The original Metroid Prime is a hands-down classic, no doubt about it. But go back through and check out the vast majority of critical reviews and you'll see that in large part the only fault many could find in the game was that the controls were slightly convoluted (10 hours in and still shooting missles when you wanted to open the map). Compare that to the reviews of Corruption, and you'll see that the vast majority of critics (most of whom had likely played the original) found the controls to be a God-send, allowing for a level of accuracy previously unheard of on a home console. I'd tend to agree with them, too.
I heard lots of criticism of the controls of Prime 1 and 2. But I also heard complaints about Cel-Shaded graphics in Wind Waker and an insane (given the game) amount of praise for Sonic and the Secret Rings (I'm sorry, that game is, hands down, a piece of crap). I also heard awful things about Sonic '06, but I gave it a try myself and thank god I did, because I find it to be actually rather enjoyable. Not perfect, but way better than it was given credit for, and certainly better than Secret Rings.
My point? The critics can have opinions that I disagree with, and oftentimes, they do.
So Alexey Pajitnov's original version of Tetris designed for 80's black and white PCs is better than the legendary Game Boy version?
Gameplay-wise? Maybe not. I haven't played both, so I can't judge for myself. But it's the same reason I bought Super Metroid for the VC and then again for my SNES (other than the fact that it's actually worse on the VC -- and I'm not making that up). You know how you told me that as a gamer, I owe it to myself to get the latest handhelds and such when referring to the DSi? Well, I feel that, as a gamer, you owe it to yourself to get the original game if you're going to get the game.
Sonic Adventure 2 was rated higher than it's clearly superior GCN remake. And didn't you say you like that?
I haven't played both (I'd love to get the original, but I don't own a Dreamcast
and the SA games are hard to come by anyways if you want a good deal on them) so I wouldn't necessarily be able to say it was "clearly superior". And no, I'm not going to automatically take anyone's word for that, I never do.
Either way, critics generally expect more out of a remake, and so if both of the originals got rated higher it probably means that both were very similar to the original, or similar enough that perhaps a remake wasn't in order. Which goes back to my original point that remakes shouldn't be shelled out just to make money.
I'm just sad people expect more from a remake >_>
-
[Font=Impact"]Bowser King[/Font]
I'm...sorry, unless the company does mass re-releasing, there's no excuse for a half-***ed "remake" that's the exact same as the original.
Perhaps you've forgotten the point of a REMAKE. It's to revive an old title and enhance it now that technology has advanced. Not to put a game out there again for the company to make a metric ton of money (although clearly that's their purpose now).
I would like to just point out the Chief Mendez is the only one who's contributed anything of value to this discussion for at least 5 pages now.
Have a good day
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU JUST SPAMMED!
Way to go for the completely ironic, contradictory position! Yeah!