Official Thimbleweed Park Forums

Remastering old games: do more resolution and colors make the graphics better?


Classic example of the Mandela effect…you know that thing that happens when the ghost of Nelson Mandela visits you at night to talk human rights issues…


That’s interesting. I have exactly the same experience but in the opposite direction: having played MM a couple of years before, I remember being thrilled to play DotT, which was often referred to as MM2, and I whished it was closer to its predecessor.

Come to think of it, Zak was the true sequel to MM (in spirit and style), if not in story.
And in that sense TWP feels like the sequel to Zak/MM too. Which works for me.
Still waiting for a 90% off sales before I buy DotT remastered though


Never say never:


Seriously though, there was of course this:

And Fate Of Atlantis:

Yeah…there was also a game based on Temple Of Doom and an even earlier one not based on any specific Indy movie, but I never played those.


I made this. What do you guys think? :blush:
California Games (1987) for the Master System.


I believe they call it “remake” in case you are changing the game a lot and “remastered” when you are improving just the art and audio.

Not everybody is capable to make a “remake” because you need to have a great knowledge of the original ideas to expand the game-play and story.

To make a “remastered” version is much easier, because the hard work has been already done and you just improving the look and sound.

Both version would be cool, but not everybody can do it right. We have infinite possibilities to make the “remake” great and look fantastic. 4K resolution, great art and animation, dynamic lighting and shadows, vfx etc. but it needs to be in correct hands to “make the America great again”…uh sorry, to make the game look amazing.

I am open to it… only if Disney wouldn’t have the IP now :frowning:


The first MI scene looks great (and that wonderful tree on the right side after leaving the circus), except that it lacked inventory icons. The EGA version delivered the most expressive experience. In the right hands, a well defined palette/the right colors can result into art. Many Lucasfilm games did not utalise more colors in satisfying ways (they offered nice icons but somehow mediocre backgrounds).

These days pixel ‘art’ is used too often and in wrong ways (due to a lack of resources/talent/visual vision).

In the end it depends on the specific case. A certain style of graphics also triggers an adequate level of depth in the other aspects of a game (you want a balanced experience). You should go with whatever you can do the best. You might want to alternate between enhancing on a style you’re familiar with or go for something new (if you can do this in a convincing way). Just adding more colors, pixels and render complexity without any plan & taste, doesn’t do the trick.

Some video games tried to reach out for something new (The Witness, Defender of the Crown [Amiga], Dragon’s Lair …).


Well, considering that these are mostly marketing terms in the industry, the lines are a bit blurry in practice.

It is unfortunate, but it adds to the confusion.



yes… “remake” “remastered” “special edition” its pretty much same thing, but its slightly different.

“remake” - to make a new or different version of the game

“remastered” - to make a new copy of the game with the sound or image improved

“special edition” - an extra edition or new version of something that differs from the regular format or design


That sounds great in theory, but in practice nothing stops anybody from using a label differently – and they do.

For instance, considering the “remastered” version of Crash Bandicoot, which is essentially a brand new game redone from scratch, because the original source code and some of the assets were lost.

I agree with the definitions you provided, but in reality these are used as labels driven by marketing.



In this case the image on the left is better. The one on the right manages to add more texture to the various elements, but they did so to the detriment of the overall scene. It loses foreground and background separation which was achieved so masterfully by Mark Ferrari using only 16 colors. I don’t think this is always the case when you add more colors, but I personally prefer the limited palettes and I"m in awe of how the artists achieved so much with them.


According to the credits, Mark Ferrari did both versions: the 16 bit graphics and the VGA version.

And there was a CGA mode:


Hmm, maybe I’m in the minority with this, but somehow I prefer the original MI1 interface with the original small green fonts for the verbs and the text-only inventory.


The inventory is important to me. I like having items in my inventory and i get more out these items when they’re represented by images instead of text (or to speak in the spirit of another thread: Gary Larson’s The Far Side was more humorous to me than any other book i’ve read). Obviously you would want to reduce and reorder the verb interface, so that the actions and the inventory fit together. Text items are too abstract in graphics adventures. I enjoy looking at all those little pictures, they trigger my imagination.


The horror. The horror.
“I pity the testers who had to test that.”
(Brian Moriarty’s quote on the CGA & PC speaker audio version)


I haven’t checked the credits recently, but I’m almost sure Mark Ferrari did only the 16-color EGA version. He wasn’t involved in the 256-color conversions (either FM Towns or VGA).


Could be. I’ve only read the in-game credits. In both versions only Mark Ferrari is mentioned (beside Purcell et al for the animations and additional stuff). So if someone else did the backgrounds for the VGA version, he/she/it isn’t mentioned in the credits.


Agreed. I read a “modernized” translation of The Lord Of The Rings. Doesn’t work at all.


Is that taken straight from the game? the 256 color version looks pretty muddied at some places…


Are you german or have they done that in other languages too? First german translation of the book was in the 1960s and then someone did a new one in the 1990s which is widely considered inferior.