Culture Clash

(February 2003)

Hit Me Baby, One More Time

Is there space in the industry for game remakes?

Without even trying hard, I can think of six film remakes released in the past two years: Red Dragon, The Ring, Planet of the Apes, Ocean’s Eleven, The Bourne Identity, 13 Ghosts. Good or bad, each and every one of them made significantly more than they cost to produce. Remakes are typically subjected to extraordinary (often unfair) critical comparison to their originals, and even good ones are scoffed at by cinema snobs, but there can be little doubt of their viability from an economic and artistic standpoint. Yet the gaming industry almost never provides remakes – and with just a few exceptions, what studio remakes we do see are back-burner projects that often wind up in the bargain bin with “New Release” stickers still attached. Considering how often our industry is compared to film, is it odd that we have not embraced this aspect of cinema?

There is one recent example of a big-budget, big-title studio remake that should have gone a long way toward validating the practice. Resident Evil for the Nintendo GameCube represented an update to the classic’s graphic engine and control structure, generally told the same story, and added some new areas and features. Gamers who had little familiarity with the series were welcomed into it with a game that featured the best of modern technology; meanwhile, old fans were able to revisit their stomping grounds while experiencing a new vision of the game. Yet despite the success of Resident Evil, few other games are slated for remake, though there are plenty of reasons to support such a movement: old favorites reinvented on new platforms, classics granted a new lease on life with updated technology, under-appreciated masterpieces revealed to a new and more accepting audience. Add the above to the primary reason for remakes in cinema: an artist, inspired by the work of another, attempts to recreate the fundamental story and themes while applying his or her own creative vision to the product.

Some would argue that bringing The Legend of Zelda back with a 3D engine and 5.1 sound would somehow diminish the original. Others would eagerly anticipate such a remake. Meanwhile, those who grew up with the NES and never had the opportunity to enjoy Sega’s RPG watershed that was Phantasy Star (or the watershed scroller that was Zillion), might swarm to the opportunity to try updated versions of these classics under DirectX 9. Unless we maintain DOS PCs in our basements, we’re not likely to revisit Ecstatica or X-Com, or any of the hundreds of older titles known to be finicky under modern operating systems. If we can’t go back and enjoy them (whereas we can pop in a DVD of Casablanca), why is it blasphemy to recreate the title?

Developers might argue that to remake games would lead to accusations of creative stagnation. The gaming industry is relatively young, there are plenty of ideas – even whole genres – still unexplored. Remaking games could be seen as backtracking. In truth, however, there is a difference between a “remake” in the artistic sense and a pure Wing Commander Kilrathi Wars technology update. A good remake is a creative reexamination of an existing work – the equivalent of an “inspired by” credit. How accurately the original is remade is up to the artist creating the new product. Even ignoring the possible benefit of technology improvements, games that were ahead of their time, undermarketed, or badly targeted might please modern audiences. System Shock was kind of a bomb because it was so wildly ahead of its time compared to contemporary FPS games that it managed only a small cult following – those progressive enough to “get” the game’s complex controls and plot – but the sequel was a big success, and the majority of those who enjoyed it did so without having played the original. With Looking Glass six feet under, the rights floating in limbo, and audience understanding of FPS control structure and plot much more advanced than it used to be, now might be the time to show gamers what they were missing.

In some genres, the word “remake” would be more appropriate than “sequel” for follow-up products. Civilization 2 and 3 are not sequels so much as remakes. The same goes for Sim City sequels, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and, in fact, most puzzle and sim games – their sequels are essentially enhancements and feature adds, while an RPG or adventure sequel tends to further develop the narrative structure and game universe. This example validates the potential for remakes in the industry at large – fans of Sim City are likely to be fans of Sim City 4, and they won’t complain that it’s more of the same.

While serious studio remakes are rare, a subculture of fan remakes thrives online. The defunct GLDOOM project comes to mind, as does Peroxide’s highly anticipated Ultima remake (now titled “Era” due to legal entanglements). Older games are remade or emulated at various fansites and portals (see www.remakes.org and www.retro-games.co.uk for proof), and despite legal and copyright issues associated with emulation and unofficial remakes, this practice is all that keeps certain titles alive. It seems that though developers may roll their eyes at the idea of recreating popular (or unpopular) franchises, gamers want it bad enough to take the initiative themselves.

Movie remakes appear to have gotten their start in the world of adaptations – Filmmaker X’s version of Hamlet was nice, but Filmmaker Y thinks he can do better. Technology updates were also an issue: Movie X was good in 1914 but then sound becomes feasible, so the film is redone. From the practical applications of differing interpretive visions and improving technology sprang the modern practice of artistic reimagination. Publicity stunts like Gus Van Sant’s shot for shot, line for line remake of Psycho don’t count since Van Sant’s vision was utterly sublimated by Hitchcock’s. And though nose-in-the-air cinema Nazis squawk about how a remake of Citizen Kane would cause the collapse of western civilization, in truth it just wouldn’t be very well received. There are no compelling reasons why film remakes, even of classics, are harmful or uncreative.

The same is true for remade games. Yes, it’s possible that a remake of Time Zone might be perceived as disrespectful to the original, but beauty and worth are both in the eye of the beholder. If anything, there is more reason to remake games than films – even ancient movies are still “compatible” with today’s movie-viewing apparati. The same cannot be said for games resting dustily on shelves in the corridors of our memories. Blaster Master will not run under Windows XP, though the success of emulation implies that there are gamers out there who miss Blaster Master and would like to play it again. Unless gamers dedicate themselves to owning and maintaining every system ever made from 1979 on, games we love will continue to vanish as dreams do upon waking, existing only in memory and lost to a wider audience.