Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
The Pandora Directive 25th Anniversary - Possible Remake/Remaster Announced!
Remasters change the content of the original game, in other words, whatever you play is not the real game as it was once upon a time designed and created.
That’s a good thing. If we want to play Pandora as it was in 1996, we can simply play the version that already exists. I’ll even play the original right before the Anniversary edition releases, and then play the Anniversary edition right after the original. Many remastered games also include a copy of the original game for free. Remasters and remakes are not meant to completely replace the original. They are meant to bring in new fans to a franchise, and to give already existing fans a better experience with a game they already love that takes advantage of recent advancements in technology. In 2009, Tex series writer Aaron Conners wrote an article on this site with a quote that really stuck out to me: “We need to give players the experience they remember having.”
Full article:
https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/18332
VHS releases mostly treated the original material like trash, especially if we are talking about those horrible pan & scan versions
The FMV scenes in the original Pandora were scaled down quite a bit due to the state of technology at the time. By today’s standards, the video is blurry, low resolution, poorly colored, choppy (10 frames per second I believe), and has quite a bit cut off on all 4 sides. The remaster will fix all of these issues, and make the video look even better than the original source material since it is being enhanced using machine learning. More details are on the blog postings on the BFG website that St_Eddie posted in the first post of this thread.
They try to fix something that was never broken, like in the horrible case of Double Fine remasters getting rid of that lovely pixel arts graphics and replacing it with vector graphics that looks like a browser game.
That’s your opinion. I have no problem with pixel art for games that were made in a time when that’s the best that the technology could realistically do. In my opinion Day of the Tentacle Remastered wasn’t replacing the original’s “lovely” pixel art, it was updating the “ugly” pixel art from 23 years prior. The original’s graphics may have looked great in 1993, but to me, the original is ugly when compared to the much better looking Remastered edition. In my opinion the original is broken by today’s standards and is fixed by better graphics and sound.
When it comes to new, original IPs, I always prefer HD graphics and HATE the use of intentional pixel art for nostalgia reasons. For those that do prefer pixel art, I hope that some future games can start including a pixel art filter in their video settings menu. The game can be built in modern HD, but players can use a slider to pixelate their screen from mild pixel art to wild pixel art (like in the style of The Last Door).
That’s your opinion. I have no problem with pixel art for games that were made in a time when that’s the best that the technology could realistically do. In my opinion Day of the Tentacle Remastered wasn’t replacing the original’s “lovely” pixel art, it was updating the “ugly” pixel art from 23 years prior. The original’s graphics may have looked great in 1993, but to me, the original is ugly when compared to the much better looking Remastered edition. In my opinion the original is broken by today’s standards and is fixed by better graphics and sound.
When it comes to new, original IPs, I always prefer HD graphics and HATE the use of intentional pixel art for nostalgia reasons. For those that do prefer pixel art, I hope that some future games can start including a pixel art filter in their video settings menu. The game can be built in modern HD, but players can use a slider to pixelate their screen from mild pixel art to wild pixel art (like in the style of The Last Door).
Perhaps we should update Van Gogh’s art to modern standards and remake his paintings with finer brushstrokes.
Perhaps we should update Van Gogh’s art to modern standards and remake his paintings with finer brushstrokes.
That is a poor analogy, paintings already are in high definition.
Perhaps we should update Van Gogh’s art to modern standards and remake his paintings with finer brushstrokes.
That is a poor analogy, paintings already are in high definition.
Equating pixel art with low definition is not accurate. I think most artists who have worked on pixel art would say that taking a high definition image and putting a filter on it to make it low-res does not produce pixel art. It produces a low-res image. Pixel art is built from the ground up to make the best use of the medium as determined by the artist - which might be a completely different style from one artist to another. Just like if you took a photo of sunflowers and put it through a “broad-brushstroke filter” wouldn’t give you Van Gogh’s sunflowers.
Perhaps we should update Van Gogh’s art to modern standards and remake his paintings with finer brushstrokes.
If someone wants to do that, they should go ahead!
I happen to like impressionist paintings, but I like Renaissance paintings even more. Pixel art is just one of my least favorite art styles. And I love the screenshots released for Pandora 25th Anniversary so far.
If someone was daft enough to hold a gun to my head and demanded that I choose an all-time favourite game then it would be PD. Given that fact then I’m all in favour of both the remaster and the BF/CF collaboration to be completed. There’s definitely room for both (obviously) and both would enhance the Tex reputation no end I feel.
The one thing that has been said by Big Finish is that they are looking at changing some bits of the original in the remaster and pointed at the Alien Abductor as a case in point. Now I know a lot of people didn’t like that particular segment although I did. I thought it quite good fun. I am, however, hoping that they ditch the fire maze from the remaster for two reasons. Firstly, playing the original game on a modern fast PC movement is triggered so quickly it is very difficult not to fall. I appreciate that this could probably be dealt with programmatically though. Secondly, and much more importantly, it is completely and utterly physically impossible for such a place to exist and I don’t care how “impossible” the game’s premise is as that’s not the point. Big Finish - please put something else in it’s place (assuming that you don’t drop the Mayan Temple bit in total as that really came in for criticism).
And, finally, to Chaotic Fusion. If money is a problem for completing your own Poisoned Pawn then please go for a Kickstarter. I doubt that I’ll be the only one willing to back you.
Life is what it is.
Im not a huge tex fan, but in general, i have never been bothered by remakes, if they suck you still got the original.
For instance I love the 1980s RoboCop. they remade it a couple years ago and while not terrible it definitely was not good either, but that doesn’t diminish the original movie at all and I still love watching it
..what are you people doing to me? I’m painting myself into a corner here, but buttons have been pushed, so here I go!
Speaking of impressionism, design choices, limitations and different interpretations based on technical advancements in computer/video game technology..
..I’ve always loved the darker side of (post-)impressionism and the graphics of “The Colonel’s Bequest”. There are aspects of that game that are best left in the past, but the choices made based on the limited palette, the dithering technique and rather bold use of colours are very artistic and evocative.
Some of it is based on stylistic choices: many games with the same set of colours choose far safer combinations, more attempts at using the “right” colour, which tends to give a more cartoony look. “The Colonel’s Bequest” is not a cartoon, it uses light and (occassionally complimentary) colours in a way that has way more impact than the standard EGA fair.
But.. some of it was obviously based on technical limitations. Would they have made similar choices if they had more than sixteen colours at their disposal? Is the pointillism just a direct effect of having to use pixels? Would a remaster abandon all these choices, in favour of something less captivating, but perhaps a bit easier on the eyes (and mind)?
A considerate remaster might include an option to switch back to it’s original (visual) design. A clever remaster might use modern techniques to enhance the core design principles used in the original game. Modern pixel point & click adventures tend to use a greater depth of colour, for example, but maintain the very specific artistic merit of pixel design.
The biggest flaw of remakes and remasters, for me, is the inclusion of fbk***ing achievements. The second biggest mistake: taking the charm out of an interesting design by making the game look like any other remaster that’s out today. Something that looks decent on a phone.
The Tex Murphy games after “Martian Memorandum” seem to go for a more or less video-realistic vibe, I’m not sure if that would be worse with more polish.. though I’ve looked up the screenshots for both versions of “The Pandora Directive” and I can see how the scruffiness of the original might fit the vibe of the game.
Whatever the case, I only own “Tesla Effect”, but I’ll put that on hold until I’ve finished “Under a Killing Moon”. I’m rather curious to discover what the fuss is about.
It’s been a while since I last played Tomb Raiders, but if memory serves, you need some Glide wrapper for the first game, which is a couple of minutes download. From the second game forward, you don’t even need that.
Perhaps you could elaborate how are they “impossible to play”. You don’t even need a CD drive, if you just have the game files on your hard drive, either as separate files, or a CD image, so you even have a couple of options right there.
If all else fails, you can re-buy from GOG.
Maybe Tomb Raider was a bad example, but what I simply meant to say is that if you only own a modern console like PS4/PS5 you don’t even access to them at all, so yeah they’re impossible to play. And on PC yeah you can rebuy them, I rebought them on GOG a while ago but still ran into many issues that took a lot of work to fix.
People take the Monkey Island or Day of the Tentacle as bad examples because they changed the beautiful pixel art but they forget to mention that you can actually switch with the press of a button to the original graphics? Everyone wins in that situation, new audiences that may be put off by the old pixel graphics gets to play a game that they would have never play otherwise and old purists can play the exact same game they remember without the hassle of using DOSbox or Scummvm or what have you.
Equating pixel art with low definition is not accurate. I think most artists who have worked on pixel art would say that taking a high definition image and putting a filter on it to make it low-res does not produce pixel art. It produces a low-res image. Pixel art is built from the ground up to make the best use of the medium as determined by the artist - which might be a completely different style from one artist to another. Just like if you took a photo of sunflowers and put it through a “broad-brushstroke filter” wouldn’t give you Van Gogh’s sunflowers.
I’m not denying that making good-looking pixel art doesn’t take skill. Good pixel art requires a lot of skill, as you have to make those low-resolution images look as good as possible with the least amount of data.
But, as we are talking about old games, a lot of them were made in higher definition than what the end result is. By the VGA era, Sierra’s background art was handpainted and only turned into low resolution because of the tech of the era. They even did traditional cell animation, that could have provided higher resolution sprites, but again, the technology was against it.
When the remaster of Monkey Island 2 was released, it baffled me, that they didn’t actuaööy use those great hand-drawn background images, which still exist.
And now we get to FMV. Video footage was never meant to be pixelated. It was meant to look as good as the tech of the era made possible. And now, we are in a time, when the devs can take the original footage, scan it into the higher resolution, clean it and enhance it with AI tools. While it will never look as good as something shot in actual high definition, it can be made look better than what the original game was capable of, being as it was limited by the technology.
I concur. It’s crazy to me to hear people say that they ought not to be remastering their legacy titles and instead just concentrate on making new ones. As well as being a videogame enthusiast, I’m also a cinephile and it would be the equivalent to saying “they shouldn’t bother releasing old films on superior media, with better presentation. I’ve seen the movie once on VHS and that’s enough. Just make a sequel. I don’t need to rewatch it on DVD, Blu-Ray or in 4k”. I mean, okay, maybe some folk don’t feel the need to revisit classic titles, but plenty of us do and more to the point, newer generations are a lot less likely to seek out an old title if it makes use of outdated technology.
That’s not the same thing at all!
Remasters change the content of the original game, in other words, whatever you play is not the real game as it was once upon a time designed and created.If we ignore some things like George Lucas raping his own films by re-editing them, what Blu-rays and such attempt to do is to preserve the original content as it was on film back in the day. VHS releases mostly treated the original material like trash, especially if we are talking about those horrible pan & scan versions, and especially with foreign language films subtitles were hard-burnt on the master tape, which usually made things only worse.
Blu-rays (usually) present the content in the right aspect ratio, from the cleanest possible source with the least amount of wear and tear, and you have the option of turning on and off subtitles if you need them.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with filmmakers revisiting their older films and tinkering with them by adding previously deleted scenes, or reworking the visual effects. Director’s Cuts and Extended Cuts have been a thing for ages now. The problem with George Lucas’ re-edits of the original Star Wars trilogy isn’t so much that he made questionable changes to the movies, it’s that he tried to stop people from having access to the original theatrical edits.
Whereas I don’t see any problem whatsoever with someone like Ridley Scott presenting 5 different cuts of Blade Runner on Blu-Ray (including the original theatrical cut and his most recent “Final Cut”), all presented in the highest definition possible and giving the viewer the option of which version of the film they wish to view.
Be it with film or games, as long as the original vision is easily accessible and available, I see no harm in having more modernised versions available for those who want them. It can only serve to introduce newer generations to classic works.
Game remasters work in the completely opposite direction!
They try to fix something that was never broken, like in the horrible case of Double Fine remasters getting rid of that lovely pixel arts graphics and replacing it with vector graphics that looks like a browser game.
That’s your own subjective opinion though. Personally I consider the remastered graphics of Day of the Tentacle to now be the definitive version of the game. However, regardless of personal tastes, by Double Fine remastering the game (and Full Throttle and Grim Fandango), it will have introduced a whole slew of new and younger players to the classic titles; players who may not have been interested in playing a game with “lovely pixel art graphics”. The great thing about the Double Fine remasters is that they gave players the option of choosing the original graphics, music and interface or the remastered versions, so all audiences were catered for. The ultimate point being that in the process, plenty of new people were introduced to a classic, which otherwise may have have escaped their radar.
I don’t understand the anger that remasters incite. Whether it’s music, movies, or games, the original version still exists. If you don’t like the redone version, just ignore it. You’ve still got your preferred version to enjoy whenever you want.
Personally, I preferred the remastered versions of Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle, and Grim Fandango to the originals. Monkey Island 1 and 2 were a little wonky (1 more than 2) but still had enough qualities to recommend it, so I switched back and forth. And *all* of these games’ original versions have held up better than any of the first five Tex Murphy games. In fact, I bet Access of 1994 would have been thrilled if, back then, they could make their game using today’s technology. As great as those games are, there are obviously several imperfections that are the product of limited technology, not limited game design skill.
Similarly, I don’t get why people get upset when movie versions of their favorite books or games stink. Just ignore it and move on.
Player, purveyor, and propagator of smart toys and games for all ages.
Facebook.com/weplayfaves
IG @weplayfaves
I bet Access of 1994 would have been thrilled if, back then, they could make their game using today’s technology. As great as those games are, there are obviously several imperfections that are the product of limited technology, not limited game design skill.
This is on point. From Access Software’s very first Tex Murphy adventure game (Mean Streets), through to Under a Killing Moon and beyond, they were always pushing the envelope of what was possible and they were at the forefront of technical innovation. Out of all the adventure games to be revisited and remade with the latest technology, the Tex Murphy series are perhaps the most fitting for that treatment more than any other.
I’d like to believe that remasters are important and those who are doing the remastering are doing very important work for cultural preservation.
Still, if this were true, 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? I don’t see a Simon the Sorcerer 3D remake or remaster coming anytime soon, but when it does, I’ll get behind it fully. For the popular, perfectly playable others like The Pandora Directive? Time could be better spent elsewhere.
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.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
