How would you name all the remakes of LBA?

[Polaris]

Limiting the resources needed by your game/program by making it mandatory to be compatible on very old hardware is actually an interesting idea :O

Frankly, we could limit a good part of electronic waste.
Would it hinder the development of computers though ? What do you guys think ?

[bloodhound]

There are some very important developments in game technology that aren’t supported by Windows Me, for example nowadays graphics cards are used to do lots of different customizable computations, and CPUs have multiple cores. If you don’t support these, the game will be a lot less responsive.

But in general I also think that reducing electronic waste is important, and the EU is already considering introducing legislation for that goal, for example by forcing phone companies to provide OS updates for a few years.

[CUvox]

Unreal Tournament 2004 works fine on Windows Me, and its engine is much more than sufficient to remake LBA games...

[bloodhound]

Why this doesn't make sense for 2.21:
- That version of Unreal Engine as far as I know isn't free, whereas UE4 and UE5 are free to use, at least as long as they don't sell games
- Computers don't last 23 years, so market share of Windows Me is maybe 0.1%
- Wine also supports newer Windows versions, and UE5 games can run natively on Linux
- Newer versions of Unreal Engine have features that allow making games without programming experience, which is great, because then everybody in the team can make changes to the game

[Reek]

Originally Posted by Neko

There are several things to ponder.

I don't mind a remake or remaster, if above all else it is faithfully to the original spirit. Which between lba 1 and 2 is a complete different beast alltogether.

but most importantly, a new company should have focus, one message, one strategy, one game, one artwork direction.

We now have seen 3 different artwork styles, the wimpy twinsen, pictures of the reboot, and now a cartoony remake. Whoever is in charge should make up his mind.

Yeah, this.
It sounds like 1.5 years later they're still not really sure what they're making. Doesn't inspire much confidence

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by Reek

Yeah, this.
It sounds like 1.5 years later they're still not really sure what they're making. Doesn't inspire much confidence

I think it's entirely possible - perhaps likely - they don't have a clue what they're doing.

[Battler]

Their decisions seem to be all over the place - they announced LBA 3, then they changed their mind and announced the LBA Reboot instead, they open-sourced the games and promised to open-source the tools as well, then we haven't heard anything on the latter, we don't even get the source code to LBAWin (why?), then all the art style changing.

And why is Gwen the leader and not Frédérick Raynal?

[Polaris]

Wasn't Ben the leader ?

[bloodhound]

Originally Posted by Battler

And why is Gwen the leader and not Frédérick Raynal?

I don't see the benefit of Fred being the leader to be honest. Ben & Gwen seem to be good at hiring younger talent and bringing fresh ideas to the franchise, even though 2.21 has the above-mentioned issues.

Originally Posted by Polaris

Wasn't Ben the leader ?

My feeling is that Gwen is doing at least as many, if not more, of the decisions. But that's just a guess, because I think she used to have a role with more responsibility than Ben before they founded 2.21.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Limiting the resources needed by your game/program by making it mandatory to be compatible on very old hardware is actually an interesting idea :O

Originally Posted by CUvox

Unreal Tournament 2004 works fine on Windows Me, and its engine is much more than sufficient to remake LBA games...

This, more than their questionable management and art decisions, would be a catastrophic decision for 2.21.

First, many titles work natively on Linux these days and with wine and other wrappers (as the Steam Deck shows) there is limitless potential for games to be played on multiple platforms.

But beyond that, using an engine that is now nearly 20 (!!!) years old for a game where they're decidedly ignoring us, the hardcore fans, and instead trying to appeal to new users? I think that would be asinine.

It's one thing for a fan project or mod or something, but as a commercially viable game? I think it would be foolish to constrain themselves arbitrarily to a game the size of a CD-ROM, or be able to run on Windows Me, or some other nonsense.

Make the game to the expectations of game engines, graphics cards, and input devices in 2023.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Limiting the resources needed by your game/program by making it mandatory to be compatible on very old hardware is actually an interesting idea :O

Such an idea has already been explored in a way, it's called fantasy consoles...


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fantasy+consoles

But I don't think it makes sense going beyond that realm of nostalgy-filled bubbles.

[Polaris]

Ayy, duckduckgo ftw ! Have you tried out Qwant ? I'm thinking of switching, but the last time I tried it, it really want very effective

Anyway, back on topic. If I understand correctly, fantasy consoles are basically small Virtual Machined, and as thus, should be more stable and run on more hardware ?

It reminds me of dockers, which if I'm correct, are used to some extent, as the apps should encounter less problems, since they run on the same virtual machine.
But this has a drawback, since the host computer now has to power a VM on top of the app. Not ideal...

[bloodhound]

They could be more easily ported to weird hardware, because they create a simple model of everything. But there still have to be hobbyists willing to to write that compatibility layer.

With Docker the drawback you mention is minimized, because the operating system provides support for isolating the Docker containers without having to emulate as much as a VM does. You can try it out, it's a lot faster than normal VMs, especially on Linux.

[Polaris]

Okay, I now have name nomenclature I am satisfied with.

The Originals : Little Big Adventure
The Enhanced Edition : LBA - Touch version
The Classics : LBA - Windows port

No need to actually name them differently, since they are, y'know, fundamentally the same game.
Bit functional, but at least everyone knows without a doubt what's what.

For the remake, it could be simply LBA Remake, or like just adding the engine name like Valve did when they remade games with the source engine (i.e., LBA UE5), or go with Little Big Remake, or similar.

[ras maxim]

For the "remasters":
LBA: The mistake
or
LBA: The joke
Or both.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by ras maxim

For the "remasters":
LBA: The mistake
or
LBA: The joke
Or both.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by ras maxim

For the "remasters":
LBA: The mistake
or
LBA: The joke
Or both.

[Hin]

Well no one changed the names of the originals, luckily

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Big_Adventure

It's just the modified versions on steam that have different names.
I would agree that, whatever happens with the next games, the originals should keep the same name on steam though, I'm not sure if there's a way to complain about that?

[bloodhound]

You could of course try to convince them in the 2.21 Discord channel. But as they now own the intellectual property, I don't see how there's any authority that could limit what they do to the games they sell.

[Polaris]

I'm not exactly sure what classifies as "original" in a digital context... They own the license and have re-edited the same game under a different name... They can't change the names on the boxes and CDs already published though, for sure...