remasters and compilations

Any conversation related to games or gaming.
lisa-
Posts: 286
1907 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:22 am

remasters and compilations

Post by lisa- »

a thread to discuss if these should be included in the database or not.

personally, i think not. having things like skyrim and skyrim special edition only serves to dilute the rating base and reduce accuracy of PSIs, more than cancelling out any potential benefit. furthermore, it's just really messy and annoying to look at in the database. devil survivor 2 and devil survivor 2 record breaker. valkyria chronicles and valkyria chronicles remastered. annoying. and i've already seen people give the same exact score and review to the different versions.

Yorick
Posts: 1
890 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by Yorick »

My 2 cents:
Remakes made a considerable amount of time after the original release using a different engine (for example the Monkey Island rereleases) should be a separate entry in the database. Remasters with minor changes such as those made for compatibility with a new console generation or PC (see Skyrim) shouldn't be.

I'm not really sure on the best practice to use with the common situation where you have a base game + expansions + a special edition including everything. Separate entries for everything? Include everything in the main game the way it's done with TV Series on Criticker Films? Merge Base Games and Complete Editions but have a separate entry for single expansions that are notable enough? (I like the third option more)

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 156
2601 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by Velvet Crowe »

I think it should only be valid if the Special Edition adds substantial content to the game. For example, DMC4: SE adds a bunch of new characters that offer completely new playstyles as well as new modes to the game. That alone should warrant it its own entry. If it's something like MGS3: Snake Eater 3D or Skyrim: Special Edition, I agree with you.

Although in fairness, there are definitely notable differences with these versions of the game - MGS3 on 3DS runs a lot shittier than other versions of the game and Skyrim: Special Edition utilizes some visual nuances that were added by the modding community while also having its own system for modding separate from vanilla. Those things aren't really substantial enough to warrant their own entry, but they could still contribute to a unique experience that not everyone would share.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4401 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by BadCosmonaut »

I would not have separate entries at all except for extreme, exceptional circumstances. 99.9% of games should have just one entry. I can't think of one good reason why there should be separate entries for any game. New characters, new modes, new/updated graphics, new missions, remakes, remasters, etc. none of these are good reasons at all for separate entries. It's still the same game, just with adjusted features. The detriments of separating them into separate entries are far greater than the benefits.

Pros:
- each version of a game has it's own entry, so you can rank the precise one
- accuracy of database concerning all the versions

Cons:
- confusing for users over which version to rate
- annoying to see so many versions of some games like Street Fighter II
- some users will just rate multiple versions as mentioned in OP
- your TCI and PSI will be influenced in a negative way by the issues described above. If you rate Skyrim Special Edition and someone else just rates Skyrim, then that will affect your TCI with that person. That is silly.

Neither pro listed above seems important to me for the purpose of this site: game recommendations based on preference. You don't need Skyrim and Skyrim Special Edition separated to get good game recommendations. In fact, I think the separation will hurt the recommendation engine by fracturing the ratings between all the different versions. The purpose of the site is recommendations.

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 156
2601 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by Velvet Crowe »

The problem comes in what do we consider to be a valid "special edition" that ought to be added? You don't really assert a criteria for this.

law
Posts: 16
1854 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:08 am

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by law »

This problem of whether to separate or combine editions/versions is particularly pronounced with earlier games.

For example, Michael Jackson's Moonwalker is basically a different game on each of the systems it's on; specifically, the entry I created for it is for the worst game with that name. The same goes for the Ghostbusters games. The Double Dragons look and play significantly differently depending on whether you're discussing the arcade or home console version, yet they're all lumped together. Then there's something like Quest for Glory, which has both EGA/text-parser and VGA/point-and-click versions; I shouldn't want to play the original QFG1, but I really enjoyed the remake.

If it were up to me, editions/versions of games that are just graphical enhancements wouldn't be separate entries, but editions/versions that make gameplay changes would warrant a separate entry.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4401 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by BadCosmonaut »

I'm not sure I could come up with exact criteria without having to actually face a lot of the decisions myself. But in general I would not consider the following:

- graphical upgrades are a non factor
- UI differences are a non factor*
- Controller differences are a non factor*
- Sound differences are a non factor
- Additional modes (that offer substantially the same gameplay) are a non factor**
- New characters**, skins, cosmetics, etc. are a non factor

* For example, I would consider the EGA/VGA Quest for Glory difference mentioned above either a UI or controller difference (or a mix of both). It's the same game, just with a different UI/way to control the character and interact with the game. I understand one might be inferior, but I still consider this to be the same game.

** For example, Devil May Cry 4 Special Edition offered a new mode. The new mode had substantially the same gameplay as what's offered in the original game. The SE also offered new characters, but the gameplay of the game is still substantially the same as in the original game.

I would consider the following, with an incredibly strong emphasis against separation:

- whether the game was intended to be a separate title compared to the previous title, or whether it was intended as a remake, remaster, reboot, special edition, etc.***
- whether the gameplay is substantially different****

*** For example, I think most people would agree Mortal Kombat 2 is very similar to Mortal Kombat 3. However, 3 was intended to be a new, separate title. It was not intended as a remake, reboot, etc.

**** I guess the actual criteria I need to provide is what are the factors to be considered in determining whether a game has substantially different gameplay. This isn't something I'm going to do right now, because I don't have enough time to dedicate to going into full details, it's pretty subjective, and I don't think anything I write here is going to affect anything. A short version though is I would look at the similarity of the core gameplay loop, how the game feels, the perspective, whether the original levels are included as a main feature of the new version, and the style of gameplay. Like I said, this is all extremely subjective, which is where the strong emphasis against separation comes into play.

I think law is right in that earlier games provide the biggest challenge with this distinction. A game released on Atari, NES, and home computer might all have substantially different gameplay even if they were released as the same title. So most of those would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. But for most modern remakes, remasters, etc., I can't think of any I would split up off the top of my head.

Velvet Crowe
Posts: 156
2601 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by Velvet Crowe »

I disagree with you heavily on DMC4. The way the new characters play is substantially different from one another, offering a new experience. If you think Vergil plays exactly the same as Nero, then you're objectively wrong. Also, a new mode is a pretty big deal - just because the game is ultimately the same doesn't mean it can't be spiced up. For example, Kingdom Hearts 2: FM added Proud mode that substantially changed the game and made it challenging. This is the reason why people think KH2:FM is the best way to experience the series. You're undermining factors like those pretty hard.

mpowell
Posts: 3851
1201 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:22 am

Re: remasters and compilations

Post by mpowell »

We've been quiet, but following this conversation pretty carefully, as we wanted to hear all sides before weighing in.

We tend to agree with point of view that remasters should not be considered separate entries, except in very specific situations.

Of all the remasters, episodes, and ports added to the system so far, the great majority were added by us, before launch. Our users, it would seem, are not too interested in submitting an "enhanced edition" if the original is already there.

So, we're going to be deleting remasters, individual episodes of overarching games (like Hitman) and ports. We'll be doing this over the next week. Further submissions of such titles will be scrutinized individually.

Thanks for starting and contributing to this topic. I think the streamlining is going to make the site better, overall.

Post Reply