[Rant] If it ain't broke... and other fish and chips related stories

...you can rely on a video game company to completely fuck it up. Why is it that games developers seem so insistant on taking great games and ruining them in remakes? Surely some of the people working on the game will have played the original and surely some of them play their remake before it gets released so why on Earth don't they notice that it's not as fun as the first one?

A few cases in point:

Ghost Recon Future Soldier. I've always loved the Ghost Recon games, the slower pace and hyper-realism being far more appealing to me than the running and gunning of most other real-world shooters. Advanced Warfighter marked the beginning of a slide into silly futuristic nonsense with the HUD that outlined all the bad guys in red but with the new game due to be released soon, watching the trailer shows a guy activating a Predator style camo field before executing someone with a knife. What was wrong with a realistic, tactical shooter? Ghost Recon was always about planning your advance, putting your team in the right spot to provide covering fire and sniping some dudes in the head, not turning fucking invisible and sneaking up behind them.

Syndicate. Take one of the greatest tactical combat games of all time and decide that the world needs another FPS game. Or how about you don't?

Xcom. Take one of the greatest tactical combat games of all time and remake it without the involvement of the original creator and while doing so, announce that you want to make it more "Accessible" to modern gamers, thereby guarantee that it's dumbed down to fuck and there'll be tutorial levels. Just tell people to read the fucking manual if they don't know how to play the game, part of the joy of the original Enemy Unknown and Terror from the Deep was being thrown in at the deep end and learning as you went, plus that the games were both hard as fuck.

I'm sure there are numerous other examples you can all name so rant away in here.

How ya doing, buddy?

Can we just say "Bioware"? I mean. You don't even need to name specific examples there. Just...their entire output.

Ace Combat Assault Horizon is a big one for me personally. The whole thing is automatic and plays itself. You can get through about half of the first stage by seriously not touching your controller. It's very sad.

You mention Ghost Recon, but it applies to a lot of Tom Clancy shit. Rainbow Six Vegas? The fucking AWFUL Splinter Cell: Conviction with it's automatic headshots?

Personally, Deathsmiles 2 was a step back from the first one. It's a ridiculously easy 1CC, and while it's an alright score attack game, I perfer the mechanics and difficultly in pure survivability of the first game.

Saints Row 3 is a huge deal this year. But that's less dumbing down and more simplification and removal of features. It's more a let down because of what isn't even there as opposed to what is being dumbed down boring shit. Which isn't to say it didn't have that either, but it's equal parts both.

Halo CE: AE. An actual remake instead of a sequel but it reminded me that Halo's level design has come a long way in 5 games.

Originally Posted by Shin

Just tell people to read the fucking manual if they don't know how to play the game,

Can't have that, they just don't print manuals at all anymore. You're lucky if you even get a page.

Besides, we're expecting the average player to be able to actually, y'know...read.

So.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I have had so many fights with younger gamers over X-Com.

"It looks like a pretty good shooter."

"First off, no it doesn't. Secondly, that game has nothing to do with X-Com. X-Com was a thing of beauty, and this game is going to be a rape baby."

These are the same people who like the new Fallout games. You can only like new Fallout if you didn't play the amazing experiences that were Fallout and Fallout 2. And if you haven't played those, your opinions on life don't matter.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Why Am I Allowed to CABLE INSTINCTS

You mention Ghost Recon, but it applies to a lot of Tom Clancy shit. Rainbow Six Vegas?

I was about to disagree with you but then I remembered how fiendishly complicated the planning and moving of your squad was in the first one and how awesome it was when it went well and how poor a substitute it is simply telling your guys to use either the door or the window and kill everyone in the room. I do love Vegas 2 but as a slow-paced shooter, not as a tactical game. The cover system in Vegas 2 is pretty cool though.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I like to treat the Fallout games as separate entities (meaning Black Ise's Fallout 1 & 2 =/= Bethesda/Obsidian Fallout 3 & NV). Overall, both are completely different experiences with Fallout 1/2 gameplay being completely different from 3 and NV. However, that doesn't warrant them as bad experiences (albiet, 3 and NV was LOADED with wonderful glitches thanks to the gambryo engine). Although Fallout 3's Writing was subpar, I really enjoyed my experience with New Vegas (in particular Old World Blues).
Overall, I enjoyed all the Fallouts despite their differences.

Originally Posted by Filthy Hockey Beast

I have had so many fights with younger gamers over X-Com.

"It looks like a pretty good shooter."

"First off, no it doesn't. Secondly, that game has nothing to do with X-Com. X-Com was a thing of beauty, and this game is going to be a rape baby."

These are the same people who like the new Fallout games. You can only like new Fallout if you didn't play the amazing experiences that were Fallout and Fallout 2. And if you haven't played those, your opinions on life don't matter.

I was speaking idiomatically.