Should classic games be changed for their rerelease on the Virtual Console?
***SPOILER ALERT***
This topic includes some spoilers!
Take Mortal Kombat for my first example. When it first came out, Nintendo had never seen such atrocity before, and so the first game was altered - essentially censored. There was no blood, and Fatalities were changed. The Genesis had blood (or a code that enabled it, I believe), as well as the more gruesome Fatalities. The problem was that the Genesis had worse controls and worse graphics. So would you want to download both? Would they even have both available or just one or the other? Now I had mentioned that the ideal version would be a Super NES-like one with the blood and Fatalities intact. (That is until Ian reminded me that the original arcade game would be best. Perhaps Nintendo can get a hold of a few arcade games, but they probably wouldn't make a big deal about it unless they can get a lot.)
Now, in The Legend Of Zelda, the villain is named Gannon - with three Ns, two in the middle. In the rereleases of The Legend Of Zelda (Animal Crossing, Collectors Edition, GBA NES Classics) this has been changed to Ganon (two Ns, only one in the middle) to coincide with the correct spelling according the the other games in the series. Surely no one's going to be concerned if they go back and fix a few spelling errors, right? But then what about the Engrish-that's-so-bad-it's-still-somehow-funny-to-some-people like in the opening of Zero Wing for the Genesis? Or, a more spelling-related-yet-still-likely Engrish thing like the classic "I FEEL ASLEEP" line from Metal Gear? (Metal Gear also had a password that took you to the end that included a swear word - THE word that begins with F - removing that now means you have to use another password or *gasp* play the game again.)
Story retcons would be possible, but should they be? Would it matter much that the world didn't end in 1997 as predicted by the NES version of Crystalis (I forget what the GBC version said) or that Lavos didn't awaken in 1999 according to Chrono Trigger (I forget which year Chrono Cross came out in)? Would you get as much thrill from not killing a guy (even though you fought him the same way) just so that they could better explain how he comes back in a sequel? (As an example, I had hoped that Metroid: Zero Mission, being a retcon of Metroid, would have Ridley, Kraid, and the Mother Brain all escape instead of die, thus avoiding the unnecessarily unrealistic (IMO) revival of all of them in Metroid Prime/Super Metroid. However, it's already been established in Metroid Prime that they are "revived", so perhaps death is still necessary for continuity. And then, on a related note (or maybe not), how would you market this? I'm sure some of you would argue with me, but the Metroid Prime series, taking place between Metroid: Zero Mission (which replaces Metroid) and Metroid II: Return Of Samus, should make those three games all part of "Metroid 1" (also because Prime means first), since Metroid: Zero Mission implies that it's now "Metroid 0". Thus, the NES Metroid, though first released and knocked out of continuity, shouldn't they advertise it as the original zeroth game in the franchise, not the original first game? OMG - arguments against basic numbers will likely ensue! Back on a related note - shouldn't Samus make at least ONE comment about her adventures in the Metroid Prime games in her recap at the beginning of Super Metroid? Some events have nothing to do with what will happen in Super Metroid, but you'd think she'd at least make a passing comment about Ridley being a continuous pain.
Going back to The Legend Of Zelda, and related to killing... in the gold cart version of Ocarina Of Time, Link slashes Ganon in the face to finish him off. He spews red blood. Supposedly in the later-released grey cart version of the game, this has been changed to green or something less disturbing. Perhaps someone can remind me what the rereleases of this game (Wind Waker preorder bonus disc, Master Quest, Collectors Edition) have. Which should be included in the VC version of the game? Again, it doesn't matter a ton, even for the visceral effect, certainly less than Ganondorf getting the Master Sword right in his head in his human form in Wind Waker but if you change that, what else is open for game designers to go back and change? If Spielberg can go back and edit E.T. so that a character has a walkie-talkie instead of a gun, and that causes some controversy, then maybe game developers might go back and change weapons entirely, which could then be of "Han/Greedo shot first" retcon controversies.
Do you like games exactly as they were - straight up ROM code put through official emulators - or do you open them up for change? Online multiplayer, spelling fixes, that's cool. But if they can be changed, then how far can they change the games before they're not the same anymore?
