When is it OK to remake a classic game?


Adventure game remakes are common. But not everyone likes to see their old favourites revived. Mitch Kocen asked veteran point-and-clickmen Ron Gilbert and Tim Schafer, among others, when they think it’s OK to remaster the classics

Without intervention, every video game you have ever loved will eventually become unplayable. The technology that enables the next generation of games cripples the last. At some point, systems simply can’t run slowly enough to support games made decades prior. For many years, it wasn’t possible to (legally) play older games without digging out the old computer gathering dust in your basement. Fortunately, there is a resurgence of classic games on modern hardware. These re-releases often come with new (or improved) graphics and sound, and sometimes include the option to view the game in its original form. Yet some creators are concerned that these changes compromise the game’s original artistic vision.

Ron Gilbert is one of them. The creator of Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion, and Thimbleweed Park says that the sin of re-creating a game’s art is that the original artists made design choices motivated by what the technology allowed at the time. Changing the art undermines those decisions.

“We had limitations back then” recalls Gilbert in an email interview, “and the artist worked magic to make the game work within those limitations. They often turned working within those limitations into an art all its own. When classic games get ‘hi-resed’, you lose all of that.”

Monkey see

Monkey do

Gilbert, who led the design and writing of the Secret of Monkey Island, feels that remastered games should use the original art exclusively. Redecorating a classic game, he says, is like tampering with a black and white movie.

“When I hear about movies being remastered,” he says, “that usually involves going back to the original prints, cleaning them up, maybe correctly color balancing them, but it’s not fundamentally changing the aesthetics of the movie. It’s producing a clean copy of the original. That is what remastering games should be.”

Gilbert is not alone in thinking the original artistic intent matters to gameplay. Loom designer Brian Moriarty first made his fantasy adventure game with the 16 colours available to his artists in 1990. But the design decisions they made would clash with the artistic possibilities granted by future technology, as he explains.

Looming remastering

“The opening cut scene of Loom ends with Bobbin [the player’s character] standing on a cliff overlooking his village. Beside him is a tree bearing a single leaf. In the original 16-color EGA game, that leaf is the only object in the scene rendered in bright red.

“This is no accident… the leaf was placed there to teach players how to identify interactive objects, and to reinforce the melancholy tone of the game. It also insured that players would take note of the tree itself, which later becomes the boat Bobbin uses to escape the island.”

But when it came time in 1992 to re-release Loom with 256-colour graphics, the art team working on the port overlooked those intentions.

“In their eagerness to exploit the expanded palette,” says Moriarty, “the artist who repainted that scene ‘improved’ it by adding a reddish sunrise glow to the horizon behind the tree. The color gradation is pretty, but it makes the leaf less enticing as a target. Some players may miss it altogether.”

Looming winter

The last leaf of autumn might not seem like a big deal but by 2008, LucasArts had learned this lesson. They tasked producer Craig Derrick to form an internal team named “Heritage” to “reintroduce LucasArts’ back catalog and original IP’s to both new and nostalgic audiences.”

The Heritage initiative included the idea of keeping the original game alongside the remaster and being able to switch between the two during gameplay.

“Once we started getting the original code up and running on the new devices, we discovered we could put the new art on top of the old and then transition between the two seamlessly.

“It was a perfect A-HA moment, a bit of a gimmick, a way for people to see the work we were adding and quite frankly the backbone of the entire project. I honestly don’t see why anyone remastering a classic game today wouldn’t use this idea.”

Tim Schafer agrees. The creator of Grim Fandango, who also worked with Gilbert on the original Secret of Monkey Island, has produced well-received versions of classic LucasArts adventures through his current studio Double Fine Productions, while also working on newer adventures like Broken Age.


“Remastering older titles is an important part of games preservation,” he says, “a satisfying project for the original creators, and nice thing to do for the fans.”

All of Shafer’s remakes include the original game, and he says he tries to ensure that the original creators are involved in the project, at least in some capacity.

“That way the remastered game is true to the original vision, but the players have the ultimate choice about how they want to play.”

Offering this choice to players doesn’t appease everyone. Gilbert still calls it a ‘sin’, sticking to his original analogy and comparing the classic point ‘n’ clicks of the 90s to the Hollywood classics of the 40s.

“It’s true that you can often switch back to the original graphics,” he says, “but that is also true of colorizing black and white movies.

“You can always watch the original, but that doesn’t make colorizing it any less of an artistic sin. Saying you can switch back to the original art feels like a cop-out.”

While Schafer, Derrick and others viewed the remakes as “a nice thing to do” or a way to “springboard the development of new adventure games”, Gilbert questions the motives.

“You have to honestly ask yourself, was this remaster done for artistic reasons or business reasons?”

But if it’s money you’re after, it isn’t always necessary to paint over your past work, according to game preservationist Frank Cifaldi. He has worked with studio Digital Eclipse to create what he describes as “boutique packaging” of older games, like the Mega Man Legacy Collection or The Disney Afternoon Collection.

These are essentially bundles of faithfully emulated games complete with  digital copies of old box art or forgotten manuals. It’s these special materials that catch people’s attention, says Cifaldi. It helps that his company make no changes whatsoever to the source material itself.

“It’s not really our place to do anything that wasn’t originally there, even if it’s correcting what we see as a mistake.”

While some classics are well-suited to this treatment, even Cifaldi concedes it isn’t an approach that will work for 95% of videogames.

Even though he feels emulation is the best way to experience a game as it was meant to be played, there remains a perception among players that emulation is a piracy tool. This causes people to “devalue” old games, he says, to the point where selling an emulated game becomes difficult.

“The consumer perception of that is: ‘oh, I can just pirate this. Why are you selling me a rom?’”

Brian Moriarty agrees that a straight remake isn’t always likely to be commercially successful. Buy the Loom creator says that strong special features can add enough value to justify a “purist” re-release, regardless of the fact it is essentially an emulation.

“I’d pay money for an authentic recreation of EGA Monkey Island, accompanied by live commentary by Ron Gilbert, Tim Schafer, Dave Grossman, Steve Purcell, Mark Ferrari, Aric Wilmunder, Michael Land and the other talented pioneers who put it all together,” he says.

Monkey poo

I asked all of my interview subjects if they thought there was a market for classic games that remain ‘un-remastered’. The word that came up most frequently was “niche.” Some gamers do want to play these games exactly as they were, but not many – likely not enough to warrant the substantial licensing and development costs.

However, if we accept that videogames can be art (and I’m not interested in relitigating that argument here) then we have to preserve classic videogames by any means necessary. Ron Gilbert’s comparison of classic games to black and white films is a good way to ground the issue. Some people love to watch classic movies, some even prefer them to modern films. Others lose interest after a few minutes, turned off by the long takes, visual effects or lack of colour. They were raised with a different set of expectations for their entertainment. But a common thread among modern directors is that they love old movies. The same holds true for game developers. The people making modern hits grew up playing classic games and if we lost those games we would feel that absence as strongly as if we lost Citizen Kane or Psycho.

“Vintage games are lenses into the culture that produced them,” says Brian Moriarty “They are also reminders that it’s possible to create significant, influential work with very limited means.”

The argument from creators like Gilbert and preservationists like Cifaldi is valid, but short sighted. From an artistic standpoint, redoing graphics does compromise the original artists’ choices.  Creators often bristle when someone else makes changes to their work. But taking such a hard line against redoing graphics might simply contribute to the extinction of classic games. If there’s not enough demand for a “pure” release  then a modern remastering with an “original mode” is probably the best option. That practice is likely to continue indefinitely. In forty years, when Windows is as archaic as DOS is now, we might find Portal or Dead Space or Thimbleweed Park preserved in their original form too, as a bonus feature packaged with a VR or holodeck remake. You will be able to embrace the new graphics or hate them, but these projects will, like their counterparts today, essentially future-proof our classic games.


  1. Seafoam says:

    Well I’m sure no one would object to games being remastered to remove clunky controls and make the game-play smoother in general.

    But of course where do we draw the line between “Remastered” and “a community patch”? If they only made the game smoother but didn’t touch the graphics then it would just be a patch that you pay for.
    How would you sell that? (if you’re not GOC, but I think they don’t change the game’s contents)

    • Seafoam says:

      Oh yeah! I would also want to ask: do poor controls and mechanics belong in the same group as graphics artistically? Are they also part of the “art” or simply engineering? Would changing them compromise the original vision?

      • Unclepauly says:

        When it comes to “tank controls” I would say yes, preserve it. Fps, not so much. I’m not interested in playing an fps without mouse control. Just a bit outside my comfort zone.

    • GameCat says:

      For me controls and interfaces are things that age fastest.
      I don’t mind low resolutions, low poly models, 4:3 screens etc.
      But give me outdated controls and in most cases I will just give up, no matter how classic your game is.

      And as for question from headline – when it’s quality remake like Resident Evil: Remake or that new-old Crash Bandicoot or upcoming Shadow of the Colossus remake.

      • Crafter says:

        Funny how UIs are poorly cobbled together.

        I tried to replay Supreme Commander on a recent computer.

        The UI does not scale .. at all. So at 4K, it is just very barely legible and a pain to use.

      • Turkey says:

        I could barely play some of those old PC games even when I was a kid. Especially the ones that insisted on using every damn key on the keyboard.

      • Pizzzahut says:

        Definitely. I’ve tried to play Soul Reaver: LOK multiple times, but the controls just aren’t there :(

      • Premium User Badge

        alison says:

        This. It’s nice to get a remastered game, but pixellated graphics and chip sounds are quite tolerable. There are plenty of modern games that consider this sort of stuff an aesthetic and deliberately recreate the look. What really makes old games unplayable is the poor controls, poor collision detection, cheating AI, lack of save-anywhere, permadeath etc. In the old days we just suffered because most of us were children with lots of free time and besides we didn’t know any better. Nowadays there is no excuse. I think fixing these issues should be the number one focus of remakes/remasters.

  2. Danda says:

    Gilbert is easily annoyed, but I would be really angry about the Monkey Island “Special Edition”, too. That redesign was godawful and it looked amateurish, like a Flash game.

    I think the Double Fine remasters were great.They made the games look and sound as good as possible without making them a different work. I know some people don’t agree, but really, the graphics were basically the same.

  3. GrumpyCatFace says:

    I’d be fine with making sure that the option for the “classic look” is always included. Once that’s preserved, go ahead and plaster it with color palettes to your heart’s content.

  4. Crafter says:

    Gilbert is right to be annoyed.

    The Monkey Island remakes look like somebody took a classic black and white movie and converted it with 3D. Not even the best 3D, but the amateurish one that was thrown at us right after Avatar made it a trend.

    This remakes puts a completely different graphic style on the game.

    I won’t even argue on the quality of this artstyle (but let’s be honest, it is really not great) but the main problem is that it conveys a completely different mood and lose a lot of what the original one was saying visually.

    In MI2, both the character and the player are confused on the real age of Guybrush. It works on many levels because Guybrush is composed of very few pixels. So it could either be a kid or an adult, no way to tell. Many jokes and even major plot points hinge on that.

    The remake removes all that and it is a shame, so I understand Gilbert’s reaction.

    Now I would not be opposed to a remake that highlights all the interactive zones on the screen .. pixel hunting has never been fun.

    • GrumpyCatFace says:

      The entire theme of MI is off now.

      I remember some of the chilling, mysterious feel of the scenery, the quiet beauty of the island shores… All of that’s gone now, in the remake. It looks superficial and canny.

      A few seconds into it, I began to doubt my sanity, and had to actually look up some old videos of the original, to reassure myself. The game is COMPLETELY different in atmosphere.

      • Pizzzahut says:

        “some of the chilling, mysterious feel of the scenery”

        Yes! I can’t explain it, but something is missing with the updated version. The old graphics give a sense of wonder and mystery that is lost with the better art/graphic style.

      • Shazbut says:

        I’m glad you say that because I always felt Monkey 1 had an incredible atmosphere. I was putting it down to nostalgia, but it really does. There’s something about those starry sky backgrounds on Melee Island that is so evocative. The lack of visual fidelity says so much more

    • Turkey says:

      It’s the age old internet debate of MI3 vs 1 and 2. On one hand, MI3’s artstyle is gorgeous, but it completely ruined the Treasure Island paperback look the first two games were going for.

      By the time 4 rolled around, it ceased being a parody/farce and just turned into a wacky saturday morning cartoon about pirates.

      • Crafter says:

        As I see it, since MI3 has been made by a different team, discards the plot of MI2 in the first 30 seconds, and is pretty different on pretty much all levels (atmosphere, graphical style, tone, etc).

        So it could as well be a totally different franchise because let’s be honest it is.

        I have no problem with that.

        Taking elements of this new thing ans pasting them on MI 1 & 2 is just awful though

    • Squishpoke says:

      What the hell are you guys smoking? The special edition remakes of Monkey Island 1 and 2 were pretty much spot-on repaint of the originals. There’s even a button you can push to change it to the old version ON THE FLY and you can see how much care and attention they paid to every scene.

      • KenTWOu says:

        SE remake of the 2nd game was spot on, SE remake of the first one wasn’t.

  5. Werthead says:

    It’s a difficult one. I enjoyed the Monkey Island ones, although I wasn’t happy with the art style from the first game (the second was better, and with both you could switch back to the original art style). Being able to just play the games with a minimum of fuss was a good thing. I’d appreciate that for something like Syndicate as well.

    StarCraft Remastered was disappointing though. I think it was because I had big problems with the game when it came out – only being able to select 12 units, the tiny resolution, not being able to sortie new units directly into bunkers/resources and the pathfinding was all archaic even in 1998 – and had been waiting 19 years for them to fix them, only not to bother when they had the chance. Especially the viewing angle, which should have been the first thing they fixed but nope.

    • Michael Anson says:

      The StarCraft remaster was aimed squarely at the esports community that still plays the game, which meant keeping the gameplay and most of the visuals as close to the original as possible. I’m afraid it just wasn’t intended to be a mechanical remake.

      • Werthead says:

        I get that but it would have been nice to port in those quality of life improvements to the single-player campaign and leave multiplayer the way it was. Or maybe ask the esports community if they really still wanted a limited viewing angle, not being able to send marines straight to bunkers etc.

  6. OmNomNom says:

    Its always ok for a remaster, remake not so much.

  7. DrJ3RK says:

    I’m always completely fine with remakes of classic games, provided a few “rules” are followed.

    Don’t dumb down the experience of the original. If the original game required a lot of exploration, did not have context cues and other hints, wayfinders, etc. don’t put them in the remake, or at the very least, make them optional.

    Don’t stray too far from the original aesthetic (within reason).

    Definitely add modern conveniences, improved controls, improved save abilities, and other quality of life items.

    If possible (like the Monkey Island remakes) make the original assets available. I REALLY liked that feature. It’s not conducive to some types of games, but if it works, put it in.

    Don’t change the story, unless maybe tweaking some small plot gaps, or other inconsistencies that the original artists would be ok with.

    If you stray too far from the original concept, you may as well take your talent, and put it into an original title, even if it’s inspired by a classic game. (like Prey is to System Shock as an example)

    • BewareTheJabberwock says:

      Kind of playing devil’s advocate, here, but as far as changing the save abilities, that can really alter a game’s aesthetic. Think about games like the heyday of Final Fantasy with specific save points. There were times when they were far between, and you had to hope you survived while looking desperately for one. They also would often (depending on the game) restore all your HP and MP, which made them a godsend when you finally got to one. Shoehorning in a “save anywhere” ability would be a massive change in those games.

      Yes, I am very glad that the technology has evolved to where save points are no longer necessary, and I probably wouldn’t pick up anything modern or new that uses that system. But when it was what it was, it added a layer of suspense.

      • buschap says:

        I can see your point where save points can be a mechanical decision, but, at the very least, an any-time suspend point is a huge boon. I can’t often devote hours at a go to a game anymore, so even if there are hours between save points, being able to shut down and resume a game is a huge boon.

        • BewareTheJabberwock says:

          Exactly. There’s no reason to use the “save point” mechanic in a game any more. And I’m glad! But when it was necessary, it made for a level of difficulty and intensity. And if they remake FFVII they’re going to have to compensate for that, or make it super easy.

  8. maweki says:

    What is often overlooked in this discussion whether the pixel art is supposed to be recreated is, that the display device, the CRT with its washed out pixels and shadows and even flickering is no longer existing.
    If I play an emulated or remastered game it is not faithful to the original vision because it is not supposed to be viewed on this display type.

    The old games were never “pixely”. They had low resultion, but the style can possibly not be recreated.

    That’s why I find this purist-debate a bit dishonest (or elitist?). It’s just not possible (within reason) to get the experience it once was.

    • DrJ3RK says:

      That really depends on the machine / display of the time period as well. 320×200 / 320×240 on a C64 or Amiga on either composite, S-Video, or RGB monitor with a horizontal refresh of 15.7KHz (interlaced or not) is going to look a lot different than 320×200 / 320×240 on a VGA monitor with 32KHz horizontal refresh and progressive scan.

      On the PC with VGA in 320×200, the pixels would be just as square on the CRTs of the time as they would be on an LCD panel now. (as opposed to the rounded pixels of the other examples) There would be some subtle differences, but not like there would be between the examples I gave above that.

      Otherwise, I agree with you. :)

      Scanline filters, simulated aperture grills, and other graphic filters can go a long way toward making something look like it used to. However, those aren’t often used on remasters/remakes. More in emulators and things like that.

      • Nacery says:

        Yeah, screen ratio has always been a weird thing with old DOS games because while old CRT monitors had 4:3 aspect ratio the correct way to play DOS games is to stretch them vertically as their internal resolution were 320×200.

        The thing is that not all developers accounted this and for example games some games like Rayman Forever looked correctly when not running at 4:3 and others like Ultima Underworld where a complete mix with some elements correctly adjusted for 4:3 screens mixed with elements that stretched badly.

      • Baines says:

        Games specifically designed for the color blending present with CGA’s composite output is an extreme example. CGA’s limited awful palette could become a tool of magic when artists knew they could exploit the natural color blending to produce more colors.

        Some other systems (and other software) took advantage of other hardware quirks and limitations, things which just don’t get faithfully reproduced with modern monitors.

  9. MattM says:

    The only MI game I played near release was MI:4 on the PS2. I liked it well enough at the time, despite its poor reputation among fans of the series.
    When I played the MI:1 remaster I appreciated the increased clarity of the updated visuals but I liked to switch to the originals on every screen to set the mood before switching back to play. The old visuals gave the sense of a piraty swashbuckling adventure where Guybrush was always a little out of place and it enhanced the comedy. The new visuals felt dopey and made Guybrush the coolest cat in the room far too often.
    So while remasters of some of these older titles might be a mixed bag for me, I’m a big fan of remasters of most any post 2000 title. Updating the blurry faces and blocky hands of FFX/X-2 doesn’t feel like its changing the artistic meaning of the game, instead I honestly feel like the remaster is a truer realization of the original vision. This applies to a lot of games from that era. The low res textures and low poly models weren’t stylized representations, they were just technically limited. Silent Hill 2 and 3 are a bit of an exception. They had a realistic style but used technical limitations to add to the atmosphere. The remasters were a disaster because they added clarity, detail, and view distance to a game where those were meant to be restricted. Still, I think with some more time and attention to detail (the publisher reportedly cheaped out on the ports big time) the SH remasters could have been a great way to bring the games to a new audience with some smart enhancements. Despite what some claim, I believe that 120>60>30fps. Once you increase framerate enough it drops out of perception leaving the player being more closely connected to the game.

  10. racccoon says:

    After ten years. :)

  11. Pseudo Nym says:

    “the artist worked magic to make the game work within those limitations”

    I agree, and not just the graphics. I remember playing the original secret of monkey island, on a pc without a soundcard, and being absolutely astounded at the quality of the music using just the built-in pc speaker. Up until that point i thought the pc speaker just made a single beep (print chr$(7) or ctrl-g).

    Listen to the music here
    link to youtu.be

  12. Kisai says:

    It really depends on the game genre and platform for which it was designed. I’d argue that software emulation is actually a very poor experience if you don’t play it on the original hardware for which it was designed. This is typically why playing the original MI or LOOM in dosbox is a disappointment, or most DOS-era games via Steam/GOG. This is because those emulation environments are NOT in fact what the author or developer’s intent was. It’s passable, but certainly not a good experience.

    The analogy for emulation is playing a DVD copy that came from a VHS tape masters, as opposed to the film or broadcast master.

    Many DOS games are put into a “SoundBlaster + VGA” dosbox configuration when they were designed for CGA/EGA video adapters, or MT-32 sound devices (such as Monkey Island and Loom.) Due to copyright-licencing issues, only the pirates get the better experience, where as people who buy them off GOG and Steam get the subpar experience.

    The same thing happens with SMS/NES and MD/SNES games. The software emulators are not a good representation of how the game plays on the original hardware, often with several frames of latency on some of the worst emulation attempts. The NES/SNES Mini classic’s are also software emulation.

    This comes back to the reason why to remaster a game. You can fix the color and input latency by making the game use the system’s native API’s or low-level hardware abstraction instead of trying to emulate the original hardware that isn’t critical.

    It actually feels like some sort of crime against video games to “HD Remaster” a game and not not retain a way to see the original art and music. Those chiptunes of 8-bit and 16-bit machines have their own synchronized sound aesthetic that you don’t get when you simply replace the game’s soundtrack with the OST.

    • Det. Bullock says:

      Except for 90% of us PC users the MT-32 was just a weird option in a menu, just like for the average cinema-goer Cinerama was just something mentioned in the titles of certain movies like 2001 and nothing more.
      Original intent is kinda moot when the same authors of the EGA games worked on the 256 color versions with soundblaster audio.
      Was Tie Fighter intended to play with a HOTAS? Not really (though in the CD version documentation I have it’s mentioned a way to make the the old gameport+ps2 CH throttle work with it) but it can work very well with it.
      And keep in mind: I played Monkey Island 256 colours on CD rom at the time and I don’t see a difference with how ScummVM or Dosbox handle its graphics after you disable the filters, only now I don’t have to deal with a shitty soundcard that refused to work no matter what I did.

      • DrMcCoy says:

        Yeah, nobody I knew had an MT-32, because those things were just too expensive. Same with the Gravis Ultrasound.

        Hell, before I got a SoundBlaster, I just had one of these: link to en.wikipedia.org , built together by my father.

        I played Monkey Island with a SoundBlaster, so I with AdLib (ie. OPL-2) music. And I still take that over the MT-32 music every time.

  13. Text_Fish says:

    The problem with Gilbert’s argument is that it preserves the artist’s legacy at the expense of the designers, writers and coders’. To me, the greater travesty would be that modern gamers don’t get to experience the fantastic writing and puzzle design in Monkey Island because a simple emulator re-release doesn’t garner enough publicity.

    Personally I found it very interesting to switch between new and old graphics in the Monkey Island re-release — essentially you get to appreciate twice and artwork and ponder over the decisions of each artist working in their own time and medium. What’s not to love about that from a critical perspective?

  14. RuySan says:

    The Loom example mentioned by Moriarty is indeed a great case on how graphical limitations can help the mood.

    I played it first on the Amiga, and it left me a great impression. The mostly blue, grey and black palette was highly evocative and gave the game a magicla vibe.

    When i got a PC I played the talkie VGA version , and besides the botched dialogue, I found the game to be lacking in atmosphere. It’s almost as if the developers didn’t know what to make with so many colours available. I think it looks way worse than the Amiga or EGA versions.

    It would be cool to have been included the EGA version image of the leaf scene next to the VGA version on the article.

  15. criskywalker says:

    The remake of The Secret of Monkey Island changed the style a bit too much. As others said there was something mysterious about the original. The new voiced dialogues are perfect though!

    They only needed to make it exactly the same with more resolution and more colors. The Day of the Tentacle and Full Throttle special editions are pretty much perfect.

    I would have liked the remake of Grim Fandango to have higher resolution backgrounds and slightly improved characters.

  16. sosolidshoe says:

    Gilbert’s only rational, objective criticisms only justify the proposition that *poorly executed* remasters, ones which don’t take adequate care to preserve important elements of the original, are bad.

    The idea that remastering in and of itself is “artistic sin” is top-shelf, special reserve, grand cru pretentious twonkery. What a warbling buffoon.

  17. Neutrino says:

    “Without intervention, every video game you have ever loved will eventually become unplayable.”

    Emulators do exist, so I don’t see how this statement can possibly be correct.

    • RuySan says:

      Yes, and usually the older something is, the easier is to play (mostly because it’s emulators are already quite polished).

      The only game that I remember not being able to play was Wizards & Warrior (a wizardry type) blobber, because it wasn’t compatible with post XP Windows or something. The game wasn’t even 10 years ago.

      Last I heard, it is possible to play the game now on modern systems.

    • Tongo says:

      That’s sort of the point. The emulation IS the intervention. So….yeah.

    • Text_Fish says:

      Hence “without intervention”?

  18. jeremyalexander says:

    I flat out despise people that think in absolutes and can’t break free of tradition. Especially when the simple solution is to let both versions exist. If I don’t like something, I don’t participate in it, but I don’t have any desire to deny it to people that would get enjoyment out of it. People need to start realizing it’s a big world with lots of people and doesn’t stop and start with their own wants and needs.