Which is doubly hilarious because it's not a remake... it's an HD remaster... which means all they are doing is a job that could easily be done by a small group in a couple of months who are just bumping up the resolution.. no other work is going in to these remasters. A reMAKE implies they actually rebuilt the game from the ground up, not literally slapped new paint over an old title.
Actually yeah I would.. they haven't made a new title with any merit in about 8 years... might as well remake the games that were actually designed well to begin with.
I've played every KH game and still think 358/2 had by far the best gameplay.. I think they took the easy way out and just didn't feel like putting any effort into the re-release title. Hell, they probably don't have the money too considering it takes them over 7 years to develop their most looked forward too game (11 if you want to talk about KHIII as well). These re-releases and remakes of their old, high quality titles are the only thing keeping them in business anymore.
Which they completely counter acted TODAY by saying, and I quote, "KHIII Is going to have to wait until we have finished development on Final Fantasy XV" because Tetsuya Nomura is the director of both and can only focus on one at a time. Besides do you REALLY believe those cutscenes they showed were gameplay? I am HIGHLY skeptical. Has everyone else forgotten how in early previews of FFXIII they actually took the opening train scene where lightening fought the guards and stamped the battle interface menu over it, passing it off as actual gameplay? It' s a thing that happened. I have been a diehard Square fan since I first picked up a controller but they've really spat in the face of their fans far too many times in recent years for me to trust them so easily.
@WolfGrey @AQWBlaZer91 There in lies the problem... this game isn't being released 10 years ago.. it's being RE-RELEASED NOW, in a time where games have found ways to FIX these problems yet the re-release refused to do so. This is a current product in a current time frame and needs to be compared to OTHER current products. If this was a free download, then sure we'd have no right to complain, but they are CHARGING for this, and because of that people need to know what they are buying. In my opinion KH 1 holds up probably the worst in the entire series (not counting the abomination that was Re:Coded ) and the mere fact that games made only a couple YEARS after KH hold up far better than the original Does (the platforming in KHII doesn't feel NEARLY as stiff) means that there is no excuse for this to be a continuing problem within the game.
@Xirtahm Your thinking is flawed. It didn't get a lower score because the 'flaws are familiar'. It got a lower score because this game was re-released TODAY, which means it needs to be compared to the games FROM Today. NO Imperfections are justified, they are all things that need to be pointed out if gaming wants to grow as a medium and an art form. Personally, I like that they didn't change a lot of the mechanics in the game because they wanted people to experience the game how it was originally released. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that when comparing those mechanics to games released RECENTLY they really don't hold up. The game isn't getting a lower score because 'it's 11 years later' it's getting a lower score because it has a lot more competition with games that have FIXED these problems while this re-release refused to do so. Let's give another more extreme example, let's say even your example of Metroid. At the time it came out, it was revolutionary and very solid, but have you played it recently? The graphics are awful (though I hold no real preference for that, just one of several points that need considering), the controls are poorly implemented because of the lack of buttons on the controller, the exploration really isn't handled very well and the way you save/continue the game makes it frustratingly maddening to continue playing it. In this particular case, the game got a remake that actually addressed and FIXED these flaws as well as adding content in the form of Metroid Zero Mission, essentially rendering the original game obsolete. It is understandable to compare old games to those released around the same time period,especially when you're going as far back as say, the NES, but if someone remade and repackaged an NES game and sold it for $40 with 'slightly less jagged edges' around the 8 bit sprites... and they expect to sell it as a new product in todays market, then it needs to be REVIEWED as a new product in todays market. You can't let nostalgia blind you from the fact that some parts of the game really haven't held up.
Sorry if it came off as rude or anything.. some people really don't know the difference and it's actually an important distinction... I just like people to know what they are actually buying ^^'
@WolfGrey @redskins26rocs Except they are... because when you are pushing the attack button your thumb is not on the stick that controls the camera... and when you are locked on an enemy (the only surefire way to hit your target because the controls really aren't that finely tuned) the camera is still set in the position described by the reviewer...
@blazin640 @sjawz3288 It's not a remake, it's a remaster, huge difference. Remakes take effort and are built from the ground up, remaster literaly just bumps up the textures and resolution.. we are spending $40 on what is essentially a texture pack... <<...>> the sad thing is I know this and I STILL gladly bought it...
Xx_Kares_xX's comments