Common wisdom has it that if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. What, then, should we think of the recent trend in gaming to bring back, and in some cases revamp past video games? I'm thinking here mostly of Bionic Commando's recent upgrade to be both a completely new reimagining of the franchise (yes, now it's a franchise at last) and an update of the classic arcade hit which itself includes a version of the original. Developer Grin is covering all bases, giving die-hard fans what they want while at the same time bringing in new fans who may never have played the first release.

Is it a good idea to keep mining the past for the hits of the future? How much life do these games still have in them? Is it possible to revamp an old game sufficiently to make it feel new while retaining its old-school flavor? Let's take a look.
If one were being fractious, one could call the spate of existing and upcoming historical game releases a case of extreme sequelitis. Does Space Invaders really need to be redone for modern sensibilities? What about Pac-Man? Galaga? Shouldn't the industry spend its time working on original IPs? By re-releasing classic titles and "evolving" existing games, aren't we just displaying a serious lack of innovation and showing contempt for the games-buying masses? Where does one draw the line?

If I were inclined to be fractious myself, I would call this viewpoint sour grapes-ism. Instead, let's address these concerns.

First, those who cry "foul" at the idea of game sequels in general often neglect to address the fact that sequels sell really really well. Let's not forget that this is a business, and the cost of developing a new IP is higher than ever. It's not wrong for a company to look at the numbers and say "What the hell, let's go 'round one more time". The only time it becomes a burden is when 1) The sequel fails to improve in any way upon the original, and 2) More shelf space is accorded to a sequel than to a new IP. But improvement on a franchise is something assessable only after the fact, so it's unfair to the developing team to castigate them outright. And let's face it: someone is buying these games, so there must be some value to be had.

Second, to be honest, no game really needs to be redone. It's best to try to respect the vision of the team and consider that they made the closest version of what was in their heads given the talent, resources, time allotted, and publisherial (that's probably not a word) pressure involved. Very rarely do games truly represent the original ideas thrown wildly about at the initial pitch meeting. At the same time, it's okay to acknowledge that twenty years gone, old Bump 'n' Jump is looking pretty long in the tooth. Make that sucker 3D, and it's a whole new game.

It's also important to remember that no matter how horrendous a remake might turn out to be, there's always the original to be replayed. But there's a problem with that as well. After decades of playing all manner of different games, you will likely subtly have gotten used to a faster manner of play, a more responsive set of controls. Old games aren't just slower-paced, they're sluggish in the handling department as well. Five minutes with Rally X was nearly enough to make me forswear anything made earlier than 1995. Remakes can fix these issues and heal old wounds.

What about the importance of original IPs to the industry as a whole? Here's something else people tend to forget: sequels come from original IPs. Remember the original Ultima? That series only got better and better as time went on. Of course, it also got worse after a certain point, but the idea remains: all sequels come from somewhere. So when you're arguing in favor of a new IP, keep in mind that if it sells well enough, it too will get The Treatment sometime down the line.

This is not to spurn a truly original idea, of course. Tim Schaefer's entire oeuvre consists of nothing but originals, no sequels. Have his games been important to the industry? Perhaps in the sense that his creativity might inspire others, but the classic adventure game genre seems to have had its day, and now languishes as a whole; Psychonauts itself didn't sell in the numbers it deserved to. And by the way, Mr. Schaefer has said he'd love to do a sequel to that title.

Is there a lack of innovation in the games industry? Take a look at the indie game development scene. There are games whose sole purpose is to exist merely to prove the efficacy of a gameplay idea. These games traditionally have had a hard time getting noticed, but digital distribution has made it easier than ever for a lone developer to get his baby out into the world. So we needn't worry that traveling backward for game ideas is hurting the industry. In fact, one could argue that the success of remade titles and sequels provides the foundation for indie games to be able to thrive.

So, returning to old games for inspiration isn't a bad thing, but is it a good thing? The fact of the matter is, sequels and revamps will never stop being made. Publishers and developers will always try to cash in on nostalgia as a motivation to play a new game based on an old one. It all depends on which development team gets to make the game; a talented studio will make an old idea fresh, while a mundane studio will run an old IP into the ground.

Also, an old game will always be new to someone. This current generation of gamers will likely never have heard of the Intellivision and the games it could play. They might find Mappy to be as engaging a title as it ever was. Or, horror of horrors, upon replaying that old ROM of Ikari Warriors, you may find that your fond memories are based less on gameplay than on people's tendency to romanticize the past.

Finally, lest you worry that this trend will dominate games for years to come, let's not forget that you, the game-buying public, vote with your dollars. You will choose the next big hit franchise based on nothing more than how well it plays, how well it breathes new life into an old chestnut. It's you who will decide whether it was a good idea to bring back Alone in the Dark, or if it should have been left Alone, in the Dark.