Do you think a Sonic Adventure Remake is a good idea?

Well, it helps that most indie games are made for old farts like myself who would rather play an old 2D platformer over the latest photorealistic reboot. That said, I think a game like Sonic Adventure could still be profitable, it would just need to stay small. A game like that doesn't need a 200 million dollar budget or GTA VI-tier graphics, but that's a philosophy the industry (particularly in the west) is struggling to unlearn. Might need to kill a few big publishers before that message sinks in, even.

 

I don't even want them to roll out a new version of every game for each console, I just want Sonic Unleashed and Adventure and everything else with an Xbox 360 Backwards Compatible version and PC port but no ps4 version to get a PS4 version. That on its own would do so much for me.

 

Yeah, but please just not the version of SADX that's on there right now... I have all my consoles besides my Series X and Switch/other portables in storage back in Denmark and I frequently want to play SA. I can't bring myself to load up the SADX I have on the Series X lol. The Xbox SA2 is fine, but I just can't stomach that version of DX. I may just look into how Dreamcast emulation is on the Series X. Already have Dolphin, PCSX, and Retroarch on there so I may as well.

 

That's a little different to a remake mind IMO. I like to see a real remake running on the new Heghog engine, very much like what Nintendo did with Prime and a 1 to 1 remake rather than a Capcom style Resident Evil 2/3/4 remake.

 

I think a lot of the culture surrounding remakes is also completely removed from conversations. Most remakes are of dormant franchises and the projects rarely have future followup intentions. Crash, Spyro, Medieval. Sonic isn't dormant and at the moment has frequent releases and a massive presence comparatively. The base rush of nostalgia simply isn't there. And I really do think that is the fundamental reason for most remakes. So when people point to these remakes as obvious parallels I think they are missing the point.

So you have to compare it to games which do get remakes despite being major franchises. Persona 3, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy 7. I don't think SEGA really has the major investment for significant transformations like Resident Evil or FF7. It would have to be more like Persona 3, and while I do think a Sonic Adventure remake in that vein could happen, I'm just not really convinced because Sonic's design fundamentals have changed so significantly. Persona has evolved but basically plays the same, but Sonic is almost like an entirely different game now. And even then remakes like Persona 3 in its own circumstances are so exceptionally rare. I think if Sonic Team were to do it they'd take the FF7 approach, bur they clearly can't afford nor want to do that.

 

I don't get that myself. Usually (but yes not always) a remake is done either for a love of the game by the team or is a vested interest in sparking new life into a classic old IP and I don't look to class basic HD remasters like Mediveal as remakes or the crap we got for Grandia HD collection

To me a proper remake is when you redo the graphics with the developer's modern tech and bring it up to modern days standards like Nintendo did with Prime or SONY did with Shadow Of the Colossus or Dark Souls and that's what I myself would really like to see done to Sonic Adv. Basically the exact same game but with current gen Sonic Team visuals

 

That's a remaster, not a remake. The 'remasters' you mention, like Grandia HD Collection, aren't remasters, but upscaled/filtered.

A remake takes the original game as inspiration, and rebuilds it from the ground up. Which means changes to graphics, sound, and story. A good example is Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals, which is a remake of Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals.

 

Despite everything, at the end of it all, it's still Sonic Adventure playable on a modern console. I'd rather have that than nothing at all.

It's more of a follow up / agreement to the post saying that they just want the original game. My line of thinking is it costs the least amount of money to do something like that because for the price of 2 ports they have an endlessly bundleable game. Plus while I hate implying the Switch in any way people would eat that shit up (especially if they did SA2)

I don't think it's that out of the realm of possibility for a 1:1 Sonic remake project to get made (Sonic 1, 2, 3, and CD are remakes, after all) it would just rely on SEGA seeing the merit of the idea (In said case the code is somewhat easier to work with and port rather than them having to bust out an emulator for every standalone release). I would imagine them still outsourcing so Sonic Team could focus on their own project but it could still get made all the same.

 

Explain Metroid Remastered on the Switch.

 

I have no idea about costs but I doubt remaking Shadow Of the Colossus or Dark Souls cost SONY anything like what it takes to make Spiderman 2 or a new game from Naughty Dog but that just a guess.

I don't think SEGA would need to look to outsource myself. The Yakuza team showed the way to do a remake using their latest tech and I don't see why the Sonic Team along with SEGA China can't remake Sonic Adv with the latest tech from The Hedgehog engine.

I like a straight remake just like Sony did with SOC or SEGA itself did with Yakuza 1 and 2 remakes; Basically the exact same games just running on the latest tech and remixed Dolby audio. That what would like to see.

 

Strictly speaking, no, they're not. They're ports.

It's the same game, but with improved textures and sound. Nothing has changed; the gameplay, designs, etc. are exactly the same.

 

The graphics have been redone, it's more than just improved textures or sound like you see in a remaster like say Turok remastered and the like.
I would class Prime as a remake myself despite what is said on the box; And that is what I love to be done for Sonic Adv. The same game just with completely new graphics, like SONY did so well with SOC where you can fix the graphics and controls issues too , but it's the same game just with current visuals.

 

I'm pretty sure for Prime Remastered they took the actual code from the original and ported over to the Switch and just gave the graphics a spit and shine. It wasn't actually remade so that counts as a remaster then, doesn't it? But then video game terms have always been a bit dumb and confusing.

 

The art assets were all remade from the ground up, so a bit more than a spit and shine, but other than that what you say is correct - even the audio is still the same as the original, too. So the visuals are completely remade, but all the underlying code and everything else is still a port of the original (or the updated Wii version, to be exact). It's one of the reasons people kicked off so much on release that the original devs aren't properly credited in the remaster, as underneath the new art (which is still directly derivative of their work anyway) it's literally still the original game they created!

 

The graphics are redone and remade, it's far more than a spit and shine job like say one saw for Perfect Dark on the 360, which was just a spit and shine job or REZ HD on the 360 IMO.
I do agree that video game terms are confusing and can be messy and half the time don't make much sense like with Shenmue being FREE. I've never really had Zelda down as an RPG myself and still class the likes of Tomb Raider as a platform game and even Dark Saviour on the Saturn and have D2 more as an RPG than a horror game, but that's me.

Really like Sonic Adv to be remade graphics wise and everything else even the music and voice acting all kept in And just released the game as Sonic Adventure

 

FF7 hardly counts in the realm of remakes. It's practically its own set of games. But for the rest of these examples, it's not that the franchises are dormant, it's that their gameplay styles are.

Zelda started getting remakes because BotW and TotK are so far removed from the "classic" Zelda formula. Mario RPGs started getting remakes because Nintendo has no intentions of going back to the TTYL style of gameplay for Paper Mario, and also has no intentions of making a sequel to SMRPG. Final Fantasy got remakes after Square started moving away from turn-based systems, and Resident Evil has remakes because the newer entries use a first-person perspective and they play very differently, honestly.

So if Adventure would get a remake, it would have to be for the same reason Mania and Origins got made: there's a niche audience of that old style of gameplay that's not being catered to. Unfortunately, they moved away from the Adventure style of gameplay because in their minds, the old style fucking sucks. They call Colors the game where "Sonic finally works in 3D". Convincing them that enough people want these critically-panned games to get remakes that don't play like the boost formula would be pretty tough.

 

If they used the same code, then sure, it's a port, but they didn't use the same code. They reference it and do something new in a custom engine.

Would never be able to be done quite the way Metroid did it and even RTX Remix which is built for this exact kinda thing can't help much since SADX is so archaic that anything and everything involving character models presents a problem. Starting mostly from nothing and then adapting specific stuff like movement physics when it comes up is really the best option.

 

It doesn't need to use the same code to be a port. Console ports of arcade games are ports even though they don't use the same code. Or how about all the home computer ports that were common in the late 80s and early 90s?

A remake is a different game, based on the original.

 

Zelda was getting remakes long before Breath of the Wild was even a thought. Ocarina of Time 3D came out in June 2011, six months BEFORE Skyward Sword was released. They do remasters/remakes because they're easy ways to sell new hardware and fill in dry periods. It has nothing to do with which styles of gameplay are relevant.


The only consistent rational for a remake seems to be that they are games that are widely considered successes already, so they're safe bets. Sonic Adventure, IMO, is not a safe bet but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

 

That's different. That was moreso to show off how much of an improvement the 3DS was over the DS graphically. Snake Eater 3D was for the same reason, despite Metal Gear being very much alive at the time. Actually, that's why Super Mario 64 DS got made too. You can't use an excuse like that with Skyward Sword HD, or Link's Awakening. Furthermore, Skyward Sword and A Link Between Worlds were already moving away from the "traditional" Zelda formula, in fact I'd say Twilight Princess was the last game that truly followed it. SS had its control scheme, while ALBW had the "buy all your items RIGHT NOW" system.

It is true that remakes are generally for a quick cash grab, but it would be naive to think the changing gameplay styles have nothing to do with it. It's an easy way to appeal to old fans who aren't yet sold on where the franchise is heading. It's one thing to simply remaster a game with small QoL improvements and a resolution bump, it's another thing to completely redo the graphics, controls, music, etc. That costs time and money that could be going to newer projects, so studios need a better reason than "we can sell the same successful game again" to justify it. AlphaDream made that mistake, and look what happened to them.