BDSP Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl General Discussion

[Aulos]

Exactly my point: Both games are "remakes," but looking at some people's standards of what a pokemon remake should keep/not have, Final Fantasy VII, by their standards, would not be a remake at all - but some completely new spinoff in the spirit of an older game.

I'm not really sure where you're getting at here. I'm not concerned with what the Pokemon fandom thinks. Whether or not a game is a remake is an objective standard. I'd be curious to hear other opinions on FFVII Remake with its changes, but this is not the time or place for that. I was only arguing that BD/SP are remakes and not remasters. It's a very simple case with BD/SP.

 

[SinnohEevee]

I'm sorry but they really don't. Take a look at comparisons and you'll see, BD/SP are clearly built from the ground up. They are designed to be extremely conservative and follow the originals in many stubborn ways, but they are most certainly not just the original D/P repackaged with updated lighting or something (that would be a remaster).

It won't make any difference if BDSP turns out to be a 1:1 remake.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Honestly I feel that most remakes tend to fall on the "remaster" side of the spectrum anyway, which makes interchanging the terms even more confusing. Pokemon fans are in a sense spoiled, most "remakes" just tend to make minor tweaks in the graphics (usually upping frame rate and/or resolution), add maybe one new feature, and then call it a day. Remakes along the lines of FRLG, HGSS, and ORAS that have numerous new features and significant additions in content are almost unheard of elsewhere, and the only other IP I've seen that ever changes things so radically is Metroid (Zero Mission and Samus Returns' map design is almost unrecognizable from the originals to the point of almost feeling like a different game). But I do think we could use more remakes like FRLG, HGSS, and ORAS in the industry. In an age where you can just throw anything on a digital store (in Nintendo's case, the eShop, Nintendo Switch Online, or VC), there's really not much purpose in just making a few minor changes and re-releasing it, that's somewhat of a cash-grabby move. I think if they want to go through the trouble of remaking a game, they should modernize the experience a bit more.

As far as BDSP, BDSP looks like it might be falling more towards the remaster side as well with less improvements than usual, and like the remasters it probably would've been better to just throw DPPt on the eShop instead of doing a full remake. But I'm a little more okay with BDSP being traditional because I thought DPPt was good to begin with and because LA is so much more than I could've possibly dreamed of.

 

[Lanstar]

I'm not really sure where you're getting at here. I'm not concerned with what the Pokemon fandom thinks. Whether or not a game is a remake is an objective standard. I'd be curious to hear other opinions on FFVII Remake with its changes, but this is not the time or place for that. I was only arguing that BD/SP are remakes and not remasters. It's a very simple case with BD/SP.

Yeah, I think they are supposedly going to remakes myself. The only thing that would make them closer to being "Remasters" as well is if they became so close to 1:1 in features that the gameplay feels no different to the originals.

I define "Remake" and "Remaster" in fairly fuzzy boundaries. Things like the live action Lion King could fit in both catagories in this manner - A remake in that it's in a very different artstyle built from scratch, but a remaster in that the whole story doesn't change at all. I think similarly with Link's Awakening HD - only that game also had bonus content on the side as well, putting it slightly to the remake territory.

 

[Aulos]

Yeah, I think they are supposedly going to remakes myself. The only thing that would make them closer to being "Remasters" as well is if they became so close to 1:1 in features that the gameplay feels no different to the originals.

I define "Remake" and "Remaster" in fairly fuzzy boundaries. Things like the live action Lion King could fit in both catagories in this manner - A remake in that it's in a very different artstyle built from scratch, but a remaster in that the whole story doesn't change at all. I think similarly with Link's Awakening HD - only that game also had bonus content on the side as well, putting it slightly to the remake territory.

I'm just so lost. The live action Lion King is objectively a remake. A remaster would be a rerelease of the original Lion King animation upscaled. It's funny that you bring up films, because as I pointed out earlier, people understand all too clearly the difference between remasters and remakes when we mention films. Remasters are rereleases of old movies with updated resolutions to fit better on modern TV screens. Remakes are done from scratch.

That's it. That's the difference. Nothing else matters. A game can be built from the ground up to play almost exactly like the originals but it is still a remake. The reason is because it was made from scratch. That's the definition. That's the only requisite. A remaster is a rerelease of an older game with a higher resolution. Twilight Princess HD and the upcoming Skyward Sword HD are perfect examples of this.

I think I've already made my point here and am just going to come off as repetitive if I continue. So I'm going to leave it here.

 

[SinnohEevee]

Honestly I feel that most remakes tend to fall on the "remaster" side of the spectrum anyway, which makes interchanging the terms even more confusing. Pokemon fans are in a sense spoiled, most "remakes" just tend to make minor tweaks in the graphics (usually upping frame rate and/or resolution), add maybe one new feature, and then call it a day. Remakes along the lines of FRLG, HGSS, and ORAS that have numerous new features and significant additions in content are almost unheard of elsewhere, and the only other IP I've seen that ever changes things so radically is Metroid (Zero Mission and Samus Returns' map design is almost unrecognizable from the originals to the point of almost feeling like a different game). But I do think we could use more remakes like FRLG, HGSS, and ORAS in the industry. In an age where you can just throw anything on a digital store (in Nintendo's case, the eShop, Nintendo Switch Online, or VC), there's really not much purpose in just making a few minor changes and re-releasing it, that's somewhat of a cash-grabby move. I think if they want to go through the trouble of remaking a game, they should modernize the experience a bit more.

As far as BDSP, BDSP looks like it might be falling more towards the remaster side as well with less improvements than usual, and like the remasters it probably would've been better to just throw DPPt on the eShop instead of doing a full remake. But I'm a little more okay with BDSP being traditional because I thought DPPt was good to begin with and because LA is so much more than I could've possibly dreamed of.

I think the only reason for these remakes is the dual screen.

 

[Sakuraa]

It's easier when limited to a select few Pokemon, but having to do it for over 400 is where the challenge kicks in.

Sure when it's more Pokemon its more work, but we can see it is still possible to do in 3D.

 

[Tuoko]

I think putting hard limits on what a 'Remake' should mean entail is ridiculous. Look at the Final Fantasy VII Remake for instance: It's in full ultra HD in the same graphics intensity as current Final Fantasy games, and even alters the battle format versus the original edition. Yet by some people's interpretations, it's not a remake.

What are people calling it, if not a remake?

Look, I don't want to get off-topic with FF here. But Final Fantasy VII Remake is on the far opposite spectrum of a remake from BD/SP. They are both remakes, just one (FFVII Remake) is much more ambitious in reimagining and the other (BD/SP) is extremely conservative and, well, just going through the motions.

Considering the amount of changes it's made, I'd argue it fits the reimagining category more, the remake part of the title is just plain misleading, especially since there's an actual remake for FF7 coming out later.


Remakes shouldn't be straying too far from the original story/gameplay, but there can still be new content, remasters aren't gonna have much new content compared to a remake/reimagining, while reimaginings can change up the gameplay & story more than the other two.

This is also part of why LGPE fits the reimagining category as well.

EDIT: Also this might help a bit considering I'm bringing up the categories:

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7uxlh8/remaster_vs_remake_vs_reboot_vs_reimagining/


As for where BDSP stands, it'd fall under remakes.

 

[Bolt Strike]

This is also part of why LGPE fits the reimagining category as well.

I would disagree with this. LGPE didn't make nearly enough changes to fit the reimagining category, all it really changed was the capture mechanics and swapped out the protagonists and rivals, the Pokemon selection, region design, and story were mostly untouched. LGPE is more like a remake than a reimagining, we really haven't had any proper reimaginings in the series (BW2 and now LA could be considered reimaginings design wise, but story wise they're explicitly sequels/prequels).

BDSP is a remake, but it seems like it creeps awfully close to remaster territory, especially with them reusing the same graphical style. That seems to be the biggest difference between a remaster and remake, remasters just touch up the same graphics whereas remakes recreate them from scratch. And you could probably argue that there's not much of a difference on the player side anyway since the graphical style could be recreated to look almost exactly the same and that's more of a difference on the development side. The most noticeable differences tend to be between remasters/remakes and reimaginings/reboots, and we see a lot more of the former two.

 

[Phosphene]

BDSP is a remakster

 

[Tuoko]

I would disagree with this. LGPE didn't make nearly enough changes to fit the reimagining category, all it really changed was the capture mechanics and swapped out the protagonists and rivals, the Pokemon selection, region design, and story were mostly untouched. LGPE is more like a remake than a reimagining, we really haven't had any proper reimaginings in the series (BW2 and now LA could be considered reimaginings design wise, but story wise they're explicitly sequels/prequels).

The capture mechanics & the protags/rivals being different characters are why it's a reimagining though. If the catching mechanics weren't changed at all, then it'd be a remake.

Sure, it's not bigger enough/more than we'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that reimagining fits it more than a remake.

B2W2 & Legends are completely new games altogether, so they wouldn't fit the reimagining category.

 

[Bolt Strike]

The capture mechanics & the protags/rivals being different characters is why it's a reimagining though. If the catching mechanics weren't changed at all, then it'd be a remake.

Sure, it's not bigger enough/more than we'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that reimagining fits it more than a remake.

No, I think it does change things. Reimaginings tend to change more than just one aspect of the gameplay, the entire game is changed in multiple, highly noticeable ways. Being that religiously similar to the originals in so many areas, to the point of being the "faithful remake" everyone assumes BDSP to be, puts it firmly in remake territory in my eyes.

B2W2 & Legends are completely new games altogether, so they wouldn't fit the reimagining category.

Well yeah, like I said the story explicitly makes them sequels/prequels. But gameplay wise, they are reusing an old setting and old assets from a past game, which is where the comparisons can be drawn to a reimagining. I would put those in the same category of whatever you would put ALBW in, which while narratively a sequel, is so eerily similar to ALttP in terms of locations and characters that it feels like a remake.

 

[Lanstar]

Maybe I'll try to clarify how I define 'Remaster', 'Remake', and 'Reimagining':

Remaster: A 'port' from an older style. How you port it doesn't matter, as long as the actual gameplay remains as identical to the older game as possible. In other words, it could be developed from scratch - but it still straight-out references the older game so much, and feels so identical in gameplay, story, and features, you feel like you're just playing the older game - only with differing techno/art-guts.

Remake: A Remaster - Only with various amounts of additional changes to the story, gameplay, and features in itself. It could respin the story by modifying its morality, and adding significant dialog changes. It could modify gameplay by suggesting different strategies, altering outdated elements, and increasing/decreasing the difficulty of various terrains. I.e.: Not just the artstyle and graphics were enhanced in the port.

"Reimagining": An entirely new game that references various assets of the older games - but the similarities to the older game stop there. You feel like either of the story, gameplay and featureset are so entirely different that you're playing a totally different game in the end - It's not merely the same game on steroids.

The more changes done to the story and gameplay, the closer it falls under the reimagining category. The fewer the changes to the story/gameplay, the closer it falls under the remaster category. "Remake" is in some kind of happy medium between these areas. But where the boundaries between each areas varies from person to person, as well as from game to game - It's not entirely objective at all.

Hence my sense of "Fuzzy Boundaries": I learned that in the true study of semantic linguistics, categorizing things is NOT black and white!

 

[SinnohEevee]

What matters is the difference to the end user.

 

[SinnohEevee]

How easy do you think Cynthia will be?

 

[prog rocker]

How easy do you think Cynthia will be?

If Moonblast is in, easier.

 

[Bolt Strike]

How easy do you think Cynthia will be?

Easier but not stupidly easy. They tend to give the Elite 4 movesets that counter their weaknesses. Garchomp will certainly have Poison Jab or Iron Head to keep Fairies in check, and if they can find a way to give Spiritomb a Poison or Steel type move (since it currently doesn't have one), they will too.

 

[FinnishPokéFan92]

Does it really matter if this is a remake, reimagining, remaster, or whatever? Tomatoes, tomatos.

 

[Norzan]

Easier but not stupidly easy. They tend to give the Elite 4 movesets that counter their weaknesses. Garchomp will certainly have Poison Jab or Iron Head to keep Fairies in check, and if they can find a way to give Spiritomb a Poison or Steel type move (since it currently doesn't have one), they will too.

In before you can't turn off Exp. Share, meaning you get overleveled because the game's level curve is not made around it, meaning whatever coverage the opponent's pokemon have doesn't matter because you are like 10 levels above them and they just got one shot.

 

[FinnishPokéFan92]

In before you can't turn off Exp. Share, meaning you get overleveled because the game's level curve is not made around it, meaning whatever coverage the opponent's pokemon have doesn't matter because you are like 10 levels above them and they just got one shot.

They can design the level curve around the Exp. Share mechanic.