Game remakes - a growing trend?

There have been quite a few movie and television series remakes and franchise reboots lately. However in the gaming world there have been either few or very few game remakes so far - depending on how strictly a game remake is defined. But as classics grow old, it creates a twofold opportunity for game makers: to introduce a new generation to an old classic, and on the other hand to offer the old gamers a weird sense of nostalgia that arises from the familiar concept combined with improved technology and bigger budgets.

How do remakes differ from sequels, reboots, clones and ports?

In the movie industry the definition of a remake is not entirely clear-cut. In a way the most undisputable remakes might be the Psycho from 1998 or Michael Haneke's self-made English remake of Funny Games among a few others that have been reshot shot-for-shot. Many criticize the point of just remaking everything scene by scene, and accordingly these kinds of examples are very rare. But then there are those movies that have different names than the original, but might share the entire plot or just some part of the premise with the original that inspired the new movie (eg. Four brothers). Their existence results in the definition of a remake becoming much more controversial.

However, in the gaming industry it's even more complicated. Games are ported to different systems, and in the process graphical updates and some features might be added. New versions of games may be published that may have some features of an update, some features of a remake and some features of a sequel. And then there are collections, which combine several older games, either in their original or remastered form, or both. All this can be seen eg. from the wikipedia list, which currently lists some games that I would rather consider sequels, ports or updates - whereas on the other hand the list currently seems to be missing the Ultima remake from 1986.

So how would I define a remake as compared to other non-original games? I think it's quite simple in the end:

1. it has to be made from scratch in the sense that it doesn't take any code from the original directly.
   
2. it has to take something essential directly from the original.

For more complex games the point 2 might be the plot of the game along with the game genre. For very simple older games like the lode runner, it may be harder to distinguish between sequels, clones and remakes. Perhaps the "essential" part in these cases is the level design. If it shares the name, characters or something similar, but doesn't share the levels, it's a sequel. If it tries to deviate from the original in other ways besides just taking the basic premise, then it might be a clone (like bomberman clones). If the levels are the same as in the old one, then it's a remake. Still, even with the old levels, it might feel like just a pointless technical upgrade in the same fashion as a shot-by-shot movie remake. On the other hand in case this upgrade includes a transition from 2D to 3D, the remake may be significant - which of course may be either for better or for worse.

An era of new kinds of remakes?

So does it really matter whether a game is a remake or just something similar? Probably not. Nevertheless, the nature of remakes in gaming might be gaining more resemblance with movie remakes in the near future. So far the emphasis in remakes has been mostly on a technical upgrade, but that is bound to change sooner or later. Artistic perspectives may become more significant as more complicated games, where plot actually plays a significant role, are being remade. This is the true also for a bit older role playing games like in the remake of Final Fantasy 4.

One game that was released one month ago also matches to these terms. In addition, it might actually be unique in a certain sense: as far as I know, it is the only remake that is based on a game that was directly based on a single movie. It may be no wonder that the movie itself is part of a franchise that has been rebooted more times than perhaps any other franchise. The franchise in question is of course Bond, James Bond, and the game that was remade was the excellent FPS game from 1997, GoldenEye:

Since the gaming industry is still much less mature compared to the movie industry, a remake is typically expected to be better than the original - which is often vice versa in the movie industry. This might be true for the new GoldenEye as well, even with the original being the huge hit it was 13 years ago. But as games are especially nowadays much more time-consuming than movies, a game remake perhaps also should deliver a much more substantial sense of novelty to keep the gamer interested.

So how does eg. GoldenEye deliver? It has received relatively good reviews, but as the standards are much higher nowadays, the ratings are still significantly lower than what the original received. So if one feels that the original was better, is it just a feel of nostalgy or might there be something eg. in the game mechanics that makes the new GoldenEye inferior? I haven't tried the new one, but I have certain suppositions about it - both negative and positive.

If you feel differently about remakes in general or if you have opinions about either of the GoldenEye games, feel free to comment!