Adventure Gamers - Forums

Gabe - 17 April 2014 02:33 AM

Zifnab - 17 April 2014 02:16 AM

Do you really think the motive here is artistic? People will like it and buy it because it’s modern, and that’s all that matters. It’s absurd and incomprehensible but that’s how it is. Better get used to it because no doubt we’ll soon be updating the Mona Lisa and Taj Mahal because they look too old and outdated. And rightly so - newer is always better, right?

I think you quite confused what is a remake and what is a restoration.

Who’s talking about restoration? Not me.

millenia - 17 April 2014 04:17 AM

First of all, people make “new versions” of Mona Lisa all the time and they are not taking away the value of the original and they are definitely not destroying the original. The original Gabriel Knight isn’t going anywhere, you can still keep playing it and decide not to have anything to do with the remake.

And there will definitely be people who think the new version is better or at least that is’t the only “playable” version, because people like different things and to some the graphics from 20+ years ago just don’t cut it.

I don’t really understand all the whine about the remakes. Lots and lots of remakes have revived great franchises and also introduced new people to them so that they eventually go through the original versions too. Some remakes are crap as a good deal of anything is.

A person can dislike a remake and think it’s not been done very well. Or they can criticise the motives behind making remakes (is it just milking money and not creating anything new) but in this case the latter definitely does not apply. They are trying to revive GK so that they could make the 4th game, and that is what we all want.

And yes, I’d like them to have a billion dollar budget for this so that they could really make the game as beautiful as the original was in the early 90s, but I’m gonna take what I can get in the off chance that there’s going to be an actual sequel too.

Well said milennia! Also for anyone that’s re-make weary it’s not compulsory to buy & play, follow any threads etc about one!

millenia - 17 April 2014 04:17 AM

Zifnab - 17 April 2014 02:16 AM

Venkman - 16 April 2014 01:23 PM

A remake of an old game in full 3D sure, but turning authentic old-school 2D graphics into mediocre modern-day 2D graphics is an asinine practice.

Do you really think the motive here is artistic? People will like it and buy it because it’s modern, and that’s all that matters. It’s absurd and incomprehensible but that’s how it is. Better get used to it because no doubt we’ll soon be updating the Mona Lisa and Taj Mahal because they look too old and outdated. And rightly so - newer is always better, right? I’m personally looking forward to Beethoven’s 5th - Lil’ Wayne remix coming out next week, it’s gonna be killer.

First of all, people make “new versions” of Mona Lisa all the time and they are not taking away the value of the original and they are definitely not destroying the original. The original Gabriel Knight isn’t going anywhere, you can still keep playing it and decide not to have anything to do with the remake.

And there will definitely be people who think the new version is better or at least that is’t the only “playable” version, because people like different things and to some the graphics from 20+ years ago just don’t cut it.

I don’t really understand all the whine about the remakes. Lots and lots of remakes have revived great franchises and also introduced new people to them so that they eventually go through the original versions too. Some remakes are crap as a good deal of anything is.

A person can dislike a remake and think it’s not been done very well. Or they can criticise the motives behind making remakes (is it just milking money and not creating anything new) but in this case the latter definitely does not apply. They are trying to revive GK so that they could make the 4th game, and that is what we all want.

And yes, I’d like them to have a billion dollar budget for this so that they could really make the game as beautiful as the original was in the early 90s, but I’m gonna take what I can get in the off chance that there’s going to be an actual sequel too.

I agree with most of that, although I have to say it’s not quite that simple. A lot of people, kids especially, will choose new versions without thinking. The pixellated graphics of old Sierra games just won’t appeal to them. It’s not about which one they like better - just which one is newer. Do I think the original Monkey Island graphics are better than the Special Edition? Hell yeah. But I’d like more kids to be getting into adventure games so if it’s a choice between a remake or nothing, I can’t complain. The problem is when they come to expect shiny new graphics - then they won’t discover the great riches that adventure games have to offer by digging around the old stuff.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JaneJensen/20140414/215473/

It seems like the new look of Gabriel is 100% intentional and some of the comments were not so far off.
She says it’s not her own taste in men, so if we take her by her word it’s most probably the hope to attract a wider audience, but I can’t say I like it. If only he actually looked the part of the rogue or bad boy, like the caption claims. 

Are you slanting the appeal at younger women or older?  Up to a certain age, girls find overt masculinity off-putting. Teen idols are usually ‘twinks’ like ‘N Sync, Leif Garret, David Cassidy, or Justin Beiber.  Maybe this isn’t your main character, maybe it’s the teen son of a secondary character—but why not add someone like this if your game could be played by young teens?

Step the testosterone up a bit and you can cover a fairly wide age range.  Twilight, anyone?  Though the books were written YA (Young Adult), both the books and movies appealed to older women as well as teen girls and were defined by Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner—both very young men with pretty faces and ripped torsos that were neither hugely muscled nor hairy.

I realize the article is mainly about writing but I assume she has a lot of control over the graphics, too.

Step the testosterone up a bit and you can cover a fairly wide age range.  Twilight, anyone?  Though the books were written YA (Young Adult), both the books and movies appealed to older women as well as teen girls and were defined by Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner—both very young men with pretty faces and ripped torsos that were neither hugely muscled nor hairy.

Enjoyed reading Jensen’s thoughts. Refreshing to see her express herself candidly. She’s touching on some topics that are bound to rile up some folks. Agree with a lot of what she says, but have to make a small correction to that last bit in the quote: Taylor Lautner was quite built and Pattinson was hairy. Details matter. *tsk* j/k And, no, I’m not ashamed that I know this!

Monolith - 17 April 2014 01:59 AM

You’re right though, look at the new Gold Rush remake.

Hah, I had no idea that was coming. I’ve never played Gold Rush and I want to, but the thing is if I’m going to play an old game I want that nostalgic pixelated experience. That’s most of the charm. I’m glad that in this case it seems they might be re-releasing the AGI version as well.

Despite Ducktales for NES being one of my favorite games, I was mostly uninterested in the remake after the initial excitement wore off. I have no interest in playing a cheap modern 2D remake. The appeal is largely the NES graphics and sound, and I’d much prefer just that the game go on sale on Virtual Console or that they would re-release all of the Disney NES Capcom games on a disc (including the rare Ducktales 2 which I have not played). I have similar reactions to other remakes such as Mickey Mania or whatever it’s called.

Note that I’m still looking forward to the GK1 remake; it’s such a good game (as opposed to say LSL1) that it will be interesting to see it slightly reinterpreted. I also am pleased that the narrator’s voice is still done with a Creole accent which is like 50% of the appeal for me.

millenia - 17 April 2014 12:26 PM

I’m not sure what’s wrong with the new Gabriel model, I’ve seen only that one picture and it seems good enough. Is it the lack or crazy hair that ticks people off or is he just too much “regularly handsome”?

For me it’s clearly the “regularly” part, that doesn’t fit Gabriel at all, in my opinion.
He looks terribly bland and generic, and while an empty canvas might be very convenient in many ways, GK1 Gabe wasn’t like that at all.

I think they tried exactly what Jane described. Take a twink[sic], Ken, whatever and make him a bit more rugged and “ageless”  in order to appeal to older women, too, but still perfectly groomed.
You might see men like that today, but it doesn’t fit the setting at all, in my opinion.
This is no James Dean, no Mickey Rourke, not even Dean Erickson and they all had their fair share of soft and feminine traits.
This is more like a slightly off caricature. Shrek’s Prince Charming comes to mind. 

Sorry, just found this and thought it was kinda funny. I’ll let it go now.

http://cheezburger.com/4756159232

I’m not saying Jaime looks exactly like Gabriel, but the new Gabriel looks to me a bit like Prince Charming looks compared to Jaime.

But you are right of course. There is much more to a character like Gabriel than the head.

From what I’ve seen of Gabriel Knight’s new look, it appears that poor Gabriel has been robbed of his masculine, James Dean-like appearance (which had been so skillfully crafted by Sierra’s brilliant artists in the original) and has now instead been given a sterile, strange mannequin look. The character whose looks once oozed personality and character now looks like a Ken Doll? Hmm.

I’m not sure how I feel about what they’re doing to Gabriel Knight, or even whether it effectively represents what Jensen says she’s going for.

The original game was cutting edge when it came out and still holds up today. If this new GK remake isn’t going to be great by today’s standards and is going to lose some personality that the original had, then I’m left wondering why even bother remaking it?