First details of Earthworm Jim remake unearthed

seriously, the tree branch in the new one looks retarded

...

It's a tree branch. You're complaining about a TREE BRANCH.

A retarded branch hahaha. But yeah I dont see anything wrong with it...

It looks like a dead lizard who's just been castrated.... I prefer 09.

I'm not gonna lie, I too, found the tree branch to be an ugly stick.

The modern one looks...okay. The 94 version just looks more raw, dark, comic-like, and zany. The other just looks really smooth.

I guess my critique is nit-picking in the Joystiqs community's eyes but still, I have to say what I feel.

@Jack
you don't HAVE to say what you feel.
you don't HAVE to do anything but breathe, eat, and drink water.

The old one has a higher contrast between the light and shadow, the newer one looks a bit muddy... and it'll probably be like that with everything in the game.

It looks like the lion king game which was what, 1996, 97?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fv6TscQ1Qc (lion king, level 1)

I thought the new stick was totally out of place too! It's all too round, TenNapel draws with sharper lines.
Oh well, a classic is a classic!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who cares about the tree branch.
In the old one Jim's outline is clearly defined but he's just blurry in the new one. Also. there is (pixilated) shading on the dirt that helps it blend with the tires in the background, instead of the 2004 version where the dirt is plain and it looks like everything was drawn separately and layered together in photoshop.

This is only one screenshot but I don't think the original will ever lose its classic appeal.

" Also. there is (pixilated) shading on the dirt that helps it blend with the tires in the background, instead of the 1994 version where the dirt is plain and it looks like everything was drawn separately and layered together in photoshop."

Actually, the old one looks like it just had a big blob of black separating the dirt and tires.

I guess you meant 2009, not 1994. You wrote 2004 so I just guessed. Either way, I see what you mean about the layers, but I'm not sure the blob of black is actually better.

They somehow managed to make the new graphics look LESS detailed than the old ones, despite the higher resolution. Everything is flat and bland. The pile of tires now looks like something a 16 year old would draw in photoshop instead of something a professional drew, like the original. Funny how they got rid of the visually striking high contrast shadows on that, but they left those shadows in on the rocks below. That's called inconsistency.

The background, the floor on which he's standing (which became perfectly flat somehow), the lousy flat looking tree branch (yes)... the new image looks like a disjointed collage of separate pictures without any art direction whatsoever, where the original has a consistency that makes everything mesh together.

Here's one small detail that tells me this project was handed over to a team of college students just to make a quick buck: see that little dark line on Jim's arm in the original? It's subtle, but it shows the muscle exactly where it should be. Whoever drew it knew what they were doing. Whoever "smoothed it out" in the new version obviously hasn't got a fucking clue. And of course Jim's body overall just lacks contrast and definition in the new one.

Yet people will eat this up because it's OMG HD. And - this is what ultimately irks me - publishers will know it.

@bm

I just don't see all your complaints. For example, you call the new ground is perfectly flat, yet the random blobs of dark brown pixels in the old one don't exactly do a good job of showing any elevation changes. And the new ground had added details in the form of the cracks. I really don't see how it's any worse.

And the background... I don't what the hell you're looking at but the background in the new one is one of the things that is clearly worlds better in the new one. That ugly-as-sin pixelized color gradient in the old one is flat out terrible. You're basically trying to argue that a by product of the limited color palette is art. In reality it's just the best they could do with the limitations of the system. They were trying to mimic what the new one does perfectly (a color gradient).

Not sure I buy the arm thing either. If anything it's too pronounced in the old version. I actually the musculature looks more natural in the new game.

I do think the log look off in the new game. It's too smooth. Intentional or not, the pixelization in the old game comes off looking more like actual bark. I also don't like the slightly blurred look many of the new games have, it can be hard to look at sometimes. I'd need to see this in motion though. But I still don't think the new one is as atrocious as you make it out to be.

94, looks better. 09 looks like it was made with vector graphics looks like something you'd play on flash.

The easy ending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aCMRK_BRbw

The old trend of not being able to finish the game on easy or not getting the ending has scared me into never choosing easy difficulty on todays games.

But in this case the easy ending was better than the normal ending. In fact it was my favorite ending for many years following.

The good ending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fPSTJGe-3o

skip to 1:15

Ubisoft did Re-Shelled, actually.

Ah, here's what you should have said:

"Konami SHOULD have done TMNT: ReShelled".

So much truth, it's not even funny.

I agree. When I first heard about this remake, I expected so much more than what I'm seeing in this first screen. It doesn't look bad, it's just underwhelming.

The only remakes I've liked so far were CAPCOM. Bionic Commando and SSFTHDR

Ghen FTW!!

All these other remakes look like they're being done with the use of a filter.
(Marvel vs. Capcom 2 type filters, with the smoothing & the sharpening)

Fear not! There's still time!

Word

Umm, all he said was the he was excited that people still remember Jim, but sad that there wasn't a NEW EWJ gaming out. Apparently he had gotten the original team back together to make a new one but Atari never signed the contract.

He didn't actually say anything about his feelings toward the remake. He mentioned wanting to make a new one, being happy that people remember Jim, getting the old group together, but that's it.

I'm confused, who exactly is holding a gun to your head and telling you to play the remake thus ruining your memories of the original? Ya know, you could just ignore the remake...

It might be because the Genesis emulator is more prominent between consoles than the SNES emulator. I can see why they didn't use the PC version for levels because they skipped a few.

Here, here!

... You can't be serious.

Please tell me you forgot the /s at the end of your comment....

Looking back at my post, while I stand by my original point that it looks decidedly under par, I admit I could've worded myself a bit more... eloquently. Sorry about that.

This ^

Ever been to Video GamesLlive? That shit is wonderful!