Re-Release: Definitive Edition

rrde_0001

This isn’t a blog about the influx of re-releases we’ve been seeing this generation. This isn’t even a blog about how I dislike GOTY/Definitive releases of games that I spent too much money on. No, I’m more concerned with the titles that publishers see fit to attach to their games.

In what world is Tomb Raider on PS4 or Xbox One the “definitive” release of the game? Does it have support for 4k resolutions? Can I use my mind to control everything? Does it include everything the sequel did better?

This kind of problem is something I noticed at the beginning of the current gaming generation. Nintendo stated that the philosophy for the Wii U was centered around the individual. That is what gave the moniker of “U” to the console, as in “you”.

At the same time, Microsoft dubbed their next console the Xbox One. Since it was going to be the sole box underneath your television (or at least the main attraction), they named the console after being a one stop destination for entertainment.

While that’s all fine and dandy, what does it tell consumers? When you use ridiculous superlatives or descriptors for your products, it confuses people. Xbox One sounds like someone referring to the OG Xbox. “Definitive” Edition implies that there will not be another release of the game or that it cannot become better.

As I stated above, you can do better. You can always do better. It’s the reason why a film like Blade Runner has 5 different versions; Ridley Scott wasn’t satisfied with the end result until nearly 30 years later (granted the studio kind of fucked his movie, initially).

rrde_0002

Stop fucking with my movie!

As stupid as it may be to re-release a game with little to no extras, at least Nintendo hasn’t tried to disguise the fact. Both of their HD Zelda ports have simply been named “HD Edition”. That isn’t even entirely true, as facets of the game have been tweaked for better playability.

Still, one can know exactly what they are getting with that. If you don’t care to have an HD version of a game you enjoy, then you don’t need to get it. You won’t feel cheated out of missing something or sad that you spent money on downloadable content that is now included with the base game.

Sleeping Dogs happens to be the worst of them. Not only is the original PC version better looking, but the original console releases were pretty bad. They certainly ran decently enough, but they looked awful. Textures were flat, load times were horrendous and the game felt too slow.

Now there is a “Definitive Edition” for PS4 and Xbox One and it feels much closer to the PC original. This just sucks for console gamers who spent $60 for the base (unacceptable) game and $30 for the (completely useless) season pass. Why not just delay the game for another year to launch on next-gen consoles?

Capcom seems to be going with a more archival approach, but how many times can someone willfully buy Resident Evil 4? Not only did you just come out with an HD version of it, but there is literally nothing you can add over the final PC release.

For that matter, next-gen consoles cannot output at 4k resolution, so when are we going to get 4k remasters of these games? Are those going to be “Ultra HD Remasters”? Will there be any sense in selling the same product across multiple generations?

rrde_0003

Leon looks so much better!………………..

Not to come off as a PC Elitist, but that format never had a problem with re-releases or “enhanced” versions. Games on PC were essentially required to support multiple resolutions and eventually came with HD support out of the box.

1600×1200 might not sound like an HD resolution, but it actually has more pixels than 720p (and, vertically, 1080p). The picture format may be relegated to 4:3 (or a square), but it produces a crisp, clear picture that consoles still struggle with rendering.

Consoles will always be locked to the hardware they were created with. That may allow a developer to push their technology to the max, but it clearly doesn’t produce an end result that is “definitive”. A newer console will be able to run that same game with better clarity.

On PC, you never have to rebuy an older game just to experience it with smoother gameplay (there are some exceptions). Just upgrading your hardware a little tends to increase fluidity in controller response. It goes a long way to making less graphically demanding games feel beautiful.

Yet consoles are stuck with their fixed hardware and games that end up falling short of the mark. Then the next generation begins and we’re saddled with an “Ultimate Edition” or “Remaster”, etc. It’s pointless; just stop calling your games that.

Mojang has it best with Minecraft. This is the PS4 Edition. This is the Xbox 360 Edition. You aren’t getting more or less stuff (disregarding the console exclusive packs), you’re just getting it for your platform of choice. It’s title is clear, concise and free of bullshit lies.

rrde_0004

No shit here.

So developers, just stop lying to us. I don’t care if you’re compiling all your DLC into a new package. I don’t give a shit if this is a “better” version of a previously released game. Just stop claiming it’s “definitive”; we all know that is horse shit.

Does Doom Still Matter?

No name speaks more of a quintessential first-person shooter than Doom. Doom was the catalyst for a cacophony of violent games in the 90’s that eventually led to the ESRB being founded to regulate game content. Not only that, it popularized a genre of gaming that had yet to break out into the mainstream.

While the initial sequel, Doom II, was actually better than the first game, developer iD Software has yet to make a game that follows up on the legacy set forth by Doom. Maybe it’s a mixture of nostalgia and genre evolution that keeps holding them back, but for some reason, Doom cannot be topped.

In a few months, the confusingly titled Doom reboot will be launching. Taking inspiration from a mod for the original game, Doom looks to up the violence and make the game as fast paced as it’s forefather. The big question on my mind is; Does Doom still matter?

Obviously one cannot debate the importance of the original title. It was one of the first 3D games with an arsenal of weapons and motley crue of enemies that was unparalleled for the time. It had revolutionary online play and extensive modding tools that allowed fans to make their own creations.

I have no idea what I’m looking at.

It also had some incredible graphics, a rocking soundtrack and some genuinely outstanding level design (that still holds up). Make no mistake; Doom was the real deal. My first encounter with it was in 4th grade. An old friend introduced me to it on the playground with the instruction manual.

I didn’t have a Windows PC, so I actually had my parents run out and buy a Mac compatible Windows 95 launcher just so I could try this game. While I did eventually get it running, it was missing some features and would often crash.

My fascination with the game didn’t stop until we eventually did get a true Windows computer. That was my very first computer, actually; a Packard Bell with a 3 gb hard drive. Those were much simpler times.

Regardless, Doom was almost a taboo for how it “corrupted” the innocence of gaming. Parents were sickened at the depiction of “violence” the game had and it’s demonic villains. I guess killing hellspawn is evil, even if it saves the Earth.

News outlets were shocked at how you could mangle police officers (I still, to this day, want to know what game they played). Activist groups wanted the game removed from store shelves. The world was coming to an end and it was all because of this little game.

This is just the second level of the game.

Needless to say, the controversy was overblown and gaming continued to evolve. We now have more grotesque displays of violence in games and sexuality is even becoming a common occurrence. Gaming is a pop-culture staple that is slowly becoming less niche by the day.

So what can a new Doom game in 2016 bring to the table? Does Doom need to be more than a simple throwback? Are fans ever going to be impressed with what gets released? I’m not sure I can answer all of those questions.

The easiest to tackle would be the intention of a new Doom. Not every piece of media needs to have a deeper message or mean something more to it’s medium. On occasion, a good, mindless, violent trip through excess and escapism is precisely what a person needs.

A rough day at work can be capped off with a good, meaty rocket launcher explosion of your best friend (in game form, of course…). The cathartic quality that Doom always exhibits can’t be understated; to this day, I still fire explosives in games and expect splash damage.

The original Doom wasn’t made with the purpose of reinventing the wheel. The developers saw a thing they liked, a new way to do it and set off to make it the best product possible. The main reason Doom succeeded so much was because of it’s business model; a freeware version of the first episode was available for free through mail order and the internet (if one was lucky enough to own a modem in 1994).

That gaming had not seen anything like Doom was merely a coincidence. Most game makers, artists and musicians don’t set out to specifically enhance their art form; they tend to fall on an idea they all love and furnish it into something unique.

How could you not be in love with this?

Will fans accept a new Doom? Well, initial reaction says yes. Fans reportedly cheered at the unveiling during Quakecon 2014. No one but those attendees got to see the footage of the game and everyone was claiming it was going “back to basics”. I guess they were on board.

Then a year went by without much information leaking. No one was talking about the game and people hadn’t seen what the gameplay was going to be like. Eventually at E3, a trailer was released that showcased footage to the general public. Now fans were skeptical.

The “official” box art actually typifies everything wrong with the industry in 2016. The colors are muted, limited and saturated. The main character is faceless, staring at the ground and “gruff”. The font takes up more space than anything else and shows nothing of what the game is.

It just reeks of a cash grab. That is completely disregarding the actual quality of the game, but it seems that Bethesda only commissioned a reboot of Doom because reboots are the new, hot thing. Movie franchises are increasingly doing reboots and even Tomb Raider, another gaming institution, had a successful reimagining.

Look how many shits she gives.

Fans never seem to be pleased with anything. Gunning for that crowd will usually end in disaster. Still, whom else are you going to market a reboot of Doom to in 2016? Falling back on the legacy of your series will do nothing for newer gamers.

Which brings us to the final question; What can a new Doom bring to the table in 2016? As I mentioned above, the main source of inspiration seems to be a mod for the original Doom called Brutal Doom.

One of the creators of the original game, John Romero, was quoted as saying, “The only thing I think about now is.. what if… when we released Doom, we actually released Brutal Doom?” (laughs). We would have destroyed the gaming industry, I think. Brutal Doom is hilarious.”

I’m guessing that was all Bethesda needed to hear to fast track progress on a Doom reboot. A lot of the animations for weapons look like they were taken from the mod. The gore factor seems to have been clearly inspired by the mod. Sadly, the mod seems to be faster paced.

Without taking that into account, though, what else could Doom do? Shooters have become a stagnant genre in recent years. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare seemed to be the last big shakeup to the genre in terms of evolution. It’s online, RPG-lite system of unlocks caused a plethora of copycats that still haven’t gone away in nearly 10 years.

Level design has also remained the same…

Call of Duty is also responsible for popularizing the down sight aiming that basically every shooter uses today. Along with Resident Evil 4 redefining third person combat, action gaming hasn’t truly changed since 2005. The industry is falling back on old ideas and past successes to keep their inflated budgets and massive paychecks going.

While Doom may not have started out with the intent of reinventing gaming, it’s launch was special. It was a fundamental shift from being marketed as a toy for children into becoming a hobby that anyone could enjoy. It expanded the horizons of what software could do.

Doom in 2016 just looks like the same boring stuff we’ve seen for decades. I’ve never taken Doom as a serious, scary, horrific trek through a nightmare. Doom has always been a goofy, colorful, fun filled time for me. How can you look at the original graphics and not feel happy?

Even the defining features of this reboot, it’s gore filled executions, was done in Gears of War. You would be forgiven for mistaking Doom as a first-person sequel to that series; the art style is practically the same.

So, does Doom still matter? For cultural reverence, I’d say yes. As far as being an exciting, landmark event; hell no. There is nothing that Doom can do to become interesting again, apart from a complete shift in tone and setting (which would then defeat the purpose).

What film producers, game developers and artists need to realize is that certain things take off because of their time frame. Doom was a massive hit because nothing else was like it in 1994. In 2016, we’ve seen so many things emulate Doom that gamers just don’t care.

And no one cares about this.

Naming your game Doom and expecting it to sell is just naive. You would be better set creating a new IP and shifting focus away from the nostalgia laden masses. It’s fine to claim the game is a spiritual successor to Doom, but to drag the actual legacy into the dirt is shameful.

Then again, come May, I may be eating these words. The game could be good. Whose to say?