The Gamer 2023's Remakes Are A Reminder That We Really Did Have It Better

[sonicclaasic]

https://www.thegamer.com/2023-remakes-remasters-older-linear-design/

Quote

2023 has seen a lot of remakes and remasters. EA released Dead Space, Capcom put out Resident Evil 4, Nintendo remastered Metroid Prime, Bloober Team doled out some Layers of Fear, and Nightdive Studios gave us a shock to the system with System Shock. What most of those games have in common, aside from being horror games from an earlier era, is an intense focus on tight, rewarding level design. With the exception of Layers of Fear, which has a more dreamlike logic guiding its exploration, these games place players in sprawling environments and ask them to explore them until they make sense.

These remakes are notable for how obvious it is that they come from a different era. I wrote recently about the ways many modern triple-A games like Final Fantasy 16 and God of War Ragnarok share an almost identical approach to level design. Both funnel players along extremely linear levels with little branching, stopping at intervals for combat encounters at escalating difficulty levels before ending the level with a flashy boss fight. You can see how this approach to level design compares to earlier games by comparing Dead Space’s remake to its spiritual successor, The Callisto Protocol. The Dead Space remake allows you to get lost as you explore, attempting to make your way through the intricate guts of the Ishimura. The Callisto Protocol, though, is always scooting you along through extremely straightforward corridors. It would take more effort to get lost than to reach your destination.

Good article to read and I really enjoyed playing Resident Evil 4 Remake that to me Is the game of year and my favourite game for this year. What does everyone else think?

[Dreadknux]

Interesting article! I definitely do feel like there is a difference in game design approaches between generations, but I think things were changing even within the Xbox 360/PS3 generation on that front. The best example that comes to mind IMO is the BioShock series; I remember getting lost a number of times in the first game, but in a good way! The whole architectural design of Rapture and the game's seamless, non-chapter structure that required you to revisit past areas to progress is something I wish more games had (it was kinda Metroid-like in a way). Compare that with BioShock Infinite, towards the end of that generation, and while it 'feels' more open it's probably more hand-holdy and straightforward in structure than many remember.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely we'll see a proper return to this style of gameplay, mostly because of the sheer cost of developing a AAA title these days. If it costs $10x-100x more to create Callisto Protocol compared to Dead Space, you're probably not going to want to spend too much of that budget designing dynamic and complex routes for the player to take (let alone actually program them). Funnily enough, spiralling development costs was what Square Enix pointed to when they were trying to explain why Final Fantasy 13 was so corridor-tastic back in the day! So I don't think this is a new problem.

On the other hand, I wonder if the gaming audiences' tastes have also changed to prefer more straightforward design and action. I know that, while I'd fawn over a new OG Dead Space or OG BioShock game design philosophy, at my age and stage in my life I don't know if I'd have any time to invest playing it. Perhaps these publishers have conducted research that suggests this is the same for gaming audiences across the board, as we all get older.

But I think it's great that these older games are getting remade! Not necessarily because they were "better" designed but because these are timeless classics that deserve to forever play as they are remembered (I do not think the OG RE4 would stand up well on a gameplay mechanical level).

[Blacklightning]

It's a holding pattern. Publishers aren't suddenly gravitating towards remakes because they intentionally identified a winning formula - it's because they've been chasing get rich quick schemes for years, and with the live service bubble suddenly popping, microtransactions being as infamous and unpopular as they've ever been and lootboxes quite literally attracting the eyes of the law, these invertebrates have completely run out of ideas. So in their eyes, the only option they have to keep afloat is to dumpster dive into their back catalogue to buy time to think of yet another way to creatively beg for money in games that already have a starting price, instead of oh I dunno, reassessing why the fuck their budgets have grown so bloated in the first place that their games inexplicably need a secondary source of income to sustain them. Shit, a few of the usual suspects could probably get back in the green by firing like three overpaid and underworking execs each, and that's a fact that seems obvious to everybody besides them.

If there's an ideological divide between games of today and those made about two generations ago, it's that videogames simply could not charge for more than a base game and potentially some DLC packs and were designed accordingly, to be designed as entertainment and experiences instead of competing feedback loops designed to to tempt people into being milked. Growth for growth's own sake is the literal definition of cancer, and the sooner that business heads stop trying to interfere in the creative process and go back to the marketing jobs they were clearly much better at, the better it'll be for everyone.