LogFAQs > #912625872

I think criticism when games fail to live up to their predecessor is completely valid. Jurassic World is 100% inferior to Jurassic Park, not because we hate new movies or are blinded by nostalgia, it's because you both have a piece of art that's impossible to live up to, and a descendant that sets out to do a completely different thing.

No Zelda game will ever be good in the same way that Majora's Mask is good, no Final Fantasy will ever be good in the same way FFVII is good. No pokemon will ever be good in the same way R/B is good. For older games like this, the entire being of the game is perfection because that's how the culture enjoyed the game. It doesn't mean the game is perfect, it's just a game that has endured the test of time and kept our love throughout the years.

Take FFVII (I'm going to use this game as an example because it's a game I played late) can you really even remake the game? Of course you can't. You can retell the story well enough, but with modern cutscenes you're going to add elements to the characters that weren't there before, which takes away what they were. If you fix the translation errors you're tarnishing a pure experience but if you leave them in you're just pandering to nostalgia. Even just changing the lego graphics to something more palatable takes something away from the game.

That's just what it is to try to create art that satisfies the market that past art satisfied. It's a futile endeavor. You can still make something that's fun and scratches the itch like Odyssey does for Mario 64, and you can even make a new media that surpasses the old one in every way like Shovel Knight does does for the platformers that it was inspired from.
---

werd