How do we fix modern remakes?

severe autism

Convince the devs/publishers that making the same game with better graphics is the correct way to make a Remake.

It is called Remake, it was marketed and sold as such.
Therefore, what you are saying is that Square lied to us, which is true.

can i borrow GOTY edition?

It is a remake. The problem is that poeple for some reason think remake means remaster

by only remaking stuff that really needs a remake. all of those games remade an already great game that's still fun to play.

So it's a remake then??????? because that's what a remake is numb nuts

REmake 1 spits on the originals intent, it's not faithful at all. Shitty and soulless

Do soulstists really?

Stop doing them. Remakes are a waste of time, money and effort. All of that could be better spent on making something brand new.

by showing that the HD collections we got on the PS3 is exactly how you should release an old game, upscale the resolution & menu textures IE Ratchet & clank trilogy, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper and Metal Gear

you know what? you complain about the remakes in your OP image but at least you can still go back and play the old versions of your game
>Meanwhile, at Blizzard HQ

Attached: 8DAC2D73-60DA-40D2-9E63-CF437C4650F8.jpg (1200x675, 775.02K)

I have yet to hear a single valid criticism of FFVII Remake. There is no criticism you can post that I won't be able to reply with a dismissal of it. Try me.

its cut into parts

I can't defend the terrible new story in 7R but I can argue "remake/remaster" semantics to try convince myself and others that criticisms of the story are not valid.

>not black
retard

Yes, Square lied, absolutely, because they called a new game a remake because it follows roughly the same story and uses the same setting and characters.
No, a remake is something more like Demon's Souls, where there were some changes made but the core gameplay is the same.
No, it's not what a remake is, because it's an entirely new game using some inspiration from the previous game. That would be like Atari releasing an ET game today for modern consoles loosely based on the ET game for 2600 and then you saying that it's a remake, when it's simply a new game that follows the same story.

don't care about weebshit, but both DeS and re3 were better than the originals.

actually make them remakes and not useless "reimagining"s. same genre, same gameplay, same story, just better graphics and QOL improvements.

that doesn't make any sense

the story in 7R is shit, and it doesn't matter if you call it a sequel or a remake or a reboot or reimagining or whatever, it's still shit

It's a linear corridor with ps2 textures, janky shit combat with no jump button but forced aerial combat with fucked up camera, the ugliest 2D jpg google images thumbnail tier background skyboxes, didn't actually expand midgar, padded with filler to artificially lengthen it like the fucking 2nd sewer section or ghost train area shit, the worst sidequests ever, butchered the ff7 story and is literally unfinished with a to be continued.

Attached: 1606519230340.jpg (2000x1125, 339.72K)

I know that retard and I already acknowledged I can't defend the new story. Nobody can. If they could, they would. And yet we have threads daily where nobody even tries. What does that tell you? My point is I can deflect criticism by making the argument about what the differences are between a remake and a remaster. If someone complains about the story being bad I can say "but it's not a remake" and that way I can sidestep their points and just waste their time arguing about semantics instead.

ITT: Retards VS. Retards

which side are you on

>re3 were better than the originals.

Attached: 1596388449145.jpg (2330x2021, 388.37K)