Every now and then, developers decide to remake an older game, and the remakes differ in how similar to the original, and I am wondering what type of remake you prefer?

I can classify remakes into a few types (of course, as always, I might miss some; classification isn't *that* simple.)

Type 0: The remake is just a port to a new platform, perhaps with some bugs fixed, *maybe* some minor tweaks, but that's about it.

Type 1: The remake upgrades the graphics and sound, maybe adds some quality of life improvements, there might be a bit of new content (but nothing game-changing, at least not for most of the game).

Type 2: The remake makes some significant additions, though the core mechanics of the original are still present. The new additions are enough for the game to feel different throughout, but there is still a lot of familiarity, and things like damage formulas are still similar to how they originally wre.

Type 3: The remake is very different from the original. The core mechanics are completely different (in some cases there might even be a change of genre), and the game plays basically like an entirely new game. The story and music are typically similar to how they were originally, but the gameplay has been changed drastically.

So, what type of remake do *you* prefer the most?

Type 1, definitely.

Although it's probably a fine line between a remake and remaster at that level, I think it's important that when branding a for a remake / remaster that you stay as true as possible to the original.

If you go and drastically change the game mechanics, then it's a reboot.

Which I'm also hugely in favour of, much to the chagrin of most internet forums.

Generally, I prefer Type 2. I don't like Type 3, if Curse of the Sinistrals was anything to go by.

There are many games that I would like to see graphically updated, and, if it's old enough that the controls are horrendous now (let's face it, there are some here), an update to that as well. But as for changing anything or adding stuff? No.

Somewhere between 1 and 2.....also I like remasters over remakes most times and don't like if/when they change things for the worse(subjectively) like with the Gabriel Knight 1 remaster's intro music/screens OR if they change major plot sections/gameplay sections to make the game "better".

It absolutely depends, I think all 4 types can work based on the game.

Type 0 for something that's very difficult to get running nowadays.

Type 1 worked very well with Majesty Gold HD, Stronghold HD and Age of Empires 2 HD

Type 2 is nicely illustrated by openrct2, openxcom and openttd, all 3 of which are excellent!

Type 3 I think is more typically called a re-imagining. I suppose and example of this would be Tomb Raider anniversary, which is a great game. Also, the XCom games of course, which by all accounts are phenomenal as well.

Personally I'm really hoping for a type 3 on the original Commander Keen and Jazz Jack Rabbit, and no, I'm not counting that e3 abomination of the former :P

The first two are pretty useless on PC, which is the only gaming platform I use. Even when a "type 1" comes to PC like Bioshock Remastered it's often arguably worse or at least no better than the original.

I like "type 2" sometimes. It's nice to get some quality of life improvements and minor updates like widescreen or whatever, but without changing the game much. I think the Bard's Tale remasters are good examples, and I'm looking forward to the Wasteland one. As much as people complain about the Infinity Engine remakes like Baldur's Gate I do think the quality of life improvements are worth the $5 I paid for them, even if mods did a lot of it first.

The last one is the only real one I'd actually call a "remake." The rest I would call remasters. I'm down for remakes as long as I really enjoy the game/setting, and the new game is good of course. There was a while there where I thought modern games were plummeting off a cliff, but they've been better the last handful of years so I'm actually looking forward to stuff like the Final Fantasy VII remake. I general though I would prefer new concepts and new ideas.

Overhaul the presentation aspect, fix any bugs, make it readily playable and hassle-free. Keep the gameplay the same. If you're going to add anything, make it separate from the main game or optional. Ideally, have a ''Classic Mode'' option on game start, which omits the new content. This would calm down a lot of Baldur's Gate fans, for one.

I think Type 0 (maybe Type 1, depending on how it's done) if the game wouldn't run on modern systems otherwise, but to a price that would have been fair for the original, too. If the original is still working on modern systems, I don't care much for remakes.

PC type 0 ports generally work, but console ports are strongly dependent on how controls get mapped.

Type 1 graphics upgrades can be a mixed blessing. Often a new graphics engine is required, and this runs the danger of introducing new bugs where behavioural assumptions made in the old engine no longer apply.


Type 3 is the riskiest option. There is too high a chance that everything that was good about the old game has been thrown out. To be honest, it is closer to "new game" than a remake.

That being said, it can work. Tex Murphy Overseer is a two-decade old example, and has a higher GOG score than Mean Streets.

I'm happy with old graphics, but I would like bugs to be fixed and controls to be sensible. For old adventure games, a hotspot indicator is often all that is required.

Usually a mix of Type 0 and 1. Sometimes "better graphics" genuinely means better, but often not when 1. It has to be done in a new engine that has a different more 'floaty' feel to it (how I find a lot of 'new old school' FPS's that are often just shoving Minecraft textures into Unity Engine) or 2. It's just BeamDog style post-processing shaders slapped on (eg, ugly cell-shading for Baldur's Gate:EE or Depth of Field that makes NWN:EE somehow look worse). Quality of Life improvements are definitely welcome for System Shock:EE as the input / UI was clunky even during its day, lacked mouselook, etc, but a lot of post 2000's games aren't anywhere near as clunky and a lot of "remakes" of more recent games though are so trivial (often just minor compatibility fixes or UI scaling for 4K) they should really be little more than a belated free official patch and truth be told are done just for the sake of porting to a console (which may involve a degraded experience for K&M players if the game has to be changed to 'fit' controllers) or simply wanting to 'bump' the price of +10-20 year old classics back up again. Example:-

Bioshock Original : https://i.imgur.com/AM5DZju.jpg
Bioshock "Remaster" : https://i.imgur.com/ejFnWfi.jpg

Compare the "official remaster" difference there (where some of the wall textures and lighting reflections of what's supposed to be shiny wet surfaces looks worse and they changed the statue so much they even forgot to draw Andrew Ryan's moustache back in), that supposedly 'justifies' a doubling in price to perhaps what the modding community has done for free for games like Thief 1 with "Tafferpatcher" (DX7 to 9, widescreen, HD textures, bug fixes, mod selection menu's, etc):-

Thief Original : http://i.imgur.com/Dlccc7y.jpg
Thief Modded : http://i.imgur.com/90jdHB6.jpg

Then there's the "one step forward, one step back" games like Age of Empires 1-2 - both are re-released as HD versions that add some extra civilizations but at the same time, both are now crammed full of CEG DRM, etc, are locked to Steam / MS Store only, and come with the older AI scripts. On the other hand, the last DVD retail disc "Collectors Edition" version is DRM-Free and once you add uPatch / UserPatch, that adds in most of the changes minus some extra civs. So the newest "professional remake" has a couple more playable civs but is also less stable, has more DRM and has dumber enemy AI, whilst the older "amateur mod" one has fewer playable civs, but crashes less, is DRM-Free and has the better enemy AI...

For "Type 2", sometimes the developer changes things because they "feel" it's better but that can be entirely relative. I still think the original Downfall (2009) point & click was the better / darker version vs the updated style 2016 'side-scroller' re-release that really makes it feel like a different game with a lot of removed / altered content. And for "Type 3", more often than not they're "franchise reboots" that usually end up with "over-sequel spam" in clinging to remaking the same 90's IP games even decades later simply because they can't think of anything new to make.

Personally, I find the best "remakes" of all are high quality source ports that give players a huge amount of tweaking options as to how close they want it (GZDoom). But as mentioned, half of today's remakes / reboots / remasters are done for financial reasons with "Remastered (tm)" simply being the excuse to price hike 20 year old classics for an experience often no better than what devoted modding communities can achieve.

It depends on the game.

Type 2 example: I enjoy Resindet Evil: REmake, it made something good fantastic. It's so well-done that the original Resident Evil becomes redundant. I don't think most developers could pull such a faithful yet revolutionary remake off though, but if they could, this would be my preferred type of remake.

Type 1 example (I think): On the other hand, I think the Enhanced Editions from Beamdog are fantastic as well. They preserve the older classics in a great way while at the same time making them more enjoyable with some UI/quality of life changes we take for granted today. They tampered too much with Baldur's Gate with their new characters that stood out like a sore thumb, but other than that, their direction is my preferred one.

Type 0 or 1, depending on what you mean by "graphics changes". If you mean the textures/environments are the same but now can be played in widescreen/4K resolutions without blurring, like the Infinity Engine enhanced editions, then 1. If the remake contains new graphics then it should be possible to switch back to the original textures while still in widescreen, like the Age of Empire 1 definitive edition.

Type 1 for Gothic 1 & 2 would be amazing.

Slight leaning towards Type 1 as a game can be remade to accommodate new modern pc's and ad a few extras but that's as far as it should go. Going outside these adjustments, the game is not a remake but a pretender sucking up money from the original especially if it was a classic. A remake that has no changes (outside of graphics upgrade) that is made for running on modern day pc's is the correct term for a remake.