Videogame classics: reboot, reimagine, renovate, or just remember?

Lara Croft made a huge impression at E3, but is this new Tomb Raider true to its roots. Or does that matter? And just how many trips down memory lane do we really want to take?

6
One of the big stars emerging in the post-E3 2011 buzz is none other than Lara Croft. It's been a long time since she demanded the spotlight with such urgency. But this is not the Lara we've come to know over her many adventures. Nor is it even some "new and improved" model. After resuscitating the all but dead corpse of Ms. Croft with three very well done Tomb Raider games (Tomb Raider: Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld), developer Crystal Dynamics has thrown the old lady out in favor of a total reboot of the franchise. It's a bold approach, and one that seems poised to pay off in a big way for them.

The new young, vulnerable Lara

Lara is but one of many videogame stars potentially due for some work. Microsoft plans a big celebration, and a completely updated version of the original, for Halo's ten year anniversary. But, as Weekend Confirmed listener 'strangejames85' noted and we then discussed on this week's show, it's just one of an impressive list of titles that came out that year. The industry has come of age, and along the way accumulated an ever expanding library of classics. Now we just need to figure out what to do with them. Noah Hughes, creative director at Crystal Dynamics chatted with the PlayStation blog about the approach to the new Tomb Raider. He said that they learned a lot working on those three earlier games but "to be able to distill everything we want to do with the franchise into an entirely fresh take is inspiring." Creatively inspiring for them perhaps, but, as I spoke to in my preview of Tomb Raider, what they want to do with the franchise doesn't align with at least what this fan wants done with it. Therein lays the challenge in tinkering with such established figures. If you're Crystal Dynamics, wanting to develop a game in somewhat the same vein as Tomb Raider, you'd be foolish not to trade on Lara's name. Such is the franchise-driven nature of the videogame world. But doing so runs the risk of running afoul of fans, many of whom remember things only through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.

Lara's first triumphant return

Living up to those memories is a tall order, and plenty reason to steer clear of the "reimagining a classic" route. In an ironic twist, Crystal Dynamic's first turn at Tomb Raider stands as one of the best examples of how to do it right. Anniversary struck a near perfect balance of capturing the scenes and magic of the original games as we remembered them translated through the language of a modern game engine. Pulling off such a feat requires a full-scale development, and it comes with no guarantee of being able to recapture the magic. If anything, living up to memories poses an arguably tougher task than creating new ones. I also wonder how many I'd be happier remembering as they were. Take that 2001 list. I loved Paper Mario, Max Payne, Jax and Daxter, and Devil May Cry among many others, but a large part of those fond memories comes from having played them in their time.

Even back in the day Master Chief looked good

Halo probably falls into that category for me as well. Maybe that's as much because what's changed the most over the past decade (or more) is presentation capabilities. Since we entered the era of 3D gaming (yes, despite what the display makers may tell you, we've been gaming in 3D space for a good while) the experiences we get have settled into fairly well defined categories. And as shooters go, I feel pretty certain Halo will stand up well on that front. So does the team working on the upcoming HD version of the game. As we learned in our Halo Anniversary preview at E3, the game literally runs two game engines, the original Halo engine to run the game mechanics and AI, and a shiny, new rendering engine on top of that to make it look pretty. If it works that well, though, I'm back to wondering whether it isn't better simply left alone. The rushed to answer is the matter of access, as system backward compatibility went from hotly debated topic to inconsequential footnote this generation. But if that issue so quickly faded away, doesn't it stand to reason that those who want to play those old games must have the consoles to play them on as well? Sony will help answer that question with the growing slate of HD remakes it has on the PS3. As much as I'm dying to revisit Ico and Shadow of the Colossus in HD, I'm unsure how many walks down memory lane I really want to take. They run the risk of overwriting my fond memories already there. And every minute I spend there is one I don't have for a new experience. Maybe it doesn't have to be exclusive. Maybe it's easy enough to knock them out this way; I can have my Ico, you can have your God of War, and we can all be happy. But the pull of nostalgia can be hard to resist as well. As difficult as we see it can be for new creative games to find an audience, might we be better to smile as we remember those old friends while playing the games we'll look back on in coming years?
Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 24, 2011 5:00 PM

    Garnett Lee posted a new article, Videogame classics: reboot, reimagine, renovate, or just remember?.

    Lara Croft made a huge impression at E3, but is this new Tomb Raider true to its roots. Or does that matter? And just how many trips down memory lane do we really want to take?

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:25 PM

      I think it really depends on the game. For years now many people have been calling for a 'remake' of FF7, but i think square have butchered that game enough through all the anime/film/spinoff games they have created. A full blown 'remake' would be the final nail in the coffin.

      • reply
        June 27, 2011 6:37 PM

        i would give just about anything to play final fantasy VII in HD.... if the ps3 (or 4 for that matter) released it, i'd go out tomorrow and buy a ps3 just to play it...

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:36 PM

      Glad you brought up Max Payne in the article, because supposedly Max Payne 3 is coming out in the near future. I really don't think it will be good though, Max Payne should just end with him saving Mona and living happily ever after. It won't be the same without Järvi's over-the-top writing, not to mention it will probably embrace modern FPS mechanics such as cover and regenerating health and whatnot.

      I would kill for a renovation of Planescape: Torment though.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:43 PM

      For some games the reality is that a fresh coat of paint is nice but it's just papering over the cracks, it's what's underneath that counts. So while I'd love a GTA HD Collection I'd prefer a full remake for GTA San Andreas using the GTA IV engine.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:45 PM

      As your post shows there are two approaches to this, one a complete reboot and one a technology upgrade. For better or worse both are inevitable. I think the former are done more to capture new audience while the former will be done to try to appeal to the old audience.

      Should either be done? I understand the desire for new experiences but just as some stories are timeless so are some experiences. Therefore, I think there should be a balance, not just old and not just new but both/and.

      For example, I would love to see a remake of System Shock 2 that keeps all the essential gameplay mechanics and story but updates the graphics (a blending of the Lara Croft and Halo CE methods). I think if done well it would be great for fans of the game but would also attract those who love today's action RPGs.

      At the same time I think games like Heavy Rain, Flower, and Amnesia: The Dark Descent that take risks help move the industry into new areas and provide new experiences. But some attempts at new experiences are just bad.

      So both the nostalgic look back and the experimental look forward have risks but both are necessary to keep us from the rut of the present. That rut is far more dangerous than either nostalgia or experimentation right now. None of these games are likely to outsell the Call of Duty's of today but they serve to remind players of the variety that existed before and that even more variety is possible again.

      PS: The rut of the present isn't all bad, it is part of that variety. Also, I don't think people doing these updates are, necessarily, doing it for anything more than a relatively certain payday. But for whatever reason they are being done, I think the benefits above remain.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:48 PM

      Reimagining a game like Lara Croft is okay. It's pretty much slapping the mythos/name on a new IP to get it going again. Lara really doesn't have an industry equivalent in setting/story so go with it.

      Much like FarCry 2 had nothing to do with FarCry 1. It was a totally new game, but they threw the name on it for recognition.

      And who doesn't love the "gritty reboot" of Batman Begins?

      Something like Halo, well, it's a money grab. The original was "reasonably well done generic shooter but the best thing on the XBox". It looked okay, the mechanics were okay, but it was also slow and repetitive (a third of the game is literally going back the way you came in). But, if they want to spend minimal effort and throw it back up for sale, that's great. Much like they do with some PC games and retool them to work on modern hardware and sell them for $5. Monkey Island was done this way and sold for $10/15 easy. I could totally see Halo HD as a budget title.

      • reply
        June 24, 2011 6:00 PM

        Im a fan of Halo, but the remake being a budget title is a dream. That thing will be $60. They will use the reach based multi player as an excuse

        • reply
          June 24, 2011 6:03 PM

          They've said it's going to be $39.99. Not cheap by any means but a fair bit less than $60.

        • reply
          June 24, 2011 6:08 PM

          They have already said Halo CE HD is a $40 product.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 5:51 PM

      Why not try to bring back games that are older than 10 or 15 years? Why not bring back a game that are older that people have forgotten? People may not want to play games that they feel like they played before, even if it is somewhat reimagined or with high res graphics. I would be more willing to replay games that have forgotten such as Interstate '76, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Crusader No Remorse with new graphics or reimagined. I say don't flood us with the same old games over and over again. It gets old and boring.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 6:38 PM

      I didn't know Tomb Raider inspired that kind of fandom.

      There has to be a point where you move on. There are what, six or eight Tomb Raider games already? At least the first three do not stray very far at all from the design and style of the original. I love Deus Ex, but if I got three good Deus Ex games in a row I would have been happy and then started looking for a new direction in the franchise. At six or more games deep, it's time to think about other ways a gametype could work.

    • reply
      June 24, 2011 7:02 PM

      Tomb Raider had become the Sonic series in a lot of ways. They kept trying to reinvent, but usually in the same wrong direction (shooter direction). However luckily for Eidos there are other successful series they can draw inspiration from. Whereas Sonic is sort of in a narrow market with a main mechanic (Sonic's speed) that seems to hamstring them when it comes to fresh designs.

    • reply
      June 25, 2011 12:32 AM

      Garnett,

      I don't know how I will afford the cost or the time investment, but I will be plunking down hard cash for Metal Gear Solid collection when it comes out later this year just so I can finally play through all the MGS games on next gen consoles, and better yet, the majority of them on my console of choice, the Xbox 360. Snake has finally come to the Xbox platform in a big way (short of MGS4 finally being announced for the system), and I'm surprised Microsoft didn't make more of a big deal about that at E3.

      I for one am down for the HD remakes, as it means I'll only need to break out the PS2 for the truly hard to find classic games, and enjoy many of my favorite games in crystal-clear HD. As someone who has just played through Yakuza 1 on an HDTV and is about to embark on the second title, I must say that certain PS2 games look HORRIBLE in HD, even when you are using component cables to get the best possible visual output.

      I'm still on the fence about Lara. The new, vulnerable Lara looks amazing, I wish I could have dated her when I was a single young buck. But I'm not sure how relevant Lara is to me now, and I'd rather be the empowered Nathan Drake than what appears to be the always scared and easily breakable Ms. Croft of this generation. I suppose it's better this than to see the Tomb Raider franchise dissappear into obscurity. But given the survival horror tone of this reboot, shouldn't Lara's new game be called "Tomb Escaper?"

    • reply
      June 25, 2011 9:01 AM

      Garnett,

      Seriously, I'm now listening to the section of this week's podcast that obviously inspired this editorial, and I'm really surprised at your argument that these HD remakes are not a big deal. Your colleagues even caught you contradicting yourself by bringing up the same argument that I posed earlier. These HD remakes, if priced accordingly, are worth it just for the ability to play the games on modern hardware alone. I've finished Shadow of the Colossus and ICO multiple times years ago, but I still yearn to revisit them once again. To be able to do so without being forced to suffer through long load times, shoddy framerates and blurry visuals (because of the previously brilliant graphics being displayed on modern HDTVs), not to mention being able to do so without having to break out the PS2 from the closet, to me, is worth it. The real problem is the time management issue, that is, having to juggle visiting an old friend (read: game) versus making a new one. My wall of shame ever grows...

    • reply
      June 25, 2011 12:02 PM

      HD remakes imo. Full scale reboots are pretty hit and miss. If something was good the first time around, chances are it's because it had a solid mix of variables that worked together to make it that way. You don't go in and change everything and release it with the same name and expect it to automatically become the next big thing.

    • reply
      June 25, 2011 12:41 PM

      Resident Evil for the Game Cube still ranks as one of my top favorite games, the new Mortal Kombat lives up to being a quality reboot also.

      Very similar feel to the old school versions, but still looking and playing like a more modern version.

    • reply
      June 25, 2011 11:20 PM

      Well, yeah. Of course it's fine to reboot/ remake games. Why wouldn't it be? That's like trying to draw a mental divide between bills and coins: who cares, it's all money!

    • reply
      June 26, 2011 5:23 PM

      HD remake of Pong.

      I think some games I've played were beautiful in their simplicity and their non-human appeal. Musashi (for the PS1) was this midget made of 4 spheres, his 2 feet, his abdomen and his head. an HD remake of him would probably either make him horrifically ugly, misproportioned, or gruesomely realistic.

      I think Valve did something like a reboot/remake a while ago with Half-Life: Source. Although it wasn't a HD remake it was just a remake, porting it to the new Source engine. Only real noticeable difference was Ragdolls and reflections. However if Valve had spent more than 10 bucks on HL:S they'd probably remodel all the guns, NPC's, and redo all the sounds. However, HL is still a great game in that everybody has a square face and the nice Bassy slamming noises of the crowbar upon the crotch of a Headcrab. The shoddy animation kinda made it more engrossing that Black Mesa was hellish that their employees were insane and the monsters were mistakenly unintelligent and simplistic.

      I just lost track of my thought pattern

    • reply
      June 26, 2011 6:45 PM

      The answer is quite clearly "just remember". There's no valid artistic reason to go back and add to a completed work.

      Also, the quality of a game does not change. If you go back to a game from 2001 that was your favorite and it's not fun now, then it was never fun, and you just tricked yourself into thinking it was (just as you're probably doing now with a ton of crappy, horrible games). Nobody seems to appreciate the magnitude of the power of HYPE.

Hello, Meet Lola