In 2009, nearly than 40 years after Star Trek's original series came to the end of its three-season production cycle, Paramount issued a remastered release of the complete series on Blu-Ray.
 |
| Bear with me - this post is actually about video game preservation! |
I spend a lot of time thinking about video game preservation, and the issues concerning it have a lot of overlap with the issues concerning other forms of commercial entertainment products, including film, television, music, and literature. For all of these, preservation can be broken down into two aspects - preservation of the materials, and preservation of the presentation, and most issues directly concern one or the other. This post mainly concerns the latter.
My posts often emphasize the value in having authentic, historically accurate preservation of the games' original presentations, and the efforts I go to locate and emulate original versions so that I can be confident that it well represents the original product. I am distrustful of so-called "remasters" as a means of video game preservation - too often the presentation is distorted by modern reinterpretation, censorship, omissions, or other alterations, which can manifest in ways both subtle and unsubtle. Film remasters are overall better about keeping authenticity, though in recent years I am starting to have trust issues with them too.
Let's talk about Star Trek again. Paramount's high-definition remaster of the original film elements, which forms the basis of the Blu-Ray release and all streaming versions, is not an accurate or authentic preservation of the show's original presentation, which had been produced with the limitations of broadcast television in mind. Cheap sets, costumes, and prosthetics stand out in ways they were never meant to. Film grain density and noise varies from scene to scene, even from shot to shot, which could not have been noticed originally. Episodes were also paced with commercial breaks in mind, and without them in place as palette cleansers, pacing can be a bit off, with Kirk redundantly explaining things about the plot that you just saw seconds ago.
Even when viewed with its original special effects and soundtrack, Star Trek never looked nearly this sharp or filmic, not on cable television and certainly not on NBC's original airwave broadcasts to television sets of the time, and over half of them weren't in color.
 |
| "Warp factor" simulation by Dayton Ward |
To some extent, this also holds true for older films that are remastered in high definition, despite the oft-mentioned aphorism that film is already higher resolution than video. Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, for instance, was shot in a 65mm format and its soundtrack partially recorded in stereo, but until 1996 it was only released to theaters as a 35mm reduction print with monaural sound. My 4K UHD copy, sourced from an extensive restoration of the negatives, is sharper and clearer than anything that audiences in 1958 ever saw, which like all other analog films would have also had resolution loss with each generational print made. I'd almost go as far to say that no digital film remaster is truly "authentic," but I think my point is made much clearer by using a film-to-broadcast television show as the main example.
So let me say that, despite its inauthenticity, and even despite some audio mixing faults specific to this release, Star Trek's Blu-Ray masters are the definitive versions, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. The old VHS tapes and DVDs are obsolete, and even the original broadcast tapes are of limited archival value as long as the complete episode film negatives are preserved. Younger generations who never had the opportunity to watch the show in its original format aren't missing much of value that could have been preserved anyway - the higher fidelity on display here is preferable to fuzz and analog distortion.
However, the remasters also add CGI-enhanced visuals, such as color-corrected phasers, 3D exterior shots of planets and ship fly-bys, and new matte backgrounds. Audio is also presented as a surround-sound upmix with new sound effects overlaid. I find this to be intolerable revisionism. I can quibble with some of the specifics creative choices here and there, some of the ship redesigns are anachronistic, sometimes the transitions to FX shots and back are abrupt and jarring, some effects create minor continuity problems, and to be fair, Star Trek is overall one of the least offensive "special edition" updates out there. But even if everything were perfect, one could not know without scrutinizing it (despite how it may seem, I don't want to scrutinize it!), and I would still take issue with erasing any of the original content. While most of this is optional, some of it isn't, and on streaming platforms, which is how most newcomers to the show will almost certainly watch it, the updated episodes are the default and only option.
So we have a paradox - to me, and clearly to many others, a high definition 1080p transfer is a welcome upgrade, but adding CGI fins to a space ship is going too far? And what does this have to do with video games?
I'd like to resolve this with an invented term of art that I've decided to call "superauthenticity."
Defining superauthenticity
I mentioned that preservation of any commercial entertainment product has two aspects - preserving the materials through archiving, and preserving the presentation through releases. "Superauthenticity" concerns the presentation only. I define it as the quality of enhancing the presentation, but only in a manner that corrects flaws from the original, and not in any manner destructive to the materials. Star Trek's high definition release shows examples both of what it is and what it isn't - the improved definition is superauthentic, but the CGI enhancements are outside that scope and are simply inauthentic.
Video game re-releases generally come in one of three categories; direct emulation, source ports, and remakes. This is far from a hard and fast rule, and the lines between port and remake can be blurry (so-called "remasters" frequently straddle this), but emulation tends to be the most authentic while having the fewest options for superauthenticity, source ports lean more toward superauthenticity, and remakes toward inauthenticity. I must stress that this is a trend, not a one-to-one relation. All types of re-releases can exhibit all three qualities.
| Authentic | Superauthentic | Inauthentic | |
| Emulation | Cycle accurate LLE Audited ROM dumps |
Internal upscaling Control remapping |
Cheats Inaccurate emulation Texture packs |
| Port | Original assets |
Outstanding bug fixes Higher framerate Restored content |
Unported hardware-specific effects Modernized UI/UX |
| Remake | Original level geometry Original soundtrack/voiceovers |
Old/new toggle mode | Artwork replacement Snake jumping on rockets |
Even with this definition, there's a lot of room for subjectivity on what counts as superauthentic or not, but my stance is that for presentation preservation efforts, authenticity is good, superauthenticity can be good, and inauthenticity is bad. That last part is no doubt a controversial stance; many consumers of any given product are perfectly happy to have the latest and best and/or most convenient version available and do not care if the original materials are presented accurately or not. I am not proposing to tell consumers what to do - "play what you want" is an irrefutable adage, and I figure that anyone who would argue that is already doing so themselves. Nor am I claiming that inauthenticity is always bad for the experience - sometimes the flaws or limitations of the original just can't be fixed in a non-destructive way, and in a true remake, authenticity isn't expected to begin with.
But, as I said, I personally see value in having a superauthentic experience preserved, and not just for nostalgia's sake. If we can have Manos: The Hands of Fate preserved for all time on Blu-Ray without needing to use algorithms to artificially sharpen the picture, then the kids also deserve a definitive release of Duke Nukem 3D.
Why this matters
In my version of a perfect world, every notable video game would be treated the same way the Criterion Collection treats prestige films. They'd be restored tastefully, and bundled with well-researched materials and extras, curated by people who understand and love the source material. A curmudgeon like me could simply play the game and be confident that it was treated with care. Occasionally, we get this; Night Dive Studios and Digital Eclipse have both taken this approach in somewhat different ways.
Most of the time, though, official releases are unsatisfying, if they're even available! Video Game History Foundation claims that 87% of all games are completely unavailable. GOG, as much as I love them for dedication to DRM-free distribution, relies on bare-bones emulation that is often years behind hobbyist efforts in terms of both accuracy and enhancing features, and offer no indication that anyone behind the release has played it to completion. Other companies who preserve their libraries through preservation are much worse. For a number of more recent games, the only official releases are so-called "remasters" that are in fact ground-up remakes that modernize everything except the framework; these are no more an authentic preservation of the original game than a song cover by a new artist preserves the original song.
Officially, video game preservation is in a sorry state. The film industry figured out the value of material preservation a long time ago - even then, it was too late for the vast majority of films; The U.S Film Foundation claims 50% of all American films made before 1950 are lost forever, but today, preservation and restoration is a priority. Material preservation, here, means keeping archival copies of the negatives,
safety prints, digital intermediates, and production records, which carries some unique challenges given the fragile and sometimes flammable nature of these items.
Preserving video game material means backing up backing up copies of the
source code, resource files, documentation, and of course the software
binaries themselves. With all of this material being born digital, preservation ought to be straightforward, but historically, developers have been very bad at this until recently. I think this is partly due to the once technical challenge of backwards compatibility, and partly due to a culture that views video games as functional entertainment, and that these factors reinforce each other.
That said, let's not get statistics on our preservation types mixed up. Although 87% of video games may not be available, this is very different from being lost forever. In very many of these cases, the system is emulated, and the game binary (ROM file, disk images, ISO file, etc.) is floating around in a pristine state, but the source code and other files are indeed lost forever. This limits the potential for superauthentic enhancements, and puts the responsibility of acquiring and playing copies on the community, often illegally, but these games can be played. Without official availability, there are no authoritative sources on the best ways to play them, but, as I hope I argued convincingly, the authoritative sources we do have often can't be trusted!
The above study says that less than 3% of games released before 1985 - my current year of coverage - are available. This sounds about right, but even when a game is available officially, I often prefer unofficial emulation, where I can control the authenticity. Ultima IV, which I just finished, is available at GOG, but it is a DOS port that is completely missing music and very likely has a number of creative decisions forced onto it in order to accommodate the different system. Emulating the Apple II original is the only way I can be pretty sure I am seeing the original uncompromised vision. Maybe the DOS version is flat-out superior in every way except for the lack of music (which is patchable in, though not identical to the original), but I'd need to play and scrutinize both of them in order to know. Maybe it has subtle gameplay changes that give it a different pacing. The fan port XU4 does, and I would say it is changed enough, for better or worse, that it does not preserve the original presentation.
I have a lot more to say on this subject, but this post is quite lengthy as it is, and that next whale has put off for long enough. What do you think? Your input, and Blogger's post statistics, will determine if I do. Either way, I cover a game next.
