Q&A: April 27th, 2022 (Patreon)

Dominik Jaworski Asks
What you think is a good rule of thumb for how much a remake should change from the original? (You ever hear the complaints about Demon souls remake being too faithful in gameplay, but changing the art direction?)

I've not heard about the complaints in regards to Demon's Souls, but I think it's like any piece of art. There are no rules. Resident Evil 2 Remake for instance, I don't consider to be a remake, at least not in the traditional sense that we use the term.

Most remakes will copy shots, bring back music, or rebuild a level to be the same as it was just with modern technology.

That ain't what Resident Evil 2 is.

Virtually the only thing that's the same as the 1998 original are the locations and character names, and it's a very celebrated game, in many ways, because of these changes.

What I think remakes have started to learn is that people remember the feeling of a game better than its specific mechanics. Should a remake change everything mechanically about how the game works, yet it still illicitness that same feeling, then people will likely click with it as a remake. Plus, lots of mechanics that were accepted 20 years ago don't give the same emotion that they once did.

That's why I think usually when remakes are made, the biggest complaint is about the art. By changing the textures, lighting, or scenery placement, it instantly changes that feeling, which unless you've definitely replaced it with something that's considered an improvement by most, is not going to be appreciated, no matter how high quality it might be.

That's always been the complain with the Halo remasters.

While there's no rules in art, I do think that remakes should generally be made with an understanding for why the original work made its choices, so then the people doing these remakes are able to distinguish between what's left to improve, and what's best to retain. 

NephyrisX Asks
With friends like us, do you prefer enemies?

I don't know how Youtube can make enemies out of people talking about video games.

Hammiam Asks
How much damage to the gaming world do you think Jaime Griesemer's "30 seconds of fun" quote has done?

It gave the world Goldeneye Rogue Agent...

Now that's a lotta damage.

Juhana Asks
Would you rather fight 100 duck sized Hudson's or 1 Hudson sized duck?

I'd hate to be near a British duck, regardless of size or numbers. They're already assholes in Canada.

Kacey Asks
Is there such a thing as over-analyzing a game? Does it become unfair to criticize a game's design past a certain point when the game wasn't intended to be pored over?

I think there's absolutely such a thing as useless criticism. A threshold where the criticisms made no longer assist in building one's overarching arguments and just waste both their time and the viewers.

If I'm talking about a level where every component of it is bad, does spending ten minutes on rock-textures help illustrate that?

Now in terms of what you're talking about specifically, it depends. If someone's criticizing an Indie FPS for not being open-world, that's beyond the game's original scope and not really relevant to its quality. However, if you're making art, you're ultimately the host, and your viewers are the guest, so any faults are ultimately on you to address or accept.

If the game wasn't intending to be pored over, then I question it's purpose.

When I made a Youtube video that got a lot of flack, my initial reaction was to think "it was just supposed to be a quite little post, it wasn't supposed to reach a million people and be judged as a big project" until I thought... "why?"

Why should my video be taken differently if it's being viewed by 10 people or 10 million? It doesn't change what I say, and it doesn't change how most people are going to take it, and I think it's the same for everything someone makes, including video games.

Submit your questions in the comments below, for future Patreon Q&A's.