Why does Skyrim keep getting remastered?

[QuaketallicA]

Seriously, the game from 2011 already looked fantastic in the first place and never needed a re-release. I get that they also had engine upgrades and better technical support and things of that nature, but I've seen the two editions. They look 95% identical, except the original coloring is changed to be less gritty and more saturated, which was the trend in mid 2010s. Then they re-release it again 10 years later? Just why? And more importantly, why is the original version hidden from the Store on Steam and missing on GOG?

 

Just generally, I don't understand why people keep re-buying games they already had and played, but in slightly shinier graphics.

 

The CEO even came out and said, look guys, the reason I keep doing this is because you idiots keep buying. Why should I bother making a new TES game when you still pay full price for a re-packaging of the previous game?

https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-special-edition/skyrim-remaster-sales

 

And the fanbase is so cancerous that they're begging for remakes of the other games like Oblivion and Morrowwind too.

 

I don't mean to single out Elder Scrolls, because this is the entire industry right now. At what point did it just become acceptable, even almost celebrated, to give companies easy money for milking out literally the same product in slightly better graphics?

 

Not too long ago, we used to expect innovation. Not just in graphics, but in gameplay, narrative, a.i. as well. Then starting in the 2010s once Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed became mega-blockbusters with yearly, iterative releases, consumers settled for getting endless sequels of slightly better versions of the same thing. Now in the 2020s it's reached the point where even the sequels are unnecessary, because companies can just re-release the previous games verbatim in more modern graphics, sold at full price, and they sell just as well as a new entry would. Perhaps even better.

 

Counter-Strike is another perplexing instance of this. They recently did the newest update to CS, and every iteration since the original mod in the 90s still has all the same maps and guns. I'm sure there's minute differences between the versions that the hardcore fans will point out, but they're all literally the same but with prettier visuals. Just...why? Who the fuck cares? What's the point? At least Call of Duty, the king of unoriginality pumps out clone games with new stories, new settings, and new maps. Well...they used to, anyway. Now apparently the newest Call of Duty is just 100% recycled maps from the previous games. And not like in the past, where they would bring back a couple familiar maps with the same flow but at least give it a completely different re-design or makeover. Nope, they will both play and look exactly identical as in the previous games.

 

What the fuck is wrong with gamers, that this sort of re-hashing is so popular and in-demand?

 

Doom wads are appealing to me for exactly the opposite reason. The engine and fidelity of the visuals doesn't change dramatically; it's all id Tech 1, but every project will have its own creativity behind it. Unique set pieces and ideas. Mods like Complex Doom and Brutal Doom completely change the feel of the gameplay.

 

Even the modding world seems to have succumbed to the same disease. 

 

When I first discovered mods, for Star Wars Battlefront II, it blew my mind. There was everything--so many new types of units (called "era mods"), custom campaigns, all sorts of new maps, new heroes, new space encounters, etc. Many if not most of these have since become forgotten, but the biggest mod for the game today is just a remaster. Granted, this particular remaster by HarrisonFog is impressively high quality and goes above and beyond with trying to squeeze in as many little references to the movies, but still. It just goes to show that the kind of mods that appeal to people today vs in the past has changed.

[Biodegradable]

Because people keep buying it.

[D4NUK1]

There another Skyrim re-release doing? Or just the Anniversary Version it's the one of topic?

But yes, it's mostly people buying it again. for the others games.

 

CS still get re-balanced, and because CS:GO was very popular competitive wise, they have they dedicade pool of maps to train and enjoy in a more competitive way, that's the double sword of full comp or game for viewships, as they can't relay of fun maps or newer ideas maps, because if they break the meta they are just not played. (And also, bad move of valve just shadow removing CS:GO but hopefully that's something they can fix, with the same idea of having the maps and workshop working on it for the community servers do they thing, as they are doing in 1.6 and source yet alive by the fans).

 

for CoD, i don't know very well, but the maps being re-released are just modernized versions of the ones of MW3, and i don't know if this maps area like a bonus for buying early or to fill the map pool, but yeah it's activi$ion, what you expect for them.

 

 

[Sonikkumania]

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

Because people keep buying it.

This. 

[Individualised]

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Counter-Strike is another perplexing instance of this. They recently did the newest update to CS, and every iteration since the original mod in the 90s still has all the same maps and guns. I'm sure there's minute differences between the versions that the hardcore fans will point out, but they're all literally the same but with prettier visuals. Just...why? Who the fuck cares? What's the point?

I agree with your post for the most part but this is just bizarre. There has been a total of 5 (hell, 4 if you're not counting the disaster that was Condition Zero) mainline Counter Strike games since (and including) the first title. That was all the way back in 2000. That is a completely acceptable amount of sequels. The thing about them including the same maps and guns also makes no sense, isn't it a good thing when sequels don't remove content? They did actually remove some content in Counter Strike 2 if I recall correctly and it caused some controversy given that Valve are essentially replacing CS:GO with it and making it difficult to access that title now.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Individualised

[Amaruψ]

Counter-Strike has indeed been quite the perplexing case when it comes to remasters. As it is to me, apart from turning Global Offensive into their milking cow, Valve seems to utilize the franchise mostly for the sole purpose of demonstrating their latest engines and tech. It's quite rare for them to even try to derive from the formula; at the core base, it's always the same game, but on a different engine.

 

Condition Zero was going to derive heavily from 1.6's formula, featuring a massive plethora of new weapons and maps and a single-player campaign. Valve however, for whatever reason kept juggling the title around until it eventually just became 1.6 but with a fresh coat of paint. So yeah, it's just a remaster of a remaster that keeps getting remastered for the sole purpose of demonstrating the latest tech (at least it is to me.)

 

Apart from that, Skyrim's consistent remasters can easily be attributed towards a developer discovering their cash crop, and doing their best to milk it dry. Rockstar did so with Grand Theft Auto 5 and Online, Valve did so with Global Offensive, and Blizzard did so with Overwatch. Since people would keep on buying their cash crop product, they will continue to remaster it. 

[Flytrap]

Because people are still buying it.

Its not even that good. As someone who enjoyed it a lot when it came out, i since then explored better games and realized that skyrim is merely passable and good enough.

Hate to be that guy, but morrowind is great. I should get back into that aswell

[Firedust]

Why do EA and Activision Blizzard keep releasing the same games?

[Murdoch]

Remastering involves taking an original game, and giving it at minimum some kind of visual overhaul. This has never happened to Skyrim.

 

First was the Special Edition that backported Fallout 4 improvements, notably 64bit that dramatically improved stability for most people especially with heavy mod loads. Also, my favourite feature, no more rain clipping through solid objects. Worth the price of admission alone. This was completely free to PC players, and it was released on new consoles where the game previously had no presence. It is not uncommon to see older games released on newer consoles.

 

A VR version was also made. Again, nothing unique to Skyrim, and also not a remaster. Anniversary Edition was a content update. A bit cynical perhaps, but no one is holding anyone at gunpoint and forcing them to buy it. This is no different to the old "game of the year" releases that started decades ago which bundle new content in for a fresh release.

 

Don't you think this all sounds a bit like another game we all know that's been around a long-ass time and been released on pretty much every platform in the known universe, often as commercial re-releases on new platforms it previously was not on?

 

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

never needed a re-release

 

The Special Edition was technically superior in every way and much better to mod. So  I would disagree with this.

 

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

 And more importantly, why is the original version hidden from the Store on Steam and missing on GOG?

 

Why would any company want to sell a demonstrably inferior version of a product? 

 

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

And the fanbase is so cancerous that they're begging for remakes of the other games like Oblivion and Morrowwind too.

 

The existence of a creative work does not affect you in any way shape or form. Just because you don't understand it or want it, doesn't mean a lot of people don't and are wrong for doing so. This very forum just hosted a post where people expressed their desire to see remasters and/or re-releases of the Serpent Riders games.

 

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

I don't mean to single out Elder Scrolls, because this is the entire industry right now. At what point did it just become acceptable, even almost celebrated, to give companies easy money for milking out literally the same product in slightly better graphics?

 

I actually do not entirely disagree with you, I am just taking issues with some of your wording. You have effectively answered your own question in your post. Companies exist to make money, and they will often take the path of least resistance to do so. You have singled out Skyrim because it is the industry punching bag, when it's not even really the most egregious offender. I do think re-releases and remasters can have some validity, but not always. Getting the game to newer consoles is a good example. 

 

I would be curious to see the sales figures of this year's big AAA releases compared to previous years, and to see how the sales of remasters and re-releases compare. Certainly, remasters and re-releases have become a big thing of late, but I am not convinced that it has really affected game company's abilities to release new games. Innovation is a bit scarce in the AAA market anyway and has been for some time. One needs to look to indies for that.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Murdoch

[banjiepixel]

3 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Seriously, the game from 2011 already looked fantastic in the first place and never needed a re-release. I get that they also had engine upgrades and better technical support and things of that nature, but I've seen the two editions. They look 95% identical, except the original coloring is changed to be less gritty and more saturated, which was the trend in mid 2010s. Then they re-release it again 10 years later?

 

Alot of remastering comes from the fact that console generations usually have hard cutoffs to access to certain games. Remasters are very often just a port to newer generation console to keep the game accessible with actual upgrades to graphics being mostly just something extra to make it more worthy package to sell. Remasters on pc are generally always essentially pc ports of console remasters or old pc games upgraded to be functional on modern hardware. So answer is, if they're already making console remaster, why not make a pc version too and sell it there as a new product too, like they do on consoles?

 

For every Skyrim remaster, there was a new set of next generation consoles to port the game to.

 

3 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Just generally, I don't understand why people keep re-buying games they already had and played, but in slightly shinier graphics.

 

I mean, it is technically the version of the game with latest updates and you gain access to the same product that is on the current gen consoles, so why not?

Edited October 22, 2023 by banjiepixel

[Individualised]

40 minutes ago, Amaruψ said:

Condition Zero was going to derive heavily from 1.6's formula, featuring a massive plethora of new weapons and maps and a single-player campaign. Valve however, for whatever reason kept juggling the title around until it eventually just became 1.6 but with a fresh coat of paint. So yeah, it's just a remaster of a remaster that keeps getting remastered for the sole purpose of demonstrating the latest tech (at least it is to me.)

As I understand it Condition Zero went through multiple iterations of development, each outsourced to a different developer but Valve were not satisfied by any developer's take on the game. They ended up releasing the game anyway (despite their own sequel, Counter Strike: Source being in development and releasing the same year), essentially being a random collection of different development assets put together into a barely coherent game, my guess is that they were possibly obligated by Sierra to "finish" the game.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Individualised

[Amaruψ]

19 minutes ago, Individualised said:

As I understand it Condition Zero went through multiple iterations of development, each outsourced to a different developer but Valve were not satisfied by any developer's take on the game. They ended up releasing the game anyway (despite their own sequel, Counter Strike: Source being in development and releasing the same year), essentially being a random collection of different development assets put together into a barely coherent game, my guess is that they were possibly obligated by Sierra to "finish" the game.

 

Yeah, I've ranted over this topic multiple times on Gamebanana and elsewhere that I've honestly lost count at this point :') From Rogue entertainment to Gearbox Studios, I'm surprised that they even considered to release the Ritual Entertainment's iteration of the game at all. 

 

Obligated by Sierra or not, they did indeed go ahead with a large amount of marketing, the game appearing in German gaming magazines and such, with interviews from Randall Pitchfork the 3rd himself. I wonder how the public reaction was when such an anticipated game just turned out to be Valve making you buy the same game once again.

[Major Arlene]

You could ask the same of any of the Quake remasters or even the Rise of the Triad remaster. The answer is because people like playing remasters and companies like making them.

 

They aren't all cash grabs either. sometimes a remaster is just for the sake of the player base and offered for free. either way, if you don't like it, no one's forcing you to buy it.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Major Arlene

[Gez]

4 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Seriously, the game from 2011 already looked fantastic in the first place and never needed a re-release. I get that they also had engine upgrades and better technical support and things of that nature, but I've seen the two editions. They look 95% identical, except the original coloring is changed to be less gritty and more saturated, which was the trend in mid 2010s. Then they re-release it again 10 years later? Just why? And more importantly, why is the original version hidden from the Store on Steam and missing on GOG?

The original release of Skyrim was 32-bit. Pro: it could run on systems with only 4 gB of RAM. Con: it could only make use of about 3 gB of RAM.

 

The 64-bit version is much more stable, and runs better on hardware that is not utterly antiquated. Even my laptop that's as old as original Skyrim gets better perfs from SSE than from "Oldrim".

 

Large scale modding projects like the Beyond Skyrim provinces have had to ditch original Skyrim and become exclusive to 64-bit version because they kept running into technical walls with the 32-bit original.

 

As for the Anniversary Edition, it's just the Special Edition but with more content bundled in. It's kind of like a GOTY version. "Here's the game plus all the DLCs from the last five years".

4 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

The CEO even came out and said, look guys, the reason I keep doing this is because you idiots keep buying. Why should I bother making a new TES game when you still pay full price for a re-packaging of the previous game?

Todd Howard is not CEO. He's creative director.

 

4 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

And the fanbase is so cancerous that they're begging for remakes of the other games like Oblivion and Morrowwind too.

I don't see how wanting updated versions of their favorite games is "cancerous". Why do people use Doom source ports?

 

Keep in mind the aforementioned issues about 32-bit engines and large content mods. If you know Bethesda games, you know how important modding is to them.

 

4 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

I don't mean to single out Elder Scrolls, because this is the entire industry right now. At what point did it just become acceptable, even almost celebrated, to give companies easy money for milking out literally the same product in slightly better graphics?

That's every EA sport game for the last 30 years.

 

4 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Not too long ago, we used to expect innovation. Not just in graphics, but in gameplay, narrative, a.i. as well.

Tell me about the graphics, gameplay, narrative, and a.i. innovation from Doom to Doom II to Final Doom...

 

5 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

When I first discovered mods, for Star Wars Battlefront II, it blew my mind. There was everything--so many new types of units (called "era mods"), custom campaigns, all sorts of new maps, new heroes, new space encounters, etc. Many if not most of these have since become forgotten, but the biggest mod for the game today is just a remaster.

Oh wow, the most popular mod for an old game today is a remaster of "impressively high quality", what a surprise that people would be attracted to playing their old game with updated graphics when it's done well.

 

3 hours ago, D4NUK1 said:

There another Skyrim re-release doing? Or just the Anniversary Version it's the one of topic?

No, there isn't, and the Anniversary Edition is old hat because it's from 2021 and we're in 2023.

 

 

Thing is, the Elder Scrolls franchise has been put on the backburner for a long while now. Fallout 4, then Fallout 76, then Starfield. People keep buying Skyrim because it's still the last Elder Scrolls game. Sure there's ESO but it's an MMO, so it has all the MMO baggage that you may not care for.

[Kinsie]

2 hours ago, Major Arlene said:

You could ask the same of any of the Quake remasters or even the Rise of the Triad remaster.

You don't get it. Those are of the games I like, therefore they are infallible and the remaster devs are pleasant and smell faintly of liquorice. The Elder Scrolls games are the games I don't like, and therefore the remaster devs are crime devils who tie fair maidens to train tracks.

 

42 minutes ago, Gez said:

Thing is, the Elder Scrolls franchise has been put on the backburner for a long while now. Fallout 4, then Fallout 76, then Starfield. People keep buying Skyrim because it's still the last Elder Scrolls game. Sure there's ESO but it's an MMO, so it has all the MMO baggage that you may not care for.

BGS's typical cadence is to develop one game at a time. They make a game, then they do the DLC while doing pre-prod on the next game, then they start on it proper. FO76 is the oddball exception in that it was developed primarily by another studio (that they later subsumed into their mass) smushing Fallout 4 and Id Tech's netcode together in unholy matrimony while the main team primarily focused on Starfield.

 

So, they'll be back on the fantasy-RPG beat after they knock off the last Starfield DLC, whenever that is. And probably with a remaster or two in the meantime to keep people's attention during the half-decade wait.

[Fonze]

4 words: games as a service.

[Liberation]

You can debate whether a game actually needs a remaster, imo Q1 and Q2 didn't really need them but then, both games did benefit and were free updates, so all good.

 

ROTT certainly needed a remaster, and that has been a great edition.

 

Regarding BGS games.. Oblivion is crying out for a remaster and they can have my money when/if that gets released. 

[Kinsie]

4 minutes ago, Fonze said:

4 words: games as a service.

...has nothing to do with what's been complained about.

 

2 minutes ago, Liberation said:

Regarding BGS games.. Oblivion is crying out for a remaster and they can have my money when/if that gets released. 

IIRC an Oblivion remaster was listed in the old documents from that court-documents leak. The whens and hows, of course, remain a mystery.

[Fonze]

9 minutes ago, Kinsie said:

...has nothing to do with what's been complained about.

 

Yes it does. There is fundamentally no difference between paying $5 a month (or more for many games as a service) and $60 a year to keep up with the most recent iteration of a game and its content, or to stay competitive or in a competitive/ populated environment. Further, both of these stem from the exact same business model and corporate culture. So yes, it has everything to do with what's being discussed here. Thanks for taking the time to notice patterns with me and not being immediately dismissive of what I had to say.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Fonze

[OniriA]

Because easy money.

 

And money is what companies primarily want to make lot's of.

Edited October 22, 2023 by OniriA

[Kinsie]

8 minutes ago, Fonze said:

 

Yes it does. There is fundamentally no difference between paying $5 a month (or more for many games as a service) and $60 a year to keep up with the most recent iteration of a game and its content, or to stay competitive or in a competitive/ populated environment. Further, both of these stem from the exact same business model and corporate culture. So yes, it has everything to do with what's being discussed here. Thanks for taking the time to notice patterns with me and not being immediately dismissive of what I had to say.

We're talking about re-releases of old games here, not subscription services or annual titles. It's like comparing fish and tarmac. Unless you're putting Night Dive on the same tier as FIFA Ultimate Team, in which case someone's probably going to have some words with you.

[Fonze]

6 minutes ago, Kinsie said:

We're talking about re-releases of old games here, not subscription services or annual titles. It's like comparing fish and tarmac. Unless you're putting Night Dive on the same tier as FIFA Ultimate Team, in which case someone's probably going to have some words with you.

 

The thread was about cod, skyrim, cs, etc. (modern games that get many re-releases of what is essentially the same game with a new flavor and promise of being popular) not night dive remastering/porting 20 year old games to be playable on modern systems out of the box. I'm not comparing all remasters to games as a service. Remasters can be a great thing. That's strawmanning.

[Kinsie]

2 minutes ago, Fonze said:

 

The thread was about cod, skyrim, cs, etc. (modern games that get many re-releases of what is essentially the same game with a new flavor and promise of being popular) not night dive remastering/porting 20 year old games to be playable on modern systems out of the box. I'm not comparing all remasters to games as a service. Remasters can be a great thing. That's strawmanning.

The thread is about Skyrim, which has gotten one remaster (to the extensive benefit of the modding scene) and a GOTY repackaging. All the other games you mentioned are sequels, much like how Doom 2 is a sequel to Doom.

[OniriA]

I think there's an issue with the terminology used here. A remaster could be a once every generation thing while a re-release could consist of releasing the game on another console or system. More often then not a re-release on another system comes with slight touch-ups and sometimes even small bonus content which some people consider a 'remaster'. If we consider every re-release of Skyrim on every system as a remaster that way, then Skyrim is the most remastered of all the remastered games.

 

If the issue consists of, why is this game being remastered? Then consider the fact that a (capitalist) company will look into it's back catalog of games that have been received well in the past and also see that the gaming audience is always changing. The newer teens and kids that are growing up must also buy and get to know this game that was well received in the past because the audience that bought the game back then grew older and aren't playing or buying more games. To appeal to the newer audience and update with current technology it would need a make-up session aswell. Enter remaster.

Edited October 22, 2023 by OniriA

[Fonze]

30 minutes ago, Kinsie said:

The thread is about Skyrim, which has gotten one remaster (to the extensive benefit of the modding scene) and a GOTY repackaging. All the other games you mentioned are sequels, much like how Doom 2 is a sequel to Doom.

 

Thats a fair point and I agree. I think you're entirely miscategorizing what I've said otherwise, but I also don't want to derail this thread further with a topic that I may consider to be related and others may not.

[Gez]

2 hours ago, Fonze said:

Yes it does. There is fundamentally no difference between paying $5 a month (or more for many games as a service) and $60 a year to keep up with the most recent iteration of a game

Since we're talking Skyrim, it'd be $60 every five years. Except not even that, since people who had OG Skyrim and its three DLCs got Skyrim Special Edition for free, and the Anniversary Edition is a $20 upgrade for those who have Skyrim Special Edition. So really it's $60 at release + $20 ten years later.

 

To be fair I would love if every game was like Terraria. If you bought the game for $10 in 2011 (same year as Skyrim), instead of paid DLCs and re-releases, you get free updates with more content basically every year. But that's not a realistic proposition. If a game is to receive active support with content updates etc. for 12+ years, the team working on it has to be paid. Everybody gotta eat and pay their bills, after all. Terraria was lucky in that it can get by with a rather small team (definitely not AAA-sized), without some very expensive budget items like voice acting, and it had a massive success that has only kept on keeping on (selling about 4 million copies per year, they should reach 50 millions soon if they're not there yet).

 

Now Bethesda is not a small indie team, it's a large corporation owned by a larger corporation owned by an even larger corporation. They're gonna be greedy by default, at this scale it's not possible to retain humanity. But even then I can't really fault them for doing shit that id Software did back in the days. All the console ports with their exclusive content, and PSX Doom can sorta count as a remaster. Maximum Doom, Master Levels, Final Doom, all of those were cheap cash grabs. Doom 3 had its BFG Edition remaster, too.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Gez

[DNSKILL5]

It’s a shame too when some remasters are really just cash grabs anyways that are filled with new bugs not in the original release or they change parts of the game. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by DNSKILL5

[QuaketallicA]

On 10/22/2023 at 4:27 AM, Liberation said:

You can debate whether a game actually needs a remaster, imo Q1 and Q2 didn't really need them but then, both games did benefit and were free updates, so all good.

 

ROTT certainly needed a remaster, and that has been a great edition.

 

Regarding BGS games.. Oblivion is crying out for a remaster and they can have my money when/if that gets released. 

 

Quake is definitely the exception. The Quake 1 and especially Quake 2 remasters are nothing short of amazing. Came out of nowhere, for free (for current owners), with new DLC, revived online multiplayer, the N64 version, new enemy a.i. behavior, and more. 

 

I disagree on ROTT, but then I personally don't even like that game, so I could care less. It's the one 90s shooter I kinda hate.

[QuaketallicA]

On 10/22/2023 at 12:09 AM, Individualised said:

I agree with your post for the most part but this is just bizarre. There has been a total of 5 (hell, 4 if you're not counting the disaster that was Condition Zero) mainline Counter Strike games since (and including) the first title. That was all the way back in 2000. That is a completely acceptable amount of sequels. The thing about them including the same maps and guns also makes no sense, isn't it a good thing when sequels don't remove content? They did actually remove some content in Counter Strike 2 if I recall correctly and it caused some controversy given that Valve are essentially replacing CS:GO with it and making it difficult to access that title now.

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Counter Strike, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. I do have the original CS 1.6 and CS Source from some Valve bundle, and obviously the new one is free. I've tried them out, and they all have the same maps and the same guns. Isn't the point of a new game to have, at the bare minimum, new maps and new guns? 

[QuaketallicA]

On 10/22/2023 at 3:05 AM, Gez said:

The original release of Skyrim was 32-bit. Pro: it could run on systems with only 4 gB of RAM. Con: it could only make use of about 3 gB of RAM.

 

The 64-bit version is much more stable, and runs better on hardware that is not utterly antiquated. Even my laptop that's as old as original Skyrim gets better perfs from SSE than from "Oldrim".

 

Large scale modding projects like the Beyond Skyrim provinces have had to ditch original Skyrim and become exclusive to 64-bit version because they kept running into technical walls with the 32-bit original.

 

As for the Anniversary Edition, it's just the Special Edition but with more content bundled in. It's kind of like a GOTY version. "Here's the game plus all the DLCs from the last five years".

Todd Howard is not CEO. He's creative director.

 

I don't see how wanting updated versions of their favorite games is "cancerous". Why do people use Doom source ports?

 

Keep in mind the aforementioned issues about 32-bit engines and large content mods. If you know Bethesda games, you know how important modding is to them.

 

That's every EA sport game for the last 30 years.

 

Tell me about the graphics, gameplay, narrative, and a.i. innovation from Doom to Doom II to Final Doom...

 

Oh wow, the most popular mod for an old game today is a remaster of "impressively high quality", what a surprise that people would be attracted to playing their old game with updated graphics when it's done well.

 

No, there isn't, and the Anniversary Edition is old hat because it's from 2021 and we're in 2023.

 

 

Thing is, the Elder Scrolls franchise has been put on the backburner for a long while now. Fallout 4, then Fallout 76, then Starfield. People keep buying Skyrim because it's still the last Elder Scrolls game. Sure there's ESO but it's an MMO, so it has all the MMO baggage that you may not care for.

 

I appreciate the explanation...though I'm certain in the earlier days of the remastered version mod support was apparently better on original Skyrim.

 

The difference, between Doom source ports and Skyrim, is that the former is free work done by fans as passion project, while the latter is just an excuse to keep re-selling the same now decade old game at full price. The difference, is that the original DOS version of Doom is still included with purchases of the updated re-release version, not hidden from appearing in search results on the Steam or GOG store. (Ditto for Doom 3 vs BFG Edition). Technically you can still buy the original Skyrim, but only with a direct link, and it doesn't go on sale. Nobody's going to pay full price for the old version when the new one is cheaper. Most people don't even realize the old version is even buyable at all. Isn't there an argument for sake of legacy or posterity to preserve the original version? Especially since they did change the coloring a fair bit. That's another beautiful thing about Doom. All the modernization features of GZDoom are 100% optional. If you want, you can still configure it to look and feel exactly like the vanilla game, (save for losing the demo compatibility.) 

Edited October 28, 2023 by QuaketallicA