![]() It would have to be handled carefully in order to maintain what made the original game fantastic while improving upon on the areas where it fell behind. Or, if you've got the resources, remake the game to work out the irritating flaws and add new content to put it on the same exact level as modern games. So what do ya do in that situation? You COULD just re-release the old game with a reworked coding to allow it to be ported to newer devices make it more accessible. ![]() It's easy for us to foam about the mouth about how great these games are but neither of them have particularly aged well and some flaws could turn people off. There's also the issue that it's difficult to convince gamers of the more recent generation to see what we see whenever we go on about how System Shock 1 and 2 are worth playing. Sometimes though a sequel isn't the best way to go.įor starters, sometimes the story just doesn't allow that kind of flexibility (see Bioshock 1 and 2) because there isn't sufficient room to make a satisfying or unique contiunity out of it. Sequels are, logically, supposed to come about when the original creators weren't too satisfied with the original game and feel they could use what they learned to make a much better game. It's sort of the same concept behind a (good) sequel but there is a difference. ![]() ![]() The point of a (good) remake is to recreate the original game but improve upon it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |