Do you think Battlezone 2
would get enough audience as to make it worth all the work with remastering, save for the sense of personal satisfaction obtained yet at the cost of delaying the release date - making an old thing older - next to creating space for all the new incompatibilities that with high probability would arise? The game looks good enough - to me, okay - and there is a saying which goes one should avoud fixing what works fine. Hard to tell whether it works for you, though. Certainly you are eager to see your favourite game done some modern hocus pocus, but think functionally, I would say. The game is retro, but still rocks the boat. 98 Redux
, despite all the sugarcoating, is still retro. More even, it is still Battlezone
, which means people who dislike it or find it too hard to play, still do.
Rebellion may estimate veterans to buy and play the re-relased Battlezone 2
. But if to address the veterans, what further meaning does it have to visually enhance the game for them? It is the same paradox as with 98 Redux
. Veterans - I guess - are all for gameplay, compatibility, technical fixes, improvements and general stability of all sorts. You said it yourself:
Vet stratters usually like to stick to older, stable versions w/ VSR, where we are more concerned about gameplay and options vs visuals.
Most of the vets would probably even turn the graphical boost off if it improved their performance. Newgamers, well, they could catch the hook with redux and I believe the numbers would be better than with 98 Redux
. But the case is, is it generally worth a damn? What goes around my mind with this one is an idea of an issue caused by something between hyped system requirements, hyped price, difficult gameplay and notion of already established elite game class of players with long history of achievements.