Current Events > Why do game devs sometimes remove features from later remakes?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like and example would be Final Fantasy 1

Almost 20 fucking years ago, they did a remake on gba that added extra dungeons to the game world that never existed in the original game or prior remasters and ports

Now they have a new remake on mobile and steam. The pixel remaster. And the new version took out the gba dungeons. Why was it even a thing to do extra work to remove dungeons they previously put in?

And like Phantasy Star could be another example. An old sega rpg series. The original Phantasy Star which was on the Master System, got a remake in Japan on ps2. And it added some quality of life features. Then they put out a different port on switch that DID come to the west. But this port lacks rhe upgraded ps2 graphics and quality of life features

Once a remake adds features, all future remakes should keep those features

Budget and deadline constraints, i gotta imagine

New engine, laziness, probably a lot of reasons. I thought this topic was going to be more sinister intially than it was. It could be nice if everything was the "definitive" version but also that could get very samey.

Save money

The Phantasy Star remake was a budget game with cheapo graphics, made for a series of budget games. The Switch port is a pixel-perfect port with built-in guides and the option to play with FM sound.

I feel like we deify stuff like the PS2 ports of Phantasy Star because they sound awesome on paper, but most people don't realise it was a cheapo budget release that reviewed worse than the original because it was a soulless cash-grab that barely had any effort put into it. It's a neat curio, but it isn't the be-all end-all of Phantasy Star and the original game - flaws and all - stands out on its own.

A remake means making a game anyway they want, my question is why do people think a remake should be exactly the same as the original, people that want that want a remaster not a remake

thx1138 posted...

A remake means making a game anyway they want, my question is why do people think a remake should be exactly the same as the original, people that want that want a remaster not a remake

I'm saying each remake should build onto the past versions. If anything, they should have put even more dungeons into FF1 Pixel Remaster

I don't think FF1 needs to be any longer than it already is I don't need another Garland fight. Geez I remember once thinking the story of that game made sense. Actually I remember not over thinking a lot of things and just took it at face value.

Kamil posted...

I don't think FF1 needs to be any longer than it already is I don't need another Garland fight. Geez I remember once thinking the story of that game made sense. Actually I remember not over thinking a lot of things and just took it at face value.

The extra dungeons in the gba version are all optional. Newer dungeons would be too. Its like endgame content.

OK yea I won't argue that ever whatever. When I beat a game say I dunno Tales of Berseria if there is post-game I can't be bothered usually. Oh especially Star Ocean 3. That game was fine but I wasn't doing that post game dungeon back when I liked things more. It sounded like something ppl would play if they hated themselves.

FFII without Soul of Rebirth is just not worth playing.

uwnim posted...

FFII without Soul of Rebirth is just not worth playing.

The original 2. I actually ordered the PSP version off eBay around the holidays and it got lost in the mail maybe. This was before they had tracking and I paid like eight bucks too long ago. Who cares. So yea that optional dungeon did actually sound cool. But yea it was never meant to be. I finished the Origins version.

Sometimes they straight up lose code and don't want to take the time to remake it. That happened with the Mass Effect Collection and that one space station DLC from the 1st game.

My assumption with both your examples would be that they went back to the original original instead of starting with the previous remake