Seeing that the number of people who are running original 'old' hardware decreases every day apparantely, remakes of classic games get more and more popular. I'm not so much talking about stuff like "King's Quest" whose remake (from what you told me) is nothing like the original. What I do mean is accurate remakes, like for example xrick. After playing it for some days, I must say it's pretty good. No real use to me since I can play the original, though. So what about you? Do you use such remakes? Do you think it'd be good to include remakes into TGOD?

Edited by Mr Creosote at 23:17 on December, 17th 2003

If people can't run the original games: Why not? As for myself, I prefer the originals whenever it's possible.

I wouldn't include them into the site themselves, but rather add a link to the remake site on the Rick Dangerous review page, for example.

I think well made remakes let people who have a lot less computer experience play older games. Of course, if a remake is wildly inaccurate, it doesn't have much use.

Depends. What Tierra is doing is not really remakes, because they add much more content. I'm still undecided when it comes to interface and graphics: a true remake is one that exactly copies the old game and puts it into a working engine, and so the graphics should stay the same. On the other hand, I don't see how improved graphics could enhance the gameplay experience (after all, games that are being redone have become classics regardless of the quality of their graphics), so I can live with that.

NetDanzr: Thanks for repeating what I said in the initial post.

Oh crap... I was replying to the initial question, without really reading any of the other posts. So anyway, I think that as long as you feel a remake successfully captures the essence of the game, add it to the site. If not, reject it, as it would only confuse people.

hehe - in any case, good to know you came to the same conclusions concerning 'non-accurate remakes'

Remakes are for ducks.
Imagine a remake of the ice cream dessert you loved as a kid:
Better control of the walnuts, but bland dull ice cream flavor.
No, I've tried reemakes or clones, like a 2002 version of choplifter. They usually suck ass.
Besides, there's always VPC and DosBox.

DosBox is quite unperfect. It would save a lot of headaches if somehow games were remade to run on XP.

It's getting better with every release, but nothing beats the real thing, I agree. But then again...emulating has advantages, we are all aware.

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/comp_list.php?letter=P

Did you actually try the Rick Dangerous remake? It's extremely accurate, the programmer has even included all the original bugs

In general, I do agree of course that the original versions are best. However, as I said before, all kinds of emulators scare 'common folk' away. Would you rather tell those people to play a good remake or nothing at all?

Ummm.... It may be just me, but I tried several games that list full compatibility on DOSBox, and none of them worked. Fortunately, every one worked with VDMSound

Which is an equally unnecessary program

here's something i posted at another forum. i was talking with a ton of kids who were listing a ton of pokemon games and gamecube/xbox/ps2 games, so i was pretty much bashing the games:

i wouldn't know, i can't seem to figure out my Commodore 64 and amiga emulators. old computers are the way to go for games. you can't keep on making good games after 30 years! they're all gonna be remakes, and that is marketed only because people are stupid. if you buy a BRAND NEW console, for a BRAND NEW video game, when you can buy an old console for cheaper, and an old cartridge for cheaper, then it's cheaper! but people are too dumb to know that, they say i'm stupid cos i use a nintendo! they don't even care that the ultimate console for TV was the super nintendo entertainment system, it's not called a nintendo!

It is of course true to some extent that producing original games gets harder over time, but that doesn't make newer games 'remakes' in the strict sense I used it in the question. New games are using concepts and ideas of old ones, but they don't try to reproduce them exactly. And commercial remakes are out of question anyway.

i said after 30 years, it hasn't been that long yet, right? and keep in mind that the people were naming games that weren't all that fun.

Computer Space is from 1971, Pong from 1972 - both older than 30 years.

i guess thats what you get for being 12...

Lets not forget Steve Russels Spacewar from 1962.

Or Willy Higginbotham, who redifined the word 'fun' with his Oscilliscope game 'Tennis For Two' in 1958.

Or A C Douglas, reputedly creator of the first graphical computer game in 1952 at Cambridge University - a Tic-Tac-Toe game on a display of 32x32 pixels, this is apparantly the first video game AI as well.

And finally, good ole Ralph Baer who had the idea of games on a television set but wasnt allowed to develop it because his boss couldnt understand the concept and told him to just build a TV instead. He finally managed to build it in 1966.