BC or not BC, that is the question.

Much has been made of the Xbox Series X/S feature set and the value it brings to its customers. Be it Auto HDR, Quick Resume, Smart Delivery or a multitude of other quality of life attributes the hardware offers, it is fairly unequivocal that Xbox have done stellar work in this regard. 

I feel the zeitgeist is less clear when it comes to backwards compatibility, an area Xbox has championed and innovated in for some time. PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan infamously asked “…why would anyone play this?” regarding older titles in one of their prestige franchises, and whilst this was a flippant comment not to be regarded as evidence of an entire organisations attitude towards a specific concept, it certainly represents a fundamental misunderstanding as to what backwards compatibility is, or to be more succinct, can and should be. 

Backwards compatibility is, broadly speaking, the ability to play older games on newer, non-native hardware. To some this is a necessity, a critical feature without which they feel unable to engage with the ecosystem of a particular company. To others, it is a footnote in a console’s capabilities, promoted by a vocal minority and a waste of resources that could and should be spent on ‘new’ experiences. 

The question then becomes what constitutes a new experience? I would argue that Xbox’s backwards compatibility offering, when firing on all cylinders, is the very definition. 

When it comes to new games, be they AAA behemoths striving for intense realism and vivid visual fidelity or an independent title aiming to replicate the style of titles from a by-gone era, we desire the most progressive technical presentation available to us. We live in an era where resolutions up to 4k are offered with far greater consistency, and higher framerates are becoming the broader expectation as opposed to a treat reserved for an elite few. 

The subject of visual modernisation of older games, its value and relevance is rather more complex. It is important to note, that increases in resolution or framerate don’t automatically mean the player is having a superior experience, and this can be especially true for much older titles. Whilst generally, a significant increase in resolution will result in a more attractive visual presentation, in some cases it serves to highlight the limitations of the original hardware, with jagged edges and muddy textures that were never designed to be viewed through such a razor-sharp lens. 

One franchise that many pine for the return of is Banjo-Kazooie. An N64 platformer which is revered both for its quality as well as its reflection of what is perceived as a golden era for an elite studio in Rare. The game is playable in 4k resolution on Xbox Series X, and whilst the game has never been displayed with more clarity, this also serves to highlight the inherent simplicity of the visuals. This was commonplace for a game of that era, and serves as a good example of why many continue to champion the use of original hardware for a great number of ‘retro’ titles. CRT televisions are in high demand on the secondary market, with there being a sense that it is in some cases the only way to enjoy an authentic presentation of some titles, even when ostensibly superior technical options may be available. 

On the other hand, increases in resolution also invariably unearth detail otherwise hidden behind the limitations of the original hardware, existing only as the fallout of a developer’s ambition. Consider another Rare platformer, Conker Live & Reloaded. An original Xbox remake of Conker’s Bad Fur Day on N64, it was an impressive technical feat at the time of release but now looks phenomenal at a full 4k resolution, bringing new clarity to the colourful and detailed visuals as well as showing the material work (such as on Conker’s fur) to have been incredibly advanced for its time. These two games have many parallels, whilst also serving to demonstrate the difference in effect and perception these raw technological adjustments can present to the player. 

In the mid-noughties, Japanese developer Mistwalker developed two JRPG’s exclusively for the Xbox 360 in Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. Both of these are fine games, but crucially are yet to receive enhancement updates. They offer completely distinct visual styles, and would possibly serve as another example of where the value of enhancements are variable. Blue Dragon, with its attractive but simplistic graphics, would look lovely at higher resolutions but not entirely disparate from what one can experience right now due to the artistic choices which were made at the time. Lost Odyssey on the other hand features highly detailed environments and characters, with complex architecture and elaborate texture work which would come to life like never before if given some attention by the Backward Compatibility team at Xbox (hint hint). 

It is important to acknowledge that an increase in resolution is not necessarily a visual cure-all for older titles. Having noted this point however, I feel that with the right titles (of which there are now a huge number) the enhancements available can be extraordinary and crucially, are consistently under-advertised and underappreciated. 

What is a remaster? 

The remaster is often a hotly debated topic amongst people who play games. Many feel there are too many of them, and yet people constantly request new and updated versions of the titles they love. Their quality varies. A bad ‘remaster’ can be perceived as lazy, unfairly tainting the memory of a game revered in its time in an attempt to cash in on the affection people hold for it. Some titles are released in a condition fans regard as inferior to the original, be it technically or structurally. Adversely, they can also be done superbly, bringing an ageing title to life by allowing former players to experience the joy its qualities bring anew, as well as introducing new players to an incredible experience they may have otherwise missed forever. 

I know better than to name specific titles in these regards, wishing to avoid drowning in the quicksand of those respective debates. That said, I feel it is important to note here that when it comes to remasters of games that are most consistently requested, Xbox’s backwards compatibility program might not deliver them with absolution, but most certainly scratches the itch. Take for example, Final Fantasy XIII and to a lesser extent its two sequels. A game derided and revered seemingly in equal measure and always the centre of active discussion, but undisputedly one of the most requested remasters or re-releases there is. With the games newfound availability on Xbox Game Pass, it is worth shining a fresh light on what is actually available to players with regards its technical presentation and how close this comes to actually providing what so many players have yearned for, perhaps unbeknownst to many of them. 

Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox Series X runs at a near full 4k resolution, and smooths the previously inconsistent framerate out to a locked 30fps. Furthermore, the sub-optimal video files present in the original Xbox 360 release have been replaced with brand new 720p videos for the numerous cut-scenes the game presents. It is subsequently, unequivocally the definitive console version of the game. This is great for players; however it is not the focus of my attention here. This was an update originally pushed out in 2018 with little fanfare. Imagine for a moment that this upgrade did not exist, and instead it formed the basis of a newly released remaster. Ultimately, along with a bump to 60fps this is broadly what such a thing would look like if we look to the market as a guide. It represents therefore not only a tremendous success in the degree to which the game is improved from its original release, but also a failure, arguably as significant, in explaining the extent and value of the offering to a player base which is in many cases, unaware of what is available at their doorstep. 

The more players are actively engaging with content, be it directly or passively, the greater reach that content has. Stating the obvious perhaps, but worth noting in relation to what I perceive to be the lack of exposure Xbox’s backwards compatibility has received. PlayStation is the market leader, in some regions to a significant degree. As a result, I have pondered what the zeitgeist would be in relation to, for example, Red Dead Redemption’s ‘X enhanced’ version, were an equivalent available on PS5. I suspect the increase in availability and awareness would result in this and others becoming far more of a standout feature for PlayStation than it ever has been for Xbox. This is of course a natural result of their position as market leader, a position which they have built and earned, but it begs the question as to what Xbox should be doing in order to ensure these offerings have the value that they should. 

There is a sense that these features are predominantly advertised inwardly to the existing player base. As much as I love hearing about the latest batch of titles to receive ‘FPS boost’ upgrades, I am aware that I am already on board and that a great deal more needs to be done to reach out to players for whom these generous glow ups could be significant determining factors at a time when so many are still making decisions as to where they plan to hang their hat, at least initially, in this generation. I feel very strongly that the multitude of upgrades to resolution and framerates across such a broad spectrum of incredibly popular and relevant titles from generations past and present should be a headline feature. By relegating it to blog posts and throwaway tweets it undercuts its value at a time when every cannon needs to be attached to the side of the ship.  

A friend of mine was an enormous fan of the Xbox 360, before switching to PlayStation in the previous generation. I have long extolled the virtues to them of the work Xbox had been doing across the board, but it was only when they sat down and experienced it first hand that the reality struck them as to what was actually on offer here. I loaded up a save just before leaving the vault for the first time in Fallout 3 (feeling the impact would be lessened by having to wade through a pre-amble matched only by Skyrim in terms of number of times endured) on Xbox Series X. 

The sun hitting the players eyes, brighter than they remembered. A crispness and clarity of image bringing to light detail they had never seen. This was an eye opener (pun intended). 4k resolution, a rock-solid framerate, as well as auto HDR and 16x anistropic filtering applied at a system level, allowing the very fondest memories of a classic to live on into a new generation.  

This friend was incredibly impressed by what was available here, but equally confused as to why Xbox were not screaming from the rooftops about it. Perhaps they feel they have given that many of these enhancements were introduced with the Xbox One X. As excellent a piece of hardware as that was however, it was very much an enthusiasts device released later in a generation PlayStation had a significant stranglehold over. With so many new players on board, and so many pairs of eyes considering their options afresh, revisiting how this is presented to the market would be a wise move.  

During the launch window, there was significant criticism of a perceived lack of first party software from Xbox. It is undoubtedly true that with Halo Infinite’s difficulties as well as a myriad of delays to third party titles like The Medium and The Ascent, ‘exclusive’ content was relatively thin on the ground. Despite this, I found this discussion to be fundamentally flawed and more of a symptom of eye rolling console warring as opposed to anything of real substance. The reason I refer to this is in relation to what I feel is a particularly pertinent question; to what degree are games made newly inviting and enjoyable solely as a result of significant improvements to their technical presentation? 

Since its inception, PC gaming has been driven by the pursuit of endless technological advancement, with ongoing upgrades being engrained into the culture in order to access the incremental improvements that result. One of the primary joys of slotting a new GPU into your gaming rig is going back to titles which previously made the hardware creak under the pressure, and watching as the newfound power allows it to cut through the technical demands like a hot knife through butter. In this area of the gaming fraternity, increases in framerate and resolution are not simply nice bonuses but in many cases the driving motivation behind ever increasing investment. Why then are console launches so dismissive of the value of this? I saw many statements at the launch of the now current generation consoles, minimising the relevance of titles like Assassins Creed: Valhalla because they were ‘available on PS4/Xbox One’, as though the experience was essentially the same. It is an odd psychology which I feel mirrors peoples dismissal of the value of backward compatibility. As with many things, people often need to have something in their hands to recognise its true value. The exceptional efforts Xbox have made with regards backwards compatibility allow the Xbox Series X and S to mirror the excitement people enjoy when upgrading PC hardware, and this should be providing a great deal more value for Xbox than it is. 

Whether it is Red Dead Redemption, Psychonauts, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, The Orange Box, Oblivion or…Blinx, the degree to which new life is breathed into these titles can be revelatory. In recent months I have played both Arkane’s Prey and Yakuza 6: The Song of Life with the benefit of a full 60fps frame rate, courtesy of the superb FPS boost program. With the resolution centric ‘X-enhancements’ an argument could be made that their time as a headline was when they were first made available. FPS boost however is very much a feature of the new generation of Xbox consoles and yet it has been undersold in a fashion which mirrors the enhancements before it. Few titles demonstrate this hidden value better than the aforementioned Prey, a 1080p/30fps title when played on a PS5, but running at 1440p/60fps on Xbox Series X as a result of a cocktail of enhancements and boosts, the worth of which is simply not being explained or capitalised on effectively. 

The irony is that these and many other titles are no longer ‘old’. They, by definition, offer an entirely new experience, either allowing you to experience a classic with a fidelity & responsiveness never before enjoyed, or revisiting worlds you never wanted to leave with the comfort that the rose-tinted spectacles can remain at home as they are no longer required. 

It seems unusual to me that in an industry and a market where the remaster is so coveted and lucrative, that a feature set and offering to the player this spectacular is too often relegated to blog posts and bullet points. Perhaps it needs to be called something else, something to differentiate the phenomenal work that has been done from the basic concept of an older game launching and simply being functional in its original form. 

Xbox have done an incredible job over the past number of years engaging with their consumer base and offering a truly unrivalled feature set out of the box to their players. They have been aggressive in their pursuit of studio acquisitions as well as the growth and support, through content, of Xbox Game Pass. As hardware shortages ease and the 1st party juggernauts begin to ship, it is time these features and the joy they bring to the player were given the exposure befitting the work done to provide them. 

Who wants to play old games, they say? I don’t, that’s why I have an Xbox.