How is it hypocritical to be interested in replaying a game 19 years later when it gets a graphical update?

As usual I have to spell everything out for you because you don't read between the lines or even the actual lines for the most part. It's hypocritical to claim the game was great and yet never have replayed it in all that time. If the game was really worth replaying, you would have replayed it before now. The new coat of paint from the graphical update, doesn't change the gameplay. If it is such a great game that it is worth replaying now, you wouldn't have waited for the remake especially since ScummVM has been available for years.

It was a great game then, it's a great game now.

The game was great when it was made, but once you've seen it, you've seen it. And, even if you haven't already played it, it's not a great game now even with the updated artwork because expectations of gameplay are much higher now for all but the most casual or inexperienced players.

There are quite a few changes scene to scene, with new close-ups that didn't exist before.

That's the best you can do? A few different camera positions?

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 20:04.

Going to such lengths to update the game isn't a minor task and it's clearly that a lot of love and effort has been put into it.

I don't disagree, but that proves my point that if you are going to put that much effort into a remake, you should add or change the substance of the game as well and not just the style so that those who played it before won't already know all the story, dialog, jokes, and puzzles.

Just because you dislike gaming doesn't mean everyone else does.

Clearly I don't dislike gaming or I wouldn't visit Blue's for gaming news. I just dislike games which are retreads with no new "game" to them like this one.

I'd love to see this sort of treatment for all of Lucasarts old adventure games, from Sam & Max to Full Throttle.

I'd rather see new games instead as those I have already played. There's no adventure in a remake like this one.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 20:08.

The problem is that none of the people involved with the original game would be making the new one.

Ron Gilbert is, and that's all you need. Checkout the promotional video at http://www.lucasarts.com/games/monkeyisland/ , and you will see the old faces responsible for this "remake." They could have written a new script for this game instead.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 19:35.

Yes, so very irresponsible of me to toss out or give away my floppy games...dickhead.

Yes, it is irresponsible if you actually gave a damn about the games. But, you don't really. You just want to act like you do so you can be one of the in crowd here hypocritically waxing nostalgic about these tired old adventure games with no real replayability which you didn't actually care enough about to replay before now.

Another FYI, now that I've had some time in the game. It has been reprogrammed

Not in any significant way that it changes the gameplay or story. It's so identical to the original game that the classic and "new" version can be seamlessly switched during play.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 19:22.

Whatever man, you are truly pathetic.

You are truely pathetic because you continuously demonstrate that you just don't understand what you read.

You start an argument yesterday over whether it's a "remake" or "re-release", which IS arguing semantics.

No, that argument was NOT an argument over semantics. It was an argument over the substance of the game (or more accurately lack thereof). What I wrote was that because the content of the game wasn't changed or expanded from the original, it wasn't much of a remake and was more of a re-release. But, my criticism of the game was NOT just the term "remake" used by some to describe it. It was the fact that unlike other remakes, it is not worthy of the asking price or the time to play it because it offered no new gameplay for those who had already played the original version.

Seeing as those posts have now been "REMOVED", I can only assume you Reported them to Blue to hide the proof of your pathetic contradictory arguments.

You can only assume that because you aren't smart enough to realize that the real reason Blue removed your post is because you childishly insulted me with profanity in it. My reply post to you was removed because I returned your favor. But, no, I didn't report it because I don't take your bullshit personally since I'd have to have respect for you to actually care if you insulted me. In any case I stand by what I wrote then and now, and there was no contradiction on my part. The game is a re-tread with no replayability, and it is not a real remake in comparison to other games and media because it offers nothing new of substance only style.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 20:08.

Yesterday you said this isn't a remake, and were quite argumentative about it. So which is it? Hypocrite.

There you go again not being able to read and understand context. Rather than continuously pick pointless arguments over semantics so you can have something with which to disagree, you should learn comprehend words in the context of the entire post or thread.

First I used the word "remake" because the poster to whom I replied (Kajetan) used it to describe the game, i.e. "adventure remake". So, given the context I used the word for consistency and clarity.

Second, what I wrote yesterday is that this game is not a good remake because unlike remakes of other media such as movies, television, and even other games such as the recent Riddick game, there is no expanded content or a new take on the story and dialog in this remake. It's just a literal recreation of the original with a new graphical facade. So, yes, the game is a remake in the literal sense, but it's not a real or good one in comparison to other remakes.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 18:41.

Overall, an adventure doesn't need a graphic overhaul. An adventure does age very well, because dialogue, puzzles and gags are important.

No, an adventure game doesn't age well for that exact reason because all of the dialog, puzzles, and gags are already known. I agree that the construction of an adventure game ages well and therefore they are relatively easy to create by today's game developement standards, but the actual games themselves don't age well at all because there is no surprise or "adventure" in a replay of the same material, and there is not enough "game" in them to make a replay challenging or different.

The only thing you need, are NEW adventures!

Which is exactly what is wrong with this remake if you played the original.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 12:20.

Holy shit, GT, you are a raging asshole....the worst kind of argumentative bullshit....fuck...fuck...you're just fucking with everyone here.

No, that post of yours is the real argumentative bullshit.

Why the fuck do you play games then?

For the thrill or revelation of a new challenge or experience which is why I won't be playing watching this retread game.

why do you give a flying fuck if people are enjoying this?

I don't care if people are enjoying it, but I do care if people are paying for it because it will encourage more of this same cash-in retread. For the money and effort LucasArts spent on recreating all of the game's artwork, music, and creating voiceovers, it could have created a new game instead. LucasArts should have made a Monkey Island game with a new story and dialog in the same style as this remake, and then bundled the original game with this one or released the original for free as promotion to sell the new one as other publishers have done. The new 3D Monkey Island episodic games from TellTale are not a substitute for the style and play of the original.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2009, 01:37.

Or I no longer have the game.

Which means you are either irresponsible (which doesn't surprise me), or you didn't care enough for the game to preserve your copy.

Just because someone doesn't play an old game via ScummVM doesn't mean they no longer like a game, or are no longer interested.

No, but it certainly does suggest that that they didn't care enough for the game to obtain a copy to replay it before now.

Doesn't matter if nothing has changed other than the artwork & remaster of the music.

It certainly does matter for this type of game which doesn't have real replayability to begin with. If the story, dialog, and/or gameplay hasn't changed or been expanded, then it's not much of a remake.

The "classic" version does not have the voice overs.

Given that you are too lazy to read or can't read very well, I can see why that would be an important feature to you.

Adding new features or content is not indicative of a "remake".

That's only true if you want to argue semantics. In reality adding additional content and/or features are indicative of a good remake especially one worth playing by those who have already played the previous iteration of the game.

My guess is your real problem here is that it was released on Steam, thus your rage follows.

And, as usual you would be wrong, and you don't know how to read either. The game was released on Direct2Drive and XBOXLive not just Steam, so the distribution platform is obviously not the reason for my criticism. But, you would already know that if you had actually read and understood my previous posts. As I mentioned below I am not criticizing the re-release of the game itself because people who have never played it before might be interested. I am justing pointing out that it is pointless to repurchase and replay the game by those who played it before because this "remade" version is just the same old game with a prettier facade. For those people LucasArts is simply cashing-in on their false nostalgia to get them to pony up the dough again for something they haven't actually cared enough about in fifteen or twenty years to replay before now.

This comment was edited on Jul 15, 2009, 23:13.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jul 16, 2009, 07:19.

GT please leave, and never return...

Looks like I butchered your sacred cow.

This comment was edited on Jul 15, 2009, 18:37.

You are right. It is like watching your favorite movie multiple times. Never done that?

I have never paid to do it, no. And, there is also point at which I won't watch a movie again no matter how good it was because the thrill is gone. The problem with these old adventure games is that there is simply not enough game to them to warrant replays especially paying to replay them. And, unlike a movie the visuals and presentation are simply too crude and static to be entertaining on their own when you already know the dialog and the story.

This comment was edited on Jul 15, 2009, 21:42.

Fond memories + nostalgia = BUY!

I don't see the appeal. This remake is the same damn game right down to the scenes and dialog. If you played it before, why would you want to play it again? There's no replayability in an old-style adventure game like this because it's all scripted with no real variation. It would be like watching the same television episode or movie over and over again. Once you've heard the jokes and seen the story unfold, you've seen all that the game offers. It's basically a point-and-click cartoon, and once you've gone through it, that's all there is. While those who have never played this game before might be interested in it out of curiosity to see the story, I don't see why anyone who played it before would do so again and certainly not pay to do so.

Though I guess being on GOG assures that it will run on modern PC's and OS's.

It assures nothing as GOG has done nothing extra to the game. Internet multiplayer doesn't even work because WON.NET is gone, and GOG isn't providing any multiplayer functionality or servers. All this is is another lazy cash-in on an old game that should be free especially since it is no different from its original release.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 2009, 21:14.

Jerykk's still right that the number of games released for free is a drop in the bucket compared to the number that aren't.

That wasn't his original point nor is it what I disputed. His point was that developers and publishers won't release their old games for free because they have no incentive to do so. I proved that they will by citing some that had been, and these two games are the latest examples.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 2009, 14:40.

As I was randomly wandering through the Internet today, I came across this. I don't know exactly what it is, but I think it might be relevant to the discussion.

By the way, the preview clip of that Penn & Teller episode is here.

It's also nice to see F.E.A.R. well represented in the show.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 2009, 12:35.

In this particular case you should have no fears though.

I do though because some of my peripherals such as a force-feedback joystick, two scanners, and one of my printers have no Vista drivers either. Yes, I could spend money to replace these peripherals but it seems unnecessary given their good physical condition and the replacements would be more cheaply constructed than what I have and not be as large or full-featured unless I am willing to spend a lot more money for premium models.

Except it IS as rare as I think.

No, it isn't. You originally argued that no games would be released for free because there was no incentive to do so. I listed some examples of games that had been and some reasons why. And now you and I both know that you didn't think that Mechwarrior 4 and Daggerfall would be released for free, and yet here they are. So, no it isn't as rare as you think because you didn't think these would be released for free at all.

when was the last time a developer or publisher released an old game for free?

Liberated Games lists several during the past year including another one for today, Enemy Nations. But, Liberated Games' list doesn't include every free game such as those with embedded advertising.

Thus far, the number of games never released for free far outnumbers the number of games released for free.

No shit, but that doesn't negate the fact that some games are released for free, and there will be more in the future although as I complained in the previously cited thread, places like Steam and GOG which distribute old games give developers and publishers much less incentive to do so if they can find suckers who will pay for them.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 2009, 02:51.

I have no idea why the switched

That's because the Gametap of today is not the same service as Gametap prior to its buyout by Metaboli. Today Gametap is just the Metaboli game service relabeled for the U.S. market. That's why the former Gametap client software is no more.

Played the hell outta MW4 when I got my first pent 100.

No, you didn't. Mechwarrior 4 came out in late 2000 - early 2001 (depending on locale). A pentium 100 certainly wouldn't run it. You are thinking of Mechwarrior 2.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 2009, 01:13.