Why do people hate on remasters?

  • 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

seriously why the hell do people hate on remasters? for those who dont understand the difference between a remaster and a remake here it is

remaster: ''An improved version of the original title. Assets are recycled with varying levels of up-scaling, texture map improvements, model tweaks, etc. Some modern effects and/or improved anti-aliasing are added. Large swaths of the original game are carried over.'' - ((games like tlou ps4, tomb raider ps4/x1, metro redux are remasters))

remake: ''Recreation from the bottom up. The engine is new, assets are recreated rather than recycled, and save the basic story, characters, and game design, relatively little from the new game is carried over.''

there seems to be this misconception about 'bu-bu-bu company is wasting time remastering instead of making new games!!!' when in reality remasters take very little resources to make and are inexpensive. YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING A NEW GAME IF THE REMASTER WASNT BEING DEVELOPED. get that is your heads people. naughty dog are developing uc4 along with another game while a small group created tlou remaster. kingdom hearts remix or whatever was developed by a team of 4 people or something.

now i totally get why people would hate on remakes because that would take a lot of time and effort but remasters are very easy to do and provide gamers with the definitive version of the game so those who never played it have a chance to enjoy it. 'bu-bu-bu cash grab!!' well dont buy it then but stop ur bitching

#rant over

#2 Edited by uninspiredcup (7837 posts) -

Due to the mass, ant like nature, pc gamers can enhance a game well beyond the limited resources of a developer team. For the master race, paying £39.99 for something barely touched up, is immoral, wrong and immoral. Due to being wrong.

It's also incredibly lazy. Last Of Us, the most overrated game ever, re-released selling million. These people, have promoted lazyness. Now everyone will do it.

Much like overpriced DLC, which are essentially very lazy mods a 14 year old could make at the weekend, graphic mods are now being sold.

Console innovation. Along with a free2play model on top of an overpriced $90 game.

#3 Posted by Gue1 (9500 posts) -

because it replaced backward compatibility.

#4 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

Due to the mass, ant like nature, pc gamers can enhance a game well beyond the limited resources of a developer team. For the master race, paying £39.99 for something barely touched up, is immoral, wrong and immoral. Due to being wrong.

It's also incredibly lazy. Last Of Us, the most overrated game ever, re-released selling million. These people, have promoted lazyness. Now everyone will do it.

Much like overpriced DLC, which are essentially very lazy mods a 14 year old could make at the weekend, graphic mods are now being sold.

Console innovation. Along with a free2play model on top of an overpriced $90 game.

so u can play tlou at 4k resolution? oh wait u cant the game isnt even on pc. maybe if u lot made enough petitions sony might release it but its not looking good for the master pleb race. how are u enjoying gta5? great game isnt it? i bet ur pc can play it at 4k the game must look amazing, oh wait...

#5 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4038 posts) -

I don't think people do too much. But right now it feels like a bit of a cynical lazy trend I think. Also some of the differences aren't even day and night, it's more like day and evening.

MS and Sony promised a new gen, now give us the games. It's not our problem that they're in development, they chose to launch their consoles early for their own personal pissing contest, now give us something. Last gen ports and last gen/current gen multiplats is little tedious. It would be okay if it was mixed in with more new stuff.

It's just been a really dry first year.

Although I am a hypocrite because there is one or two that I know would interest me such as the Halo Collection, for Halo 2 mainly, but then I haven't played that since the original Xbox, it's not a last gen game.

That's my opinion on the situation anyway.

#6 Edited by pyro1245 (545 posts) -

What can I say that @uninspiredcup hasn't already said? Well maybe the fact that devs keep remastering games instead of working on new stuff? At least we have crowd-funding to get some new IPs.

#7 Edited by uninspiredcup (7837 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Due to the mass, ant like nature, pc gamers can enhance a game well beyond the limited resources of a developer team. For the master race, paying £39.99 for something barely touched up, is immoral, wrong and immoral. Due to being wrong.

It's also incredibly lazy. Last Of Us, the most overrated game ever, re-released selling million. These people, have promoted lazyness. Now everyone will do it.

Much like overpriced DLC, which are essentially very lazy mods a 14 year old could make at the weekend, graphic mods are now being sold.

Console innovation. Along with a free2play model on top of an overpriced $90 game.

so u can play tlou at 4k resolution? oh wait u cant the game isnt even on pc. maybe if u lot made enough petitions sony might release it but its not looking good for the master pleb race. how are u enjoying gta5? great game isnt it? i bet ur pc can play it at 4k the game must look amazing, oh wait...

Rather than acknowledge my being factually correct, you have elected the way of pain. A personal attack based on movie games which proper pc gamers such as myself have very little interest in. An ultimately fruitless endeavor.

My friend, i'v been playing Planescape Torement and Fallout.

#8 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

because it replaced backward compatibility.

ps3 cell would be very very hard emulate, in fact i dont think it can be emulated unless u add a cell processor into the ps4. i rather sony concentrate their effort on making 1080p/60fps definitive version than playing a jagged mess which cost more effort to do

I don't think people do too much. But right now it feels like a bit of a cynical lazy trend I think. Also some of the differences aren't even day and night, it's more like day and evening.

MS and Sony promised a new gen, now give us the games. It's not our problem that they're in development, they chose to launch their consoles early for their own personal pissing contest, now give us something. Last gen ports and last gen/current gen multiplats is little tedious. It would be okay if it was mixed in with more new stuff.

It's just been a really dry first year.

Although I am a hypocrite because there is one or two that I know would interest me such as the Halo Collection, for Halo 2 mainly, but then I haven't played that since the original Xbox, it's not a last gen game.

That's my opinion on the situation anyway.

but the first year is always crap. i learned my lesson from last gen when i bought x360 at launch and realised there was fuck all to play which is why im waiting this time. 2015 is shaping up to be one hell of a year so i really see the problem

#9 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6383 posts) -

As stated above, they replaced backwards compatability, and is for the consumer a WAY more expensive alternative to BC.

I don't think alot of people would complain if the game was a few gens old, but these are fairly recent games, and we are not talking a few, we are talking alot of remasters. Often pretty shoddy executed aswell.

The pricepoints also seem really steep for the most part, which is hardly justified.

On the flip side ofcourse it IS a way for people to get gems they missed near the end of the last gen, but still does not justify not simply having BC, and buying the (much cheaper) original game.

#10 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Due to the mass, ant like nature, pc gamers can enhance a game well beyond the limited resources of a developer team. For the master race, paying £39.99 for something barely touched up, is immoral, wrong and immoral. Due to being wrong.

It's also incredibly lazy. Last Of Us, the most overrated game ever, re-released selling million. These people, have promoted lazyness. Now everyone will do it.

Much like overpriced DLC, which are essentially very lazy mods a 14 year old could make at the weekend, graphic mods are now being sold.

Console innovation. Along with a free2play model on top of an overpriced $90 game.

so u can play tlou at 4k resolution? oh wait u cant the game isnt even on pc. maybe if u lot made enough petitions sony might release it but its not looking good for the master pleb race. how are u enjoying gta5? great game isnt it? i bet ur pc can play it at 4k the game must look amazing, oh wait...

Rather than acknowledge my being factually correct, you have elected the way of paint. A personal attack based on movie games which proper pc gamers such as myself have very little interest in. An ultimately fruitless endeavor.

My friend, i'v been playing Planescape Torement and Fallout.

so u dont like gta 5? is that what u are saying? haha at least tell me u are looking forward to ff15

#11 Edited by jsmoke03 (12756 posts) -

i dont...i think its just a port to a new system... i think the word remaster is what is making ppl cynical.

Hell i dont think pc players will rage over a "remastered" edition of red dead redemption. its just a port thats been upgraded

#12 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4038 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

because it replaced backward compatibility.

ps3 cell would be very very hard emulate, in fact i dont think it can be emulated unless u add a cell processor into the ps4. i rather sony concentrate their effort on making 1080p/60fps definitive version than playing a jagged mess which cost more effort to do

@HalcyonScarlet said:

I don't think people do too much. But right now it feels like a bit of a cynical lazy trend I think. Also some of the differences aren't even day and night, it's more like day and evening.

MS and Sony promised a new gen, now give us the games. It's not our problem that they're in development, they chose to launch their consoles early for their own personal pissing contest, now give us something. Last gen ports and last gen/current gen multiplats is little tedious. It would be okay if it was mixed in with more new stuff.

It's just been a really dry first year.

Although I am a hypocrite because there is one or two that I know would interest me such as the Halo Collection, for Halo 2 mainly, but then I haven't played that since the original Xbox, it's not a last gen game.

That's my opinion on the situation anyway.

but the first year is always crap. i learned my lesson from last gen when i bought x360 at launch and realised there was fuck all to play which is why im waiting this time. 2015 is shaping up to be one hell of a year so i really see the problem

You're smart. :-)

The problem is that it's not mixed in with more new stuff imo. So if the remakes or whatever was coming in a year with new actual current gen games, I don't think people would mind too much.

#13 Posted by Boddicker (2515 posts) -

Because most see them as cheap cash-ins and replacing backwards compatibility.

Some remasters have a small point to them. Others do not.

The only remaster I'm planning on getting is Metro Redux because I have never played a Metro game and it's got 2 full games.

#14 Posted by chikenfriedrice (9879 posts) -

We want new games that's why...

#15 Posted by Couth_ (10013 posts) -

it's 2014 and people hate on literally everything... so sad

#16 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

Because most see them as cheap cash-ins and replacing backwards compatibility.

Some remasters have a small point to them. Others do not.

The only remaster I'm planning on getting is Metro Redux because I have never played a Metro game and it's got 2 full games.

but who decides if the remasters have some point to them? the customers of course. i played metro and found it boring so im not getting it so according to me metro redux is a waste of time but u want to play it and thankfully for u the devs are making a remaster collection.

just because u dont see the point to the remaster doesnt mean others dont, for instance ive played all of uncharted games so i wont buy a remaster collection but for x360 only owners who bought a ps4 the uncharted trilogy could be a god send.

We want new games that's why...

but u are getting new games. remasters are not made at the expense of new games more like in conjunction with new projects. it only takes a small team to remaster a game

@jsmoke03 said:

i dont...i think its just a port to a new system... i think the word remaster is what is making ppl cynical.

Hell i dont think pc players will rage over a "remastered" edition of red dead redemption. its just a port thats been upgraded

dont mention red dead redemption in the presence of @uninspiredcup, his eyes are going to get all funny again. chin up uninspired, maybe one day rockstar will listen to the petitions and make a port

#17 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16297 posts) -

I don't hate remasters

They usually allow people to get older games polished up and for a low price. Especially great if you didn't get a certain system last gen. Like personally I loved that I could enjoy PS2 games on my PS3 and Vita.

I do hate the way TLOU handled it though. This is totally different than buying 3 PS2 games for 30 dollars or buying Metro: Redux for 10.

#18 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

I don't hate remasters

They usually allow people to get older games polished up and for a low price. Especially great if you didn't get a certain system last gen. Like personally I loved that I could enjoy PS2 games on my PS3 and Vita.

I do hate the way TLOU handled it though. This is totally different than buying 3 PS2 games for 30 dollars or buying Metro: Redux for 10.

in uk tlou on ps3 brand new costs £25 and remaster costs £35 so essential u are paying £10 for the upgraded version which isnt bad imo.

i just sold my tlou ps3 copy for £20 on ebay so if i was to buy the remaster its only £10.

#19 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17341 posts) -

Normal people don't hate remasters. Normal people don't waste energy hating something they have no plan on purchasing.

Just few loud people on system wars do.

#20 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16297 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

I don't hate remasters

They usually allow people to get older games polished up and for a low price. Especially great if you didn't get a certain system last gen. Like personally I loved that I could enjoy PS2 games on my PS3 and Vita.

I do hate the way TLOU handled it though. This is totally different than buying 3 PS2 games for 30 dollars or buying Metro: Redux for 10.

in uk tlou on ps3 brand new costs £25 and remaster costs £35 so essential u are paying £10 for the upgraded version which isnt bad imo.

i just sold my tlou ps3 copy for £20 on ebay so if i was to buy the remaster its only £10.

But it's not though.

If they would've allowed people to upgrade their PS3 version for 10 than I would have had no problem with it.

Instead they want people to rebuy the game, for a high price, and I do not like that.

#21 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

I don't hate remasters

They usually allow people to get older games polished up and for a low price. Especially great if you didn't get a certain system last gen. Like personally I loved that I could enjoy PS2 games on my PS3 and Vita.

I do hate the way TLOU handled it though. This is totally different than buying 3 PS2 games for 30 dollars or buying Metro: Redux for 10.

in uk tlou on ps3 brand new costs £25 and remaster costs £35 so essential u are paying £10 for the upgraded version which isnt bad imo.

i just sold my tlou ps3 copy for £20 on ebay so if i was to buy the remaster its only £10.

But it's not though.

If they would've allowed people to upgrade their PS3 version for 10 than I would have had no problem with it.

Instead they want people to rebuy the game, for a high price, and I do not like that.

but it is because im only paying £10 extra if i want to buy ps4 version. now a upgrade option would have been nice and something they should have defo done

edit: shit i meant £15 because i sold it for £20

#22 Posted by Heil68 (43462 posts) -

I'm not complaining. I'll have bought quite a few by the time this gen is over.

#23 Edited by cainetao11 (16881 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786:

there seems to be this misconception about 'bu-bu-bu company is wasting time remastering instead of making new games!!!' when in reality remasters take very little resources to make and are inexpensive. YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING A NEW GAME IF THE REMASTER WASNT BEING DEVELOPED

Need to see actual spreadsheets of the cost of these as proof. Other wise its just another forum poster shooting at the moon. Also if they do take little in resources why do they need to charge $50 -60 for them? And remastering a game from last year or last gen?

As for stop your bitching.............you stop bitching about others bitching first.

#24 Posted by humanistpotato (319 posts) -

Due to the mass, ant like nature, pc gamers can enhance a game well beyond the limited resources of a developer team. For the master race, paying £39.99 for something barely touched up, is immoral, wrong and immoral. Due to being wrong.

It's also incredibly lazy. Last Of Us, the most overrated game ever, re-released selling million. These people, have promoted lazyness. Now everyone will do it.

Much like overpriced DLC, which are essentially very lazy mods a 14 year old could make at the weekend, graphic mods are now being sold.

Console innovation. Along with a free2play model on top of an overpriced $90 game.

+1 even tho i dont agree with master race part

also everybody hates when someone makes a lot of money without much effort, pewdiepie is an example

#25 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2428 posts) -

Go ahead consololites, go and dish out $60 for already played games instead of new ones. Don't come back and bitch about it like DLC a year later when all you are getting are remasters instead of new games.

#26 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2409 posts) -

cause they are rip offs

#27 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786:

there seems to be this misconception about 'bu-bu-bu company is wasting time remastering instead of making new games!!!' when in reality remasters take very little resources to make and are inexpensive. YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING A NEW GAME IF THE REMASTER WASNT BEING DEVELOPED

Need to see actual spreadsheets of the cost of these as proof. Other wise its just another forum poster shooting at the moon. Also if they do take little in resources why do they need to charge $50 -60 for them? And remastering a game from last year or last gen?

As for stop your bitching.............you stop bitching about others bitching first.

games are developed with higher quality assets than downscaled to achieve the right performance, remasters are just using the assets that are already developed and applying the finishing touches in most cases. tomb raider ps4/x1 version is really just a port of the pc version on ultra setting. naughty dog have already stated they are developing uc4 and a new ip, only a small group was working on the remaster, it doesnt take a genius to work out remasters dont cost nearly as much as a new game to make.

and do u really need to be told why they are 50-60? because thats what people are willing to pay for them.

'you stop bitching about others bitching first' but would that stop them bitching? no

#28 Posted by XaosII (16563 posts) -

...remasters are just using the assets that are already developed and applying the finishing touches in most cases. tomb raider ps4/x1 version is really just a port of the pc version on ultra setting...

...and do u really need to be told why they are 50-60?

Shouldn't these statements, coming from yourself, have given you a pretty good answer to "why do people hate on remasters?"

#29 Posted by Senor_Kami (8336 posts) -

In the real world, remasters/remakes sell enough to justify companies making them so they obviously have a market. People who don't want to buy the game simply don't buy the game and have no further thoughts about it, just like they do for the hundreds of games that come out every year that they also don't buy.

On the internet however, faux outrage reigns supreme and everyone hates everything.

#30 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (3871 posts) -

@XaosII said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

...remasters are just using the assets that are already developed and applying the finishing touches in most cases. tomb raider ps4/x1 version is really just a port of the pc version on ultra setting...

...and do u really need to be told why they are 50-60?

Shouldn't these statements, coming from yourself, have given you a pretty good answer to "why do people hate on remasters?"

i live in uk so im not sure how it works in other countries but here we have free will, should i buy the game or shouldnt i. i wasnt aware companies were forcing people to buy the remasters in other countries

#31 Posted by Roler42 (591 posts) -

Remasters are ok, when they get released towards the end of the generation or in the middle of it, this new gen of consoles bypassed new IPs and sequels and went straight to re-releasing last gen titles, some not even a year old (TLOU)

People don't hate remasters, but they hate that remasters have become the sole priority of this new gen of consoles while new titles and new IPs have taken the backseat

I could mention "at least there's indies" but console gamers despise indie titles with a passion so they may very well not exist, lol

Now if you excuse me... back to TWD Season 2

#32 Posted by lostrib (34456 posts) -

for fun?

#33 Posted by bobbetybob (19178 posts) -
@Gue1 said:

because it replaced backward compatibility.

This, but even more so because it's making it less and less likely for companies to bother with BC in future consoles, why would they when they can just upres and polish games that came out 5 months ago and make a bunch of easy money?

The only ones I don't mind are titles like Ocarina of Time on 3DS and the Master Chief Collection where they're offering a very old game that's had a decent amount of effort put into it to make it look better, or they're offering a shit ton of content as well as improvements to visuals.

#34 Posted by cainetao11 (16881 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@ghostwarrior786:

there seems to be this misconception about 'bu-bu-bu company is wasting time remastering instead of making new games!!!' when in reality remasters take very little resources to make and are inexpensive. YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING A NEW GAME IF THE REMASTER WASNT BEING DEVELOPED

Need to see actual spreadsheets of the cost of these as proof. Other wise its just another forum poster shooting at the moon. Also if they do take little in resources why do they need to charge $50 -60 for them? And remastering a game from last year or last gen?

As for stop your bitching.............you stop bitching about others bitching first.

games are developed with higher quality assets than downscaled to achieve the right performance, remasters are just using the assets that are already developed and applying the finishing touches in most cases. tomb raider ps4/x1 version is really just a port of the pc version on ultra setting. naughty dog have already stated they are developing uc4 and a new ip, only a small group was working on the remaster, it doesnt take a genius to work out remasters dont cost nearly as much as a new game to make.

and do u really need to be told why they are 50-60? because thats what people are willing to pay for them.

'you stop bitching about others bitching first' but would that stop them bitching? no

Point of asking if they need to charge so much for them was to point out they are looking out for number 1 when doing so. People voice concerns is a selfish act also, everyone is guilty of it. Nothing is going to stop people bitching about it. Obviously you aren't leading by example because you're bitching about people bitching.

#35 Posted by always_explicit (2714 posts) -

I don't think people do too much. But right now it feels like a bit of a cynical lazy trend I think. Also some of the differences aren't even day and night, it's more like day and evening.

MS and Sony promised a new gen, now give us the games. It's not our problem that they're in development, they chose to launch their consoles early for their own personal pissing contest, now give us something. Last gen ports and last gen/current gen multiplats is little tedious. It would be okay if it was mixed in with more new stuff.

It's just been a really dry first year.

Although I am a hypocrite because there is one or two that I know would interest me such as the Halo Collection, for Halo 2 mainly, but then I haven't played that since the original Xbox, it's not a last gen game.

That's my opinion on the situation anyway.

Dont feel guilty about buying into the trend, Halo MCC offers an absolutely insane amount of content for a very reasonable price. The other remasters (TLOU) for example....offer next to nothing, I cant for the life of me fathom how 1 million people purchased that sorry excuse for printing cash.

#36 Posted by coasterguy65 (5876 posts) -

I don't hate them I just don't normally support them. Now if they offer a "remastered" version for a discounted price...like say Ass Creed 4, or other launch games did, then sure I will upgrade. If they offer a package like Metro Redux, then sure I can get behind that also. Otherwise most other remasters are just cash grabs. Taking a year old game, slightly upgrading the graphics, and selling it for almost full price..that is a cash grab.

#37 Posted by BldgIrsh (1610 posts) -

Depends on the remaster. MCC and Metro with the discounted price if you owned the previous version are good examples of a proper remaster. Remastering of an game that isn't even a year old is just a cash grab.

#38 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16297 posts) -

but it is because im only paying £10 extra if i want to buy ps4 version. now a upgrade option would have been nice and something they should have defo done

edit: shit i meant £15 because i sold it for £20

Yup, that's the thing. One small thing would've made it OK for me.

Now it feels to me like ND and Sony want people to buy the game a second time for a higher price than other remasters. And they do this because they know a lot of people will ...

#39 Posted by funsohng (27614 posts) -

So now I should be happy when developers release old games again with new price?

Seriously, gamers whine about everything except for the things they should actually be whining about.

#40 Posted by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

I view remasters of year old games as just delayed releases. If you're up in arms about a high price at release, then wait two months.

#41 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (5775 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

Depends on the remaster. MCC and Metro with the discounted price if you owned the previous version are good examples of a proper remaster. Remastering of an game that isn't even a year old is just a cash grab.

Yeah, this. I have no problems with them if they are done right, such as the examples you mentioned. MCC especially offers great value for money I think.

#42 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6937 posts) -

We want new games, not games we already played.

#43 Posted by 1fragleft (52 posts) -

We want new games, not games we already played.

The amount of work it took to port doesn't hinder the development of new games. Plus all the non PS 3 owning PS 4 owners get to play the game now.

#44 Edited by EducatingU_PCMR (581 posts) -

Because they're priced at $50 with barely any effort done to "remaster" them

#45 Posted by carljohnson3456 (12366 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

because it replaced backward compatibility.

Pretty much this. Man I wish we got a GTA trilogy HD remaster last gen. I was almost sure they would. I would have paid a full $60 for each game!!!

#46 Posted by carljohnson3456 (12366 posts) -

We want new games, not games we already played.

But if it's a higher res game, or a game with a higher frame rate (which does make a difference, I was surprised by the difference in the TLOU RM) it's not much different than when everyone bought DVD's of VHS's they already had..... or Blu Rays of DVD's they already have....

#47 Posted by funsohng (27614 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

We want new games, not games we already played.

The amount of work it took to port doesn't hinder the development of new games. Plus all the non PS 3 owning PS 4 owners get to play the game now.

I don't know. If you can just port old games and get better profit, why would anyone make new games? Not taking a lot of resources just mean they are gonna milk it all the way, and that's happening right now cuz gamers are not really good consumers.

#48 Posted by PsychoLemons (2042 posts) -

If it was re-released no less than five years, then there is a problem.

#49 Posted by lamprey263 (23152 posts) -

I don't think people hate them, I just don't think people are into buying them all that much. Most people had an opportunity to play some of this stuff and still don't care to, while others might take advantage of the stuff they didn't get around to playing.

#50 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (24895 posts) -

Resident Evil Gamecube - No hate everyone pretty much loves that game.

The Legend of Zelda Windwaker HD - The People who hated it before now love it.

Halo Remastered - After this People practically wanted Halo 2 to be remastered.

The Last of US "Remastered" - I will say this. It's not a "Remastered" copy, nor is it a "Definitive" copy. It's a GOTY copy, just released on a different format.