Latest / Critical Error / Remakes Are Good, Actually

Transcript

Remakes Are Good, Actually · Critical Error

• 0:00
  Jake, I hate video game remakes. They're
• 0:02
  anti-art. They just keep shoveling the
• 0:04
  same ideas and mechanics that we've had
• 0:07
  since like the '9s and spitting it back
• 0:09
  into our mouths. It's baby birds all the
• 0:11
  way down. And worst of all, no other
• 0:14
  industry does this,
• 0:18
  right? A critical error is an error
• 0:20
  which the OS cannot reasonably ignore.
• 0:23
  Sh. Jake Steinberg [music] is a
• 0:24
  streamer, writer, and certified yapper.
• 0:27
  complimentary Peter Hunt spit tech is a
• 0:31
  YouTuber, journalist, and certified
• 0:33
  yapper derogatory. These are the things
• 0:35
  they [music] cannot reasonably ignore.
• 0:37
  >> Remake discourse is like synonymous with
• 0:40
  video game discourse. A lot of people
• 0:43
  seem to intuit it that there is tension
• 0:46
  between the artistic pursuit of creating
• 0:48
  a video game and then kind of the
• 0:51
  capitalist pursuit of generating the
• 0:53
  most value with the least amount of
• 0:56
  work. So, one of these arguments that
• 0:58
  come up, I think, around remakes
• 1:00
  constantly is this idea that, you know,
• 1:02
  you see a video game remake announced
• 1:04
  and somebody will claim that a remake is
• 1:06
  somehow less artistic than the original
• 1:10
  game that it is remaking. So, you'll
• 1:12
  hear people say things like, "Imagine if
• 1:15
  they remade a great work of art. Imagine
• 1:17
  if they remade Moby Dick." And the
• 1:20
  implication there is that great works of
• 1:22
  art should not be revisited. that the
• 1:25
  first version is sacred and everything
• 1:28
  after it is either derivative or some
• 1:32
  kind of ploy to generate value based
• 1:35
  around the greatness of that first piece
• 1:38
  of art. Is this is this a fair way to
• 1:40
  kind of start this conversation, this
• 1:41
  framing of how people talk about it?
• 1:43
  >> Yeah, it feels like you are either like
• 1:45
  very pro-re remake cuz you're just like,
• 1:47
  well, I just want to see, you know,
• 1:48
  these sorts of same things again. um or
• 1:51
  you're very anti-remake saying like,
• 1:53
  "No, it's all just slop." But what I
• 1:55
  think is interesting is that I think
• 1:56
  that like there are actually nuanced
• 1:58
  takes for both sides. I feel like that
• 2:01
  go sort of un untalked about. One of the
• 2:03
  things you hit on here that is most
• 2:05
  fascinating to me is the idea that like
• 2:08
  a remake is um a slap in the face to
• 2:11
  artistic intent because it only exists
• 2:14
  as a way to uh serve the more corporate
• 2:17
  side of the video game industry. And I
• 2:20
  would like to say that
• 2:23
  a few things can be true at the same
• 2:24
  time that that can be true. Like we
• 2:26
  we've seen like all sorts of remakes
• 2:29
  that are um in my opinion not really art
• 2:32
  new artistic takes on a video game. You
• 2:34
  look at The Last of Us Part One, a
• 2:36
  remake of The Last of Us, which I mean
• 2:38
  is shot forshot, frame for frame, the
• 2:40
  exact same video game, right? It's not a
• 2:42
  remaster in the sense that the technical
• 2:44
  side of it on the on the like
• 2:46
  development side is different, but it is
• 2:49
  um certainly a remake that feels a
• 2:53
  little bit like it was made specifically
• 2:57
  to sell copies of uh The Last of Us one
• 3:00
  with that when that TV show came out and
• 3:02
  not because someone wanted to sit down
• 3:04
  and say reimagine The Last of Us, right?
• 3:08
  But then you have like other remakes.
• 3:09
  have things like Final Fantasy 7 remake
• 3:11
  or that Silent Hill 2 remake which are
• 3:13
  not beat forbeat exactly the same uh as
• 3:17
  those original games and have like a
• 3:19
  take on them. And so I think it's
• 3:21
  interesting to say that like those games
• 3:23
  have no like artistic integrity to them
• 3:26
  when they are remakes. But it is clear
• 3:28
  to me that the people who made them had
• 3:30
  this idea of like we want to have a take
• 3:33
  on this. we want to adapt this for a new
• 3:36
  era and and maybe even make something
• 3:37
  that could be in conversation with that
• 3:39
  original work of art, you know. And so
• 3:41
  it's it's this interesting thing where
• 3:43
  people like to say that remakes are only
• 3:45
  this one thing without taking into
• 3:47
  consideration and account that no, they
• 3:49
  actually can be just as valid works of
• 3:52
  art as the original work.
• 3:55
  >> Oh, 100%. And I think something you're
• 3:56
  hitting on here is almost this issue of
• 4:00
  perception that people really struggle
• 4:02
  with when it comes to remakes because I
• 4:05
  think the thing that makes a when you
• 4:08
  talk about that remake that's um so
• 4:10
  concerned with fidelity to the source
• 4:12
  material that maybe is this version of
• 4:15
  something that already exists and it was
• 4:17
  what was the example you used was The
• 4:18
  Last of Us.
• 4:19
  >> Last of Us. Yeah. And and my
• 4:20
  understanding of that remake is that it
• 4:22
  is almost like imperceptible visual
• 4:25
  changes is is what we're talking about
• 4:27
  there.
• 4:27
  >> I mean, it's this thing where like if
• 4:28
  you play them back to back, you would
• 4:30
  go, "Yeah, that new one looks better."
• 4:32
  Like very it's very easy to see, hey,
• 4:35
  no, this is a visual upgrade. Um, but at
• 4:38
  the end of the day, it's not like a take
• 4:40
  on that game in the way that something
• 4:42
  like that Silent Hill 2 remake is a take
• 4:44
  on Silent Hill 2. And then I think where
• 4:46
  the issue of identification is is that
• 4:48
  it's not necessarily that um the Last of
• 4:53
  Us remake is doing something
• 4:57
  artistically poor as much as it is I
• 4:59
  think it is a new video game that exists
• 5:02
  in the context of The Last of Us already
• 5:05
  existing.
• 5:06
  >> Yes.
• 5:06
  >> And that's like kind of a weird thing to
• 5:08
  think about. So let me let me try to
• 5:09
  explain this to the listener. But um
• 5:11
  often times there uh this conversation
• 5:14
  comes up. I promise this will circle
• 5:15
  back around and make sense
• 5:17
  >> between Breath of the Wild and Tears of
• 5:19
  the Kingdom.
• 5:20
  >> And people will say
• 5:21
  >> if you think if you like Breath of the
• 5:23
  Wild more than Tears of the Kingdom,
• 5:25
  you're just lying because Tears of the
• 5:26
  Kingdom is more than Breath of the Wild.
• 5:28
  It is Breath of the Wild with stuff
• 5:29
  stacked on top of it. Now, I am one of
• 5:31
  these people who does like Breath of the
• 5:33
  Wild more. And I think part of that is
• 5:35
  that Tears of the Kingdom exists in a
• 5:38
  world where Breath of the Wild already
• 5:40
  exists.
• 5:41
  >> Yeah. So there is a way in which that
• 5:45
  game hits me and hits a person who has
• 5:48
  experienced Breath of the Wild already
• 5:50
  that is fundamentally different from how
• 5:53
  Breath of the Wild hit me when that game
• 5:55
  came out. Now, I'm not interested in
• 5:57
  this objectivity discourse over um
• 6:00
  removing my perspective and saying,
• 6:03
  well, now that I have played Breath of
• 6:05
  the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, if I
• 6:06
  go back to Breath of the Wild, do I
• 6:08
  think that Tears of the Kingdom is
• 6:09
  objectively better that I I am
• 6:11
  interpreting the games with whatever I
• 6:13
  have available to me at the moment to
• 6:15
  interpret? Yeah. So, is part of the lack
• 6:18
  of value in the Last of Us remake tied
• 6:23
  to how it goes about pursuing its like
• 6:26
  what the product actually is or is it
• 6:28
  the fact that we live in a world where
• 6:30
  The Last of Us already exist?
• 6:32
  >> No, I think I think that's what it is,
• 6:34
  right? It's it's just that it's too
• 6:35
  close, right? It doesn't it doesn't take
• 6:37
  it far enough because the what I think
• 6:39
  makes an a remake so interesting is
• 6:42
  especially like older games is like okay
• 6:44
  well what is that older game look like
• 6:47
  if you were to try and make that same
• 6:49
  premise now that's when it starts to get
• 6:51
  quite interesting and so like um I'm
• 6:53
  kind of interested to see as we right
• 6:56
  before we started recording this
• 6:57
  apparently Ubisoft like confirmed the
• 6:58
  fact that they have a that Assassin's
• 7:01
  Creed 4 remake in the works you know
• 7:03
  what I'm talking about
• 7:04
  >> I don't but cool
• 7:05
  >> it's been rumored for like 10 [laughter]
• 7:07
  years.
• 7:08
  >> Okay.
• 7:08
  >> That they're going to do a
• 7:09
  >> pirate one.
• 7:10
  >> Yeah, the pirate one. Okay.
• 7:11
  >> Um
• 7:12
  >> and and so what I find interesting about
• 7:14
  that is it's like, okay, that at this
• 7:16
  point is a game that's 12 years old.
• 7:17
  Sorry to make us all feel like, you
• 7:19
  know, decrepit skeletons, but 12 years
• 7:21
  old. That game came out in like 2013 or
• 7:23
  2014. And so, what does that game look
• 7:27
  like now?
• 7:28
  >> I think it's worth I think it's worth
• 7:29
  exploring and and and being open to that
• 7:32
  as a concept.
• 7:34
  >> Yeah. I think sometimes it would help us
• 7:35
  to not be so hoyytoidy about how we talk
• 7:37
  about these things because the fact of
• 7:39
  the matter is is that games are
• 7:40
  inseparable from hardware and controls
• 7:43
  and uh interface conventions and all of
• 7:45
  these other visual technology. It is a
• 7:48
  um remaking a game
• 7:50
  >> is not the same as rewriting a novel.
• 7:55
  >> Correct. You don't you are not just like
• 7:58
  there is you could you could remake a a
• 8:01
  book you could and we do this all of the
• 8:03
  time and we especially do this in movies
• 8:05
  but the art of um I use the word
• 8:08
  rewriting there very specifically it is
• 8:11
  not we are taking the book which is the
• 8:14
  same and we are trying to I don't know
• 8:18
  replicate the words on the page because
• 8:20
  we can do that and turns out the words
• 8:21
  on the page are the same um but does a
• 8:25
  remake make of something like Moby Dick
• 8:28
  exists. Of course it does. Of course it
• 8:30
  does. I I just picked up a new book
• 8:34
  called um Call Me Ishmail and it's like
• 8:38
  uh it's like spelled differently. So,
• 8:40
  it's like Myel or whatever. And it's um
• 8:43
  if Ishmail, it's like a gender bent uh
• 8:45
  Moby Dick and it's it like strongly
• 8:48
  adheres to the original story, adds in
• 8:51
  some new content, if you will,
• 8:54
  >> and is a new take.
• 8:56
  >> And I don't think we need to go into how
• 8:59
  remakes exist in film and are extremely
• 9:03
  competent and presenting stories through
• 9:06
  a new reinterpreted lens. It's like I
• 9:08
  think this is very like obvious
• 9:11
  material, but the difference is is when
• 9:13
  we talk about games, um I do think it is
• 9:16
  worth kind of correcting that category
• 9:18
  er error because a finished literary
• 9:21
  object is not the same because a video
• 9:24
  game is a system plus a work of
• 9:27
  technology. There are there are multiple
• 9:29
  factors at play there, right?
• 9:31
  >> Yes.
• 9:32
  >> I I find it kind of fascinating. You
• 9:33
  know, you bring up uh like other remakes
• 9:35
  that exist outside of the video game
• 9:37
  industry. like it's all over the place.
• 9:38
  I think about like uh Pride and
• 9:40
  Prejudice is is like from my
• 9:43
  understanding uh just from my like
• 9:45
  perspective like something that I've
• 9:46
  seen the most remakes for. Sometimes
• 9:49
  it's something that it has sort of like
• 9:51
  a different slant to it. Like there's a
• 9:52
  book called I think it's called the the
• 9:54
  other um Bennett sister and it focuses
• 9:56
  on like one of the the the younger ones
• 9:58
  who's like doesn't really talk that
• 10:00
  much. She plays the piano I think. Um,
• 10:02
  and it's it's like the events from her
• 10:04
  perspective and then more which is an
• 10:06
  interesting take on on a you know class
• 10:08
  a piece of classic literature but then
• 10:09
  like also there's like more like like
• 10:12
  obvious sorts of remake stuff like Pride
• 10:14
  and Prejudice and Zombies which is a
• 10:17
  remake of Pride and Prejudice but it has
• 10:19
  a take, right? It it it has a kind of a
• 10:21
  spin to it. And I think that it is so
• 10:24
  easy to see that this sort of stuff
• 10:25
  happens and is a part of um art
• 10:28
  appreciation and uh art culture. And to
• 10:32
  sort of write off the idea that video
• 10:34
  game remakes are exclusively things that
• 10:37
  are made uh as lazy uh cash grabs I
• 10:41
  think kind of sits with me the wrong way
• 10:42
  because I also I will say that like
• 10:44
  sometimes I fall victim into this
• 10:45
  myself. They just announced that they're
• 10:47
  remaking the God of War trilogy, right?
• 10:50
  And so like my initial first blush
• 10:52
  reaction to that is like, hey, why would
• 10:54
  you do that when the most recent two God
• 10:58
  of War games are sort of about reckoning
• 11:01
  with the past and saying like, "Hey, you
• 11:03
  don't have to be that person anymore,
• 11:05
  right? That the Kratos in those games is
• 11:07
  like not a good guy." And he's like
• 11:09
  reckoning with all of that in the in God
• 11:13
  of War and God of War Ragnarok. And so
• 11:15
  like my initial reaction to hearing like
• 11:16
  oh they're remaking these games is was
• 11:18
  like kind of negative because I'm like
• 11:20
  yeah but like why if the whole point was
• 11:22
  we don't need to you know be the people
• 11:25
  we used to be would you want to then be
• 11:27
  the person that you used to be
• 11:29
  >> and
• 11:29
  >> but that's not that's not exactly what's
• 11:31
  going on there
• 11:31
  >> right but then it's the thing where it's
• 11:33
  like that's you know it's possible
• 11:35
  though that they're not just doing a
• 11:36
  beat forbeat remake but that they are
• 11:38
  framing it in a way that is going to
• 11:40
  work as a companion to that story and
• 11:42
  framing it in a way you know what I mean
• 11:44
  like It's possible.
• 11:45
  >> They didn't know that they were going to
• 11:47
  make God of War the reboot when they
• 11:49
  made those original God of War games. So
• 11:51
  there there obviously you can kind of
• 11:53
  now recontextualize the past so that it
• 11:56
  maybe more cleanly uh leans into the
• 11:59
  fact that that's where we know the story
• 12:00
  is going. But also um moving on from the
• 12:03
  past is not the same as uh pretending it
• 12:07
  never existed. And I think that the fact
• 12:09
  that it exists is important to me. And
• 12:13
  remakes don't replace the original thing
• 12:15
  ever.
• 12:16
  >> No. What what I find like this is the
• 12:18
  interesting part, you know, you
• 12:19
  mentioned um like the intersection of
• 12:22
  like technology and art. This is the
• 12:24
  thing that is frustrating though when
• 12:26
  like
• 12:27
  >> you know a remake is made and then that
• 12:29
  old version is just like gone, you know,
• 12:31
  like you can't like you know Silent Hill
• 12:32
  2, you can get that on Steam or
• 12:34
  PlayStation or whatever, but like you
• 12:36
  can't get the original version of that
• 12:38
  game anymore unless you were playing it
• 12:40
  on the PlayStation 2.
• 12:41
  >> Yeah. But I want to be clear about this
• 12:42
  because I think I think there's maybe
• 12:44
  like a bad faith interpretation of what
• 12:46
  we're talking about that responds to us.
• 12:47
  So it's like, well, Jake, in these
• 12:48
  situations where these companies take
• 12:50
  down the original versions of the game
• 12:51
  and then replace them with the remakes
• 12:52
  and yada yada yada yada. And it's like
• 12:54
  it's like, [clears throat] listen, but
• 12:55
  that's that's not a remake issue. That's
• 12:57
  a preservation issue.
• 12:58
  >> Yes. And that's that's a that's a like a
• 13:00
  corporate issue. Like obviously that
• 13:02
  sucks. Obviously. Yes. And I would even
• 13:04
  add that the preservation issue at play
• 13:06
  there is not necessarily that every
• 13:08
  single video game ever made needs to be
• 13:10
  made available to play on whatever
• 13:11
  hardware or whatever. Like I don't think
• 13:13
  that that's it either. [snorts] I think
• 13:14
  the
• 13:15
  >> preservation issue is that we need to be
• 13:17
  able to culturally curate and preserve
• 13:21
  the original meaning of these things
• 13:23
  ourselves. Separate from actually having
• 13:25
  access to those games. You should be
• 13:27
  able to read about them or watch videos
• 13:29
  and documentaries about them. That's the
• 13:31
  preservation issue at play there. Um,
• 13:33
  but I really want to focus in on
• 13:34
  something that we've we've kind of been
• 13:35
  circling here for a minute. And it's
• 13:37
  just that like this this you you brought
• 13:40
  this up with the God of War thing and
• 13:41
  kind of like retreading the same
• 13:43
  material. In in every medium, the thing
• 13:48
  that matters the most to any story is
• 13:51
  not the raw events. It's not the raw
• 13:53
  sequence of events of the story. Yeah.
• 13:56
  And I think to like to kind of pretend
• 13:58
  that because something is a remake and
• 14:00
  it is it is maybe adhering to uh an
• 14:04
  outline and that being an issue is like
• 14:07
  insane to me. That would be like looking
• 14:10
  at um The Lion King and saying, "Well, h
• 14:14
  it's just Hamlet. Like it's just you're
• 14:16
  just
• 14:18
  but obviously the same narrative
• 14:20
  material can produce radically different
• 14:22
  work depending on how it is told. like
• 14:25
  this is this is like so basic. I think
• 14:28
  the events themselves are often the
• 14:30
  least interesting part of these stories
• 14:33
  and what we really remember is the uh
• 14:36
  interpretation and again uh film culture
• 14:39
  understands this so quickly so easily.
• 14:42
  No one is confused when there are
• 14:44
  multiple versions of a star is born. No
• 14:47
  one is confused when there are endless
• 14:49
  adaptations of, like you said, Pride and
• 14:50
  Prejudice or like Little Women or the
• 14:53
  fact that like every single generation
• 14:55
  stages the same Shakespeare plays over
• 14:58
  and over and over again. Why would I go
• 15:01
  see Rachel Zgler and Romeo and Juliet?
• 15:04
  It's just a remake of that thing that
• 15:06
  they were doing hundreds of years ago.
• 15:09
  Turns out there is a take. And you are
• 15:11
  able to have a take. You are able to
• 15:13
  have explicit new beautiful meaning, new
• 15:17
  interpretations that are revoly by not
• 15:20
  changing the sequence of events at all,
• 15:23
  by not veering from the original
• 15:26
  material at all. How is that possible?
• 15:28
  How can I stage two versions of the same
• 15:31
  play using the same script and have two
• 15:35
  completely different versions of meaning
• 15:36
  erupt from those productions? Right? I
• 15:38
  was in um I used to do musicals
• 15:40
  professionally and I was in three
• 15:42
  different professional productions of a
• 15:43
  musical called the last five years in
• 15:45
  which I played the in which I played the
• 15:47
  same character and each one of these
• 15:49
  directors that I was in this show for uh
• 15:51
  had a different take on my character and
• 15:53
  there was one director who I didn't like
• 15:55
  this okay that's a little mean I didn't
• 15:57
  this was not my favorite interpretation
• 15:59
  but one director literally said to me
• 16:02
  what we're doing here is that no one is
• 16:04
  going to be confused about the fact that
• 16:06
  you are the bad guy M
• 16:08
  >> and I was like, whoa. Part of part of
• 16:10
  the musical to me was that there was
• 16:12
  this question ambigu it's ambigu
• 16:13
  ambiguous is this oh who do you side
• 16:15
  with at the end and this person said no
• 16:18
  no no this one by the time we hit this
• 16:20
  point in the show everyone's going to go
• 16:23
  kill that man and and it was a take and
• 16:26
  it represented a worldview and it and it
• 16:29
  generated meaning for people in a way
• 16:31
  that other versions of this show did
• 16:33
  not.
• 16:33
  >> Yes. There there's something fascinating
• 16:35
  here right about about this idea that
• 16:37
  like
• 16:39
  just because we are doing something
• 16:40
  again means it's wrong and like I do
• 16:45
  tend to push back on I I do tend to like
• 16:49
  let me start over here.
• 16:50
  >> Yeah,
• 16:51
  >> I tend to take issue when a remake is
• 16:54
  purely a visual thing if it is something
• 16:57
  that is already available. Um, so you
• 17:00
  know, we brought up The Last of Us Part
• 17:01
  One here. That is a remake that I just
• 17:04
  don't get a whole lot out of because you
• 17:07
  The Last of Us remastered was already
• 17:08
  there and then The Last of Us one like
• 17:10
  the original game was already there. And
• 17:12
  those are perfectly uh good-looking
• 17:14
  playable versions of of that game,
• 17:16
  right? And so a vis basically a version
• 17:18
  that's just a visual overhaul uh and
• 17:21
  very little else just doesn't do a whole
• 17:24
  lot for me. I feel the same way about
• 17:25
  something like um the Demon Souls
• 17:28
  remake, which is almost exclusively a
• 17:30
  visual overhaul. That's more of a
• 17:32
  remaster. Uh which is another I think
• 17:34
  problem here is is the fact that like
• 17:36
  the term remake, remaster, reimagining,
• 17:39
  like it's all so jumbled up, right?
• 17:42
  >> Why do you think can I can I Yeah. Why
• 17:45
  why do you think there is this
• 17:47
  insistence on the part of the gamer to
• 17:50
  think that the remake or the remaster
• 17:52
  should serve primarily the person who is
• 17:55
  familiar with the original?
• 17:56
  >> No, that's the weird thing, right? Cuz
• 17:58
  you hear this thing all the time about
• 17:59
  like no one asked for this. Who we
• 18:01
  didn't ask for this remake. We didn't
• 18:02
  ask for this thing. And it it like again
• 18:06
  there's I'm not naive to the fact that
• 18:07
  there is a corporate element at play and
• 18:10
  that these companies are wanting to make
• 18:11
  things that people will buy and will
• 18:13
  want to buy, but like
• 18:18
  do you have to ask for art to be made or
• 18:20
  can an artist not just make a piece of
• 18:21
  art, you know? And isn't it kind of um I
• 18:25
  think that there is something
• 18:27
  undervalued
• 18:28
  about an artist wanting to
• 18:32
  having such reverence for a work that
• 18:35
  they want to be the one to quote unquote
• 18:37
  remake it. Um a remake you could say or
• 18:42
  a loose adaptation whatever you want to
• 18:43
  call it that re that was just kind of in
• 18:45
  the zeitgeist recently was uh Withering
• 18:48
  Heights the movie.
• 18:48
  >> Oh sure. Yeah. Yeah. And it's like I
• 18:52
  don't know. My my my wife is somebody
• 18:53
  who like really likes Jane Austin books
• 18:55
  and has always said to me that she kind
• 18:57
  of has aspirations of writing a movie
• 19:00
  based on one of the Jane Austin books.
• 19:02
  She would like to do that. And I'm
• 19:04
  somebody who has always had aspirations
• 19:06
  of um writing like a Superman story.
• 19:08
  Yeah.
• 19:09
  >> And I don't like the idea that I think
• 19:12
  that there is this idea that that's
• 19:13
  negativity towards remakes that kind of
• 19:16
  insists or implies that I should feel
• 19:18
  bad about my creative aspirations
• 19:21
  because 100% of the idea is not
• 19:24
  generated out of me because I am taking
• 19:26
  advantage of an intellectual property or
• 19:28
  something. as if um as if there are
• 19:31
  creative works that are somehow in a
• 19:34
  vacuum from all influence and and I like
• 19:37
  which is just not true. Yeah. Right.
• 19:39
  Yeah. So [snorts]
• 19:41
  >> it's interesting too because you look at
• 19:44
  um
• 19:46
  this idea of like loose adaptation and
• 19:48
  like loose adaptation is interesting to
• 19:50
  me and and whether or not you like the
• 19:51
  Wthering Heights movie like is to me
• 19:54
  kind of irrelevant. I do. I know you
• 19:56
  like it. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm I kind of
• 19:58
  have this perspective where I'm like
• 20:00
  even if you don't like it, isn't it good
• 20:01
  that that thing got made?
• 20:04
  >> Or like I would not question that
• 20:06
  somebody wanted to make that is the
• 20:07
  other thing,
• 20:08
  >> right? That's the other thing cuz I know
• 20:09
  I I worry that people are going to be
• 20:11
  like, "Well, Peter, in your video about
• 20:12
  the Last of Us HBO TV show, you
• 20:14
  bismerched the name of the Beauty and
• 20:16
  the Beast liveaction remake." And I'm
• 20:18
  like, "Yeah, I don't know if that
• 20:19
  director has like was like, you know
• 20:21
  what I want to do? I want to remake
• 20:26
  >> the beauty and the beast. You know, it's
• 20:27
  it's this thing where it's like, no, no,
• 20:29
  there is of course an era of corporate
• 20:32
  uh uh agenda that a lot of remakes
• 20:35
  serve, right?
• 20:36
  >> And it's not because it's a remake,
• 20:37
  though. It's because you look at the
• 20:39
  remake of the Beauty and the Beast. And
• 20:40
  in the context of the Beauty and the
• 20:41
  Beast already existing, it begs the
• 20:43
  question, what is the take here? What is
• 20:45
  this adding? What is the value of this?
• 20:47
  It's not. It wasn't It wasn't sunk when
• 20:50
  they said, "We're remaking Beauty and
• 20:51
  the Beast."
• 20:52
  >> Correct. It was sunk when you watch when
• 20:54
  you go, I get it. I see what this is.
• 20:57
  >> And And I think that's um
• 21:00
  what's what's tough is that's a vibes
• 21:02
  based
• 21:03
  >> uh uh feeling, right? Like like there's
• 21:05
  no like empirical evidence that that's
• 21:07
  the case unless we find some emails from
• 21:09
  whatever executive saying we need to do
• 21:11
  this because of whatever. um which is is
• 21:14
  difficult because then when it comes
• 21:15
  back to games it's like well I think you
• 21:17
  could probably make that argument for
• 21:18
  any video game remake right but at the
• 21:20
  end of the day I do think there are some
• 21:22
  that are a little bit more obviously
• 21:24
  um going for that versus some that are
• 21:27
  um born out of a team saying like we've
• 21:30
  got a take here we've got a take here
• 21:32
  and I think it's interesting
• 21:33
  >> could I introduce a remake that has
• 21:36
  recently been kind of brought back into
• 21:38
  the contemporary Zeitgeist
• 21:40
  >> are you about to talk about Pokemon Fire
• 21:41
  Red and leaf green.
• 21:43
  >> I am. I am. And it's because, you know,
• 21:45
  I've got my little primate sitting here
• 21:46
  right here next to me.
• 21:47
  >> And he was like, he was like begging me.
• 21:49
  He was begging me. He was like, "Jake,
• 21:50
  come on. You've got an example right at
• 21:51
  the tip of your tongue here." Um, so I
• 21:53
  think like Fire Red and Leaf Green are
• 21:55
  funny remakes because um it's it's this
• 21:58
  great example of if you asked people
• 22:00
  like what is the take for Fire Red and
• 22:03
  Leaf Green? I think a word that would
• 22:05
  come up a lot, something that people
• 22:06
  would reference is the term quality of
• 22:09
  life. And that's the big difference
• 22:11
  between red and blue. And I think when
• 22:13
  people talk about quality of life,
• 22:14
  sometimes it is this shortorthhand that
• 22:16
  cuts us off from um engaging with
• 22:20
  effect. That is like what is happening,
• 22:22
  but how does that actually affect the
• 22:24
  experience of playing the games? And
• 22:25
  like my my interpretation of what is
• 22:28
  happening in Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf
• 22:30
  Green is that you look back at Pokemon
• 22:32
  Red and Blue. These were experimental
• 22:34
  games built around all of these kind of
• 22:36
  new radical ideas. And the even the
• 22:39
  ideas that like things that are common
• 22:41
  place now that you were meant to talk to
• 22:42
  other kids and trade Pokemon and like
• 22:44
  fill in the gaps of the experience of
• 22:46
  the games uh together, that's that's
• 22:49
  radical. But because the developers were
• 22:52
  maybe inventing this genre as they went
• 22:54
  along, a lot of people would say the
• 22:56
  Pokemon Red and Blue are um they're
• 22:59
  rough, the systems are inconsistent, the
• 23:01
  mechanics are maybe poorly explained,
• 23:02
  there's balance issues, right? and fire
• 23:05
  red and leave green. They're the way
• 23:08
  that they're operating is that they
• 23:09
  revisit the structure I don't know
• 23:12
  however many years later and they ask
• 23:14
  what is the cleanest possible version of
• 23:17
  the idea that we were so interested in
• 23:20
  originally. Now that we have years of um
• 23:24
  experience and maybe understand our
• 23:26
  design philosophy more than we did at
• 23:28
  the first draft, what is I think that
• 23:31
  every major change in Fire Red and Leaf
• 23:34
  Green is pushing the experience towards
• 23:36
  readability and intentionality so that
• 23:38
  you see that the mechanics are more
• 23:40
  standardized, the um like the UI is
• 23:44
  dramatically clearer. Uh, there are
• 23:46
  changes to the Pokemon Learn sets that I
• 23:48
  think are maybe more rational for what
• 23:49
  they're trying to achieve. And all of
• 23:51
  this stuff is about trying to harness
• 23:55
  the the original meaning of those games
• 23:57
  and I think um try to make that
• 24:00
  experience as clean as possible. And
• 24:02
  something that I really like about the
• 24:04
  re-release of Fire Red and Leaf Green on
• 24:06
  the Nintendo Switch in particular is
• 24:09
  that this port assues
• 24:13
  modernizing um some elements that could
• 24:16
  easily be modernized. We see how through
• 24:19
  game chat and game share through
• 24:20
  Nintendo Switch online, you can easily
• 24:22
  emulate online functionality for these
• 24:24
  old Game Boy Advance games, but this
• 24:26
  game does not. There is no global
• 24:28
  trading system in this game. There is no
• 24:31
  um way to connect with your friends
• 24:32
  online and trade Pokemon or do battles
• 24:34
  or any of that because the game is
• 24:36
  preserving the friction that forces
• 24:38
  players to interact with each other. And
• 24:40
  that friction was the thematic core of
• 24:43
  Pokemon in 1996. The idea that this game
• 24:47
  world extends beyond the world in front
• 24:48
  of you and it's important to talk to
• 24:50
  others and and and
• 24:52
  expand your world view through social
• 24:55
  connections. So the remake now Fire Red
• 24:58
  and Leaf Green I think is a preservation
• 25:00
  effort of the original experience while
• 25:02
  also sharpening it and and doing adding
• 25:05
  new things to heighten that level. It's
• 25:08
  like it's like taking another shot at a
• 25:10
  movie. It's like, you know, saying we're
• 25:12
  going to do a Star Is Born again. It's
• 25:13
  stuff like that.
• 25:14
  >> Can I say too, so we have a uh an hour
• 25:17
  long conversation about Pokemon Fire Red
• 25:19
  Leaf Green on our Patreon for our uh for
• 25:23
  the Critical Air Nation.
• 25:24
  patreon.com/critical
• 25:25
  error if you're interested in hearing
• 25:27
  that. That is uploading uh the day that
• 25:29
  this episode goes live as well. So, if
• 25:30
  you want to hear like uh even more about
• 25:33
  these games, I think it's I think it was
• 25:35
  actually a very very interesting and
• 25:36
  productive conversation uh from like
• 25:38
  from my perspective as someone who is
• 25:40
  someone who's like not a huge diehard
• 25:41
  Pokemon person playing these games and
• 25:43
  then hearing from you, someone who does
• 25:45
  know these games sort of a little bit
• 25:46
  more inside and out than I do. I thought
• 25:47
  it was just an interesting conversation
• 25:48
  to have. So, if that sounds cool to you,
• 25:49
  patreon.com/critical
• 25:51
  error, take a look there. But something
• 25:53
  you brought up in the in that
• 25:54
  conversation that I I just want you to
• 25:56
  like
• 25:56
  >> touch on a little bit here because
• 25:58
  obviously we had a much more in-depth
• 26:00
  version of that uh in the bonus episode,
• 26:02
  but um you mentioned the idea that like
• 26:04
  okay uh the this game is actually not
• 26:06
  the exact same as the original because
• 26:10
  um it does add newer mechanics that
• 26:12
  weren't in the original like um was it
• 26:14
  abilities or is it abilities?
• 26:16
  >> Yeah.
• 26:17
  >> And how like by adding abilities it
• 26:19
  actually creates an interesting dynamic
• 26:21
  here. You were talking in the bonus
• 26:22
  episode about how Mankey has an ability
• 26:25
  that allows him to not fall asleep.
• 26:27
  There he is. Um, sorry, that's his older
• 26:29
  brother, Primeape. Um, uh, he has this
• 26:32
  ability that allows him to not be able
• 26:33
  to be, uh, uh, inflicted with the sleep
• 26:36
  status effect. And you find Many in the
• 26:38
  same place that you find, uh, was it
• 26:40
  Jigglypuff or is it
• 26:41
  >> Jigglypuff? Yes.
• 26:42
  >> Yeah. and how that's different in these
• 26:44
  new ones and that wasn't the case in the
• 26:46
  the original ones and they weren't
• 26:47
  placed together. But it's like, okay, if
• 26:50
  you're, you know, grinding through these
• 26:51
  Jigglypuffs and and having this issue,
• 26:53
  it's like, no, no, the solution to the
• 26:54
  Jigglypuff uh uh puff problem is right
• 26:57
  here.
• 26:58
  >> Yes.
• 26:59
  >> And and that's intentional tinkering
• 27:00
  from the devs saying like, well, what if
• 27:02
  using this new system, what if we
• 27:04
  created this interesting dynamic in this
• 27:06
  one small little ecosystem?
• 27:08
  >> Yeah. Because it's the abilities are
• 27:10
  something that came later in the Pokemon
• 27:11
  games. They came with the generation 3
• 27:13
  games of Ruby and Sapphire. And it's
• 27:14
  like, okay, now in a modern context, we
• 27:16
  have these abilities. How can we use
• 27:17
  that to heighten what we were trying to
• 27:19
  achieve in generation 1. So you go back
• 27:22
  Red, Blue, Yellow, Route Three,
• 27:24
  Jigglypuff, and Mankey are not there
• 27:26
  together. But because we have abilities,
• 27:27
  it is something we can use to
• 27:28
  communicate information. In the same way
• 27:30
  that um you know, you go to the Vidian
• 27:33
  Forest and it's full of bugs and the
• 27:36
  birds eat the bugs and then Pikachu is
• 27:37
  there. Small small chance you're going
• 27:39
  to encounter Pikachu. They'll never
• 27:40
  guess who Pikachu was stronger than the
• 27:42
  who you thought was the predator in in
• 27:44
  the forest. The the Pidgeys. Yeah. And
• 27:46
  it's like it's another lever that you
• 27:48
  can pull to kind of um achieve the
• 27:52
  effect that the original games were
• 27:54
  striving for. And does this now? And
• 27:56
  then here's this question. Do Fire Red
• 27:58
  and Leaf Green um replace the originals?
• 28:00
  I don't think so. There is an entirely
• 28:03
  original aesthetic to those original
• 28:06
  games. And I think that there is meaning
• 28:07
  to be found in the the messiness and and
• 28:10
  how revolutionary those original games
• 28:12
  were. So I I love this kind of new
• 28:17
  expression of this original thing. I
• 28:19
  think that there is a take here and you
• 28:21
  will find that there are people who have
• 28:23
  preferences between the first one and
• 28:25
  the remake. And I think both of those
• 28:26
  preferences are valid.
• 28:28
  >> Yeah. But it's it's this thing where
• 28:29
  like uh uh if you look at this idea of
• 28:31
  like being completely anti-reake and
• 28:33
  you're like, "Okay, well then Fire, Red,
• 28:34
  and Leaf Green shouldn't exist." And
• 28:35
  it's like, okay, but there is this
• 28:36
  interesting take that's here, you know,
• 28:38
  there's this interesting sort of
• 28:39
  artistic take. And again, we could talk
• 28:41
  about the um the financial incentive of
• 28:44
  making remaking a Pokemon game and
• 28:45
  reselling them even now with ports and
• 28:47
  and how like you Pokemon the Pokemon
• 28:50
  Company is, you know, this that and
• 28:51
  whatever. But it's like, right, right.
• 28:52
  But from an artistic standpoint, is it
• 28:55
  not fascinating that these games exist?
• 28:57
  >> And you are potentially getting somebody
• 29:00
  into something that they otherwise would
• 29:02
  not that they otherwise maybe would have
• 29:04
  missed. And I think even in the most
• 29:06
  extreme example of that Last of Us
• 29:08
  remake game, it's like there are there
• 29:10
  are people who
• 29:12
  probably played the Last of Us remade
• 29:14
  who remake who didn't play the original
• 29:16
  Last of Us game. And if what it takes is
• 29:20
  some modern contrivances in whatever
• 29:23
  form that reveals itself in, is that so
• 29:26
  terrible?
• 29:27
  >> Yeah. It's this interesting thing,
• 29:28
  right, where like, hey, you've got
• 29:30
  people engaging with this work of with
• 29:31
  this work of art, you know, and I think
• 29:32
  that's kind of cool. Can I talk to you
• 29:34
  about Bloodborne for a second?
• 29:35
  >> I was actually you and I just had a a
• 29:37
  mind meld because I was right there with
• 29:39
  you. And it's funny how I think the ant
• 29:41
  the anti-reake crowd would also um put
• 29:45
  down their swords for something like
• 29:46
  Bloodborne.
• 29:47
  >> Yes. Which I think is really interesting
• 29:49
  because I uh recently replayed
• 29:51
  Bloodborne uh I guess last year. So it's
• 29:54
  been almost a year since I I replayed
• 29:55
  it, but I played the [ __ ] out of it. I
• 29:56
  got the platinum. I I thoroughly
• 29:59
  explored Bloodborne um in a way that I
• 30:02
  hadn't before. I'd played it twice
• 30:03
  before and but this time was like I'm
• 30:05
  I'm doing all it. I'm doing all the
• 30:06
  bosses. I'm doing all the chalice
• 30:07
  dungeons which is a nightmare. Don't do
• 30:08
  that. But like
• 30:11
  >> I really really got deep into
• 30:13
  Bloodborne. I'm playing it on the PS5,
• 30:14
  right? Base PS5.
• 30:16
  >> Yeah. And a lot of the complaints that
• 30:17
  people have about Bloodborne seem to be
• 30:20
  revolving around its like frame rate,
• 30:21
  which I think personally on the PS5, it
• 30:24
  runs at a pretty solid 30 FPS, which I
• 30:26
  understand some people that is toxic
• 30:28
  poison to them. Um, I'm built a little
• 30:31
  different. It doesn't really bother me
• 30:32
  if it's a solid 30 frames per second,
• 30:34
  but I understand that in an action game
• 30:36
  like Bloodborne, having more frames is
• 30:38
  certainly preferable.
• 30:41
  That said, I think there are two quality
• 30:44
  of life changes I would make to
• 30:45
  Bloodborne if I could make them. I think
• 30:47
  you should be able to I'm going to talk
• 30:48
  specifically about Bloodborne for a
• 30:50
  second here. I think you should be able
• 30:51
  to teleport between um the little
• 30:53
  lanterns without having to go to the hub
• 30:55
  world first and and head out. I I think
• 30:57
  it just would be a lot easier if you
• 30:58
  didn't have to sit through two loading
• 30:59
  screens to get anywhere. I also think
• 31:02
  that um when you have an excess of items
• 31:05
  and then you run out of those items in
• 31:07
  your inventory, the items that have been
• 31:09
  sent to your like stash should just
• 31:11
  automatically refill in your inventory.
• 31:13
  I think it's weird that they don't do
• 31:14
  that.
• 31:16
  Other than those two things and then I
• 31:17
  guess the fact that it doesn't run at 60
• 31:19
  frames per second, which to me again
• 31:20
  doesn't really matter, but I understand
• 31:21
  that's a big thing for some people. So,
• 31:23
  let's say those three things.
• 31:25
  Bloodborne feels like a video game that
• 31:27
  came out in the year 2026.
• 31:29
  >> It feels fresh. It's good. It's it's
• 31:31
  really really good. So the question is
• 31:33
  remaking Bloodborne which is something
• 31:34
  that Bluepoint Games rest in peace now
• 31:36
  has been shut down pitched to Sony and
• 31:38
  FromSoft said no.
• 31:40
  Everyone's like well why why it would
• 31:42
  have been so good. It would have been so
• 31:44
  good. And I'm not here to say that they
• 31:45
  wouldn't have had a take on it because I
• 31:47
  think it's it I'm I'm open to the idea
• 31:49
  of of people having a take on a piece of
• 31:50
  art right. Uh but
• 31:53
  what would that accomplish?
• 31:56
  And I think there's this this, as what
• 31:58
  you just pointed out, there's a certain
• 31:59
  sect of people online who are
• 32:01
  anti-remake, anti-remake, anti-remake
• 32:03
  until it's the remaking a game that I
• 32:04
  like,
• 32:05
  >> which is so funny, too, because in this
• 32:07
  in this particular scenario, um, is the
• 32:11
  the Bloodborne game is incredibly uh
• 32:13
  easy to access in a modern.
• 32:16
  >> Yeah, you can just you can just buy and
• 32:17
  play that game, absolutely no problem.
• 32:20
  And Bloodborne is also the game that
• 32:22
  like made everybody like Bloodborne.
• 32:25
  So,
• 32:25
  >> what do you mean?
• 32:26
  >> So,
• 32:29
  how desperate for a remake can a video
• 32:32
  game be if it is the game that made
• 32:35
  everybody fall in love with it?
• 32:37
  >> Sure.
• 32:37
  >> This isn't Yeah. This isn't like there
• 32:39
  were all of these other games that
• 32:42
  people really liked and then Bloodborne
• 32:43
  came out and they were like, "Uh, this
• 32:45
  this this game would be good if only it
• 32:48
  was better in these ways." Like, no.
• 32:50
  People played Bloodborne and they were
• 32:52
  like, "Oh, I love this game. this is my
• 32:53
  favorite game of all time. So, if that's
• 32:56
  the case, how can we really say that
• 32:59
  there's anything critically wrong with
• 33:00
  it? You kind of get what I'm going for
• 33:02
  here? It doesn't make sense.
• 33:04
  >> But it's it's this other thing though,
• 33:06
  too, where it's like if they were to
• 33:08
  remake Bloodborne and do like a take on
• 33:10
  it, right? And like have it be like
• 33:12
  significantly different or or have it be
• 33:14
  from a different perspective or or
• 33:16
  something like that. I'm kind of back on
• 33:18
  board. Like I am on board because I
• 33:19
  think that's interesting because then it
• 33:20
  is it is more than just a simple reskin,
• 33:23
  right? And and a handful of quality of
• 33:24
  life updates. Like it is it is actually
• 33:26
  doing the thing that we're talking about
• 33:27
  that a good remake, a good piece of art
• 33:29
  would do where it could push people to
• 33:32
  examine uh uh the game differently. That
• 33:35
  said, you look at the track record of
• 33:37
  Bluepoint Games, which again now is
• 33:40
  gone, but you look at the track record
• 33:42
  of those of that studio, and it tends to
• 33:46
  uh uh sit more firmly in that remaster
• 33:49
  sort of just strictly visual upgrade
• 33:52
  sense. You look at the Demon Souls
• 33:53
  remake, visual upgrade. You look at uh
• 33:55
  the Nathan Drake collection, visual
• 33:57
  upgrade. Shadow of the Colossus, visual
• 33:59
  upgrade. It's not to say it's bad, but
• 34:01
  it is uh a lot more simple than actually
• 34:04
  coming up with, hey, here's a new
• 34:05
  interpretation of this piece of art.
• 34:07
  >> I I think that there's maybe something
• 34:08
  fundamentally dishonest happening the
• 34:10
  more I consider this this uh Bloodborne
• 34:12
  thing, because I think what's what's
• 34:13
  really going on there is that there are
• 34:16
  certain games that I think have maybe
• 34:18
  been elevated into a level of the video
• 34:21
  game cannon. And they are they are
• 34:24
  important not only points of reference
• 34:26
  for video games, but they are also
• 34:27
  important to the selfidentity of the
• 34:30
  gamers who like them. When somebody says
• 34:32
  they like Bloodborne, I don't know how
• 34:34
  much they like it versus how much
• 34:35
  they're really just trying to tell other
• 34:36
  people that they are the kind of video
• 34:38
  game player that likes Bloodborne. That
• 34:40
  aside, I think that once a game enters
• 34:42
  this tier, the reason that people so
• 34:44
  desperately want this kind of Bloodborne
• 34:46
  remake or remaster is because um they
• 34:49
  want this canonical work to exist in the
• 34:52
  best possible form. They want it to
• 34:54
  exist with the best frame rate on the
• 34:56
  best hardware with the best resolution.
• 34:59
  And um I think that that's all fine, but
• 35:03
  I also think that maybe if we're being
• 35:06
  entirely honest with ourselves, the
• 35:08
  thing that people actually want is more
• 35:11
  akin to the restoration of a film. In
• 35:13
  which case, I would say I think what you
• 35:15
  want is a patch.
• 35:16
  >> Yes. Well, because right, it's it's this
• 35:18
  thing. I got to stop saying it's this
• 35:20
  thing. By the way, I realize that's one
• 35:21
  of my little So, Critical Error Nation
• 35:23
  and anyone listening uh who may not be a
• 35:25
  part of the nation, but if you want to
• 35:26
  join patreon.com/critical error, let's
• 35:29
  hold me to that. All right. There's got
• 35:30
  to be some sort of shaming that has to
• 35:31
  happen for when I say it's this thing.
• 35:33
  >> See, but you can't start this though
• 35:34
  because then it's going to kick back on
• 35:36
  me and the degree to which deploy.
• 35:39
  >> Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. The
• 35:40
  language that we just uh frequently pull
• 35:42
  out of our minds.
• 35:44
  Anyway, with when it in regards to um
• 35:49
  what you're talking about here, this is
• 35:51
  the thing that I sort of take issue with
• 35:54
  when it comes to uh the culture
• 35:56
  surrounding remakes where it's like I
• 35:58
  think the people who are clamoring for a
• 36:00
  Bloodborne remake aren't looking for a
• 36:02
  take. They aren't looking for something
• 36:04
  that is going to change the uh cannon of
• 36:08
  Bloodborne. Not that it can because
• 36:10
  Bloodborne already exists, right? But
• 36:11
  they are not looking for something new
• 36:14
  out of Bloodborne. They are looking for
• 36:15
  Bloodborne again. And obviously I'm I'm
• 36:17
  generalizing here. So, you know, maybe
• 36:19
  not representing every single opinion
• 36:20
  here, but from my perspective, it seems
• 36:23
  that the opinion about a Bloodborne
• 36:24
  remake is simply I want it again. I want
• 36:26
  more of it.
• 36:27
  >> I think I'm identifying something here.
• 36:29
  So there is a there's a certain kind of
• 36:31
  anxiety in which again this is kind of
• 36:33
  objectivity discourse where people look
• 36:35
  at what Bloodborne is right now and say
• 36:37
  well the problems with it that a remake
• 36:40
  or a remaster would fix are objective
• 36:42
  flaws and not really part of that game.
• 36:44
  There is a imagined perfect version of
• 36:47
  the game that I actually want to be to
• 36:50
  to exist for the sake of this game that
• 36:52
  I really love so much. But now turn the
• 36:54
  clock back. Look at a different game.
• 36:56
  Look at something like a Super Metroid.
• 36:58
  Okay. And a remake of this game would
• 37:02
  would not generate the same kind of
• 37:04
  enthusiasm as something like Bloodborne
• 37:06
  would because the limitations of that
• 37:09
  game, the parts of the game that might
• 37:10
  cause stop people from interacting with
• 37:13
  it by this kind of gamer that wants to
• 37:15
  see themselves as a a scion of the
• 37:19
  prestige gaming experience would say
• 37:21
  that actually those elements are an
• 37:22
  important part of the game and you
• 37:23
  should have to experience them. any kind
• 37:25
  of friction that you experience when you
• 37:27
  try to boot up Super Metroid, that old
• 37:29
  old game, is actually something that you
• 37:32
  to prove something about your gamer
• 37:34
  citizenship should have to go through.
• 37:36
  And that's
• 37:38
  [ __ ] Okay, that's f like Sorry, I'm
• 37:41
  sorry. I don't have a better way of of
• 37:42
  of expressing it, but that is um that is
• 37:45
  ridiculous. And I think it is it is
• 37:47
  founded almost entirely in posturing.
• 37:50
  >> And and so I agree, but it's also uh a a
• 37:55
  I'm also okay with getting a remake of
• 37:58
  that that does sand some of those edges
• 37:59
  off if they if it is in favor of doing
• 38:02
  something else. Right. We talk about we
• 38:03
  talked about Fire Leaf Green a lot in
• 38:05
  that bonus episode, right?
• 38:06
  Patreon.com/critical.
• 38:07
  >> That's all we talked about,
• 38:08
  >> right? Yes. However, but we we talk
• 38:10
  about like the friction that exists in
• 38:12
  the push back that the game has on the
• 38:15
  player and how it pushes you to make
• 38:17
  choices and it pushes you to um engage
• 38:21
  with its mechanics in ways that a lot of
• 38:23
  the newer Pokemon games, while not
• 38:25
  remakes exactly, but iterations on, you
• 38:28
  know, the the core principles of those
• 38:30
  original games have sanded away and how
• 38:32
  it makes for a lesser experience in my
• 38:35
  opinion. But so I'm I'm interested in
• 38:37
  seeing a new take on something right on
• 38:39
  a Super Metroid on a I don't know if
• 38:42
  they remade The Legend of Zelda one. I'm
• 38:44
  interested in seeing that. Didn't they
• 38:46
  do No, it was um a different one. They
• 38:47
  did the
• 38:48
  >> Link's Awakening was
• 38:49
  >> Is it because is it so terrible that I'm
• 38:52
  like, man, I would really like to
• 38:54
  experience what Pokemon Red and Blue
• 38:56
  inspired. But to be honest, I'm a zoomer
• 38:58
  and this black and white screen and this
• 39:01
  weird going through the menus and the PC
• 39:03
  boxes that is that is too much a
• 39:05
  deterrent from me experiencing this
• 39:07
  thing. Is it so terrible that a version
• 39:09
  of this thing is made that is meant to
• 39:12
  achieve similar feelings in me and that
• 39:14
  is my point of access to this thing. I'm
• 39:16
  not saying that it replaces that
• 39:17
  original thing.
• 39:18
  >> Right. Right.
• 39:19
  >> But maybe I just like the methods of
• 39:22
  delivery. Maybe I'm just I'm I'm here
• 39:24
  for the structure of this thing in a
• 39:25
  different way. In the same way that I
• 39:26
  personally have no interest really in
• 39:29
  playing Super Metroid, no matter how
• 39:30
  many people tell me that it's that it's
• 39:32
  on the the the wall, the the Mount
• 39:34
  Rushmore of video games, uh, is it is it
• 39:36
  so terrible that um I would like to see
• 39:40
  >> uh a version of Super Metroid achieved
• 39:43
  that is more in tune with my video game
• 39:46
  sensibilities and maybe made closer in
• 39:48
  the image to something like a Metroid
• 39:50
  Dread. Is that so terrible? I'm not
• 39:51
  saying you should now that now that I
• 39:54
  play this remake, I'm going to delete
• 39:56
  Super Metroid from the medium's
• 39:59
  existence. I I guess I just don't really
• 40:01
  see how a remake of this game
• 40:04
  meaningfully hurts anyone. And if like
• 40:07
  is is a game called Metroid that is like
• 40:11
  is Metroid Dread truly better for the
• 40:13
  medium in a way that Super Metroid is a
• 40:16
  remake of Super Metroid is not. If I
• 40:18
  simply make a remake of Super Metroid
• 40:20
  and call it something else, is that like
• 40:23
  is that okay? Like what are we like
• 40:24
  >> No, I know what you're Yeah, I know what
• 40:26
  you're getting at here because my answer
• 40:27
  is is yeah, it's both both are good.
• 40:29
  Both are good. Um and then what's
• 40:31
  interesting I don't know I I always find
• 40:33
  it an interesting conversation to have
• 40:34
  about like okay well what did the
• 40:36
  original do and is that achieved in the
• 40:38
  remake and how and if it if it is
• 40:40
  modernizing this and sanding those edges
• 40:42
  off, do those edges come back in
• 40:44
  different ways? I think that's
• 40:44
  fascinating, right? something that has
• 40:46
  been on the mind a lot for me over the
• 40:48
  past several years and might I I don't
• 40:50
  know there's been scuttle about this for
• 40:52
  like five years and it seems like there
• 40:55
  it's just scuttle right now. But uh
• 40:56
  Resident Evil 1 uh so there's the
• 40:58
  original Resident Evil on like the
• 41:00
  original PlayStation and then they
• 41:01
  remade it on the Gamecube and there's a
• 41:02
  remastered version of the remake that is
• 41:05
  available on all platforms.
• 41:06
  >> Right.
• 41:07
  >> I think that rem remake is quite good
• 41:10
  >> that like that. So I'm just going to say
• 41:11
  like when I say Resident Evil 1, I'm
• 41:13
  talking about that game. That's the one
• 41:14
  I've played. Mhm.
• 41:15
  >> I think it's [ __ ] phenomenal,
• 41:18
  >> but it does the gamer sin, the the sin
• 41:21
  of of modern video games. It has fixed
• 41:24
  camera angles
• 41:26
  >> that some people just can't get back get
• 41:28
  down with. They just can't do it. And I
• 41:30
  understand because it is we are so uh
• 41:34
  accustomed to having this button, this
• 41:39
  uh uh thumb stick
• 41:41
  >> control the camera. And the second that
• 41:43
  it doesn't do that, it's kind of freaky
• 41:45
  and it's kind of weird. I think
• 41:48
  replaying the Resident Evil one remake
• 41:52
  is quite good because it decouples you
• 41:54
  from the traditional video game
• 41:56
  mechanics that we are all used to in the
• 41:59
  modern era of thirdp person action
• 42:00
  games. However,
• 42:03
  there's been talk of remaking Resident
• 42:05
  Evil 1 again in the style of the
• 42:07
  Resident Evil 2, 3, four remakes.
• 42:10
  I am skeptical of that idea because the
• 42:13
  thought of just placing one of the of
• 42:15
  just doing one of those games in that
• 42:18
  mansion
• 42:19
  without the fixed camera angles to me
• 42:22
  changes the intent of the art and
• 42:23
  changes the intention of it. However, I
• 42:25
  am interested in that because it is a
• 42:26
  take at the very least and it's like
• 42:28
  okay, if you're getting rid of those
• 42:29
  fixed camera angles, are you replacing
• 42:31
  what those do with anything? And I think
• 42:33
  it's very possible that they do change
• 42:35
  something in a way that makes it
• 42:36
  interesting and is a take on this, you
• 42:40
  Wow, that is such an interesting
• 42:41
  question because fixed camera angles as
• 42:45
  a concept do not make something good. It
• 42:48
  is the what they are achieving that
• 42:50
  makes something good.
• 42:51
  >> Would you say it's how they're deployed?
• 42:53
  >> I would. And
• 42:56
  you could
• 42:59
  Oh my god, what is another word? What is
• 43:01
  another word besides deploy? You could
• 43:03
  you could you you could you know
• 43:05
  implement a
• 43:06
  >> a mechanical
• 43:08
  >> idea that achieves something similar to
• 43:12
  like there's no way the feelings that
• 43:14
  the fixed am camera angles inspired can
• 43:17
  only be achieved through that method.
• 43:19
  There's no way.
• 43:20
  >> Right.
• 43:20
  >> Yeah.
• 43:21
  >> So what else is there is there another
• 43:22
  take that can be made? And I think there
• 43:24
  is and I think that's that's something
• 43:26
  that you could do and that I would be
• 43:28
  really interested to see because if
• 43:32
  you're getting rid of something that I
• 43:33
  think is so vital to the experience, so
• 43:35
  central to the experience of Resident
• 43:36
  Evil 1 as the fixed camera angles, then
• 43:39
  you got to replace it with something.
• 43:40
  And so what do you replace it with?
• 43:42
  >> Can you generate a sense of spatial
• 43:43
  tension without um you know without
• 43:47
  those fixed camera angles? Right. Yeah.
• 43:49
  And then and I think like
• 43:52
  man it's so interesting. I think what
• 43:54
  I'm really kind of like butting up
• 43:57
  against in this entire conversation is
• 44:01
  maybe this like hidytoid perspective
• 44:04
  that a video game being historically or
• 44:08
  artistically important is um
• 44:13
  I should be able to derive I should
• 44:15
  force myself to derive joy from that
• 44:17
  even if I don't think it's um pleasant
• 44:20
  to play and I think there there is
• 44:22
  somebody who is like, "Yeah, turns out
• 44:24
  the the way that you treat art as real
• 44:27
  art is by accepting that it doesn't
• 44:30
  always have to be pleasant to play." And
• 44:32
  it's like, yeah, I agree with that. I
• 44:35
  think that that's real. But I'm not
• 44:37
  going to ignore that like entertainment
• 44:41
  and pleasure exists. I'm not going to
• 44:43
  pretend that I'm colors, right? Yeah.
• 44:46
  >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not pretending that
• 44:48
  I'm sitting down at my leather [ __ ]
• 44:50
  chair every day cracking open my
• 44:52
  Nintendo Switch 2 in the same way that I
• 44:54
  like read a book and I'm you know like
• 44:57
  what are we doing in that in that little
• 44:58
  that weird little performance and I
• 45:01
  think like
• 45:03
  qualities can be historically
• 45:04
  interesting and worth investigating. And
• 45:07
  I think that they can also be barriers
• 45:08
  for modern players and I don't think
• 45:10
  that it's some kind of artistic
• 45:12
  sacrifice to recognize that. And I would
• 45:15
  even say like if you look at something
• 45:17
  like the Odyssey, which Oh, the Odyssey.
• 45:19
  Yes. You know, if you look at something
• 45:20
  like the Odyssey, when we read the
• 45:22
  Odyssey, we're reading modern
• 45:23
  translations of it. And when you watch a
• 45:26
  classic film, you're not watching that
• 45:28
  classic film. You're watching a modern
• 45:29
  restoration of that classic film. You
• 45:32
  are attending a new production of
• 45:33
  Shakespeare. It's it's like it has to
• 45:39
  cultural work survives this way. Yes,
• 45:42
  it's it's and and a remake, I think, is
• 45:44
  is simply a version of the thing that
• 45:47
  more people are meant to engage with.
• 45:49
  And I and I don't I don't like this
• 45:51
  perspective. I I really don't of this. I
• 45:53
  think um
• 45:55
  pseudo academic like the the the the we
• 46:01
  must be very like serious and dry about
• 46:04
  everything and blah blah blah blah blah.
• 46:06
  Like, I can't tell you how many
• 46:08
  incredible movies reached people because
• 46:11
  they were remade. I can't tell you how
• 46:14
  many games that I think people otherwise
• 46:16
  never would have. Is that I I don't
• 46:18
  know. There's There's value there. And I
• 46:19
  have no interest in pretending that
• 46:20
  there isn't. Yeah.
• 46:21
  >> Yeah. No, I I completely agree because
• 46:23
  it's it's like [gasps]
• 46:25
  why do we have to pretend like a remake
• 46:29
  is the
• 46:31
  is going to be the canonical replacement
• 46:34
  for an earlier work. Now, of course, as
• 46:36
  we mentioned at the top of the episode,
• 46:38
  like that does happen with companies and
• 46:40
  stuff and and stuff like that. So, it is
• 46:42
  that that's a fine enough part of the
• 46:43
  conversation if that's the if that's the
• 46:46
  real worry. And it's it's hey, I I don't
• 46:48
  want a remake of Super Metroid because
• 46:50
  if Super Metroid the remake comes out
• 46:52
  and then Nintendo just disappears, the
• 46:54
  original Super Metroid. Yeah. But again,
• 46:56
  that's like a separate conversation from
• 46:57
  like these remakes as actual works of
• 47:00
  art and actually um trying to do
• 47:03
  something with with them. I think about
• 47:06
  I think about talking about Bloodborne,
• 47:07
  right? If you did a Bloodborne remake,
• 47:08
  what does it add? Other than if if
• 47:11
  you're just doing a a um surface level
• 47:14
  remake of it, a a visual upgrade to it,
• 47:17
  is that truly
• 47:19
  taking that next step to be a a really
• 47:22
  uh uh substantial piece of art? It
• 47:24
  might. And as we said with that Last of
• 47:26
  Us Part One remake, it's like it could
• 47:28
  introduce new people to it. And I don't
• 47:29
  think there's anything wrong with that.
• 47:30
  But when it comes to the just like the
• 47:32
  demand for something like that, I always
• 47:34
  find it so interesting that no one
• 47:35
  really wants it to be that different. No
• 47:37
  one wants something some new
• 47:39
  interpretation it feels like.
• 47:40
  >> And there's always like this strange
• 47:42
  thing that pops up in video games right
• 47:43
  now. I think because it is so part of
• 47:45
  the current cultural conversation about
• 47:46
  like what people are investing money
• 47:49
  into and like where developer resources
• 47:51
  are are are you know I don't know as a I
• 47:54
  know what you mean as as like an
• 47:55
  artistic critic these these kinds of
• 47:57
  issues and this kind of like from the
• 47:59
  outside looking in prognosticating about
• 48:01
  the corporate decisions or whatever.
• 48:03
  This is not where I live and I'm not not
• 48:04
  particularly interested in this
• 48:06
  conversation. But
• 48:07
  >> I think that something that is maybe
• 48:10
  neglected as kind of a fact of the
• 48:12
  situation is that often times um in the
• 48:15
  case of like that Last of Us remake, I'm
• 48:17
  going to say that The Last of Us remake
• 48:18
  took a fraction of a fraction of the
• 48:20
  resources to make as I don't know The
• 48:23
  Last of Us 2.
• 48:24
  >> I almost certainly right
• 48:26
  >> almost certainly. And I think that like
• 48:28
  sometimes we're we're like kidding
• 48:30
  ourselves with this like oh the waste of
• 48:33
  time and energy and and it's like what
• 48:35
  what what are you talking about man like
• 48:37
  what are you talking about? One there is
• 48:39
  there's no way that this is that this
• 48:41
  was like some
• 48:45
  yeah it doesn't even matter. I think my
• 48:46
  point is is that like people people
• 48:48
  enjoy this thing and got value out of
• 48:50
  this thing. And I think to like spit in
• 48:52
  their face and say no, you should have
• 48:54
  got enjoy enjoyment out of the original
• 48:56
  thing instead is just unrealistic and
• 48:58
  operating again from this like
• 48:59
  heightened academic perspective that I'm
• 49:01
  just not at all interested in
• 49:02
  entertainment. Yeah.
• 49:03
  >> Yeah. You know, it's you you mentioned
• 49:05
  something here that I think is um a
• 49:06
  fundamental pillar of our podcast that
• 49:09
  like I think is an overarching theme
• 49:11
  that I've sort of tracked and I've
• 49:13
  tracked some people um
• 49:16
  >> I think misinterpret it across the board
• 49:18
  where like when we talk about this stuff
• 49:20
  >> I'm a far better art critic than I am an
• 49:23
  industry analyst.
• 49:24
  >> Sure.
• 49:25
  >> And the industry an analysis side of of
• 49:27
  things I can do I guess but like I'm
• 49:30
  just simply not that interested in it.
• 49:32
  It's fine enough to be like, oh, what
• 49:33
  are these companies doing this at?
• 49:34
  Whatever. And we can do that. But, uh,
• 49:36
  at the end of the day, a lot of these
• 49:39
  conversations I want to have purely from
• 49:41
  an artistic standpoint. And I understand
• 49:43
  that there is an intersection of the
• 49:44
  artistic with the corporate side. But
• 49:46
  like when we talk about this sort of
• 49:47
  thing or a lot of the other topics on
• 49:49
  this show, there's an implied, at least
• 49:51
  for me, like, hey, we're talking about
• 49:53
  the work. We're talking about the art.
• 49:54
  we're not necessarily talking about like
• 49:56
  all of the context surrounding it uh
• 49:59
  from the the industry side, which is
• 50:01
  important, but sometimes that like
• 50:04
  people I think get a little too uh in
• 50:05
  the weeds about trying to talk about
• 50:06
  that when when actually I think I want
• 50:09
  to talk about the art. Would you would
• 50:10
  you say that's fair?
• 50:11
  >> I would. And I think just in terms of my
• 50:12
  own personal value system, something
• 50:14
  that I want to stress is just that I do
• 50:17
  think that you have to reach people. And
• 50:19
  I think creating some creating some
• 50:22
  great thing that nobody plays, I I I
• 50:26
  question the value of that. And I know
• 50:27
  that there is this again this kind of
• 50:30
  heightened artistic perspective where
• 50:32
  the the the value of these pursuits
• 50:34
  should feed this thing inside of us.
• 50:36
  That's all that's all well and good, but
• 50:38
  am I um am I happier for the team that
• 50:42
  puts out a game and then it does poorly
• 50:44
  and has to and and everybody gets laid
• 50:46
  off in a month than I am the team that
• 50:49
  uh bought themselves another year
• 50:50
  because they did a remake.
• 50:53
  >> Everyone hates a band when they go uh
• 50:55
  when they sign to a major record label.
• 50:57
  You know what I mean?
• 50:59
  >> Because then now it all changes. Peter,
• 51:01
  I want to give a shout out to uh to all
• 51:04
  of the people that make this uh that
• 51:06
  make this podcast possible. I am of
• 51:08
  course talking to the members of the
• 51:10
  Critical Error Nation. Uh for no reason
• 51:13
  other than to express the kindness and
• 51:15
  appreciation of their hearts, we of
• 51:17
  course have people at the highest level,
• 51:18
  the Jake and Peter tier for $20 a month.
• 51:21
  I cannot believe it. Every time I
• 51:23
  revisit this page, we're of course
• 51:24
  talking about Andrew Bulkar, Anel Trait,
• 51:27
  Evansne, Monero, and Robert Quesada.
• 51:30
  Thank you so so much for supporting the
• 51:33
  podcast
• 51:34
  >> at patreon.com/critical
• 51:36
  error. You are right here with us each
• 51:37
  and every week and we really appreciate
• 51:40
  you. Now before we get to our final
• 51:42
  moments of the podcast, Peter, where
• 51:43
  you'll be sharing a pre-written piece
• 51:44
  with us. Um, we of course have to play
• 51:46
  the sound that we play every week in
• 51:48
  honor of our critical error royalty
• 51:51
  members. So, $5 and up obviously gets
• 51:53
  you access to the bonus podcast, but the
• 51:55
  $10 and up, they get to be included
• 51:57
  every week in a original sound. I'm not
• 52:00
  just going to read the names. I'm going
• 52:02
  to create some kind of stupid thing.
• 52:03
  Now, how
• 52:05
  >> how could I remake a sound now?
• 52:09
  >> Now, this is something.
• 52:10
  >> How How would I go about Now, I' I've
• 52:13
  been I've this has been swirling around
• 52:15
  in my head for a minute here. I don't
• 52:16
  know if it's possible, but I I love the
• 52:18
  idea because the you know the names
• 52:20
  change, but um
• 52:21
  >> Oh, that's fair. That's fair. That's
• 52:22
  fair.
• 52:22
  >> Yeah. Yeah. But but I I've just I've
• 52:24
  just been toying around with that in my
• 52:25
  head of of could I do some kind of
• 52:27
  indicative of a remake sound effect for
• 52:30
  the nation. So that's maybe
• 52:32
  >> reimagining
• 52:32
  >> a reimag. Oh,
• 52:35
  >> okay.
• 52:35
  >> I mean that's because that's the thing
• 52:36
  we're pushing for, right? I think is is
• 52:38
  we're more interested in a reimagining
• 52:40
  than a remake.
• 52:41
  >> Okay. So, members of the critical era
• 52:43
  royalty, you you might find something
• 52:45
  strange about your your names in this uh
• 52:49
  you might find something something
• 52:50
  strange has happened to your names here.
• 52:52
  So, it's just it's it's a different
• 52:54
  take. It's a different take on uh
• 52:56
  typically reading out the names of the
• 52:58
  the Critical Error royalty members. So,
• 53:00
  let's listen to that right now.
• 53:02
  >> Hey, Christian. This week's uh Critical
• 53:04
  Error podcast is about remakes and
• 53:06
  having a take taking the same source
• 53:08
  material, doing it differently. And I
• 53:10
  thought it would be fun if you read out
• 53:12
  the names of the patrons for this
• 53:15
  episode. Let me know. Let me know if you
• 53:17
  can do that and I'll just stick your
• 53:19
  little phone recording right in the pod.
• 53:21
  Okay, so Jake wanted a phone recording,
• 53:25
  but it sounded terrible. So instead, I
• 53:28
  am recording on the Elgato. And unless
• 53:31
  it's an aesthetic choice to do a phone
• 53:34
  recording, uh, then I'm going to do uh,
• 53:37
  a wavelength recording for the Critical
• 53:39
  Error Nation patrons, whom are Pinky
• 53:43
  Oats, Sam Woods, Andrew Bolcar, Kale
• 53:48
  Chow, Connor True Love, Evan Snee, Cole,
• 53:54
  Jared Kuseno,
• 53:56
  Mero,
• 53:58
  Danny, Disaster,
• 54:00
  Shin, Jacob Richter, Robert Iseda, Mitch
• 54:06
  Dyer, Anel Trait, James Pierre Reed,
• 54:11
  [laughter]
• 54:12
  and thick dick Mystic.
• 54:16
  Okay, and here we go, closing out this
• 54:19
  exceptional episode of the Critical
• 54:20
  Error podcast. Thank you so much,
• 54:22
  patreon.com/critical error. Each and
• 54:24
  every week, one of us shares a
• 54:27
  pre-written piece, trying to be
• 54:29
  intentional, trying to be specific,
• 54:31
  trying to trying to achieve something.
• 54:33
  Peter, what what was your angle uh this
• 54:35
  week? What did you choose to attack?
• 54:37
  >> Um, you know, it's funny.
• 54:38
  [sighs and gasps] I feel like uh I've
• 54:39
  gotten away from writing about video
• 54:41
  games in these
• 54:42
  >> uh in these pieces, and I was like, let
• 54:44
  me write something about a game, and let
• 54:46
  me let me write about something that's
• 54:47
  been on sort of on the mind. Mhm.
• 54:48
  >> Um, it's a little bit shorter, I think,
• 54:50
  than what we've been doing in the past,
• 54:51
  but I don't think that's necessarily
• 54:52
  bad.
• 54:53
  >> I know. Fantastic. Yeah.
• 54:56
  >> I just thought High Guard was fun, man.
• 54:59
  Here's the deal. Of course, it's sad
• 55:01
  that all the people who made the game
• 55:02
  have lost their jobs now that it's
• 55:04
  officially being shut down later this
• 55:05
  month, but I don't really want to talk
• 55:07
  about that. Enough people have been
• 55:09
  eulogizing a game they didn't look at
• 55:11
  for more than two matches online. And
• 55:13
  like, what else is there to say? Broken
• 55:16
  industry. Yeah. Yeah. studio
• 55:18
  mismanagement. Yeah. Yeah. But like it
• 55:21
  was also just a fun game. There's
• 55:23
  something to be said for the fleeting
• 55:25
  gaming experiences that exist as a
• 55:27
  result of online multiplayer games that
• 55:28
  can disappear overnight. I'm still
• 55:30
  bummed that Simpsons Fortnite is gone.
• 55:33
  But with Highguard, I think I'm
• 55:35
  satisfied with my experience with it as
• 55:37
  a player. I put over 20 hours into High
• 55:39
  Guard with two of my good friends, but
• 55:41
  we stopped playing. Partially because we
• 55:44
  felt like the game's inevitable shutdown
• 55:45
  was just a matter of time, which it was,
• 55:48
  but also because we had had our fill.
• 55:50
  The final moments I spent with Highguard
• 55:52
  had me laughing my ass off after me and
• 55:55
  my friends switched the language
• 55:56
  settings over to Spanish so that they
• 55:58
  could make fun of my broken
• 55:59
  pronunciations as the only non-native
• 56:01
  speaker in the chat. That final session,
• 56:04
  as I was pouring over the Hugar menu in
• 56:07
  search of new phrases to say during
• 56:08
  Highguard's episodio dose, felt like
• 56:11
  watching the end credits for the game.
• 56:14
  Highg guard wasn't packed to the brim
• 56:16
  with content, so we had seen everything
• 56:18
  we needed to see in those 20 hours,
• 56:21
  searching the game's depths for anything
• 56:23
  resembling a good time, and the Spanish
• 56:25
  language translation was where we found
• 56:27
  our final enjoyment. Maybe there was
• 56:30
  more content planned to be added to the
• 56:32
  game that would have been ri that would
• 56:33
  have ripped our attention away from
• 56:35
  whatever other multiplayer game has it
• 56:37
  now, but there wasn't and now there
• 56:40
  never will be. So, I guess that's just
• 56:42
  it. Highguard was a game that made me
• 56:44
  laugh and had some exhilarating chases
• 56:46
  across maps designed for riding like the
• 56:48
  armies of every nation on Earth was on
• 56:50
  your tail. It was good, sometimes even
• 56:53
  great. But how many times can you go on
• 56:56
  that ride though before you're ready for
• 56:58
  something else? Before saddling up and
• 57:00
  trekking across the map starts feeling
• 57:02
  like business as usual.
• 57:04
  >> I liked High Ty Guard a lot and I'm sad
• 57:07
  for the people who are losing their
• 57:08
  livelihoods because of studio
• 57:09
  mismanagement. But the death of Highgard
• 57:12
  already happened for me. Its anchor
• 57:14
  stone already detached from my life. I
• 57:17
  never learned Spanish from it. But I
• 57:19
  find it difficult to imagine that
• 57:21
  because of that night that I'll ever
• 57:23
  forget what Hugar means. And I think
• 57:25
  it's nice that a piece of art gets to
• 57:27
  live on like that for me. Thank you.
• 57:31
  >> Beautiful. Beautiful. Thank you for
• 57:33
  that. Oh my god. Okay. I'm glad we got
• 57:35
  to give a nod on the pod to our
• 57:38
  extremely good times and playing
• 57:40
  Highguard.
• 57:41
  >> Yeah.
• 57:41
  >> Um Yeah. I mean, listen, I think I think
• 57:44
  we're some of the biggest Highguard fans
• 57:45
  on the on the internet.
• 57:47
  >> Truly must be. [laughter] And I feel
• 57:49
  okay I feel okay with u bearing that
• 57:51
  cross. I think like something that
• 57:54
  something that like really saddens me
• 57:56
  about this entire situation is I think
• 57:59
  um the
• 58:01
  failure of kind of the apparatus
• 58:04
  surrounding video games to um actually
• 58:06
  like write about high guard and instead
• 58:09
  98% of the conversation is just around
• 58:12
  the marketing and the business and the
• 58:15
  Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting
• 58:16
  at at the end of you know at the end of
• 58:18
  the podcast here where I was like here's
• 58:19
  the thing we could talk about the studio
• 58:22
  management and the industry and whatever
• 58:23
  and tencent or whatever the [ __ ] and
• 58:25
  like that's fine. we can do that. It's
• 58:27
  like can we also not just talk about
• 58:29
  like the art like the game of it cuz
• 58:31
  like that's the thing I I think the
• 58:33
  studio the industry analyst stuff is
• 58:35
  like more on the nose. It's simpler. I
• 58:38
  think it's not to say it's easier
• 58:39
  necessarily but like let's talk about
• 58:40
  the art. Let's talk about the game. Is
• 58:42
  that not also worth discussing? Because
• 58:43
  I think it is.
• 58:45
  >> It's tough. I think that I think that
• 58:46
  talking about the game is just um too
• 58:49
  hard for people if I'm being honest. And
• 58:51
  I think the industry analyzing from the
• 58:54
  outside is just much easier. It's easier
• 58:56
  to um post a tweet about. It's easier to
• 58:59
  kind of like sum up your position in a
• 59:01
  sentence so that other people can kind
• 59:02
  of co-op that position and posture about
• 59:05
  how smart they are about the state of
• 59:06
  the video game industry, which I think
• 59:08
  is important to people.
• 59:09
  >> And um I don't know, it's it's this
• 59:12
  weird thing where
• 59:13
  >> you and I uh we we played a little bit
• 59:15
  of Marathon over the weekend. We tried
• 59:17
  it out and it was one of these games
• 59:19
  that the second I started playing it, it
• 59:22
  really kind of hit me over the head with
• 59:23
  this feeling of, all right, I got to pay
• 59:25
  attention. I got to like,
• 59:26
  >> yes,
• 59:27
  >> there's there's stuff here I got to
• 59:28
  learn. And that's okay. And I think like
• 59:31
  a lot of people might say might have
• 59:33
  criticisms of that game because it
• 59:35
  doesn't immediately all make sense to
• 59:37
  them. And I think some of that,
• 59:39
  depending on how you approach that, I
• 59:40
  think there are different levels of
• 59:41
  validity to that. I think sometimes you
• 59:43
  need to um sit with a piece for a long
• 59:46
  enough time to assess it on assess what
• 59:50
  it's doing. I think that the the idea
• 59:52
  that you should immediately understand I
• 59:54
  don't know there are there are sentences
• 59:55
  in in Pride and Prejudice that I've read
• 59:57
  a million times and then I come back to
• 59:59
  on my 25th reading and I go
• 1:00:01
  >> I think I get this now. And it's like we
• 1:00:04
  don't really give ourselves that
• 1:00:05
  opportunity in video games because you
• 1:00:07
  want to, especially as somebody that
• 1:00:08
  plays a lot of video games, your
• 1:00:10
  expectation is that you should be
• 1:00:11
  immediately good at it.
• 1:00:13
  >> And something that I noticed with
• 1:00:15
  Highguard was that I think it was so
• 1:00:16
  easy for people to um position
• 1:00:20
  themselves as the knower of what High
• 1:00:23
  Guard was.
• 1:00:24
  >> Yeah.
• 1:00:25
  >> Yeah. It was it was once it was revealed
• 1:00:27
  at Jeff Keelley's show, I know what that
• 1:00:29
  means. Once you once you jump in and you
• 1:00:32
  see this weird 3v3 game, once you see
• 1:00:34
  the Steam numbers not being as good as
• 1:00:36
  Apex Legends, there were all these
• 1:00:38
  things that were begging you to go, I
• 1:00:40
  know exactly what this is, but all of
• 1:00:42
  that stuff had nothing to do with uh the
• 1:00:44
  game.
• 1:00:45
  >> Yeah.
• 1:00:45
  >> So, so I think that um whenever I see
• 1:00:48
  Higgard discussed online, I'm really
• 1:00:50
  kind of struck by
• 1:00:53
  how divorced from the game it is.
• 1:00:55
  >> Yeah.
• 1:00:56
  >> Yeah. So, so often conversations like
• 1:00:58
  boil down to me being like, you know, if
• 1:01:00
  that's your opinion on the game, that's
• 1:01:01
  fine. But it also just like to me as
• 1:01:03
  someone who played, you know, like 20
• 1:01:04
  hours of it, like sounds like you just
• 1:01:06
  didn't play it that much. And that's
• 1:01:07
  okay. You don't have to play something
• 1:01:09
  entirely to have like a take or anything
• 1:01:10
  like that. Like that's something we are
• 1:01:12
  proponents of here. But like at the very
• 1:01:15
  least, I think there's a certain level
• 1:01:16
  of like let's
• 1:01:18
  >> if we're going to talk about the game,
• 1:01:19
  we should be talking about the game with
• 1:01:20
  people who played the game as as people
• 1:01:22
  who played the game, right? Um and yeah,
• 1:01:24
  I don't know. Like it it's interesting
• 1:01:26
  cuz I could write about uh the actual
• 1:01:29
  like mechanics of high guard and this
• 1:01:30
  that whatever but that like literally
• 1:01:32
  that final time playing it where we're
• 1:01:33
  like laughing about the Spanish stuff
• 1:01:35
  and and like I guess like not laughing
• 1:01:37
  at the Spanish of it because obviously
• 1:01:39
  that's not like inherently funny but
• 1:01:41
  like laughing at me trying to pronounce
• 1:01:43
  you know what is it? Hugaradad.
• 1:01:45
  >> You nailed it.
• 1:01:46
  >> Is that [laughter]
• 1:01:50
  it was perfect. It was perfect.
• 1:01:51
  >> Well you nailed it. Yeah. Um, but like
• 1:01:54
  it was just so funny here too from like
• 1:01:56
  you and Christian like talking about
• 1:01:58
  like like it's insane like to see like
• 1:02:00
  the Hugar menu. The fact that it's not
• 1:02:02
  just the like the English has changed to
• 1:02:04
  Spanish in the in the like voice acting
• 1:02:06
  whatever, but like there's a Spanish
• 1:02:08
  language version of the game that's just
• 1:02:09
  there, you know. Um, I think that's fun.
• 1:02:12
  And what was funny about that too is
• 1:02:14
  that we saw some of the things that they
• 1:02:16
  um very quickly kind of rushed to add
• 1:02:18
  after the game came out, like the 5v5
• 1:02:21
  mode. When we changed over to the
• 1:02:22
  Spanish language setting, those menus
• 1:02:25
  were not translated.
• 1:02:26
  >> Those were in English still.
• 1:02:27
  >> Yeah. So, kind of a fun little cultural
• 1:02:29
  artifact there of uh some evidence, if
• 1:02:32
  you will, of of maybe how that went.
• 1:02:36
  I will say like the thing for me that
• 1:02:37
  that I find to be sort of that I hit on
• 1:02:39
  at the end of this piece is like talking
• 1:02:41
  about like oh but like you know this
• 1:02:42
  game is gone and like and it you know
• 1:02:44
  it's tragic that all these people lost
• 1:02:45
  their livelihoods all that but like at
• 1:02:47
  the end of the day like I am not going
• 1:02:49
  to forget what Hugar means.
• 1:02:50
  >> I like that's that's in here and it's
• 1:02:52
  because of that game and anytime if I
• 1:02:54
  ever hear the word Hugar I'm going to
• 1:02:56
  crack a little smile to be honest with
• 1:02:57
  you.
• 1:02:57
  >> That's good. That's good.
• 1:02:59
  >> Yeah. Not that it's coming up that often
• 1:03:00
  but like if it ever does I'm like that's
• 1:03:03
  you got it. All right. Well, I think we
• 1:03:05
  got to end this pod just by pouring one
• 1:03:07
  out for uh pouring one out for High
• 1:03:09
  Guard.
• 1:03:09
  >> So, a little a little ceremonial drip,
• 1:03:12
  if you will.
• 1:03:12
  >> Oh, there it is. Here it is. I got my
• 1:03:14
  water bottle right here.
• 1:03:16
  >> To High guard. To Highard.
• 1:03:17
  >> Rest in peace.
• 1:03:18
  >> Rest in peace. Oh my gosh.