Which Matters More: Content or Graphics?

[vanguard333]

Metroid Prime Remastered released recently. The overall reaction to it has been fairly positive due it not being full price, having an extensive graphical overhaul, and multiple control options, with the graphical update easily being the most brought up aspect of the remaster. However, some, including myself, have pointed out that the Prime Trilogy is still available on the Wii U eshop at half of the Prime 1 remaster until the eshop closes in March, and, when compared to Prime Trilogy, Prime Remastered is essentially 1/3 of the content at double the price in exchange for new visuals and control options. Others have suggested that the remaster could've been an opportunity to restore content that had been cut from Prime 1 during development, such as the Kraid fight.

In a way, however, this discussion is nothing new; graphics/visuals vs content is an argument that has appeared many times in various forms since at least the last several years, and probably longer than that. The discussions around Prime Remastered are simply the newest example of this discussion. So, I thought I'd ask: which is more important?

[Fabulously Olivier]

Personally, I think the dichotomy of graphics and gameplay is nonsense. Bad games aren't bad because they look pretty, and I struggle to think of a game that was bad because they overinvested in graphics, other than maybe games on the Frostbite engine.

[Yexin]

1) Graphical update
2) The content

these are my answers, but regardless of that, i think the questions aren't quite well put

first off, remasters and remakes are very, COMPLETELY different things, even though the final result can be perceived as being the same for both (it isn't).
remasters generally have the sole purpose of upgrading the game's graphical assets and image resolution, so that they fit current standards, even though the software is the same at its core.

remakes instead are much more dependent on the developer's intentions: they can simply be "the old game, but remade with modern technologies and maybe a few QoL changes" kind of approach (Crash N-Sane Trilogy, Metroid Prime Remake, Live A Live), or they can be a "let's pretend we're making this game for the first time because we want players to experience something new, fresh and maybe even unexpected" thing (Final Fantasy VII Remake).

this said, both ways can (but are not required to) add completely new contents to the remakes.
also, what do you mean by "content", exactly? its sheer quantity? or the quality of its gameplay?

Edited February 25, 2023 by Yexin

[lenticular]

For me, the most important part of a remake or remaster is getting the game onto a modern system. I don't want to have to own dozens of old consoles, deal with the tangle of cables that leads to, or have to deal with the unreliability and frequently inflated prices of the second hand games market.

Second most important for me is improvements to UI, controls, and quality of life features to match modern design principles. Some otherwise good old games haven't aged well because of bad UI or clunky controls. Bringing these up to date is always a high priority for me.

Beyond that, it very much depends on the game, what it did well and what it did badly. Sometimes graphics are a priority, sometimes sound, sometimes new content. I'd prefer to judge each game on a case-by-case basis, but if I had to make a general rule, I'd say that I'm more likely to want new graphics over new content. That's because if a game was good enough to warrant a remake in the first place, a lot of the core design was probably already excellent and probably doesn't need much tweaking. Nobody is going to remake crappy games that nobody liked in the first place. Graphics, on the other hand, are much more liable to become seriously dated and require an overhaul.

[vanguard333]

44 minutes ago, Yexin said:

I think the questions aren't quite well put

first off, remasters and remakes are very, COMPLETELY different things, even though the final result can be perceived as being the same for both (it isn't).
remasters generally have the sole purpose of upgrading the game's graphical assets and image resolution, so that they fit current standards, even though the software is the same at its core.

remakes instead are much more dependent on the developer's intentions: they can simply be "the old game, but remade with modern technologies and maybe a few QoL changes" kind of approach (Crash N-Sane Trilogy, Metroid Prime Remake, Live A Live), or they can be a "let's pretend we're making this game for the first time because we want players to experience something new, fresh and maybe even unexpected" thing (Final Fantasy VII Remake).

Thanks for the input; I didn't think the questions were very well put either when I wrote them. Originally, I was going to have the topic just be about Metroid Prime Remastered before I decided to have it instead be about a much more broad topic.

I kind-of agree that remasters and remakes are very different things (the only reason for the "kind-of" is that "remaster" is very loosely defined); I lumped them in together because the question was more meant to be along the lines of, 'when a game gets re-released in a way meant to update/upgrade it, which do you consider more important?'

Regarding your examples of remakes, there is no Metroid Prime Remake; it's a remaster. Final Fantasy VII Remake, despite the name, isn't a remake either, as it's actually an alternate-timeline sequel. Speaking as someone who played it without ever having played a Final Fantasy game before, I can safely say that the developers not only didn't pretend FF7 doesn't exist, but actively assumed everyone playing FF7R has played the original, as anyone who hasn't played it would get lost the moment it starts involving timeline and "Arbiters of Fate" nonsense (I know I did). Also, the Crash N-Sane Trilogy added more than just QoL changes; it added new levels and restored levels that had been cut during the original games' developments.

 

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Personally, I think the dichotomy of graphics and gameplay is nonsense. Bad games aren't bad because they look pretty, and I struggle to think of a game that was bad because they overinvested in graphics, other than maybe games on the Frostbite engine.

Oh, I agree that it's a false dichotomy; my intent behind this topic was not to perpetuate the false dichotomy in any way (that's the reason I included more than two answers to the poll questions), but to invite discussion. Any mention of it as a supposed dichotomy was meant to only be in the form of 'this has commonly been presented and discussed as if it were a dichotomy'. Any suggestions for making that more clear?

[Fabulously Olivier]

31 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Thanks for the input; I didn't think the questions were very well put either when I wrote them. Originally, I was going to have the topic just be about Metroid Prime Remastered before I decided to have it instead be about a much more broad topic.

I kind-of agree that remasters and remakes are very different things (the only reason for the "kind-of" is that "remaster" is very loosely defined); I lumped them in together because the question was more meant to be along the lines of, 'when a game gets re-released in a way meant to update/upgrade it, which do you consider more important?'

Regarding your examples of remakes, there is no Metroid Prime Remake; it's a remaster. Final Fantasy VII Remake, despite the name, isn't a remake either, as it's actually an alternate-timeline sequel. Speaking as someone who played it without ever having played a Final Fantasy game before, I can safely say that the developers not only didn't pretend FF7 doesn't exist, but actively assumed everyone playing FF7R has played the original, as anyone who hasn't played it would get lost the moment it starts involving timeline and "Arbiters of Fate" nonsense (I know I did). Also, the Crash N-Sane Trilogy added more than just QoL changes; it added new levels and restored levels that had been cut during the original games' developments.

 

Oh, I agree that it's a false dichotomy; my intent behind this topic was not to perpetuate the false dichotomy in any way (that's the reason I included more than two answers to the poll questions), but to invite discussion. Any mention of it as a supposed dichotomy was meant to only be in the form of 'this has commonly been presented and discussed as if it were a dichotomy'. Any suggestions for making that more clear?

Fair enough. To actually discuss the matter, I'm going to come down on the unpopular side here.

 

There is no argument that graphics and the quality of gameplay are correlated. There is a potential argument that maybe higher fidelity textures mean more work per piece of content, and if I had to pick, I'm picking the graphics. Not because I'm even a graphics snob, but because I think there is value in a game knowing when to end. A 30 hour game with pristine graphics may be preferable to a 100 hour game with mediocre graphics, and it's a matter of pacing. There's scarcely a 100 hour game out there that isn't padded to Hell in some fashion.

 

And this is especially true for a remake. More content doesn't inherently make a remake more enjoyable, and it's likely to feel tacked on. But the whole point of a remake is to experience a game again on modern hardware, and part of that is looking the part.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Fabulously Olivier

[vanguard333]

29 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Fair enough. To actually discuss the matter, I'm going to come down on the unpopular side here.

There is no argument that graphics and the quality of gameplay are correlated. There is a potential argument that maybe higher fidelity textures mean more work per piece of content, and if I had to pick, I'm picking the graphics. Not because I'm even a graphics snob, but because I think there is value in a game knowing when to end. A 30 hour game with pristine graphics may be preferable to a 100 hour game with mediocre graphics, and it's a matter of pacing. There's scarcely a 100 hour game out there that isn't padded to Hell in some fashion.

And this is especially true for a remake. More content doesn't inherently make a remake more enjoyable, and it's likely to feel tacked on. But the whole point of a remake is to experience a game again on modern hardware, and part of that is looking the part.

Interesting points.

In the case of a remake, I do agree that more content doesn't inherently make a remake more enjoyable. That said, I definitely can see an argument to be made that a remake is the best opportunity to restore things that were lost or add things that were included in later re-releases and bundles. Here's some examples:

Years later, what stands out to me the most about Ocarina of Time 3D is not the graphical overhaul, but that they bothered to include Master Quest: a version of Ocarina of Time that was released on the GameCube that remixed the dungeons and puzzles and increased the difficulty. I've never played Master Quest and I don't really intend on playing it, but I think it's extremely cool that they went out of their way to include it.

Similarly, while I really enjoyed Wind Waker HD, I couldn't help but feel that it missed an opportunity: Wind Waker, like a few prominent GameCube titles including Mario Sunshine and Smash Bros. Melee, was rushed because of the GameCube's poor sales, resulting in a lot of things being cut, including a more elaborate underwater Hyrule, underwater sections of the Earth and Wind Temples, the dungeon where the player was originally supposed to retrieve Nayru's Pearl, and a third temple. If the idea was to preserve the ways the game was altered to account for the removal of these things, like the destruction of Greatfish Isle, that's fair, but there was nothing stopping them from having the HD remaster have an "original adventure" and an "restored/uncut adventure" kind-of like how Ocarina of Time 3D included Master Quest.

Things like Master Quest and cut content are part of these games' history, so I can definitely see the argument that those are probably among the first things that should be considered when making a remake, much like how legacy collections will include stuff like original artwork.

 

2 hours ago, Yexin said:

this said, both ways can (but are not required to) add completely new contents to the remakes.
also, what do you mean by "content", exactly? its sheer quantity? or the quality of its gameplay?

…I guess kind-of both? I really meant is as an umbrella for things like gameplay, design, amount of stuff to do, etc. One reason I kept the opening paragraph about Metroid Prime Remastered was that I hoped that mentioning stuff like Prime Trilogy and the cut Kraid fight would help illustrate what I meant, since I couldn't think of a way to be more specific.

[Integrity]

i think it's kind of a question without an answer, innit? gameplay systems, like it or not, are informed by presentation - and presentation is, itself, in a huge part informed by graphics. we got into endless fights in enemy territory about whether the mp40 or the thompson was better, even though they were statistically identical, almost entirely because of the smooth ratta-tat of the mp40's bolt. and that was a relatively-arcadey shooter. something explicitly adventurey like metroid prime absolutely benefits from better graphics, possibly even more than it does better gameplay, but the two always intertwine.

 

5 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Personally, I think the dichotomy of graphics and gameplay is nonsense. Bad games aren't bad because they look pretty, and I struggle to think of a game that was bad because they overinvested in graphics, other than maybe games on the Frostbite engine.

battlefield bad company 2 looks fantastic to this day and plays fantastic to this day don't go blaming frostbite for frostbite's problems. battlefield 3 does too so don't go gotchaing me that bad company 2 was frostbite 1 or something

 

E: to be a little more serious

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

In the case of a remake, I do agree that more content doesn't inherently make a remake more enjoyable. That said, I definitely can see an argument to be made that a remake is the best opportunity to restore things that were lost or add things that were included in later re-releases and bundles. Here's some examples:

Years later, what stands out to me the most about Ocarina of Time 3D is not the graphical overhaul, but that they bothered to include Master Quest: a version of Ocarina of Time that was released on the GameCube that remixed the dungeons and puzzles and increased the difficulty. I've never played Master Quest and I don't really intend on playing it, but I think it's extremely cool that they went out of their way to include it.

Similarly, while I really enjoyed Wind Waker HD, I couldn't help but feel that it missed an opportunity: Wind Waker, like a few prominent GameCube titles including Mario Sunshine and Smash Bros. Melee, was rushed because of the GameCube's poor sales, resulting in a lot of things being cut, including a more elaborate underwater Hyrule, underwater sections of the Earth and Wind Temples, the dungeon where the player was originally supposed to retrieve Nayru's Pearl, and a third temple. If the idea was to preserve the ways the game was altered to account for the removal of these things, like the destruction of Greatfish Isle, that's fair, but there was nothing stopping them from having the HD remaster have an "original adventure" and an "restored/uncut adventure" kind-of like how Ocarina of Time 3D included Master Quest.

Things like Master Quest and cut content are part of these games' history, so I can definitely see the argument that those are probably among the first things that should be considered when making a remake, much like how legacy collections will include stuff like original artwork.

not picking on you specifically, op, but i really hate this notion of 're-adding cut content' to remasters/remakes. it does a lot to reinforce the idea of a platonic ideal of a game, the thing the auteur director came up with in his infinite brainspace, which was only denied entrance to this world because of <corporate meddling> <deadlines> <tech limitations> [pick one]. ignoring the fact that a lot of the time content was cut because it sucked ass, not necessarily because time ran out - video games aren't films. a remaster isn't a director's cut, where the guy takes the stuff that he likes and puts it onto a disc and says voila. the underwater hylia in wind waker might have been trialed in wind waker's original design, found to be too much work to ship, then been trialed again for the predevelopment for wwhd and found that the idea was actually just bad.

there's a sort of agnosticism to the quality of idea that people have with regards to remakes and remasters that's a bit fascinating and weird to me. i got into a big fight with a dude on some discord server about a rumor with no source that the islamic state of crapcom was gonna remove the mine sections from the resident evil 4 remake, and my point the whole time was that the mine sections of resident evil 4 were the absolute nadir of the game. his only counterpoint was that they deserved to be in because they were in the first game. i never got a solid answer to why? if they genuinely fucking sucked - i have never heard anyone praise a second of them except for some halfhearted 'the minecart section was campy' bullshit - why shouldn't a remake kick them out?

this isn't to say re-adding cut content or even adding all new content (e.g. beamdog's additions to baldur's gate) is a bad thing at all! i just dislike the idea that it should be expected.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Integrity

[Parrhesia]

Big example of cut content that should've stayed cut was the droid planet in KOTOR 2. God knows that a lot of the cut stuff in that game should have and was, correctly, re-added, but ~3 hours wandering around that acrid hellscape was not to the game's benefit. Similarly, a lot of the cut content in NWN2... some of it would have been nice, but a lot of it would have just further padded an already terminally padded game, and thank fuck it was gone.

Oh, Obsidian. Whatever will we do with you.

[Yexin]

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Thanks for the input; I didn't think the questions were very well put either when I wrote them. Originally, I was going to have the topic just be about Metroid Prime Remastered before I decided to have it instead be about a much more broad topic.

I kind-of agree that remasters and remakes are very different things (the only reason for the "kind-of" is that "remaster" is very loosely defined); I lumped them in together because the question was more meant to be along the lines of, 'when a game gets re-released in a way meant to update/upgrade it, which do you consider more important?'

Regarding your examples of remakes, there is no Metroid Prime Remake; it's a remaster. Final Fantasy VII Remake, despite the name, isn't a remake either, as it's actually an alternate-timeline sequel. Speaking as someone who played it without ever having played a Final Fantasy game before, I can safely say that the developers not only didn't pretend FF7 doesn't exist, but actively assumed everyone playing FF7R has played the original, as anyone who hasn't played it would get lost the moment it starts involving timeline and "Arbiters of Fate" nonsense (I know I did). Also, the Crash N-Sane Trilogy added more than just QoL changes; it added new levels and restored levels that had been cut during the original games' developments.

oh, i see, then i get why you put remakes and remasters together

well, technically Metroid Prime Remastered is... not a remaster, but also not a 100% remake
i honestly had a gut feeling, when it was announced during the last Direct, that this was another "Crash N-Sane Trilogy" case, where the game is advertised as a remaster, only to make fans understand that the game is pretty much the same as the old one, but with new graphics... and it actually was: Metroid Prime Remastered not only changes a lot of graphical assets (models, textures, etc), but it also features a completely reworked lighting system, along with many other tweaks to its general graphical and gameplay aspects

but apparently Metroid Prime Remastered also reuses some parts of the original game's code, making this not a 100% remade game, kinda like Crisis Core FFVII Reunion with only its graphical assets and combat system being actually remade from scratch

 

about FFVIIR, i agree with you when you say that it basically implies that the player knows what  the original FFVII was about, but that's a story matter
maybe i explained myself poorly in my previous comment, but what i meant with the "let's pretend we're making this game for the first time because we want players to experience something new, fresh and maybe even unexpected" part is that they approached the remaking process as if FFVII, from a technical PoV, was being made in 2020 for the first time, with a modern philosophy (action gameplay rather than turn-based), and while yes, the narrative elements of the game require a certain degree of knowledge of the original game, that doesn't quite concern the "remake/remaster" discussion, i think

[vanguard333]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:20 PM, Integrity said:

this isn't to say re-adding cut content or even adding all new content (e.g. beamdog's additions to baldur's gate) is a bad thing at all! i just dislike the idea that it should be expected.

I'm responding to the whole thing and just cutting the quote for space.

Interesting points. I agree that content is cut from video games for all sorts of reasons, and that restoring cut content in a remake or remaster shouldn't be expected. I just think seeing cut content restored, especially as bonus/extra content, is interesting because this stuff is part of the game's history, if that makes sense.

Something I just remembered that I forgot to mention before that probably would've made my point clearer: in the case of Wind Waker HD, Aonuma said in an interview that the reason the two cut dungeons weren't included is that, in their original form, they don't exist anymore; they got recycled and placed in later 3D Zelda games (some have speculated that the Goron Mines in Twilight Princess is the recycled version of one of those two cut Wind Waker dungeons, since there is concept art of a steampunk volcano island with a great resemblance to the mines). So I definitely understand why they didn't add the cut content in Wind Waker HD's case.

The point I just wanted to make with Wind Waker HD was that, even in the case of a game like Wind Waker where they wrote around the cut content with stuff like the destruction of Greatfish Isle, they could theoretically have still added cut content by making a "restored/uncut adventure", if that makes sense.

[Perkilator]

They’re both equally important, and as such, I see them as two things that should compliment each other.

[vanguard333]

Well, I can think of one way in which content is more important to me personally than graphics: accessibility options, particularly options that accommodate different handedness (in my case, being left-handed).

I mentioned Metroid Prime Remaster as an example of content vs graphics being treated as if it were a dichotomy. Well, Metroid Prime Remastered includes various control options: among others, there's dual stick, stick + gyro, and a "pointer (actually gyro since joy-cons don't have pointers)" setting that recreates the Wii-version controls. That's great for most people, and that would've been great for me as someone who began with Prime Trilogy (i.e. the Wii version) if not for one thing: from what I've gathered from people who've played the remaster, the "pointer" setting is locked to the right joy-con.

I played every Wii game that I ever bought with the Wii remote in my left hand and the nunchuck in my right; the Wii remote was designed so it could be held in either hand, and playing the games that way was better for me. For the Switch, both joy-cons have the exact same motion control hardware: an accelerometer and a gyro, so, if Nintendo ever bothered to implement remapping for the motion controls, the Switch would be even better for me than the Wii was. And yet, every single Switch port or remaster of a game that had Wii controls has mapped those Wii controls exclusively to the right joy-con with no remapping options to speak of (oh, and the Switch's system-wide remapping only remaps the buttons and sticks; not the motion controls). I'm serious; every single one:

1. Mario Galaxy (3D All-Stars)
2. Pikmin 3 Deluxe
3. Skyward Sword HD
4. Metroid Prime Remastered

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

[know_naim]

For me it's on a case-by-case basis. If we are talking 8-bit and 16-bit remasters: gimme content. I have played these games before, their pixel art is often ageless, so accessibility options and added stuff is what will mainly draw me to a re-release.  Early 3D games on the other hand? Yeah, update the graphics, please. 

 

[joevar]

Remake its important to have nicer graphic and content, if not then that would be just lazy re release or porting, not a remake. As for the content itself dont have to be all new content, but could be quality of life improvement, or just cut content that doesnt get the light of days due various reasons

 

As for general game, its easily content 100%. Indie game is where most of the fun is at now. Many triple-A game nowadays are just boring 3D shiny graphic powerhouse. A shiny hollows. Good graphic + good content is rarity nowadays, lots of room for it to flops hard. Or ended up half assed due to how big the budget and dev skill required to make it work

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Truthfully, I don't think treating "three games re-released for $20" is a very good benchmark for what new releases should be priced. The Metroid Prime Trilogy for Wii U was a budget re-release of the same title on the Wii, originally coming in at $50 in 2009. So, let's compare the $40 ($29 in 2009 dollars) pricetag of the Switch release, with the original $50 release. In which sense, I would say that the Switch release is a worse deal, but not dramatically so.

Anyway, this was an interesting question to pose. I said a graphical update matters more for remakes or re-releases, but at the game's core, content is king. My justification? A game with bad gameplay or lackluster content, even with great graphics, is not very likely to see a remake. Instead, the usual remade games are the ones where the core gameplay (and/or story) are already great, but the graphics have aged a bit, and hardware limitations may mean fewer people get to enjoy it nowadays. I'm certainly not opposed to added content in remakes or rereleases, but I do consider a remake that fails to modernize its graphics much odder than a remake that doesn't add any new gameplay content.

[vanguard333]

19 minutes ago, Shanty Pete&#x27;s 1st Mate said:

Truthfully, I don't think treating "three games re-released for $20" is a very good benchmark for what new releases should be priced. The Metroid Prime Trilogy for Wii U was a budget re-release of the same title on the Wii, originally coming in at $50 in 2009. So, let's compare the $40 ($29 in 2009 dollars) pricetag of the Switch release, with the original $50 release. In which sense, I would say that the Switch release is a worse deal, but not dramatically so.

I suppose, though again; the Trilogy is three games while the remaster is one game, and, with the Wii U eshop having closed two days ago, that means Prime 2 and 3 are no longer available to purchase. People have been speculating that Prime 2 and 3 will each individually get their own remasters, but that's speculation and, if that's the case, they will likely each be the same price, so the real price comparison would be to compare $120 in 2023 on the Switch to $50 in 2009 on the Wii: $120 dollars today is the equivalent of $85.58 in 2009.