Remakes, Remasters, and the ethics of preservation

I can't help but feel that more and more developers are unaware of what it means to remaster vs remake. More and more are simply being careless and negligent.

A remake is when you basically create something new with the original as a base. Anything goes. You can change whatever you want.

A remaster is when you update the original to be in line with modern standards, while preserving it as closely as possible, or in some cases restoring the original creative intent.

Easy right?

And yet here I am, playing the Sam & Max save the World "remaster", only to find that jokes have been cut, and a voice actor has been recast. The voice actor was recast to match the race of the character, and the jokes were cut because they were "uncomfortable in a game in 2020".

But see, you are not presenting a game made in 2020. You are presenting a game made in 2006. We do not change or censor films because they have problematic elements in this time, so why is this acceptable for a game? You need to preserve art, warts and all, so you can learn from the past. Pretending they were something they weren't is not only dishonest, but contrary to progress. It can be a useful tool to start a discussion about historical context.

When you remaster a game, it's your duty to preserve everything as closely as possible. This means no cutting or content changes. Anything else is inexcusable. If this makes you uncomfortable, then do a remake.

I have been saying for a long time that 343's "Remaster" of Halo was hugely damaging. This stuff matters. I see so little care with so many remasters these days. But at the same time, I see so many wonderful remakes. FF7 Remake, Doom 2016, Resident Evil Remake, etc. I wish developers would recognize that if they aren't going to preserve with a remaster, then they should go wild with a remake. 343 could have made their Twin Snakes version of Halo if they wanted to mess with the graphics, audio, and presentation so much. These halfsies remasters with graphical overhauls but identical or similar mechanics and design are kind of bullshit.

I wish the folks making these would take it seriously. You would never do any of that stuff to say, a 4K remaster of a classic film. You scan it in 4K or 8K, clean up the dust and scratches on the negative, and make a new digital master. You don't fucking start cutting content or start redoing all the stop motion with CGI. You leave it how it was, but present it as the best version of itself for modern audiences.

Games are art too. So start remastering them like they are.

locked

1602 views

One could argue that 343 is currently working on their "remake" of Halo and we all see how well that's going.

As for what should be kept or omitted, I think it just has to do with the context in which it is used. IMO, Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest movies out there. But what makes it so funny, is the blatant racism. But...that's exactly the point of that movie. If those same jokes were made in 98% of movies...oof. You can't remake that movie to today's standards because it would be ruined.

But if it were a movie where there was a discretion made, that wasn't integral to the story and was more of a "times were different then" then that could be argued for a change. I also concede that many many many times, this notion goes way overboard.

locked

1571 views

But if it were a movie where there was a discretion made, that wasn't integral to the story and was more of a "times were different then" then that could be argued for a change. I also concede that many many many times, this notion goes way overboard.

I don't think that is intellectually or culturally honest though.

If you as a creator make a work that is "problematic", I feel like you should need to stand by it and answer for that. You could learn from it and not do the problematic thing moving forward, but to pretend like it didn't exist or your original intent was something different is simply not right. Art is a really good lens into the minds of the people and culture that created it, and so it's very valuable in being able to understand historical context. Where we've been. Where we are going. Preserving it is very important for the benefit of everyone.

locked

1535 views

But if it were a movie where there was a discretion made, that wasn't integral to the story and was more of a "times were different then" then that could be argued for a change. I also concede that many many many times, this notion goes way overboard.

I don't think that is intellectually or culturally honest though.

If you as a creator make a work that is "problematic", I feel like you should need to stand by it and answer for that. You could learn from it and not do the problematic thing moving forward, but to pretend like it didn't exist or your original intent was something different is simply not right. Art is a really good lens into the minds of the people and culture that created it, and so it's very valuable in being able to understand historical context. Where we've been. Where we are going. Preserving it is very important for the benefit of everyone.

If it's a conversation of "art" then everything is allowed and nothing is worth discussing. But your post title was to discuss the ethics. IMO, it's ok to keep the original in tact as it is, because it is how it was created. But it's also ok to make a modern version to reflect new context.

locked

1525 views

You act like there is no such thing as ethics in art. Everything does not go I assure you.

locked

1519 views

You act like there is no such thing as ethics in art. Everything does not go I assure you.

No no sir. I shant allow this, Mr. Miller. I made a good point against your argument and now you are nitpicking my comment out of context to deflect my stance.

There's ethics in everything. What constitutes "art" is subjective, therefore, anything goes. What defines ones ethics as "good" may also be subjective. [EDIT: Just to clarify this statement, as inspired by cheaps below response. You can't get away with someone horrible by calling it art...but it can still be labeled art, as horrible as it may be.]

From your initial post, you state:
"And yet here I am, playing the Sam & Max save the World "remaster", only to find that jokes have been cut, and a voice actor has been recast. The voice actor was recast to match the race of the character, and the jokes were cut because they were "uncomfortable in a game in 2020"."

I interpret that as you not liking them changing the game because it negatively changes the original work. Subjectively, some might say it positively changes the original work. If the conversation is about ethics, then where do your* ethics lie? In this specific example, do they lie with a Sam & Max video game making a potentially inappropriate joke that could alienate the user that paid money to play it OR recognizing an err from the past and rectifying it because the opportunity arose to do so. Ethically, I think most would choose the latter. Speaking artistically, if the original still exists in its unaltered form, then it's a win-win.

[*generic you, not you specifically]

I think you are forgetting a third option, Restore. What you are discussing as a Remaster, I think in spirit you mean restoration.

From Dictionary.com (most context appropriate definitions provided)

Restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition,
Remaster: to make a new master tape or record from an old master tape, usually to improve the fidelity of an old recording.
Remake: a more recent version of an older [game].

SSOOOOO....

If by definition of your argument, when Sam & Max release a "remastered" version, any changes they make to improve the game falls into the category of a Remastered game and all ethics are in tact.

locked

1527 views

Cody said:

If you as a creator make a work that is "problematic", I feel like you should need to stand by it and answer for that.

They recasting an actor and changing jokes IS standing by it and answering for it, especially when they literally said why they were making said changes. It’s them saying “this wasn’t okay, and we’re making sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Problematic shit doesn’t get a pass because it’s in “art.”

locked

1532 views

Problematic shit doesn’t get a pass because it’s in “art.”

Yep. I ran out of time to edit my post but just wanted to clarify a comment.

You can't get away with something horrible by calling it art...but it can still be art, as horrible as it may be.

...is what I meant

locked

1545 views

Cody said:

If you as a creator make a work that is "problematic", I feel like you should need to stand by it and answer for that.

They recasting an actor and changing jokes IS standing by it and answering for it, especially when they literally said why they were making said changes. It’s them saying “this wasn’t okay, and we’re making sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Problematic shit doesn’t get a pass because it’s in “art.”

I am not arguing to give it a pass. I am saying preservation is the ultimate goal of a remaster (otherwise do a remake). And we don’t not preserve art because it’s problematic. And yes, the original still exists blah blah but often the Remaster becomes the new version given it is modern and easier to access.

locked

1535 views

I am not arguing to give it a pass. I am saying preservation is the ultimate goal of a remaster (otherwise do a remake). And we don’t not preserve art because it’s problematic. And yes, the original still exists blah blah but often the Remaster becomes the new version given it is modern and easier to access.

That’s still a point that’s irrelevant. That’s not their fault or responsibility.

You’re getting hung up on the fact that they called it a remaster. The point was probably to put out a game they made for more people to enjoy, while also making changes that they think are improvements, and maybe make a little money while doing so. The point wasn’t to make a Cody-certified ethical remaster.

That the final product doesn’t align with your desires says absolutely nothing about the intention of quality of the product they released.

locked

1524 views

Cody said:

If you as a creator make a work that is "problematic", I feel like you should need to stand by it and answer for that.

They recasting an actor and changing jokes IS standing by it and answering for it, especially when they literally said why they were making said changes. It’s them saying “this wasn’t okay, and we’re making sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Problematic shit doesn’t get a pass because it’s in “art.”

I am not arguing to give it a pass. I am saying preservation is the ultimate goal of a remaster (otherwise do a remake). And we don’t not preserve art because it’s problematic. And yes, the original still exists blah blah but often the Remaster becomes the new version given it is modern and easier to access.

The original can be preserved in exactly the same way whether there is a remaster or not. If preservation is your goal, remasters and remakes do not impact that whatsoever.

locked

1527 views

I'd say that the best art is nearly always by definition problematic. And that's the not the dictionary.com definition, who change their definitions by the day to serve whatever current talking point needs serving.

locked

1535 views

I'd say that the best art is nearly always by definition problematic. And that's the not the dictionary.com definition, who change their definitions by the day to serve whatever current talking point needs serving.

Whoa now hey now whoa now hey now.

Let's not start making broad statements here. I mean, breaking the ManKitten character, who is all about good times, but the BC behind the mask is a professional artist. I always enjoy these types of conversations because I find it interesting how everyone interprets art differently. I'm not endorsing censorship and don't even want to be considered in the conversation as such. Once a year, I speak to a class of high school entrepreneurs about The Creative Process in Business and I always tell them, "if you aren't offending someone, you aren't trying hard enough to be creative." I of course explain that thought process and put it all in context.

My point being, my issue was Cody claiming a lack of ethics by the developers for editing their content. I don't consider that censorship.

locked

1522 views

I'd say that the best art is nearly always by definition problematic. And that's the not the dictionary.com definition, who change their definitions by the day to serve whatever current talking point needs serving.

Whoa now hey now whoa now hey now.

Let's not start making broad statements here. I mean, breaking the ManKitten character, who is all about good times, but the BC behind the mask is a professional artist. I always enjoy these types of conversations because I find it interesting how everyone interprets art differently. I'm not endorsing censorship and don't even want to be considered in the conversation as such. Once a year, I speak to a class of high school entrepreneurs about The Creative Process in Business and I always tell them, "if you aren't offending someone, you aren't trying hard enough to be creative." I of course explain that thought process and put it all in context.

Saul Goodman.

My point being, my issue was Cody claiming a lack of ethics by the developers for editing their content. I don't consider that censorship.

As I follow the debate, I'm on his side because of the assumption that a remaster is by some strong measure regarded as a means to preserve history. I definitely take his side regarding George Lucas. To me that's one of those issues that is almost beyond debate.

locked

1522 views

The creators of something voluntarily changing some jokes that are sort of shitty in hindsight only meets the most ridiculous definition of censorship, one which renders the real definition of the word all but meaningless. Let’s be real here.

locked

1522 views

The creators of something voluntarily changing some jokes that are sort of shitty in hindsight only meets the most ridiculous definition of censorship, one which renders the real definition of the word all but meaningless. Let’s be real here.

I know nothing about the game or jokes in question, but I suspect Cody would say that in some sense they're censoring gaming history. It was your last statement that stopped me, honestly. I've already stated my ideas about how I see "problematic" and "art" as existing hand in hand, and I stand by that. Love ya, cheap, and I'm not picking on you, but 30 years ago free speech advocates your age avidly defended as "art" the works of Robert Mapplethorpe against old squares who saw it as "shitty." My subject line was informed by the irony of how the worm has turned, and probably came across as more flippant than I intended.

locked

1528 views

Sure, but this isn’t really all that comparable. This isn’t “rock and roll is evil!” As far as I understand, this wasn’t even in reaction to any outside criticism of those jokes. This was just the creators want to put out a new version of an old game and recognizing that they think some of the writing was in poor taste so they changed it.

I think calling it censorship or unethical is patently ridiculous

Edit: And I did look up the changed jokes. I’ll admit, I don’t understand most of the changes, but one was a sex change joke that wasn’t funny the first time, but does make light of that situation in general and pokes fun at it for no benefit at all.

locked

1530 views

- No text -

locked

1508 views

In this case you’re probably right. I can imagine that most developers involved in this remaster were on board with the changes. It is something to think about, however: if someone disagreed with the choices, would their opinion be welcomed?

When we punish rather than engage with people with whom we disagree, and people then self-censor out of fear, it’s not a whole different bag.

locked

1555 views

When we punish rather than engage with people with whom we disagree, and people then self-censor out of fear, it’s not a whole different bag.

I think it entirely depends on the disagreement. In a large amount of cases, I'm on board with you there.

locked

1531 views

Even if it changes the work positively (I did not weigh in on this), it’s still pretty thorny.

locked

1544 views

Eh, who cares? It’s never been about preservation. The original games didn’t go anywhere.

The original developers actually did this, and they specifically didn’t change anything without talking to the person who originally did the work. I’m not sure exactly how deep that goes. But the point is this isn’t 343 coming in and redesigning things in a beloved game they didn’t create. This is the people that made the original deciding how they want to present their own work in 2020.

We can argue the semantics about naming conventions, I guess, if you want.

locked

1525 views

Eh, who cares? It’s never been about preservation. The original games didn’t go anywhere.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are impractical to find. Sometimes they don't run on modern hardware. And as Noodle put it, sometimes the remasters are people's first experience with the the game.

locked

1536 views

Eh, who cares? It’s never been about preservation. The original games didn’t go anywhere.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are impractical to find. Sometimes they don't run on modern hardware.

So? It’s not any developer’s responsibility to ensure their software works on every machine moving forward. That’s ridiculous.

And as Noodle put it, sometimes the remasters are people's first experience with the the game.

Again, so? Who are you to decide the old version is the one they should experience? In this case the actual people who made the original game have decided this version is the one they wanted to put out there. You’re going to tell them they’re wrong?

locked

1517 views

Eh, who cares? It’s never been about preservation. The original games didn’t go anywhere.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are impractical to find. Sometimes they don't run on modern hardware.

So? It’s not any developer’s responsibility to ensure their software works on every machine moving forward. That’s ridiculous.

Then why are they remastering? They have taken on that responsibility.

And as Noodle put it, sometimes the remasters are people's first experience with the the game.

Again, so? Who are you to decide the old version is the one they should experience? In this case the actual people who made the original game have decided this version is the one they wanted to put out there. You’re going to tell them they’re wrong?

Yes, because creators have infallible judgment when it comes to updating their old works.

If you want to make changes… DO A REMAKE. Don't essentially erase art history.

locked

1530 views

Yes, because creators have infallible judgment when it comes to updating their old works.

If you want to make changes… DO A REMAKE. Don't essentially erase art history.

I can't stand any of the Star Wars updates, but I don't think it was unethical for George Lucas to do them. It was just dumb.

locked

1537 views

Yes, because creators have infallible judgment when it comes to updating their old works.

If you want to make changes… DO A REMAKE. Don't essentially erase art history.

I can't stand any of the Star Wars updates, but I don't think it was unethical for George Lucas to do them. It was just dumb.

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

locked

1540 views

Okay, but that’s not the case here! The original game still exists!

locked

1519 views

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

locked

1519 views

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

Because it destroyed the original, which is a cornerstone of cinema and culture.

locked

1520 views

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

Because it destroyed the original, which is a cornerstone of cinema and culture.

Do you no longer own or have a right to your art after it is released?

locked

1528 views

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

Because it destroyed the original, which is a cornerstone of cinema and culture.

Do you no longer own or have a right to your art after it is released?

To some extent no, because it becomes part of the larger cultural collective. You obviously have certain legal and moral rights, but you can't go into someone's home and take back the book you wrote just because you want to change it.

There's leeway for things like director's cuts and stuff, so long as it supplements rather than replaces the original, and there was some kind of reason the original didn't match your initial intent (publisher/studio interference, censorship, etc).

In fact if they'd have branded it like a "Director's Cut" I probably would not be having this conversation.

locked

1551 views

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

Because it destroyed the original, which is a cornerstone of cinema and culture.

Do you no longer own or have a right to your art after it is released?

To some extent no, because it becomes part of the larger cultural collective. You obviously have certain legal and moral rights, but you can't go into someone's home and take back the book you wrote just because you want to change it.

Agreed. I also believe a creator has a right to change whatever they like in the copies they sell afterward.

There's leeway for things like director's cuts and stuff, so long as it supplements rather than replaces the original, and there was some kind of reason the original didn't match your initial intent (publisher/studio interference, censorship, etc).

In fact if they'd have branded it like a "Director's Cut" I probably would not be having this conversation.

Really this comes down to your personal definition of remaster, which is sort of pedantic? Remasters have just as much capability to supplant an original work as remakes. I've never played FF7 and my only experience with it will be the remake, and that's my choice.

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

locked

1548 views

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

The original version of Destiny has been destroyed. Digital is not necessarily exempt.

locked

1538 views

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

The original version of Destiny has been destroyed. Digital is not necessarily exempt.

Live games are, by definition, unpreservable. Preservation, as much as we as a society may wish it, isn't something we have a right to. We have a right to preserve the copies of something that we own, but if something is created that is guaranteed to degrade over time, preservation is impossible from the outset; I don't think any law will or should be enacted to force creatives to only create preservable works, either.

locked

1550 views

Live games are, by definition, unpreservable.

Not at all.

Like yes, you are not going to get the authentic experience of playing Megaman on a CRT, but look at what the Megaman Legacy Colelction did. They took each game, and literally ported it from NES assembly to C. Now, you can take that C code and run Megaman anywhere. You can always update the code for modern systems in as good an approximation as possible (the game even has the option to slow down and flicker as it would on a NES, because the hardware limitations are known and can be simulated in the C code).

There are also emulators which will run on any modern hardware. You have things like FPGA consoles that could play old games.

Any of these (assuming the emulator runs well) are as close as you can get to the original and preserve it moving forward.

locked

1559 views

By Live game, I mean a Service-based game, such as Destiny or World of Warcraft (which has also fundamentally changed several times throughout its life).

locked

1548 views

with just about every point. Never played that particular game, but if the jokes make it unpalatable or unmarketable in 2020, it's a question as to why it's being given the "remaster" treatment.

I'm hoping that emulators will eventually take care of your greater concern--the preservation of game history.

There's a larger debate to be had about problematic art. We have this self-serving notion that our present state of "enlightenment" is part of some straight-line progression. Call it the arrogance of the present moment. I have little doubt that whomever looks back at 2020 in 100 years will think that the majority of us living now were batshit crazy about a large number of things, and if you think your current certainties won't be judged that way, you're even more likely than average to be wrong--that's why I'm calling it arrogance. Art does not serve easy narratives. At its best, it reflects the reality of a time in a way that side-steps whatever historical revisionism has been fashioned to flatter those now walking on the dust of those who came before.

locked

1550 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

locked

1498 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

On the third hand, saying the shitty joke should stay in isn't the same thing as debating whether the joke is shitty. The presence of a shitty joke may be more instructive about and reflective of its time than any high-minded abstractions about the bad old days. Include, if they must, a disclaimer that everyone is forced to watch like they now do with Blazing Saddles, if they think their audience requires it.

I'm not saying that anyone who dislikes the shitty jokes (I would guess I'm in that camp) or is offended by them is wrong. I am saying that sanitizing history to preserve a state of non-offense is a bad trade--one that infantilizes us.

locked

1491 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

On the third hand, saying the shitty joke should stay in isn't the same thing as debating whether the joke is shitty. The presence of a shitty joke may be more instructive about and reflective of its time than any high-minded abstractions about the bad old days. Include, if they must, a disclaimer that everyone is forced to watch like they now do with Blazing Saddles, if they think their audience requires it.

I'm not saying that anyone who dislikes the shitty jokes (I would guess I'm in that camp) or is offended by them is wrong. I am saying that sanitizing history to preserve a state of non-offense is a bad trade--one that infantilizes us.

I think that’s a silly way to think, honestly. If changing a couple of jokes to reissue a game can let a modern audience enjoy that game mostly intact without actually making people feel bad, we lose absolutely nothing by doing so. This isn’t sanitizing or erasing history—it’s the opposite. It’s recognizing past mistakes, owning them, and making sure not to make them again.

locked

1487 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

On the third hand, saying the shitty joke should stay in isn't the same thing as debating whether the joke is shitty. The presence of a shitty joke may be more instructive about and reflective of its time than any high-minded abstractions about the bad old days. Include, if they must, a disclaimer that everyone is forced to watch like they now do with Blazing Saddles, if they think their audience requires it.

I'm not saying that anyone who dislikes the shitty jokes (I would guess I'm in that camp) or is offended by them is wrong. I am saying that sanitizing history to preserve a state of non-offense is a bad trade--one that infantilizes us.

I think that’s a silly way to think, honestly. If changing a couple of jokes to reissue a game can let a modern audience enjoy that game mostly intact without actually making people feel bad, we lose absolutely nothing by doing so. This isn’t sanitizing or erasing history—it’s the opposite. It’s recognizing past mistakes, owning them, and making sure not to make them again.

There are all kinds of ways of owning a mistake. One way, for example, is to leave it, and acknowledge it. I don't think that I or anyone else has a right to not to be offended. Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

locked

1490 views

Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Ah shit, that person just wants people to quit making shitty jokes at their expense. What a fucking baby!

The fact that you would consider someone to be child because they dare ask for the bare minimum of respect is honestly pretty disappointing.

locked

1495 views

Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Ah shit, that person just wants people to quit making shitty jokes at their expense. What a fucking baby!

The fact that you would consider someone to be child because they dare ask for the bare minimum of respect is honestly pretty disappointing.

I think at this point you are both deviating from the issue. There are two sides here that can exist, and it seems modern society is forgetting that.

Side 1: Presents a piece that is offensive or not.
Side 2: Can be offended or not.

Our current knowledge is based on our past experiences. We can't change the past but we can change the future. Don't forget the past...use it to mold the future. In the spirit of this topic, both the original game and the "remastered" game can exist. You can choose which version you prefer. You are not entitled to both. It's your choice to partake in one, the other, neither or both. What you can't do, is call out the ethics of someone for their choice. Especially if it's the entity that created the original piece. Now, every situation is different so you can't make a blanket statement that covers it all. But in an effort to simplify a topic that is inherently vague...how you interpret said piece of [art] is up to you. There is no social contract that everyone else will agree with you.

[Edit: I guess you CAN call out the ethics...hence this thread....but that falls under free speech, which I also support. Again, ethics can be subjective.]

locked

1494 views

Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Ah shit, that person just wants people to quit making shitty jokes at their expense. What a fucking baby!

The fact that you would consider someone to be child because they dare ask for the bare minimum of respect is honestly pretty disappointing.

I think at this point you are both deviating from the issue. There are two sides here that can exist, and it seems modern society is forgetting that.

Side 1: Presents a piece that is offensive or not.
Side 2: Can be offended or not.

Our current knowledge is based on our past experiences. We can't change the past but we can change the future. Don't forget the past...use it to mold the future. In the spirit of this topic, both the original game and the "remastered" game can exist. You can choose which version you prefer. You are not entitled to both. It's your choice to partake in one, the other, neither or both. What you can't do, is call out the ethics of someone for their choice. Especially if it's the entity that created the original piece.

I'm employ my inner Cody-whisperer one more time. I don't think Cody is calling out the ethics of creators or consumers who may prefer the newer, changed version. I think his concern over ethics is more how this trend essentially makes choosing (or preserving) the historically accurate version increasingly difficult.

Now, every situation is different so you can't make a blanket statement that covers it all. But in an effort to simplify a topic that is inherently vague...how you interpret said piece of [art] is up to you. There is no social contract that everyone else will agree with you.

Agree.

[Edit: I guess you CAN call out the ethics...hence this thread....but that falls under free speech, which I also support. Again, ethics can be subjective.]

locked

1507 views

Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Ah shit, that person just wants people to quit making shitty jokes at their expense. What a fucking baby!

The fact that you would consider someone to be child because they dare ask for the bare minimum of respect is honestly pretty disappointing.

I try to respect people by giving them the benefit of a doubt. I assume they can understand context and have the resilience to hear or see things (especially words and creative works) that they find offensive without being damaged. If they don't have that capacity, protecting them from offense isn't going to help them get it. And if they don't have that capacity, they are not going to have an easy life.

And frankly, it's a childish perspective to assume that my judgment about whether I'm personally respected is the litmus test to which everything in the world must conform.

locked

1491 views

And frankly, it's a childish perspective to assume that my judgment about whether I'm personally respected is the litmus test to which everything in the world must conform.

It’s the litmus test that determines whether the people I’m interacting with are assholes, which becomes more important the older I get.

locked

1490 views

And frankly, it's a childish perspective to assume that my judgment about whether I'm personally respected is the litmus test to which everything in the world must conform.

It’s the litmus test that determines whether the people I’m interacting with are assholes, which becomes more important the older I get.

My judgment as to whether I’m being disrespected is not infallible, nor can I be sure that the person interacting with me is an asshole and that is the only explanation for their behavior. My lack of certainty regarding how closely my perceptions of others align with reality becomes more important to me the older I get.

locked

1488 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

On the third hand, saying the shitty joke should stay in isn't the same thing as debating whether the joke is shitty. The presence of a shitty joke may be more instructive about and reflective of its time than any high-minded abstractions about the bad old days. Include, if they must, a disclaimer that everyone is forced to watch like they now do with Blazing Saddles, if they think their audience requires it.

I'm not saying that anyone who dislikes the shitty jokes (I would guess I'm in that camp) or is offended by them is wrong. I am saying that sanitizing history to preserve a state of non-offense is a bad trade--one that infantilizes us.

I think that’s a silly way to think, honestly. If changing a couple of jokes to reissue a game can let a modern audience enjoy that game mostly intact without actually making people feel bad, we lose absolutely nothing by doing so. This isn’t sanitizing or erasing history—it’s the opposite. It’s recognizing past mistakes, owning them, and making sure not to make them again.

There are all kinds of ways of owning a mistake. One way, for example, is to leave it, and acknowledge it. I don't think that I or anyone else has a right to not to be offended. Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Is a bit out there.

I see it similar to getting punched in the face. I've certainly been punched in the face, and in most cases didn't really care, sometimes I did; I think it'd be pretty... I don't know, bad, if someone called me a child because I didn't like getting punched in the face.

locked

1504 views

On the other hand, maybe shitty jokes are just shitty jokes and we don’t have to accept “but it’s art!” as a defense.

On the third hand, saying the shitty joke should stay in isn't the same thing as debating whether the joke is shitty. The presence of a shitty joke may be more instructive about and reflective of its time than any high-minded abstractions about the bad old days. Include, if they must, a disclaimer that everyone is forced to watch like they now do with Blazing Saddles, if they think their audience requires it.

I'm not saying that anyone who dislikes the shitty jokes (I would guess I'm in that camp) or is offended by them is wrong. I am saying that sanitizing history to preserve a state of non-offense is a bad trade--one that infantilizes us.

I think that’s a silly way to think, honestly. If changing a couple of jokes to reissue a game can let a modern audience enjoy that game mostly intact without actually making people feel bad, we lose absolutely nothing by doing so. This isn’t sanitizing or erasing history—it’s the opposite. It’s recognizing past mistakes, owning them, and making sure not to make them again.

There are all kinds of ways of owning a mistake. One way, for example, is to leave it, and acknowledge it. I don't think that I or anyone else has a right to not to be offended. Being offended is not as bad as being thought of as a child who can't handle being offended.

Is a bit out there.

I see it similar to getting punched in the face. I've certainly been punched in the face, and in most cases didn't really care, sometimes I did; I think it'd be pretty... I don't know, bad, if someone called me a child because I didn't like getting punched in the face.

I am not calling someone who is offended a child. I would say that having the expectation that whatever offends me must be removed is unrealistic and childish. Moreover, what I’m saying specifically above is that coddling people as if they’re children needing our protection is one of the most disrespectful, damaging, condescending, and offensive behaviors we can engage in—if we’re talking about healthy adults (our current overprotectiveness of children could be its own discussion).

I don’t know if I want to touch your punching analogy. It seems to be related to a popular idea that words are the equivalent to physical violence, which is dangerous BS because it stifles debate and the exchange of ideas and encourages physical violence in “self-defense.”

locked

1515 views

I am not calling someone who is offended a child. I would say that having the expectation that whatever offends me must be removed is unrealistic and childish. Moreover, what I’m saying specifically above is that coddling people as if they’re children needing our protection is one of the most disrespectful, damaging, condescending, and offensive behaviors we can engage in—if we’re talking about healthy adults (our current overprotectiveness of children could be its own discussion).

Nobody asked them to take these jokes out - they DECIDED to do it because they no longer felt they were appropriate.

Nobody demanded that the jokes must be removed because they were offensive. The creators looked at the jokes, said "these didn't age well", and removed them.

I'm not an artist - but man, if the whole world were like you and Cody, even if I were talented, I wouldn't create anything. To make something I don't like, but be told "you can't change it because you're erasing history" would simply keep me out of the game in the first place.

We're not talking about book burning here. We're talking about a game developer choosing to correct a youthful indiscretion. And the original IS still available, even if it's harder to access. (And even if it weren't, information about the change itself - including the deleted content - is freely available, as evidenced by the fact that people in this very thread, who never played the game, were able to find it.)

I know we've moved away from Cody's original point; I'm really just responding to your argument that the developers are doing harm to society by sanitizing their work.

When Terry Pratchett died, his assistant fulfilled his final wish - a hard drive containing 10 unfinished novels, the only copy of these works, was placed in a road and run over by a steamroller. (There are pictures.) It's his work, and I 100% support his desire that it be destroyed (as much as I lament the loss).

I guess Cody wasn't really arguing they don't have the right to make the changes they made - he was mostly arguing about the use of the word 'remaster', which to me seems silly but maybe is a real thing to worry about, if you have the time. What you're arguing makes me more unhappy. (I mean, you're not really arguing about the original story either - but you seem to be suggesting that people don't have the right to be shielded from offense, to the point where art should be allowed to exist, once it's created, regardless of the wishes of anyone. Which, of course, includes the creator.)

locked

1511 views

I am not calling someone who is offended a child. I would say that having the expectation that whatever offends me must be removed is unrealistic and childish. Moreover, what I’m saying specifically above is that coddling people as if they’re children needing our protection is one of the most disrespectful, damaging, condescending, and offensive behaviors we can engage in—if we’re talking about healthy adults (our current overprotectiveness of children could be its own discussion).

Nobody asked them to take these jokes out - they DECIDED to do it because they no longer felt they were appropriate.

Nobody demanded that the jokes must be removed because they were offensive. The creators looked at the jokes, said "these didn't age well", and removed them.

I'm not an artist - but man, if the whole world were like you and Cody, even if I were talented, I wouldn't create anything. To make something I don't like, but be told "you can't change it because you're erasing history" would simply keep me out of the game in the first place.

We're not talking about book burning here. We're talking about a game developer choosing to correct a youthful indiscretion. And the original IS still available, even if it's harder to access. (And even if it weren't, information about the change itself - including the deleted content - is freely available, as evidenced by the fact that people in this very thread, who never played the game, were able to find it.)

I know we've moved away from Cody's original point; I'm really just responding to your argument that the developers are doing harm to society by sanitizing their work.

When Terry Pratchett died, his assistant fulfilled his final wish - a hard drive containing 10 unfinished novels, the only copy of these works, was placed in a road and run over by a steamroller. (There are pictures.) It's his work, and I 100% support his desire that it be destroyed (as much as I lament the loss).

I guess Cody wasn't really arguing they don't have the right to make the changes they made - he was mostly arguing about the use of the word 'remaster', which to me seems silly but maybe is a real thing to worry about, if you have the time. What you're arguing makes me more unhappy. (I mean, you're not really arguing about the original story either - but you seem to be suggesting that people don't have the right to be shielded from offense, to the point where art should be allowed to exist, once it's created, regardless of the wishes of anyone. Which, of course, includes the creator.)

Much depends on the impact of the art in question and its role as an historical artifact. I agree with Cody in principle, but I don’t care as much as he does about preserving video games—not this one in particular anyway. If Terry Pratchett wants to destroy works that haven’t seen the light of day, that’s his business. When George Luxus decides that the 1977 version of Star Wars shouldn’t exist, that’s a whole different bag.

locked

1513 views

Much depends on the impact of the art in question and its role as an historical artifact. I agree with Cody in principle, but I don’t care as much as he does about preserving video games—not this one in particular anyway. If Terry Pratchett wants to destroy works that haven’t seen the light of day, that’s his business. When George Luxus decides that the 1977 version of Star Wars shouldn’t exist, that’s a whole different bag.

I'll reiterate my "good thing I'm not creative" standpoint. I'm horrified by what Lucas decided to do with Star Wars, but at the end of the day, it was his. Which means (imo, of course) his to destroy. Monet did it, Georgia O'Keefe did it, Francis Bacon did it.

It's a tragedy... but it's not my place to say it shouldn't be done. (That isn't to say I don't wish it weren't done.)

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

I don't believe that a piece of art can transcend its creator (in the sense that the creator loses rights towards it).

locked

1501 views

I'll reiterate my "good thing I'm not creative" standpoint. I'm horrified by what Lucas decided to do with Star Wars, but at the end of the day, it was his. Which means (imo, of course) his to destroy. Monet did it, Georgia O'Keefe did it, Francis Bacon did it.

It's a tragedy... but it's not my place to say it shouldn't be done. (That isn't to say I don't wish it weren't done.)

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

I don't believe that a piece of art can transcend its creator (in the sense that the creator loses rights towards it).

This is where I was going with my offshoot of this thread with Cody before I had to get back to work. I think I agree with Claude at the moment, but was interested in reading an argument (rather than just repeated statements) to the contrary.

I also am of the opinion that it is a sort of hubris to think that we can dictate to future historians what was important to us. Star Wars has a been around for 40 years - in another 40 years who knows how its significance (let alone the minutiae of the details of the movies themselves) will have waxed or waned.

locked

1475 views

I also am of the opinion that it is a sort of hubris to think that we can dictate to future historians what was important to us. Star Wars has a been around for 40 years - in another 40 years who knows how its significance (let alone the minutiae of the details of the movies themselves) will have waxed or waned.

Birth of A Nation is still studied and analyzed by historians and filmmakers to this day. It came out in 1915. That is just one example.

locked

1478 views

I also am of the opinion that it is a sort of hubris to think that we can dictate to future historians what was important to us. Star Wars has a been around for 40 years - in another 40 years who knows how its significance (let alone the minutiae of the details of the movies themselves) will have waxed or waned.

Birth of A Nation is still studied and analyzed by historians and filmmakers to this day. It came out in 1915. That is just one example.

Artifacts are important to understanding history precisely because they are the original things--not descriptions or interpretations of things filtered through the generations in-between. History is and always will be an imperfect and incomplete version of the truth, but evidence from the actual time gets us closer to knowing what the reality was like. Art, as your said in your first post, is integral evidence.

locked

1502 views

Birth of A Nation is still studied and analyzed by historians and filmmakers to this day. It came out in 1915. That is just one example.

According to that movie's Wikipedia page:

For many years, The Birth of a Nation was poorly represented in home media and restorations. This stemmed from several factors, one of which was the fact that Griffith and others had frequently reworked the film, leaving no definitive version. According to the silent film website Brenton Film, many home media releases of the film consisted of "poor quality DVDs with different edits, scores, running speeds and usually in definitely unoriginal black and white".[130]

One of the earliest high-quality home versions was film preservationist David Shepard's 1992 transfer of a 16mm print for VHS and LaserDisc release via Image Entertainment. A short documentary, The Making of The Birth of a Nation, newly produced and narrated by Shepard, was also included. Both were released on DVD by Image in 1998 and the United Kingdom's Eureka Entertainment in 2000.[130]

In other words, the lack of preservation efforts at the time of its release did not affect its recognition as a significant film. Arguably, were it not preserved in the forms it was, that would have been indicative of its lack of significance. Apparently its sequel wasn't very significant - it was not preserved and is considered a "lost film".

locked

1519 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

locked

1506 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

I always thought the public domain existed to ensure that creatives could utilize older works in newer works, seeing as everything creative is, at its heart, a remix of things that came before.

locked

1502 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

I always thought the public domain existed to ensure that creatives could utilize older works in newer works, seeing as everything creative is, at its heart, a remix of things that came before.

This is the modern interpretation of it, but not when it was originally drafted. You are right, and that's why I said ostensibly. But the original intent still holds value.

locked

1503 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

locked

1510 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

locked

1595 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

Again, I feel like you're telling me (as an ostensible creator) what I'm allowed to do or not do with my creation, and I'm gonna push back really hard on that. You do NOT have that right.

You can be unhappy with what I do - I was as unhappy as you were with what Lucas did to the original trilogy. But you STILL don't have the right to say he can't do it.

I'm not sure the rest of the argument matters to me. Yes, I understand the difference between what I'm allowed to do, and what society thinks I SHOULD do, and I understand that in many cases, I choose to do what society wants me to do, even though I'm ALLOWED to do something else, because I live in that society, and their opinion matters to me. But that's 100% completely separate from you being able to TELL me what to do, if the accepted (legal) rules differ from your desire. I get that you're arguing the 'should' and I'm arguing the 'can' - but that's not going to change.

locked

1525 views

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

Again, I feel like you're telling me (as an ostensible creator) what I'm allowed to do or not do with my creation, and I'm gonna push back really hard on that. You do NOT have that right.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not what I'm telling you. BTW, I do have the right to tell you what's allowed, but because I'm not a copyright attorney, I'd probably be wrong.

You can be unhappy with what I do - I was as unhappy as you were with what Lucas did to the original trilogy. But you STILL don't have the right to say he can't do it.

Fortunately, I never said he can't do it. (Let's not confuse it by saying what I have to right to say. I have the right to say George Lucas can't do a lot of things, but my words have no legal authority.)

I'm not sure the rest of the argument matters to me. Yes, I understand the difference between what I'm allowed to do, and what society thinks I SHOULD do, and I understand that in many cases, I choose to do what society wants me to do, even though I'm ALLOWED to do something else, because I live in that society, and their opinion matters to me. But that's 100% completely separate from you being able to TELL me what to do, if the accepted (legal) rules differ from your desire. I get that you're arguing the 'should' and I'm arguing the 'can' - but that's not going to change.

I agree with you about the can. If you get that I'm arguing the should, what is the issue? I haven't said anything against artist's legal rights to their work. I haven't said that an artist has to do anything simply because it's what I think I they should do. Cody's post was about how what devs choose to do with their work makes preservation of original versions more difficult (in the case of video games), and I agree with him. Society actually seems to take the other view, so I don't understand your rhetoric around what you assume is my presumptuous authority. I've shared my opinions, not royal edicts.

locked

1518 views

Much depends on the impact of the art in question and its role as an historical artifact. I agree with Cody in principle, but I don’t care as much as he does about preserving video games—not this one in particular anyway. If Terry Pratchett wants to destroy works that haven’t seen the light of day, that’s his business. When George Luxus decides that the 1977 version of Star Wars shouldn’t exist, that’s a whole different bag.

I'll reiterate my "good thing I'm not creative" standpoint. I'm horrified by what Lucas decided to do with Star Wars, but at the end of the day, it was his. Which means (imo, of course) his to destroy. Monet did it, Georgia O'Keefe did it, Francis Bacon did it.

It's a tragedy... but it's not my place to say it shouldn't be done. (That isn't to say I don't wish it weren't done.)

When you say it's not your place to say it shouldn't be done, I think you're saying you have no right to stop him, which is true, but that doesn't mean we can't decry his choice, and his failure to recognize that his work is bigger and more important in the grand scheme of things than his ego (or should be).

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

I don't believe that a piece of art can transcend its creator (in the sense that the creator loses rights towards it).

Art that lasts beyond its creator by definition transcends its creator. Bob Dylan just sold his catalog. Seventy-five years after he dies no one will own it.

You seem to assume that I have something against artists revising their work or controlling what work they decide to release. Not at all. I don't mind that Ridley Scott has 372 versions of his movies. There's fiction I love that was revised over the years and had several versions published. You can still access all versions. The ability to play all versions of games is hampered by technology. That's a concern for preservationists, and I think that's the original point of this thread.

locked

1525 views

When Terry Pratchett died, his assistant fulfilled his final wish - a hard drive containing 10 unfinished novels, the only copy of these works, was placed in a road and run over by a steamroller. (There are pictures.) It's his work, and I 100% support his desire that it be destroyed (as much as I lament the loss).

Because they are UNPUBLISHED. They haven't been released. At that point, when they are either still inside your head or not complete yet, the artist has complete say over who can see it. Because it's the artist's choice as to when it's done and people can see it.

I guess Cody wasn't really arguing they don't have the right to make the changes they made - he was mostly arguing about the use of the word 'remaster',

Correct. For the record, I am 100% on board with cutting the jokes about Bosco's sex change. But Remastering is about preservation. If they wanted to update the game with jokes for a modern sensibility, then just do a remake.

Look at FF7. The versions you can get on Xbox/PS4/Switch don't cut the wall market section because it's really problematic when it comes to depiction of gay men and cross dressers. But the remake turned that section into an LGBTQ celebration.

Words mean things, and I don't think that the people undertaking remasters seem to understand what that really entails. You are essentially an art restorationist when you do a remaster.

locked

1486 views

Words mean things, and I don't think that the people undertaking remasters seem to understand what that really entails. You are essentially an art restorationist when you do a remaster.

Apparently not. Very few video games called “remasters” are doing what you describe here, so that’s obviously not true. That you think it should be true does not make it so.

locked

1484 views

Words mean things, and I don't think that the people undertaking remasters seem to understand what that really entails. You are essentially an art restorationist when you do a remaster.

Apparently not. Very few video games called “remasters” are doing what you describe here, so that’s obviously not true. That you think it should be true does not make it so.

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.

locked

1489 views

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.

There’s the rub. Do they not understand or do they just not agree with your assessment of what a remaster should be? That’s my point. You can argue until you’re blue, that doesn’t make you correct.

locked

1505 views

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.

There’s the rub. Do they not understand or do they just not agree with your assessment of what a remaster should be? That’s my point. You can argue until you’re blue, that doesn’t make you correct.

Cody is taking what it means in regard to other art forms and applying it to games. When you remaster an album or a film, the goal is preserve or enhance the fidelity of the original. The goal is not to change its content.

locked

1544 views

Jokes, like any other kind of speech, can perpetuate harmful ideas. Not harmful in the sense that it may be offensive to some individual but in the sense that when enough people buy into those perspectives, it can be systemically harmful to groups of people. That this phenomenon occurs isn't just an opinion, it is researched fact. If we care about people, we should be mindful not to perpetuate harm. If certain patterns of speech are known to perpetuate harm, and one has empathy, it seems reasonable to me that such self-censorship is a natural conclusion.

A rerelease shouldn't cut content but perhaps should include a preface, similar to Looney Tunes. A remaster, to me, sits in-between a rerelease and a remake; they can often redo art and sound to bring them to a modern standard. Edits to the script to adapt to modern cultural progression seems to be, IMO, an analogous change.

locked

1510 views

Just saw this video today and thought of this thread. Opinions?

locked

1501 views

Just saw this video today and thought of this thread. Opinions?

Thanks for posting. I didn't know about Project 4K77. If anyone has a link, send it to me.

locked

1464 views

Just saw this video today and thought of this thread. Opinions?

Disney should just scan the separation masters for the originals, color time to match original technicolor prints, and then release it and make absolute bank. When theaters come back, they'd make hundreds of millions in people going to see the "original" star wars in all its glory.

locked

1468 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Remakes, Remasters, and the ethics of preservation (Gaming)