CAGcast #401: Who SCARTed?

24thdoor said:
Your Spielberg analogy doesn't make any sense. The creative teams who make the original games are not the same people who port those games to a new system.
Click to expand...
We are actually really close to agreeing. My main objection to the dvd double dipping analogy is that in the dvd world, a remaster ties up a completely different set of of people, namely technical resources that are not involved in the creation of films, whereas a remastered game ties up creative resources that would otherwise be working on original content. Choosing the same director for the analogy was a poor choice, but it's just a minor difference. You could just substitute an upcoming director.

The end result is that for every creative resource tied up with working on a remaster, there is one less resource working on original content.
 
Just wanted to show my experience in setting up a nerdcave in the basement. Although I didn't SCART,  I did have to run a lot of other cables and know how tense it can be before the drywall goes up. 
 

http://imgur.com/a/TnlPU

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bickle said:
...whereas a remastered game ties up creative resources that would otherwise be working on original content...

The end result is that for every creative resource tied up with working on a remaster, there is one less resource working on original content.
Click to expand...
This is where I can't agree. A remastered game doesn't tie up creative resources for new games any more than a remastered DVD does for new films. The developers that do these ports are usually production houses that specialize in this sort of job. For example, Final Fantasy 10 was done by Virtuos, an outsourcing company that doesn't make original content. That budget likely wasn't nearly enough to develop original high profile content from scratch. A Free-to-Play mobile game or two at best. Would that be better? Or I suppose it could be rolled into existing projects. Could the money have been spent on speeding up development of Final Fantasy 15? Probably, but if those dev teams are staffed to capacity and the project is under control, where's the benefit? Throwing infinite money and staff at a project has its drawbacks, too. Just look at Assassin's Creed Unity.

 
24thdoor said:
This is where I can't agree. A remastered game doesn't tie up creative resources for new games any more than a remastered DVD does for new films. The developers that do these ports are usually production houses that specialize in this sort of job. For example, Final Fantasy 10 was done by Virtuos, an outsourcing company that doesn't make original content. That budget likely wasn't nearly enough to develop original high profile content from scratch. A Free-to-Play mobile game or two at best. Would that be better? Or I suppose it could be rolled into existing projects. Could the money have been spent on speeding up development of Final Fantasy 15? Probably, but if those dev teams are staffed to capacity and the project is under control, where's the benefit? Throwing infinite money and staff at a project has its drawbacks, too. Just look at Assassin's Creed Unity.
Click to expand...
The DVD comparison is flawed. Most popular DVD's are home releases of what were once new theatrical releases. I think a more apt comparison would be people complaining about film reboots like Spider-Man, Superman & Ghostbusters instead of making new films.

 
Wow, I can't believe not liking Bloodborne went on this long.  It's not like the trio is kicking someone's dog.  I don't play Bloodborne, I don't have the patience for it.  Does that make me casual?  I guess, but I could really care less.  Video game is kind of like music to me, I like punk, old school rap, old country, classical, jazz, etc.  I don't like modern pop or country.  Do I get mad when they do and say everything else is terrible?  No.

Most people above 25 (generalizing here) don't have time/patience to put into a game like Bloodborne.  There's nothing wrong with that.  What would be a bigger injustice?  Playing Bloodborne for 20 minutes, getting frustrated and giving it a bad review or saying, "this isn't really for me, I'm not interested"?

I always enjoy the show guys, even when you go on diatribes about Hot Wheels.  *looking at you Wombat*

 
Wombat said:
The DVD comparison is flawed. Most popular DVD's are home releases of what were once new theatrical releases. I think a more apt comparison would be people complaining about film reboots like Spider-Man, Superman & Ghostbusters instead of making new films.
Click to expand...
That's crazy talk, Wombat. Your examples are still brand new movies. They require directors, writers, costume designers, sound designers, actors, cameramen, sets, computer graphics, etc. Remastering games is mostly a matter of going back to assets that already exist and cleaning them up to look and sound better on new hardware. Just like when a DVD or BluRay is made from an old film. There's still a huge amount of work that went into the digital restoration of Lawrence of Arabia (color correction, image enhancement, audio mixing, special features), but it's not like they had to reshoot the damn movie.

 
I haven't played Bloodborne but I also have no interest in playing it either which is good since I have an Xbox One and not a PS4. I'm glad the PS4 has an exclusive that has a decent score, Sony needs more of those to keep people busy playing.

I found it pretty entertaining to read all the talk about how Bloodborne style games make you a hardcore gamer, haha. I doubt any of the guys in the Call of Duty tournament play those games, so I guess they aren't hardcore? Or all the people in the Starcraft or DOTA tournaments? When I played Dark Souls I just didn't enjoy the generic seeming dark landscapes and standard sword sheild medieval thing, the difficulty didn't have anything to do with it. I also don't like the Dragon Age series very much. That's why it's nice that so many different companies make so many different games for all of us.

Great show again guys, always look forward to it. Do you think the next systems would have so many remasters? I would hope that Microsoft sticks with X86 architecture on the next console so it would have backwards compatibility and they would let you bring forward all your digital stuff too, but who knows.

 
The only people here still talking about Bloodborne are the people saying they don't want to talk about Bloodborne.

Also, if you read my posts I retracted the term "hardcore." But you all are grabbing that term like a dog with a bone. Whatever makes you happy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
surferboy said:
While all three of these hosts play a lot of games, I would not describe any of them as "hardcore" gamers. And when I say that, I mean that none of them are going to have the patience or commitment to appreciate and get satisfaction from a game that requires methodical play and patience. I'm sure Ship played about 30 mins of Dark Souls, died 10 times, and said "nope." Now he's forever biased against From games, and that's his loss. The rest of us stuck with and and found some of the most satisfying and rewarding video game experiences we've ever had.

I like hearing some of the banter, but I don't tune in to the CAGcast for anything beyond a casual gamers perspective. It would be great if this gaming podcast would embrace the GOTY to date, Bloodborne, but you should shift perspective. Ryse is probably the most "hardcore" game these guys will ever champion, and that's a pretty shallow experience as we all know. X, X, X, Y, X, rinse, repeat.

It does get irritating when they imply that there is something wrong with the comminity of fans. We'll have another round of Bloodborne hate when Cheapy comes back after trying it.

(And, no, pimping out your basement with 20 consoles doesn't make you a hardcore gamer - especially when I'm guessing only 3 of those devices will be turned on on a semi-regular basis).
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


 
I don't really get the weird hang-up you guys have for remasters needing to have graphical issues in a previous gen to get remastered/ported to the current generation. That's not why these companies are porting these games over. They're releasing fairly cheap ports to appeal to the crowd on PS4 and Xbox One that didn't play them before, possibly because they didn't own a PS3 or whatever, and would love the opportunity to do so with their new console. Sony's found that they have a large percentage of their PS4 audience that never owned a PS3, so their remasters and PS Now appeal to that demographic that never played it before. If you've played it before, it's fine if you don't have interest, but don't act like there are zero reasons why it exists because you've played it before. As for why they're not porting all of the other games over, I'd imagine it's a matter of wanting a project that would be completed more quickly (June release) and also because God of War III not being available on PSN before in any of those collections.

The bad ports are largely due to publishers getting extremely cheap by hiring bad port studios, like Saints Row IV being done by the Silent Hill HD disaster team, and not being hands-on enough to make sure the port emphasizes framerate and 1080p over being able to enable all of the amazing graphical effects possible. There's no reason that all of these games couldn't be 1080p and 60fps, but when 2K, Square Enix, Deep Silver, and others don't really give a shit about the final product beyond it being a cheap project with potential to make a lot of money for them, that's what happens. Final Fantasy Type-0 HD is a perfect example because they clearly put in some of the work to upgrade the textures and models, but the insistence on including the FFXV demo and having it out by a certain date meant cutting a ton of that work short and adding extremely heavy motion blur to try to cover up that stuff to make for a crappy end product that is a trojan horse for the demo. It's not the Xbox One and PS4's hardware that is holding those poor/imperfect ports back, but the developers and publishers themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The default attitude for anything on the cagcast is "it sucks" unless they already liked it or try it themselves and realize it does not, in fact, suck.

 
fuck this podcast and every podcast i like going to a twice monthly show because the hosts are too god damn lazy to get together or come up with something to talk about every week.

 
Bloodborne is a fantastic game that's definitely not for everyone, but that isn't what review scores are for. They are a measure of quality based on what they were attempting to execute. It makes little sense to have them reflect what percentage of people will like them. They're criticism and analysis, not a voting system.

Even if most review outlets had their "Souls girl/guy" person play them, the score is still a reflection of their execution and that's what matters. Bloodborne deserves the 93 and that 93 does not mean "everyone should try them." It means "if this sounds good to you, you should try it."

High review scores are not a guarantee of everyone's enjoyment.

I hate Bioshock 1/2/infinite for instance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just watched Foxcatcher per Cheapy's rec. Holy cow. Cheapy, I can't believe you didn't like Drive but you can recommend this snore-fest. I fastforwarded through the last 20 minutes. 

 
FriskyTanuki said:
I don't really get the weird hang-up you guys have for remasters needing to have graphical issues in a previous gen to get remastered/ported to the current generation. That's not why these companies are porting these games over. They're releasing fairly cheap ports to appeal to the crowd on PS4 and Xbox One that didn't play them before, possibly because they didn't own a PS3 or whatever, and would love the opportunity to do so with their new console. Sony's found that they have a large percentage of their PS4 audience that never owned a PS3, so their remasters and PS Now appeal to that demographic that never played it before.
Click to expand...
The graphical issues weren't the only issues they raised...They also brought up the laughable price tags. This, in my opinion, is the bigger issue. Can you honestly say that the price discrepancy between which I can acquire GoWIII PS3 ($3) and GoWIII PS4 ($40) is justifiable? Especially when the graphical upgrades are minimal? (no SD to HD this gen!)

At least last gen, these games were bundled as trilogies AND given the HD treatment before they were put on the market for PS3/360. It's much easier to stomach an HD re-release of all 3 Ratchet games than it is to pay near-full price for ONE game (God of War, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider)...regardless of whether or not I owned the old systems.

 
Archaic said:
The graphical issues weren't the only issues they raised...They also brought up the laughable price tags. This, in my opinion, is the bigger issue. Can you honestly say that the price discrepancy between which I can acquire GoWIII PS3 ($3) and GoWIII PS4 ($40) is justifiable? Especially when the graphical upgrades are minimal? (no SD to HD this gen!)

At least last gen, these games were bundled as trilogies AND given the HD treatment before they were put on the market for PS3/360. It's much easier to stomach an HD re-release of all 3 Ratchet games than it is to pay near-full price for ONE game (God of War, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider)...regardless of whether or not I owned the old systems.
Click to expand...
Do you really think PS4 owners that never owned a PS3 are going to go buy a PS3 and that cheap used copy of God of War III because it's cheaper than what they can get on their system? I don't see it being a big seller like The Last of Us was, but as a likely bundle game or sale item, it'll do alright there. That game itself is probably one of the only remasters that sticks out for the price, unless I'm missing something else that's obvious, since they can pack in a bunch of DLC to prop up the price in the same pattern that Game of the Year editions were used throughout last-gen. It was a solid point for that one game in particular, but not something that can be used to trash every other remaster as having the same issue.

 
Hey cheapy,

When I click the show notes nothing happens,

anyways you intro''d  with my favorite song I used to play Super Mario Kart with, the Speedracer song. However, when I click the linkage it keeps directing me to #402 Intro high energy. I don't know the version of that speedracer song, so I can't find it on youtube.

 
FriskyTanuki said:
Do you really think PS4 owners that never owned a PS3 are going to go buy a PS3 and that cheap used copy of God of War III because it's cheaper than what they can get on their system? I don't see it being a big seller like The Last of Us was, but as a likely bundle game or sale item, it'll do alright there. That game itself is probably one of the only remasters that sticks out for the price, unless I'm missing something else that's obvious, since they can pack in a bunch of DLC to prop up the price in the same pattern that Game of the Year editions were used throughout last-gen. It was a solid point for that one game in particular, but not something that can be used to trash every other remaster as having the same issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think they'll go buy a PS3 for this game, no...and this, despite the fact that a used PS3 and Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs, and GoW3 can be acquired for about $100 around here, if you're careful.

But as to your other point...no: it's not the only remaster that sticks out as pricey. At the time that the Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider remasters were released, Sleeping Dogs had already been FREE on PS+ (which I assume you know, since you maintain that thread) and TR could be obtained for $10 easily.

My contention wasn't that some small (yes, SMALL) portion of PS4 owners wouldn't buy it, but that, relative to the GoW3 PS3 price and --especially-- to the HD trilogies of last-gen, it was a SIGNIFICANTLY poorer value. Again, the former is what the CAG hosts were pointing out. Do you disagree with either point?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top