Resident Evil HD's backgrounds weren't extended though, quite the opposite. They are instead cropped to 16:9, with the camera slightly shifting and following the player as they move on the screen, so no detail is lost.

3D graphics can be rendered in pretty much any resolution you want, but a static 4:3 2D image will always be a 4:3 2D image. If Capcom and DoubleFine would've still had access to the original 3D assets from which the backgrounds were created, I'm sure they would've created new renders, but were talking about 10+ year old files, probably in an obsolete file format. And as Tim Schafer himself told in interviews, game companies apparently aren't exactly diligent about data archival.

Some would probably say that they should've completely recreated every single background in 16:9, but at that point you might just remake the whole game, and the time and cost involved would be out of scope for any remastering project.

You might call the companies lazy and cheap, but since the original games aren't digitally (at least legally) available on any modern platforms, I don't see what the problem is, I'm just happy I don't need to resort to piracy/Ebay and emulators. Aspect ratio problems just happen to be the nature of the static 2D beast.

16:9 vs Classic Mode

I'm just curious. Let's say DF did it simmilar to "Resident Evil" and added a pan and scan 16:9 mode for the new graphics.
What should happen when the user switches to classic mode?
Should the camera zoom out to 4:3, or do you want the old graphics in 16:9 pan and scan?

Wouldn't a pan and scan mode add many problems? Especially the new point and click mode?
For example Mannys office right at the start. At my first run it took me a long time to recognise the exit at the bottom of the screen. in an 16:9 panned this subtile hints would be off the screen.

You are absolutely correct, but still, you guys don't seem to get my message.
Properly remastering this game to support 16:9 ratio is a 100% 'very-nice-to-have' , and it does not destroy any "original concept" at all. It does the opposite.
It's also no technical impossibility to do.

Maybe the budget to this game was just low. Either way, its my opinion on this.

Resident Evil also crops the image. They manually chose what to crop though.

There is one example I can think of where a game with prerendered backgrounds actually did extend them for a remake.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D.

Now before you say "Why couldn't they do that," let's remind ourselves of a few things.

- Ocarina of Time used a mixture of 3D rendered area and prerendered backgrounds, only using the latter for the interiors of small houses and shops.

- The game was being remade from the ground up for a portable system with a 400 x 240 screen, so the backgrounds wouldn't come under much scrutiny, especially seeing as they're such a small part of the game.

- The remake cost $40, compared to Grim's $15.

- It was made by Nintendo, a major publisher with a huge budget that always goes for overkill quality when they remake something

In this case, the prerendered backgrounds made up such a small fraction of the game that it wouldn't cost much to remake them. In addition, the game would only need to hold up under the very lax scrutiny of 240p.

Comparatively, from my understanding Grim Fandango is entirely made up of prerendered backgrounds, meaning that every single one of them would need to be rerendered. In addition, these rerenderings would have to be presentable at 1080p, meaning quite a lot of additional work. Finally, the game is selling at a much lower price point, and remade on a much lower budget.

In Ocarina's case, Nintendo wanted to use it as a system seller for the 3DS, while I think that the point of GF being remastered is to simply make it legally available again. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that at this price point, the extent of the remaster would be re-encoded cutscenes and touched up character models and textures.

Would 16:9 support be nice? Of course.

Is it feasible? For this team, on this budget, in this type of game, no.

Agreed.

Yet another half assed doublefine production.

Like the old version of the game, the sound cuts out or freezes at random points.

Besides Grim Fandango Remastered, I've got Stacking, The Cave and Broken Age. While you could say that these games have rather light gameplay, I wouldn't call these games half-assed. They do well what they are trying to do and are very enjoyable games. I'm not alone with this opinion and for example AdventureGamers gave excellent reviews for both The Cave and Stacking.

Maybe you wanted full remake instead of remastered version, but Double Fine made it clear from the start this is remastered version of the old game. It's important to understand the difference. I find it funny that when The Last Express Gold Edition was released one year ago there was no such hostility against the quality of remastering, even when they actually did less than what Double Fine has done to Grim Fandango. I use it as a comparison, because Grim Fandango and The Last Express are both cult adventure games from the late 90s.

Give them time to patch things up. There's always few bugs on release.

I came to the forums after looking at the insanely high price and not being able to find anything of real value added to the game. I can get Beyond Good & Evil for $10 or less for the same graphical update. The game is also arguably much better and and offers more unique game-play then anything else in the genre.

Then I find out it doesn't even have proper support for modern standardized HD resolutions... I swear it was called Grim Fandango remastered. Double Fine, I used to have such respect for the games you released. I guess this is just more proof that we should avoid any game produced by Double Fine themselves (as opposed to an outside company like EA) as they put in the minimal amount of money, fail to make or meet scheduled guidelines, and jack up prices to ludicrous levels.

Woah, really? In the trailer it looked like they just added bars at the left and right (decorated ones). Cropping is a terrible way to fit it to 16:9. I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between a remaster and a remake. If you're re-doing the backgrounds and things like that then it's a remake. Grim Fandango was only remastered. If you buy a remastered album, you don't expect it to be re-recorded. A remastered film isn't re-filmed just so it can be 16:9 instead of 4:3.

This is a proper remaster. What they didn't do was remake the game.

OK, that's even worse.

That's why you have the option to play it in the correct aspect ratio.

Yeah, the stretching is just there for the strange people who hate sidebars but don't mind stretching. Such people exist for some reason!