Of Remakes and Reboots

Of Remakes and Reboots

Reboot is a word that seems to have entered the collective lexicon of games and cinema to mean a reimagining of something. Dog Pants ponders the pros and cons of raising the hulks of old favourites.

Why do they do it?

I can only speculate at the motivation of publishers to want to revisit old games, but lets look at it logically. First off, there must be money involved. They wouldn't be interested otherwise. So from a developer point of view they want to make something which will sell to the modern market. They'll also want a franchise that will either be well known among their target audience, or that will have instant appeal on its own merits. Strangely, the recent remakes out there aren't based exclusively on big sellers though. Bionic Commando, for example, is probably unknown to most gamers younger than myself. I played the original on the Spectrum back in 1988, and there was no such thing as a blockbuster game back then. So maybe there's more than just money pushing remakes here, or at least more than just easy money. When a game is 20 years old, it must be considered a gamble to remake it. Games were simpler back then, and what appealed long ago may well not fit with the expectations of a modern gamer. In a world of identikit games, pigeonholed into their respective genres and released with slightly better graphics every year, such a gamble seems unusual. Whatever their motives, remakes seem to be growing in popularity, to the point where they've coined a new buzzword in 'reboots'.

What gets remade?

As mentioned earlier, the games which are being remade seem to be falling into a general category. They aren't necessarily hugely successful games, but those that show potential for a wide market. This translates to popular console titles which can be easily turned into a 3D, third person action game with fancy graphics and a name that makes older players feel nostalgic and younger ones feel like they're playing a part of gaming history. Nostalgia shouldn't be underestimated as a motivating force either. There has been a surge in popularity of 80s music in recent years, steadily growing from the mid 2000s. Not everyone who has bought into that surge was there for the music the first time around, but yet they still feel nostalgia for an age they never experienced, but probably wanted to. So, it is likely that games that are being remade are going to be successful based on their cultural impact, rather than the actual gameplay, which will undoubtedly be changed in a modern version anyway. Hence the term reboot over remake - the concept is there, but the thing has been rebuilt from scratch.

Remake Vs Reboot

I'm being arbitrary now, but I'm going to elaborate on the differentiation I just made between remakes and reboots. In my mind, a remake is a game which has been polished and tidied for a modern audience, but which remains the same game at heart. The Secret of Monkey Island was released just this month with a new interface and modern graphics. A reboot on the other hand, in my mind at least, is a complete redesign of a game using only the themes of the original. Considering the differences it is perhaps understandable why a developer would opt for a reboot, by my definition, as they can almost make any game they like and tailor it to the modern market. It's effectively the same as having a movie license. A cynic might say that a developer could have a generic game in development and simply paste the theme of an old classic over the top, selling it off as a reboot and appealing to a whole other market of people who the original appeals to. Conversely, a remake will almost certainly be attempted because the original game was a cult classic. The gameplay probably being the key factor, it may well only appeal to those who liked it the first time around. This can be backed up by the large amount of (usually unfinished) fan projects to make old games, compared to the few commercial remakes.

To Reboot

So, it is likely that the popular option is to make a reboot. It has a greater earning potential, more freedom of movement in terms of gameplay and story, and uses a new buzzword. Lets face it, marketing people love buzzwords. This has the potential to be good or bad. Bionic Commando, to use my previous example, was met with a lukewarm reception despite a huge marketing drive which even included a 2D remake of the original. Elite has often been re-envisioned, in the guise of sequels, and never managed to recapture the feel of the original. However, consider that reboot could be interchanged with sequel, on the condition that the new game isn't a continuation of the old one but a new game in the same setting, and things look a little more rosy. Civilisation, for example, could be considered a reboot with each iteration. There is no ongoing story, just the same game released again with better graphics and modified gameplay. The Mechwarrior series of games, due for a reboot of their own soon, are all simply more modern re-imaginings of the last version. The line is blurred, but by using the word reboot rather than sequel, a developer can get away with using the best elements of the original game without being accused of not progressing the series. Ideal candidates, then, for a reboot are those games which had a great setting, but the gameplay failed to live up to it, or a series which has become stagnant. Below are my suggestions for games which would benefit from a reboot;

• Shadowrun (2007)

A license with so much potential, reduced to a poor quality online shooter. Remade as some sort of action RPG, the setting would be entirely complimentary.

• Eye of the Beholder (1990)

The old dungeon hack bristled with tension and atmosphere, but limitations of the technology then wouldn't translate well to a game today. A squad based first or third person game has never been done in a fantasy setting, but could work well here, especially if a multiplayer co-op aspect is introduced.

• Mechwarrior 2 (1995)

While there is nothing particularly wrong with the whole series, it all needs a tidying up. The simulator-style controls are a little unintuitive, and could benefit from being a little more FPS. But only a little. Again, a well designed multiplayer mode could do wonders here.

• Beneath a Steel Sky (1994)

Point and click is pretty much dead today, but that doesn't mean this dystopian classic couldn't be re-imagined as a modern game. Grim Fandango showed how intuitive a point and click can be without the pointing and clicking, a beautifully rendered 3D version of BASS would be the perfect vehicle to evolve the genre some more.

• Hired Guns (1993)

Hired Guns was a tense and brutal first person game set on a Aliens-esque planet. Pioneering the survival genre, it had the same technological limitations of Eye of the Beholder. Again though, a modern team based FPS set in its dark and dangerous corridors could be a marvel along the lines of a protracted Left 4 Dead.

To Remake

Remakes, while not nearly as financially viable on paper, seem to have more success if they come to fruition. While the reboot of Bionic Commando wasn't particularly well recieved, the remake that was released as a precursor was met with much acclaim. An irony that so far seems wasted on the publishers. The distinction of a remake, by my definition, is that the gameplay remains unchanged and only the aesthetics are altered. Better graphics and sound, and a modern user interface are all a remake needs. Developers seem to be starting to catch on, with The Secret of Monkey Island remade recently (albeit to mixed reception), and Worms Armageddon 2 promising a return to the 2D side-on gameplay which made the originals so enjoyable, the 3D versions missing the mark. The problem with a remake is that the game needs to be good enough to stand the test of time to begin with. While many games may have been great at the time, playing them again with modern expectations can lead to disappointment as nostalgia gives way to the realisation that they weren't actually that good really. True classics, though, should be timeless, and by remaking them as shiny new 21st century games a developer could punt them to a brand new audience to a bigger reception than the original could ever have had. Of course, I have selected a a handful of personal recommendations for a faithful remake;

• UFO: Enemy Unknown (1993)
• Syndicate (1993)
• Lemmings (1991)

Summary

The motives for recreating a game, by whichever method, are probably flawed. Sales of recent releases tend to back that up, but they needn't be. The gaming public will always be a sucker for nostalgia, whether it be from their own experiences or by proxy, but a developer needs to think carefully about what it was that inspired the player. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City triggered the 80s nostalgia synapses in people of all ages, but yet it wasn't a remake of anything from that era. This is well worth noting, I think. The games and settings of yore have a huge amount of potential to be repackaged, and if consideration is payed to what it was that made an old game great then success is likely to follow. Treat an old game like a movie license, though, and simply steal the imagery in the hope that players will be enchanted by the theme, and failure will be probable, and deserved.