Would you ever like to see Loom remastered with updated graphics?
… he answers:
If by “remastering” you mean simply converting the original low-resolution 16-color art to high-resolution 24-bit color, my answer is a loud “No.”
Nearly every creative decision regarding the dramatic scope and presentation of Loom was influenced by the severe technical restrictions imposed by the available hardware. Adding more pixels and colors would only serve to emphasize those restrictions.
The 256-color “upgrades” of Loom produced after the original EGA release clearly demonstrate this. They not only make the original design seem unduly antiquated, but also manage to obfuscate specific experience goals by adding superfluous colors and detail.
What do you think about this? Do you think that adding more colors and using smaller pixels inevitably highlights in a bad way those graphic features that made sense only for those limited computers?
Here Brian uses the word “converted” and makes the example of the 256-color version of Loom, in which more colors were added to the original scenes, but what about completely redrawing the background art? Might that be an improvement, assuming that the artists are very good?
I’m a bit torn about this, because for some “remakes” I did like their new graphics.