony. The idea was to expand upon some of the company’s most successful franchises and the team began working on a remake of the 2013 hit The Last of Us for the PlayStation 5. But Sony never fully acknowledged the team’s existence or gave them the funding and support needed to succeed in the highly competitive video game market, according to people involved. The studio never even got its own name. Instead, Sony moved ownership of the The Last of Us remake to its original creator, Naughty Dog, a Sony-owned studio behind many of the company’s best-selling games and an HBO television series in development.

Deflated, the small group’s leadership has largely disbanded, according to interviews with eight people familiar with the operation. Many, including Mumbauer, have left the company entirely. Mumbauer declined to comment and others asked not to be named discussing private information. A representative for Sony declined to comment or provide interviews

Originally, it was meant to be a new development team handling it, but then Sony moved some of Naughty Dog to the remake because they wanted them to take over.

@CrowingJoe79 aren't most Resident Evil games kind of silly? They tend to be the kind of thing you'd see in B-movies. If anything, it's the recent entries that have tried to be more serious, plot-wise.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Glen-i

[Dcubed]

Same reason why those completely unnecessary remakes of Shadow of The Colossus and Demon’s Souls were made. Easy money.

Capcom is about to do the same thing to RE4 as well...

Edited April 11, 2021 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Same reason why those completely unnecessary remakes of Shadow of The Colossus and Demon’s Souls were made. Easy money.
Capcom is about to do the same thing to RE4 as well...

The remake of Demon's Souls was great and very highly regarded. It was the £70 price that wasn't needed.

[Dcubed]

4 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

6 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Same reason why those completely unnecessary remakes of Shadow of The Colossus and Demon’s Souls were made. Easy money.
Capcom is about to do the same thing to RE4 as well...

The remake of Demon's Souls was great and very highly regarded. It was the £70 price that wasn't needed.

I didn’t say it was bad, I said that it was unnecessary (for the record I think the same thing of the Link’s Awakening remake on Switch.  It’s a great remake, but ultimately an unnecessary one).

Did Demon’s Souls and Shadow of the Colossus really need remakes? Especially when SOTC already had a fantastic remaster? Was there anything wrong with the original games that really warranted full remakes? I’d argue no (and it’s not like they even brought anything new to the table other than a shiner coat of paint anyway).

A remake should be done to make substantial gameplay changes that improve the original game’s gameplay in a truly meaningful way.  Like RE2: Remake, Pokemon Rescue Team DX, or Wonderboy 3: The Dragon’s Trap.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Dcubed

[Glen-i]

7 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

A remake should be done to make substantial gameplay changes that improve the original game’s gameplay in a truly meaningful way.  Like RE2: Remake, Pokemon Rescue Team DX, or Wonderboy 3: The Dragon’s Trap.

This is where I stand as well. If you're gonna remake a game, do so in a way that offers something new to those who have already played the original. (Metroid: Zero Mission is another good one)

It's kinda why I'm a bit apprehensive about the upcoming Pokémon Diamond/Pearl remakes. The previous 3 remakes (FireRed/LeafGreen to OmegaRuby/AlphaSapphire) take the familiar settings of older games and use the more modern mechanics and new Pokémon available to offer a different take on those games. But Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl are hinting that it's going to remain very faithful to the original as far as the mechanics go.

If this is the case, I think it's a mistake. Most of the appeal of a Pokémon remake is experiencing a game with updated mechanics and a larger roster of Pokémon and moves to utilise.

[Sheikah]

I didn’t say it was bad, I said that it was unnecessary (for the record I think the same thing of the Link’s Awakening remake on Switch.  It’s a great remake, but ultimately an unnecessary one).

Did Demon’s Souls and Shadow of the Colossus really need remakes? Especially when SOTC already had a fantastic remaster? Was there anything wrong with the original games that really warranted full remakes? I’d argue no (and it’s not like they even brought anything new to the table other than a shiner coat of paint anyway).

A remake should be done to make substantial gameplay changes that improve the original game’s gameplay in a truly meaningful way.  Like RE2: Remake, Pokemon Rescue Team DX, or Wonderboy 3: The Dragon’s Trap.

Yeah, Demon's Souls was a good fit for a remake. The original came out only on PS3 in 2009. As well as that, people who are 18 now would only have been 7 then, so there'll be a lot of people who never even played it first time. It's also the first game in a very well regarded series so there was a lot of desire among players to see this one remade.

 

It was also 3 generations ago, which is appropriate for a remake. TLOU however already got a HD remaster last gen so that one feels quite unnecessary.

 

It's also worth noting that TLOU on PS4 can be played on PS5 via backwards compatibility, but there was no way to play DS without owning a PS3.

[Glen-i]

5 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Yeah, Demon's Souls was a good fit for a remake. The original came out only on PS3 in 2009. As well as that, people who are 18 now would only have been 7 then, so there'll be a lot of people who never even played it first time. It's also the first game in a very well regarded series so there was a lot of desire among players to see this one remade.

Ah, see. You're thinking about this from a viewpoint that a remake should happen because games should be accessible on the current generation of consoles. While I do agree with this sentiment, don't simple remasters fulfill this purpose well enough?

Let me try and put this in the form of a question. Apart from the visual upgrade, what's actually new in the Demon's Souls remake?

[Sheikah]

Ah, see. You're thinking about this from a viewpoint that a remake should happen because games should be accessible on the current generation of consoles. While I do agree with this sentiment, don't simple remasters fulfill this purpose well enough? Let me try and put this in the form of a question. Apart from the visual upgrade, what's actually new in the Demon's Souls remake?

I don't understand what you're asking. Why would you want an inferior remaster when they can give you a remake? A remaster would not look as graphically impressive. And graphics are what justify the purchase of a new next gen console, so it was absolutely needed. People want to see that hardware they've purchased justified. Can you imagine if it was just a shoddy looking remaster as the PS5 launch title, people would have kicked up a fuss.

In this case it doesn't really matter if they change the gameplay much, because the gameplay was great to begin with. In fact I'm sure certain people would be complaining for destroying the "identity" of the original game if they did that. So by not changing it too much (in fact going to great lengths to preserve the feel of the original game), they've got quite a lot of credit for that.

[Glen-i]

18 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

20 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Ah, see. You're thinking about this from a viewpoint that a remake should happen because games should be accessible on the current generation of consoles. While I do agree with this sentiment, don't simple remasters fulfill this purpose well enough?
Let me try and put this in the form of a question. Apart from the visual upgrade, what's actually new in the Demon's Souls remake?

I don't understand what you're asking. Why would you want an inferior remaster when they can give you a remake? A remaster would not look as graphically impressive. It doesn't matter if they change the gameplay much or not in the remake, in fact I'm sure certain people would be complaining for destroying the "identity" of the original game if they did that.

Because the point of a remake is to aim for a new experience with a familiar setting.

@Dcubed mentioned Link's Awakening, which is absolutely an improvement as far as presentation goes, but the game beneath is still very similar to the Game Boy version, with a couple of QoL improvements. Because of this, it doesn't feel as fresh as it could have.

Compare that to something like FF7 Remake and you'll see what I mean. It's a beloved classic being presented via a completely different method of gameplay. While it's way more extreme than your average example of a remake, it's a great example of what I mean. You can play the original PlayStation entry and then play the remake and they'd feel different enough that you'd probably wouldn't get bored. (Assuming you actually enjoy both games, but that's not the point)

This is why I cite the likes of Metroid: Zero Mission and PMD: Rescue Team DX, they're more similar to their originals in the sense that they don't change genre, but they feel very different to each other despite sharing similar plots. (Zero Mission differentiates itself from the NES Metroid by having completely different upgrades and radically overhauled level design. Rescue Team DX switches things up by adopting mechanics introduced in the 3DS entries to provide a more varied and interesting gameplay flow)

EDIT: Ah, you edited while I was posting.

If you're aiming to preserve the original feeling of the game, then a remaster does that well enough in my view. Why go so far to remake something if you're just going to give it a fresh coat of paint?

Edited April 11, 2021 by Glen-i

[Dcubed]

Yeah, a simple remaster would’ve sufficed.  A full remake was totally unnecessary; doubly so with SOTC.

And Capcom needs to leave RE4 the hell alone!

[Sheikah]

Because the point of a remake is to aim for a new experience with a familiar setting.

[mention=883]Dcubed[/mention] mentioned Link's Awakening, which is absolutely an improvement as far as presentation goes, but the game beneath is still very similar to the Game Boy version, with a couple of QoL improvements. Because of this, it doesn't feel as fresh as it could have.

Compare that to something like FF7 Remake and you'll see what I mean. It's a beloved classic being presented via a completely different method of gameplay. While it's way more extreme than your average example of a remake, it's a great example of what I mean. You can play the original PlayStation entry and then play the remake and they'd feel different enough that you'd probably wouldn't get bored. (Assuming you actually enjoy both games, but that's not the point)

This is why I cite the likes of Metroid: Zero Mission and PMD: Rescue Team DX, they're more similar to their originals in the sense that they don't change genre, but they feel very different to each other despite sharing similar plots. (Zero Mission differentiates itself from the NES Metroid by having completely different upgrades and radically overhauled level design. Rescue Team DX switches things up by adopting mechanics introduced in the 3DS entries to provide a more varied and interesting gameplay flow)

Nope, the point of a remake is whatever they want it to be. Your statement about what a remake should be is purely opinion.

As I said, if this had been a remaster as a PS5 launch title this would not have looked good. People want to see their machine purchase justified. It is also much more preferable to see a quality remake than a remaster - there's no argument you can make that the game would have looked better as a remaster than the remake we got.

They were clearly limited in what they could change which is why the gameplay feels familiar, but that's not a bad thing. The gameplay in the Souls series is already very good and not in need of modernisation.

[Sheikah]

Yeah, a simple remaster would’ve sufficed.  A full remake was totally unnecessary; doubly so with SOTC.
And Capcom needs to leave RE4 the hell alone!

Why suffice when you can have something far more impressive? Neither of you have given a compelling reason why they should do a worse thing instead of a better thing.

[CrowingJoe79]

1 minute ago, Dcubed said:

Yeah, a simple remaster would’ve sufficed.  A full remake was totally unnecessary; doubly so with SOTC.

And Capcom needs to leave RE4 the hell alone!

Well, they want money. Plain and simple. That's why they're doing these remakes. Even the sequels they develop always seem to noticeably copy things from other games and movies, yet nobody cares. Even Resident Evil: Revelations 2 copied The Last of Us. They copied the story and gameplay. For example, the winter section was ripped off for the DLC with Moira Burton, but they copied other things as well. For example, the Vulcanblubbers are similar to the Bloaters. 

It can be argued that RE4 both saved and ruined the franchise, making it, what is the word? Polarising! 

But Naughty Dog should focus on sequels instead of just hitting the reset button...

[Glen-i]

5 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

They were clearly limited in what they could change which is why the gameplay feels familiar, but that's not a bad thing. The gameplay in the Souls series is already very good and not in need of modernisation.

It's not inherently a bad thing, but I still think that defeats the point of a remake in the first place.

It's perfectly serviceable, but it's not as interesting as it could have been. You start throwing around remakes that are just effectively fancy remasters, and you run the risk of stagnation.

I still believe that the worst thing a game can be is boring. If fans keep asking for the same thing over and over again, then it stifles creativity.

[Dcubed]

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

10 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Yeah, a simple remaster would’ve sufficed.  A full remake was totally unnecessary; doubly so with SOTC.
And Capcom needs to leave RE4 the hell alone!

Why suffice when you can have something far more impressive? Neither of you have given a compelling reason why they should do a worse thing instead of a better thing.

Opportunity cost is one very big reason; the time and effort spent on a full graphical remake would be much better spent on a new game if you’re not going to make any meaningful changes/additions to the gameplay.

Another reason is preservation of the original game.  Why remake a game instead of just re-releasing the original? Why “delete” the original game from existence in favour of a new paint that doesn’t preserve the original game’s artistic intent? (SOTC is particularly guilty of this).

Imagine if Nintendo keep remaking the original SMB each and every time they wanted to re-release it? Not only would it become garbled beyond any recognition of its original version, it would also have taken away significant resources from making new games.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Dcubed

[Glen-i]

8 minutes ago, CrowingJoe79 said:

Well, they want money. Plain and simple. That's why they're doing these remakes. Even the sequels they develop always seem to noticeably copy things from other games and movies, yet nobody cares. Even Resident Evil: Revelations 2 copied The Last of Us. They copied the story and gameplay. For example, the winter section was ripped off for the DLC with Moira Burton, but they copied other things as well. For example, the Vulcanblubbers are similar to the Bloaters. 

Hate to say it, but loads of games are guilty of this.

It's just a necessary evil whenever something becomes majorly successful.

[Sheikah]

Opportunity cost is one very big reason; the time and effort spent on a full graphical remake would be much better spent on a new game if you’re not going to make any meaningful changes/additions to the gameplay.

Another reason is preservation of the original game.  Why remake a game instead of just re-releasing the original? Why “delete” the original game from existence in favour of a new paint that doesn’t preserve the original game’s artistic intent? (SOTC is particularly guilty of this).

Imagine if Nintendo keep remaking the original SMB each and every time they wanted to re-release it? Not only would it become garbled beyond any recognition of its original version, it would also have taken away significant resources from making new games.

Come off it, Bluepoint specialise in these remakes, it's not a loss of opportunity since this is what they do and pretty much nothing else. It's not like they would have been making a brand new game instead of this. Also I'm sure they'll easily make their money back from developing this (remakes/remasters are much cheaper to make than brand new games). The remake was also massively a critical success so their efforts were absolutely justified.

Also with regards to game preservation, there are articles that show the extreme lengths that Bluepoint went to to preserve the feel of the original. That said, Demon's Souls on PS3 has been and gone and it's absolutely right that Bluepoint be given some licence to add their own flavour to the game. It would be a waste of the PS5 hardware to simply remaster it and it would not have gone down well to have a 'lazy' remaster as a PS5 launch title. You might want a pure remaster but I can tell you that the vast majority don't. I think it's important to adapt to your audience and not try to rigidly preserve games "just because".

[Sheikah]

It's not inherently a bad thing, but I still think that defeats the point of a remake in the first place.
It's perfectly serviceable, but it's not as interesting as it could have been. You start throwing around remakes that are just effectively fancy remasters, and you run the risk of stagnation.
I still believe that the worst thing a game can be is boring. If fans keep asking for the same thing over and over again, then it stifles creativity.

You're still missing the point here - DS was an 11 year old game and a lot of people wanted the chance to play it, with it only being a PS3 game previously.

Their choice was to do a low effort remaster or actually put some love into it and give it a remake. The point was not to make a new game or a reimagining. At the end of the day they chose to put effort into it and make a launch title game that actually makes use of the PS5 hardware. There's nothing more to it than that.

[Glen-i]

Just now, Sheikah said:

You're still missing the point here - DS was an 11 year old game and a lot of people wanted the chance to play it, with it only being a PS3 game previously.

Their choice was to do a low effort remaster or actually put some love into it and give it a remake. The point was not to make a new game or a reimagining. At the end of the day they chose to put effort into it and make a launch title game that actually makes use of the PS5 hardware. There's nothing more to it than that.

Look, I don't want to belittle the effort that went into this, because there was certainly effort, but it still doesn't make it more interesting than a remaster in my eyes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, graphics are the least important aspect of a game. I think that gets more and more true as we go further into console generations and the increases in graphical prowess get more and more miniscule. The fact is that by sticking so close to the original game, it's cemented itself as a remake that doesn't try to do anything new or interesting with the source material. And don't games as popular as the Souls series deserve better than being the same game, but prettier?

Ironically, if a Last of Us remake were to happen and it just so happened to include mechanics from the sequel, then I'd have to concede that despite it still being way too soon, it at least tried to mix things up more than the Demon's Souls remake. And that's my issue with remakes like that.

Yes, I'm well aware that I'm in the minority on this matter. A lot of gamers are perfectly content to have their remakes be purely visual upgrades and not much else. But that really shouldn't be good enough and no-one will change my mind on that.