Remastered, Remade, Ridiculous.

    So, God of War 3 is being remastered. After an announcement on the PlayStation Blog on Friday, we learned that yet another game is getting a boost up to the current generation.
  
 As of right now, on the PS4 there are about 6 'big' 60 dollar exclusives, and about 10 re-releases available on the platform. The Xbox One, on the other hand, has almost the same amount of exclusives as it does remakes, around 7 exclusives and 6 remakes. This obviously doesn't count the multi-platform releases like the Assassin's Creed games or Call Of Duty, just the exclusives and the re-releases. That's kind of crazy, mainly considering that some of those remakes/re-releases were only about a year or two old when they were remastered like The Last of Us, or Tomb Raider.
 
  In light of this announcement, I have to ask myself, is it too much? Sure, remasters and remakes have their place like with Grim Fandango, a game you couldn't have legally bought or even played on modern machines, or with some of the collections on the PS3, bringing games that were previously in standard definition to high def.
 
  I know some people who immediately dismiss remasters as a soulless cashgrab, and I can see why, to an extent. And in this age of digital distribution, is it really okay to remake a game and charge full retail price for it? I don't think so, but as with everything, context matters. Expecting people to go track down a discontinued console, and a specific game for said console is a little much, but remaking a game that is only a year old, however, seems a bit inexcusable. Not only is its console widely available, in the case of The Last of Us and Tomb Raider, so are the games.
  
 So, where do we draw the line as consumers? Do we let companies fill the gap in the initial months of a console's inception with remakes of games that are still easy to find? Or do we only accept those games that otherwise might just be lost to the ages, like Grim Fandango, or hell, maybe even Resident Evil on Gamecube. It's always the responsibility of the consumers to change the industry in a way that benefits everyone by voting with their wallets, and showing developers what we will and won't accept. I think remaking a game that is only two years old is silly, and that games should be made accessible for as many people as possible all while making consumer friendly decisions.

Length vs. Cost; Can a Game be too Short?

    With the recent controversy with The Order 1886's game length, the topic of game value has sprung up a lot in the past couple weeks and I feel that it's an important discussion to have. Game value (ie; the amount of time you put into a game vs how much money you spend on it) is a very personal thing, everybody has their own monetary value they attribute to a game's length and the ire that The Order has received might seem like just another angry internet thing, but I think it's justified. AAA games cost 60 dollars (going up to 75 in Canada very soon), so a 5 hour experience kind of seems like a rip off as minimum wage in Canada right now is 10.50. Think about that, that is almost an entire day's worth of pay just for five hours of quick time events, sub par shooting, and horizontal black bars.

    Call of Duty has an extensive, progressive multiplayer, and while a lot of people might scoff at its short campaign or it's 'dudebro' attitude, at least sinking a lot of time into it feels rewarding, as you prestige as much as you want and flaunt it with your badge. Bioshock Infinite has a 10 hour campaign, but it also has extra modes and an engaging story. Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes was $40 and while it gained some serious hate, fans of Metal Gear got a lot out of it and at least the base mechanics were rewarding and got a lot of people excited for Phantom Pain.

    So, can a game be too short? I think it depends on the price of the game, and whether or not you as an individual feel like that time was fulfilling or rewarding. It's going to differ from person to person, some people might not get as much out of a tight, well controlled first person shooter with a replayable lengthy campaign like Wolfenstien the New Order as others. Some might feel like an atmospheric puzzle laden 8 hour experience like The Swapper is a frustrating waste of time, even if it is only 20 dollars, while I felt extremely rewarded every time I beat a puzzle and advanced into another part of the game.

    A 5 hour game for $60 isn't inherently a bad thing, but a bad 5 hour game for $60 is extremely harmful, and I think that's the biggest reason why The Order left a bad taste in people's mouths. As many people have already stated, The Order 1886 has many problems and its length isn't one of them. Padding out a 5 hour experience with meaningless fetch quests or escort missions wouldn't have made it a better game. Length isn't everything, but I think it definitely should be considered when buying a game, especially when that game is not only brand new, but also $60. Being educated and reading reviews doesn't hurt either, as you will get a good idea of how good or bad a game is, and make a purchase or don't accordingly.

     Just remember, a game being short isn't a black mark against it, and that with games, as with a lot of other types of media, it's quality over quantity in most cases and there are plenty of other factors to consider when buying or talking about whether a game is good or bad. Thank you for reading, and come back soon.