- 0 Posts
- 59 Comments
That’s a “port”.
A “remaster” is traditionally more focused on a rerelease with improved graphic fidelity - details, resolution, possibly lower-effort improvements to models and geometry, but basically the same game, slightly modernised with better modern compatibility.
A “remake” would be a complete overhaul of the modelling, QoL improvements, or reimagining some systems potentially including game engine. Eg, the FF7 remake.
It also means more people can play on more hardware, it typically focuses the experience, it makes the interactive elements more visually distinguishable from the background graphics, it’s cheaper/faster to produce so less incentive to bloat with MTX to recoup massive investments, the scope is smaller so can be better aligned with a singular cohesive artistic vision, and the limited graphics encourages stylisation and artistic decisions when ‘photo real’ becomes not an option to target.
Also you don’t need to wait 10+ years for a game, just to receive a bloated mess where you only engage with 20% of the content yet had to wait for 100% of the development time, since at that point the investment demands it has to appeal to every possible consumer, only to still get a buggy unfinished release due to the massive scope. /rant. Anyway, indies are great and i love short games too.
Maybe a good balance could be a human voice actor for main dialogue, supported by ai trained on their main dialogue to voice sidequest and deep lore dialogue. It could enable fully voiced dialogue-heavy games that would otherwise be too expensive to produce, something like generative RPGs or Morrowind, if all the books could be voiced, and more easily translated while remaining fully voiced. But keeping humans to fill the main campaign contributions, emotional beats and determine character personality. I’m just comparing Morrowind to Oblivion, which was voiced, but the dialogue and conversation trees were heavily reduced in volume as a result.
MK2 was my first, and i still think it’s one of the best, or the most classic. MK1, the roster is too small and it’s too basic. MK2 is where it embraces the classic MK vibes. UMK3 remixes that with more modern styling and character elements, which was interesting in progression, but I think you could skip straight from MK2 to Trilogy and just drop in the deep end of the character craziness.
MK4 was also an interesting one in terms of characters and the shift into 3D for the first time. It wasn’t… great… but it was interesting.
After that, I wasn’t a big fan of the early modern 3D MK games, I couldn’t even play them all since they didn’t come out for PC (yes, I’m still bitter), but again I feel like you could skip these straight to Armageddon for early modern-era character craziness. It’s basically a generational sequel to Trilogy.
Then we get to the ‘last gen’ modern era of 9, X, 11, which i thought were great fun, and worth playing. The story is a ridiculous soap opera, but that’s critical MK DNA. Mechanics further refined, good character options. Other people already discussed these.
I haven’t played 1 yet, but it’s clearly another soft reboot, and looks really good to me.
Ofc this is all just my view on it. I have nostalgia and bias towards MK2, (3) and Trilogy :D
Fair enough, but then it’s the same issue to try and convince them to add you on WhatsApp (or iMessage) if they use Telegram. The point is that these are all platforms that we similarly end up stuck on, depending on what most people in our community landed on. In that way it’s not so different to the situation in the US.
People only want to use one messaging client for all their contacts, and as long as the clients remain closed platforms, we are prevented from just using whichever client we individually prefer, we have to use the platform decided on by the community, or fight an uphill battle to get everyone to reluctantly install a second messaging app just for us.
Europe is a pretty similar situation with WhatsApp, where everyone is kind of forced to use that same platform, just luckily WhatsApp is available on iOS and Android.
Or Facebook Messenger, which I kind of have to use to talk to my relatives and some friends around the world.
Doesn’t have the same weird pressure to use one device manufacturer like in the US though, but trying to get someone (let alone everyone) to add you on Telegram or Signal can be a similar struggle, if they don’t see a value in the effort required to switch apps just for you.
I didn’t buy the Pixel almost entirely because it doesn’t support HDMI video out through the USB-C port. I use that to watch movies from my phone on hotel TVs, or my AR glasses, etc. So I went with the S22. Also has Dex, in case you want to use the phone as a tiny computer with an external monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Sure, but those are tradeoffs that are necessitated by the size, so it just comes down to a consumer deciding if they value more the larger battery, or smaller size. Personally i put a lot of value in the smaller size, so would be very accepting of reasonable tradeoffs to achieve it.
I also hope Google (or any major manufacturer) finds its way to include a smaller option in future lineups. :)
There’s not any current flagship phone with (significantly) smaller dimensions, which is my main complaint.
My phone is an S22, for the singular reason that it was literally the smallest (Android) flagship phone available at the time. But it’s still too big.
However my actual phone is irrelevant, even if it would be a ZFold the point is that i will not change from it until I see a proper small option.
For me “small” would be 4-5.5", and i don’t consider the iPhone 15 Pro (or Pixel 8) to be small. I consider that to be a “standard” size these days (6"), where everything larger is “large” and anything in the missing segment of smaller would be “small”.
I know a smaller screen would mean a smaller battery, and I am completely fine with that, since I value the ergonomics and portability more highly. My phone rarely drops below 50% as it is. Would be good to have even a single option like that on the market.
Alternatively, I wouldn’t mind it being a little thicker to compensate a reduction in face size.
If they would have committed to the “small phone” thing and made it significantly smaller, it would have differentiated it from the competition and I (at least) would have bought it immediately. Instead it competed against S23, iPhone, Xiaomi, Pixel 7a with nothing to really set it apart, except for more questionable software support.
I’m trialling it already as my main browser. I like it.