On remakes and the pitfalls of modernisation

Among film fans there tends to be a healthy antipathy toward remakes. They’re not inherently bad – unless, of course, they’re bad remakes – but the concern is a reasonable one, particularly so in the modern age of monolithic corporations falling over themselves to turn any original idea into a franchise (when they’re not recycling or reiterating on existing concepts, or reviving longdormant ones, that is). In contrast, a few dissenting voices aside, there is a much more voracious appetite for remakes and remasters in videogames. This is an industry that often has an uncomfortable relationship with its past, with great swathes of its history cast aside or forgotten. That is, until it’s time to repackage things for a new generation, under the guise of modernisation.

The broad consensus is that games can always be improved upon. Technological progress means that hardware is only getting more powerful, and in theory more capable of bringing a creator’s vision to fruition than was possible 20, ten, even five years ago. (Not for nothing has The Last Of Us, a game which undoubtedly owes a significant debt to Resident Evil, been released three times since 2013.) Received wisdom holds that these technological advancements are inherently connected to overall quality, and there are obvious benefits in terms of the fidelity and scope of modern releases. But there is also a school of thought that older games can be brought in line with a nebulous concept of ‘modern design standards’, as if there is established criteria for what that might mean. (Our belief is that ‘standards’ is often confused with ‘trends’, and in years to come that will only become more apparent.)