67 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Steel]

It also doesn't have the swift sail nor the expedited triforce hunt, which cut out some of the game's tedium (and this is coming from someone who considered the original to be god-tier).

Both of which are pretty minor edits to the existing gamecube game. Speed runners have already demonstrated the gamecube game can handle near light-speed travel from island to island without the game crashing lol so support for a faster sail wouldn't have been difficult to implement considering how stable the engine already was when it came to traveling to locations that hadn't yet properly loaded. Triforce hunt changes? Change some items in some chests, change a small amount of dialog and modify Tingle's script.

 

Some of the biggest changes for Wind Waker HD is the dynamic shadows, dynamic lighting, Bloom, higher resolution textures and a different input method (Touchscreen) and the original engine probably ended up being built in such a way that those additions weren't that hard to implement either (They simply weren't implemented because the hardware didn't provide enough performance for them, not because the engine couldn't handle them).

 

The 2 most biggest enhancements to the original experience are the increased texture resolution and 16x9 aspect ratio and I'm pretty confident Dolphin (Emulator) can apply such enhancements to the gamecube game without issue (Menu/HUD interfaces might stretch, but everything else wouldn't).

 

With regards to a HD texture pack for the N64 games: The Nintendo 3DS has an abysmal resolution that is somehow better than the N64 I think? So each HD texture wouldn't be at a similar resolution to a texture pack for a PC emulator because there would be no point in stupidly high resolution textures since the improvements won't be visible on the low resolution displays, this would reduce the RAM requirements of the texture pack a fair bit.

Edited by franpa, 13 November 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Anthus]

On the subject of OoT> OoT 3D: I believe the engine for OoT3D is a modified version of the original, or at least something like that. I think it is highly possible to re-create the engine too. Let's face it, we love the game, but OoT is not a terribly complicated game in terms of mechanics in this day and age. I mean, people can re-create this stuff in Blender [one], and UDK [one | two], it can't be that hard, right? I'm not saying these are commercial quality, but it is proof of concept.

 

What I think they did was had some sort of console thingy were they could view the working code of the original, and then they had guys basically translate it to a newer hardware platform, added some more polygons, shaders, and higher resolution textures, and done. Another piece of evidence lies within the credits. The original OoT had a team of 19 programmers [source]. Interestingly enough, OoT 3D lists the same 19 programmers in the credits, but there is also another reel of credits for the team Grezzo programmers, which has about ~11 people. Go to 27:27 for the original OoT programmers, and to 34:18 for the Grezzo team. What can we gather from this? A reasonable assertion would be like I said, (and franpa a few posts back) it seems to be a port, with a lot of enhancements, and optimizations. I believe it is based off of the original, even if it is a complete re-write.

 

EDIT: Not saying all original OoT programmers reprised their roles for this project, as this is most probably not the case, but my point is, they must've used enough of the original source material they had made to warrant crediting them.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

On the subject of OoT> OoT 3D: I believe the engine for OoT3D is a modified version of the original, or at least something like that. I think it is highly possible to re-create the engine too. Let's face it, we love the game, but OoT is not a terribly complicated game in terms of mechanics in this day and age. I mean, people can re-create this stuff in Blender [one], and UDK [one | two], it can't be that hard, right? I'm not saying these are commercial quality, but it is proof of concept.

 

What I think they did was had some sort of console thingy were they could view the working code of the original, and then they had guys basically translate it to a newer hardware platform, added some more polygons, shaders, and higher resolution textures, and done. Another piece of evidence lies within the credits. The original OoT had a team of 19 programmers [source]. Interestingly enough, OoT 3D lists the same 19 programmers in the credits, but there is also another reel of credits for the team Grezzo programmers, which has about ~11 people. Go to 27:27 for the original OoT programmers, and to 34:18 for the Grezzo team. What can we gather from this? A reasonable assertion would be like I said, (and franpa a few posts back) it seems to be a port, with a lot of enhancements, and optimizations. I believe it is based off of the original, even if it is a complete re-write.

 

EDIT: Not saying all original OoT programmers reprised their roles for this project, as this is most probably not the case, but my point is, they must've used enough of the original source material they had made to warrant crediting them.

Being a re-release, it's a given that they'll credit the original developers. I am certain that none of the people who actually worked on the original game had any actual work done in Grezzo's remake, though obviously I can't back that up. They're gonna want to credit them still though, because again, it's a re-release of the same game. I'm not trying to say it proves anything, but it's not really an accurate way of judging this, all things considered. My biggest problem with the idea of this being a modified engine, is that I don't think the Nintendo 64 architecture plays well with that of the 3DS. I don't have the technical know-how to explain that in detail, but from what I've understood they just aren't very similar, and if what I've been told is right, then I would think that recreating the engine would be a cheaper way to go about it, from the company's perspective. And if it is cheaper, then it's almost guaranteed that they went that way, because maximizing profits is kind of important.

 

The thing is, I don't know if it's cheaper, I just really believe that it would be. I wish someone with the technical know-how would give us some ideas about the hardware and how easy it would be to port something vs recreating it. Mind you, when I say recreated the engine, I don't mean that they would have had to have made it from scratch. I'm not so sure if that's what they did, but like I've said previously in this thread I see it as much more likely that they'd use a more modern engine as a framework, and then make sure the game plays as closely as possible to the original game. I just doubt that they would have wanted to work with such old software, especially considering all the new things they would have had to have added in order to not only get the game running on the newer hardware, but also add functionality for visual effects and so on that literally did not exist in video games back when the original Ocarina of Time was made. Again, it's probably not impossible to make that work, but again I think it would be easier for the company to start with something more modern. What I can guarantee you is that before they made this game, this was a discussion they were having.

 

Fuck it, I'm too curious. I'm gonna try to get in contact with some of my PR contacts over at Nintendo, and I'll also try to reach out to Grezzo themselves. It's actually not impossible that we could get an answer, because I can send it from my gamereactor email, meaning to them it would look like the magazine is trying to get in touch. I'll get back to you if I come up with anything, but don't hold your breath, because this company is notorious for not giving out this kind of information.

[Anthus]

I agree with your first paragraph. I think it is a new engine, but it is based off of the original. From a technical standpoint, it might be an entire re-structure, but I think they looked to the original for a lot of things, just to give them a reference of how the game may have been put together. However, any of this can be negated by the fact that yes, they could have easily redone it all, and made a whole new scene/ room interplay within the game. I am pretty sure though, that if they went through the trouble of making new models, and re-animating everything, re-programming a game, even from scratch, might not be that tall of an order. Video Games can be made much faster, and arguably, more efficiently now that we live in an era where consoles are structured very much like computers from a programming standpoint. Back then, they had to code in assembly for the most part, but you could theoretically use C. The N64 used MIPS R4K assembly, and you can read more about it here.

 

EDIT: From my reading, I can see the biggest issue with using the existing engine being changing/ upgrading the way things are written into memory. The old engine was obviously tailor made for the N64. A lot of hardships could arise from 'dragging and dropping' this engine just because of how different hardware architecture is these days.

 

 

EDIT 2: I found this on Wikipedia. It's a good read, and reiterates some of the potential problems with a code-to-code port. Ultimately, they had no idea how to streamline a work space at the time, cause there were no examples to show them.

[Maleboocado]

IIRC most of the Mario 64 engine was written in a high-level language.
Take it with a grain of salt.

[Anthus]

Hai guys, we already got TP HD https://www.youtube....h?v=qqCkeoClUXc

 

All jokes aside, I am almost banking on them making this remake. Time will tell. Now, it is more likely that a TP HD re-release would use the same engine, IMO. Those work environments should be waaaay more conducive to modern porting/ programming techniques.

[Air Luigi]

The items in bold are heavily debatable, the items in blue are blatantly false. 

Nearly every individual component of Twilight Princess is superior to each individual component of Ocarina of Time. The discrepancy in the quality (the level that makes people appreciate the game) is that the sub-par components of Ocarina of Time are bound together very tightly, while the above-par components of Twilight Princess only loosely formed a complete game.

Ocarina of Time was not a particularly great game, but it was confident and stylistically consistent, and that instills the player with a confidence about the designer's intentions no matter what goes wrong. Twilight Princess had all the ingredients to make the best game in the franchise, but it failed on execution.

 

 

So, we agree then about that OOT is the superior experience, that's a good start. I agree about TP wasting the potential of their own elements.

But I don't see why the blue text is false. Superior technically =/= Superior quality.The writing in TP is evidently inferior, and also the presentation of cutscenes and overall pace of the story. There are very few subtle elements, which are the key to OOT success. In OOT you can go practically everywhere after you put a foot in the field, even if you can't do anything important. But YOU CAN. You can beat the adult dungeons (or the ice cavern, bottom of the well) in another order also. You can beat OOT without Epona, that's impossible in TP. It's not Z1 or ALTTP, but it's way more freedom than TP or SS. In TP you are stuck in the Twilight Realm and you can only go to one place, it's way more story driven. You only have a bit of freedom between L3-5, but that's not much (funny, these are my favorites parts in the game, L3-4-5). OOT also has way more secrets, gossip stones, better use of day/night (day/night in TP is a joke), a ocarina, skulltulas quest is way more interesting, grottos, more variety of bottles content, optional items like the ice arrows, masks, easter eggs, and so on. It's not even close.

 

Sure, TP can have some interesting gimmicks. And what? Special effects alone don't make good movies. The gimmicks get old after one or two plays, what made Zelda games interesting is the work in the world, music, characters and overall memorability of the adventure and as you say, the overall execution, which is way better in OOT and that's what matters. So, I can't agree more really. When I play TP, I don't care about the world, I don't care about Midna, I don't care about anything... I get bored fast and possibly the game has the worst and slowest start that I have ever see. TP and SS are just cool mechanics, but because these games have really weak worlds, they get old quickly.

 

I have to say also that OOT is "only" my 5th ranked Zelda game.

Edited by Air Luigi, 14 November 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Anthus]

Sure, TP can have some interesting gimmicks. And what? Special effects alone don't make good movies. The gimmicks get old after one or two plays, what made Zelda games interesting is the work in the world, music, characters and overall memorability of the adventure and as you say, the overall execution, which is way better in OOT and that's what matters. So, I can't agree more really. When I play TP, I don't care about the world, I don't care about Midna, I don't care about anything... I get bored fast and possibly the game has the worst and slowest start that I have ever see. TP and SS are just cool mechanics, but because these games have really weak worlds, they get old quickly.

 

I have to say also that OOT is "only" my 5th ranked Zelda game.

 

This is still a matter of opinion, and not based in fact. You feel more connected to OoT, which is fine, but as you said, it is how memorable the game experience was. For some people, TP may have been a very fun, and memorable game. I love TP, but the reasons you stated in your first paragraph are also why I agree it is inferior in some ways. I think while making TP, they got too caught up in trying to make it like OoT, that it in some ways made it turn out badly. As far as story presentation, I found it to be done quite well. I love the cutscenes, and story of TP. I think it is one of the better qualities. You lose a lot of freedoms with this, but the game was made in a weird, transitional time for the series.

 

I don't think Nintendo even knew what they wanted the game to be. They had the Wii on the horizon, and all these ideas, and things going on, and they were constantly changing things in the game. They had this huge world, that ended up feeling devoid of content in some ways because of all the smaller things getting in their way. Zelda was getting stale at this point, and this was the last game that truly used the 'classic' Zelda template. TP is lacking in non-linearity, but other than that, it follows the OoT/ AlttP template quiet well, and isn't shy about it. A company can't please all fans at once. People were expecting another OoT after WW, and that's what Nintendo tried to deliver. They have a chance to correct this with a remake, but as seen in past remakes, I doubt they will substantially change any dungeon or story content. I find the first three temples rather boring, with the Goron Mines being the coolest, IMO. TP is a good game, and just as deserving as any other past 3D Zelda, and it has its charms.

[Nicholas Steel]

Being a re-release, it's a given that they'll credit the original developers. I am certain that none of the people who actually worked on the original game had any actual work done in Grezzo's remake, though obviously I can't back that up. They're gonna want to credit them still though, because again, it's a re-release of the same game. I'm not trying to say it proves anything, but it's not really an accurate way of judging this, all things considered. My biggest problem with the idea of this being a modified engine, is that I don't think the Nintendo 64 architecture plays well with that of the 3DS. I don't have the technical know-how to explain that in detail, but from what I've understood they just aren't very similar, and if what I've been told is right, then I would think that recreating the engine would be a cheaper way to go about it, from the company's perspective. And if it is cheaper, then it's almost guaranteed that they went that way, because maximizing profits is kind of important.

Well they aren't making an engine that can handle all N64 games, they are so far only porting 2 N64 Zelda games so it wouldn't be that difficult for them to make some extreme game specific optimizations in the emulation code to eek out the necessary performance. Keep in mind that they have the games source code too so they can easily create a unrealistic N64 emulator and modify the game code to handle the changes where as everyone else would have to reverse engineer the game without the source code before modifying it to work in such a way and that's just too big of a task to ask of anyone.

 

I'm also pretty confident that the reason they included individual copies of emulators with every Virtual Console game on the Wii (And likely Wii U) is because of them implementing game specific optimizations to the emulator (Each game includes a modified copy of the same emulator, optimized for that specific game).

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

@Air Luigi: It's only false in the context of this conversation. It's false because it's subjective, and that's the only reason. We're not saying we don't agree that OoT has more memorable characters, music that sticks in your mind for far longer than anything TP ever did except perhaps its field theme (that's my subjective opinion though ), more interesting dungeon design and all that. Some of us might not agree, I don't know what other people think, but that's not the point.

 

Like we established earlier, I brought it up in an objective context - that's why what you said in blue is 'false', because objectively you can't say that. Those specific things he highlighted in blue are subjective by nature, because you can't really judge the quality of a character on an objective level, because that's subjective by nature. You can create a scenario in which you could judge a character objectively, but that's not what's we're doing here.

 

 

Well they aren't making an engine that can handle all N64 games, they are so far only porting 2 N64 Zelda games so it wouldn't be that difficult for them to make some extreme game specific optimizations in the emulation code to eek out the necessary performance. Keep in mind that they have the games source code too so they can easily create a unrealistic N64 emulator and modify the game code to handle the changes where as everyone else would have to reverse engineer the game without the source code before modifying it to work in such a way and that's just too big of a task to ask of anyone.

 

I'm also pretty confident that the reason they included individual copies of emulators with every Virtual Console game on the Wii (And likely Wii U) is because of them implementing game specific optimizations to the emulator (Each game includes a modified copy of the same emulator, optimized for that specific game).

Okay, that's not completely true. Once again I do not want to pretend to be some kind of expert when it comes to this (I clearly am not), but emulation isn't quite as easy as you make it out to be. Don't get me wrong, it's not that you can't make a Nintendo 64 emulator, but it's not without its limits. And you're still running code made for pretty specific hardware, now on completely different hardware, and that can make a difference, especially if you're talking about emulation on computers, where the hardware varies in almost every computer out there. But that's besides the point, you don't have to look far to see that even Nintendo don't have a clean track record when it comes to emulation.

 

Did you ever play the copy of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask that was released as a collection on the GameCube? Those games had a lot of issues, now granted from what I know those were pretty much straight up emulations, but there were actually some pretty game stopping bugs in those games, everything from a really unstable fps count, frequent full crashes, the saving could be unreliable. They probably didn't put a lot of work into it, but if it was an emulation they would have to put work into fixing those kinds of problems, as well as working on creating an emulation of the game to begin with. Again, like I've said way too many times already, I think it would be cheaper and faster to work with something that plays nicer with the new hardware. Again, not an expert opinion, but looking at the full picture, and believe me at this point I've looked everywhere for an answer, it just sounds like the most reasonable option to me.

 

It's not like it's hard to replicate gameplay. I mean, just look at Zelda Classic itself. That's not an emulation, that's code written completely by the developers, if I'm not completely mistaken. It's not hard for a company like Grezzo, a company with a relatively good chunk of people (not huge by any stretch, they're just under 50 people in total if I recall correctly), to recreate Ocarina of Time, a game with relatively simple mechanics, I mean if you look at the big picture.

[Air Luigi]

@Air Luigi: It's only false in the context of this conversation. It's false because it's subjective, and that's the only reason. We're not saying we don't agree that OoT has more memorable characters, music that sticks in your mind for far longer than anything TP ever did except perhaps its field theme (that's my subjective opinion though ), more interesting dungeon design and all that. Some of us might not agree, I don't know what other people think, but that's not the point.

 

Like we established earlier, I brought it up in an objective context - that's why what you said in blue is 'false', because objectively you can't say that. Those specific things he highlighted in blue are subjective by nature, because you can't really judge the quality of a character on an objective level, because that's subjective by nature. You can create a scenario in which you could judge a character objectively, but that's not what's we're doing here.

 

 

 

OOT +freedom than TP isn't objective? BTW, and when did I say that my comments are 100% objective? But you can see from where my reasoning is coming, and that's what matters for me. Sure, we can say that TP have more detailed graphics, textures and gimmicks, and that's objective because it runs in a more advanced video console. But the truth is the "subjective" elements (story, art, design, music...) are way more important, and I don't find a problem in discussing a bit of impressions about them. I think isn't crazy to say that TP impact to the videogame world was near zero compared with OOT, and that's not coincidence, it just because it's not near in quality, imo.

Of course, anyone can have his own thoughts, I'm not trying to convince anyone. But the truth is outside... o_o You can see it... or not. I don't care, really. But it's a good practice for my english =D

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

OOT +freedom than TP isn't objective? BTW, and when did I say that my comments are 100% objective? But you can see from where my reasoning is coming, and that's what matters for me. Sure, we can say that TP have more detailed graphics, textures and gimmicks, and that's objective because it runs in a more advanced video console. But the truth is the "subjective" elements (story, art, design, music...) are way more important, and I don't find a problem in discussing a bit of impressions about them. I think isn't crazy to say that TP impact to the videogame world was near zero compared with OOT, and that's not coincidence, it just because it's not near in quality, imo.

Of course, anyone can have his own thoughts, I'm not trying to convince anyone. But the truth is outside... o_o You can see it... or not. I don't care, really. But it's a good practice for my english =D

No, see, you're not wrong. The only problem here is that you're bringing a subjective argument to an objective context. It's not your argument that is the problem, it's just that it doesn't fit the context of the conversation you entered.

 

It's like if I said "Twilight Princess has higher quality sound files." and you respond with "No, I like the sound effects from Ocarina of Time more.". It doesn't make any sense as a response, because no one was challenging anyone's subjective opinion.

[strike]

Robin, I don't get why you're trying to say that Twilight a princess is objectively "better" XD What does that even mean?

You saying that Twilight Princess is objectively better is absolutely subjective so you're wrong. You have to define "better" and that will boil down to your opinion and what you are looking for. No one has agreed about the definition of better except you Your opinion, because that's what it really is, is no more valid than Air Luigi's so it's a little rude telling him you're more correct. No, no one agrees that tighter controls, higher definition graphics equal "better". That's subjective and you can't say otherwise!!!!!!!!!! RAGGGGEEEEE!

-Strike

[Nicholas Steel]

@Air Luigi: It's only false in the context of this conversation. It's false because it's subjective, and that's the only reason. We're not saying we don't agree that OoT has more memorable characters, music that sticks in your mind for far longer than anything TP ever did except perhaps its field theme (that's my subjective opinion though ), more interesting dungeon design and all that. Some of us might not agree, I don't know what other people think, but that's not the point.

 

Like we established earlier, I brought it up in an objective context - that's why what you said in blue is 'false', because objectively you can't say that. Those specific things he highlighted in blue are subjective by nature, because you can't really judge the quality of a character on an objective level, because that's subjective by nature. You can create a scenario in which you could judge a character objectively, but that's not what's we're doing here.

 

 

Okay, that's not completely true. Once again I do not want to pretend to be some kind of expert when it comes to this (I clearly am not), but emulation isn't quite as easy as you make it out to be. Don't get me wrong, it's not that you can't make a Nintendo 64 emulator, but it's not without its limits. And you're still running code made for pretty specific hardware, now on completely different hardware, and that can make a difference, especially if you're talking about emulation on computers, where the hardware varies in almost every computer out there. But that's besides the point, you don't have to look far to see that even Nintendo don't have a clean track record when it comes to emulation.

 

Did you ever play the copy of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask that was released as a collection on the GameCube? Those games had a lot of issues, now granted from what I know those were pretty much straight up emulations, but there were actually some pretty game stopping bugs in those games, everything from a really unstable fps count, frequent full crashes, the saving could be unreliable. They probably didn't put a lot of work into it, but if it was an emulation they would have to put work into fixing those kinds of problems, as well as working on creating an emulation of the game to begin with. Again, like I've said way too many times already, I think it would be cheaper and faster to work with something that plays nicer with the new hardware. Again, not an expert opinion, but looking at the full picture, and believe me at this point I've looked everywhere for an answer, it just sounds like the most reasonable option to me.

 

It's not like it's hard to replicate gameplay. I mean, just look at Zelda Classic itself. That's not an emulation, that's code written completely by the developers, if I'm not completely mistaken. It's not hard for a company like Grezzo, a company with a relatively good chunk of people (not huge by any stretch, they're just under 50 people in total if I recall correctly), to recreate Ocarina of Time, a game with relatively simple mechanics, I mean if you look at the big picture.

I imagine the gamecube emulation of the N64 was poor because N64 emulation in general was quite bad at the time and most emulators that worked remotely well were closed source. Project 64 v1.6 (Probably the most popular N64 emulator & version) went Open Source like 2 or 3 years ago which was a massive boon to anyone looking to create their own emulator. Again, with the games source code you do not need accurate or correct (slow) emulation because you can modify the game code to handle whatever changes you've made to the emulation. So you can create a N64 emulation of a theoretical system that has all sorts of new features and functions that perform great on modern hardware and just modify the games source code to use those features instead of the methods that require intense CPU processing to pull off.

 

Adding new things to an emulated system isn't hard to do and with the games source code you can very easily fix any issues that arise/re-optimize the game code for the new system while retaining the original engine. It's kind of like the BUILD Engine back in the 90's, developers kept making their own modified versions of it for use in their games but the core functionality was more or less the same between the varying versions of the engine. Developers often added features without requiring a complete rewrite of the engine.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Robin, I don't get why you're trying to say that Twilight a princess is objectively "better" XD What does that even mean?

You saying that Twilight Princess is objectively better is absolutely subjective so you're wrong. You have to define "better" and that will boil down to your opinion and what you are looking for. No one has agreed about the definition of better except you Your opinion, because that's what it really is, is no more valid than Air Luigi's so it's a little rude telling him you're more correct. No, no one agrees that tighter controls, higher definition graphics equal "better". That's subjective and you can't say otherwise!!!!!!!!!! RAGGGGEEEEE!

-Strike

Sigh. How many times to we have to go through this? The word 'better' is misleading here, what I should have said is more technically advanced. The original point I was trying to make, is that I find it weird that so many people who claim to love OoT, seems to hate on TP, a game that in many ways is incredibly similar, and even superior in terms of technicalities. Obviously OoT can stand on its own, I'm not saying that Twilight Princess is an inherently better game, that would be subjective. It's not a secret that Twilight Princess closely mirrors Ocarina of Time, and while I agree that the latter is a game that'll stick with me for much longer, I just find myself wondering why this game seems to get so much flak. To me, Twilight Princess is sort of a 'what if Ocarina of Time was made years later', and while I agree that it doesn't hold up on all accounts, I find myself questioning it when people talk about it as if it's downright horrible.
 
So yeah, was 'better' the best word to use? Obviously not, judging from the reactions here, but try to consider the context. If you do that, then you'll see that there's no way in hell my original statement should have been seen as a subjective opinion, I thought I made it very clear (besides the usage of that one single word) that this was an objective statement. I mean, by saying "at least objectively", I make it pretty obvious that I'm not talking about the subjective elements of the game. Otherwise I wouldn't have said that I specifically wasn't talking about that.
 
I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to explain this, it's getting a bit silly.
 

I imagine the gamecube emulation of the N64 was poor because N64 emulation in general was quite bad at the time and most emulators that worked remotely well were closed source. Project 64 v1.6 (Probably the most popular N64 emulator & version) went Open Source like 2 or 3 years ago which was a massive boon to anyone looking to create their own emulator. Again, with the games source code you do not need accurate or correct (slow) emulation because you can modify the game code to handle whatever changes you've made to the emulation. So you can create a N64 emulation of a theoretical system that has all sorts of new features and functions that perform great on modern hardware and just modify the games source code to use those features instead of the methods that require intense CPU processing to pull off.
 
Adding new things to an emulated system isn't hard to do and with the games source code you can very easily fix any issues that arise/re-optimize the game code for the new system while retaining the original engine. It's kind of like the BUILD Engine back in the 90's, developers kept making their own modified versions of it for use in their games but the core functionality was more or less the same between the varying versions of the engine. Developers often added features without requiring a complete rewrite of the engine.

Okay, fair enough. I still believe it'd be easier to work with something more modern though. We can go back and fourth like this for ages if you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is an issue that often comes up with remakes in general. Look at the recent The Last of Us Remastered, I've read an interview where a developer expressed interest in having wanted to recreate the engine because they were having massive difficulties getting the game to run properly on the PS4. That's not what they ended up doing, but it's just another case proving that this sort of stuff isn't always the simplest thing in the world, which it sounds like you guys are making it out to be.