Adventure Gamers - Forums

I want to hopefully clarify a few points here regarding the remaster.

The first is regarding the developer’s (and director’s) original vision. While ‘The Pandora Directive’ is already a fantastic title (often regarded as the best in the Tex Murphy series, although Under a Killing Moon is often just as revered due to its impact on the industry), its presentation was always at the whim of technological limitations at the time of release. These limitations were (but were not limited to) only 10fps video, very low-resolution presentation, limited color palette, and a very dated navigational interface. Adrian Carr has said these limitations hurt the overall impact and emotion he was attempting to convey in the game. Sure, it was still a fantastic game and played to these limitations very well, but it is far from what was originally envisioned.

But now, he is super excited to no longer be limited by these constraints in the 25th Anniversary edition. In a recently released article, Adrian says: “When Chris told me that my director’s vision could be fully realized now, because of the advancements in today’s Game Technology —- Just think, gang, Real Time video up to 4K resolution, a Full Color Spectrum as well as Full Dynamic Audio, Upgraded Sets and high quality VFX — would I be interested? My answer — A Resounding HELL YEAH!!!”

Regarding art style… Many other adventure games centered around pixel art (like Monkey Island or Day of the Tentacle) had a design and presentation that became an art form in itself, specifically catered to work with the limitations, resulting in a definitive style on its own. In contrast, limits that impacted the Tex Murphy series were not easily overcome with creative art choices other games were able to employ (like cartoon styling, imaginative design choices, or quirky color schemes) because cinematic realism was always the goal. There was very little you could do to overcome that at the time.

So, if we wanted to go back to the Van Gogh analogy, think of it as Van Gogh himself wanting to redo one of his own works, only this time without having both hands tied behind his back. However, a more accurate analogy would be releasing the remastered version of a blockbuster film on DVD/BD when previously the only available medium was VHS, while at the same time allowing the director to refine the experience for the enhanced medium. But, unlike George Lucas, there are no plans to wipe the original offering off the face of the earth and pretend it never existed.

Third, to address the question about “Why dedicate resources to remastering a game that already plays well in its current state.” However, this is relative. To veteran gamers, particularly those who grew up playing adventure games (and Tex especially) in the 90s, overcoming the clunky interface isn’t challenging. But, for everybody else, it’s a deal-breaker. If you look at Pandora’s reviews on both Steam and GOG (or even watch a let’s play or live stream), the #1 biggest gripe with the game is the outdated control scheme. So, yes, the game launches and plays, but it certainly could use an interface update. The interface update also enables the team to consider a console release as an option, potentially expanding the audience base.

A fourth concern here is Big Finish Games dedicating resources to a remaster instead of a new title. However, I think people forget just how much is involved in designing a new game from scratch with a new story. There are scripts that need to be written and refined. There is all new FMV that needs to be shot and actors who need to be paid. There are all new game design, progression, and branching story paths that need to be developed. New music needs to be composed, and levels/locations have to be planned, conceptualized, and design from scratch. There is a LOT. With a remaster, you already have the FMV shot, the story refined, the music composed, the levels hashed out, the continuity perfected, and the pathing designed. Virtually your entire design document is the previous game. On top of that, you have all the reviews and many years’ worth of player feedback to further improve and refine the game for the remaster.

I’m not saying it’s not a huge amount of effort to do a remaster… but certainly less effort than having to do everything brand new, especially for a small studio like BFG.

Hopefully, this addresses a good chunk of some of this discussion in this thread.

GateKeeper - 04 June 2021 12:54 PM

Luhr28 - 04 June 2021 09:46 AM

I don’t see a Simon the Sorcerer 3D remake or remaster coming anytime soon

Considering the stunning “quality” of Simon 1 and 2 remasters, that is only a good thing.

Point very well taken! 

BUT.. it’s one thing to “upgrade” beautiful original pixel art to dreadful vector graphics.

I don’t think any visual alteration, no matter how disastrous, could possibly worsen this:

Luhr28 - 04 June 2021 09:46 AM

why is it always the popular games which get remastered and not those desperately in need of it - the unplayable, buggy messes which barely anyone got to play in the first place?

You answered your own question; because the games which get remastered are popular and not games which barely anyone got to play it in the first place.

The reason why awful games which were critically panned upon initial release don’t get remasters is the same reason that awful movies don’t get remade.  It’s not a wise and marketable investment.  Classics get remastered/remade because they already have a built-in fanbase and are therefore more likely to make a profit.  The IP and brand recognition is money in the bank.  If you ran a studio and invested all of your money remaking games/films which were critically panned the first time around and made no money, whilst it may be an admirably artistic endeavor, you’d be out of a job within a year or two and bankrupt.

St_Eddie - 06 June 2021 08:58 AM

Luhr28 - 04 June 2021 09:46 AM

why is it always the popular games which get remastered and not those desperately in need of it - the unplayable, buggy messes which barely anyone got to play in the first place?

You answered your own question; because the games which get remastered are popular and not games which barely anyone got to play it in the first place.

The reason why awful games which were critically panned upon initial release don’t get remasters is the same reason that awful movies don’t get remade.  It’s not a wise and marketable investment.  Classics get remastered/remade because they already have a built-in fanbase and are therefore more likely to make a profit.  The IP and brand recognition is money in the bank.  If you ran a studio and invested all of your money remaking games/films which were critically panned the first time around and made no money, whilst it may be an admirably artistic endeavor, you’d be out of a job within a year or two and bankrupt.

The problem is, “awful” is not necessarily the reason that many of these games weren’t popular. They may have been buggy, had terrible control schemes, or just needed a few adjustments.

Take Simon 3D - most agree that it would have been a great game, but it was thwarted by a disastrous implementation of the very new 3D technology for the time. In fact I’ve heard people argue it is great, but most agreed it was hideous, and combined with a poor control scheme these things made it unpopular. And it IS unpopular.

You could also look at it the other way, and take a game like Monkey Island - add a few design choices like mazes, arcade style combat, perhaps a clunky ship-sailing mechanic. Would these things turn it into an awful game? And, if this is the MI we got, would it not be worth removing them if it meant getting the MI we have now?

Luhr28 - 06 June 2021 09:11 AM

You could also look at it the other way, and take a game like Monkey Island - add a few design choices like mazes, arcade style combat, perhaps a clunky ship-sailing mechanic. Would these things turn it into an awful game? And, if this is the MI we got, would it not be worth removing them if it meant getting the MI we have now?

We don’t really need to think of a hypothetical when it comes to Monkey Island, not when Escape From Monkey Island exists.  I have pondered in the past as to whether it would be a worthwhile endeavour for them to go back and rework the game, but ultimately I came to the conclusion that the aspects which would need reworking are so vast (the ugly pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D models, Monkey Kombat, the Herman Toothrot retcon, the puzzles on Monkey Island itself, the ending with the giant monkey robot) that there would really be no point.  The sheer time and workload required to fix the issues would be better spent making a new game in the series, instead of trying to put a band-aid over a fundamentally flawed game design.  The same thing applies to Simon the Sorcerer 3D.

Luhr28 - 06 June 2021 09:11 AM

Take Simon 3D - most agree that it would have been a great game, but it was thwarted by a disastrous implementation of the very new 3D technology for the time. In fact I’ve heard people argue it is great, but most agreed it was hideous, and combined with a poor control scheme these things made it unpopular. And it IS unpopular.

Simon the Sorcerer 3D is definitely the best game in the series when it comes to writing and jokes. Very few people notice that though, because they get tired of running around in that 3D “world”.

I think some kind of a measurement for popularity is how many fan games there are. And I don’t immediately recall any for Simon the Sorcerer. Which is really surprising.

I mean, there are three (3!) different fan remakes of King’s Quest III, but there is none for Simon the Sorcerer 3D! I think somebody with a burning passion and some knowledge of AGS would have done that.

Or maybe they are afraid of legal considerations, who knows? I think the legal status of that series has always been quite clear, whereas the old Sierra IPs have been travelling through many owners, which certainly must have something to do with it.
But even so, the lack of Simon fan games is surprising, considering all those Sierra, LucasArts, and Broken Sword fan games.

GateKeeper - 07 June 2021 04:45 AM

I think some kind of a measurement for popularity is how many fan games there are. And I don’t immediately recall any for Simon the Sorcerer. Which is really surprising.

You think so? I’d say that StS is something so heavily reliant on Simon Woodroffe’s brand of sharp, biting British humor that it really makes any attempt to replicate that near-impossible.

Of course, you could argue that Charles Cecil, Roberta Williams have their own unique style, and that’s true. I suppose it’s a matter of degree.

St_Eddie - 06 June 2021 08:21 PM

Luhr28 - 06 June 2021 09:11 AM

You could also look at it the other way, and take a game like Monkey Island - add a few design choices like mazes, arcade style combat, perhaps a clunky ship-sailing mechanic. Would these things turn it into an awful game? And, if this is the MI we got, would it not be worth removing them if it meant getting the MI we have now?

We don’t really need to think of a hypothetical when it comes to Monkey Island, not when Escape From Monkey Island exists.  I have pondered in the past as to whether it would be a worthwhile endeavour for them to go back and rework the game, but ultimately I came to the conclusion that the aspects which would need reworking are so vast (the ugly pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D models, Monkey Kombat, the Herman Toothrot retcon, the puzzles on Monkey Island itself, the ending with the giant monkey robot) that there would really be no point.  The sheer time and workload required to fix the issues would be better spent making a new game in the series, instead of trying to put a band-aid over a fundamentally flawed game design.  The same thing applies to Simon the Sorcerer 3D.

I’m not sure it does. I like EFMI, and don’t think it’s ugly. The controls are passable. The models have their charm. The puzzles range from average to rather good (the Mists o’ Time puzzle was creative). Still, it’s the ugly duckling of the series, and that’s mostly because the first three are so damn good.

I don’t know what would need to change about StS3D. But it’s definitely not a complete workover.

It’s a far worthier candidate than The Pandora Directive because it would not just increase access to a classic, it would create it. As outdated as the controls are for TPD, they don’t come close to sheer unplayability.

Big Finish Games have posted a new update on the progress of the remaster.

A new update has been posted by Big Finish Games - A Brief Insight into the Remastering of Level Design

EDIT: There’s also a video preview of the work in progress Mayan Temple section of the game here.

Here’s a recent podcast episode from the Video Game History Hour where they interview Mat from BFG about finding the missing video tapes and upscaling the footage for the remaster:

https://gamehistory.org/ep-39-tex-murphy-p-i-solves-the-case-of-the-missing-production-tapes/