107
I feel like we’re only a year or two away from announcing a game and its remaster at the same time.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
107 points (98.2% liked)
Games
32532 readers
820 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That PS5 version looks like shit. I own the original and it's a lot of fun. What the fuck up with the lighting?
Original is awesome. I feel like the remaster basically just turned it yellow and deleted the fog and called it a day.
I believe, we call those "live service games"...
How tf did they think a PS3 era piss-filter would improve things?
There is so much you could absolutely tear into, what the hell do they think they are doing?
Just want to show of ray tracing. In return, it runs 30 fps (while the original runs 60 on PS5), with worse music and camera.
Absolutely pointless cash grab, they should have just created a graphics upgrade to polish out some texture details, add haptic feedback, and sell it as an add on for 10.
I know the fan mod project for FF8 is jokingly named Demaster in protest of the official remaster, but I never thought a large company would release an honest to god demake of a game - and charge you for it!
I liked the FF8 remaster. The field models are just field models. It's not like they look like the FMV cutscene character models on the original either. They're just so distorted that you have to imagine the FMV characters.
Editing out Siren's bush was a sin though.
Edit: Oh, and getting rid of vibration. I had forgot about that until just now. That was 100% the worst part of the remaster. I hope they're fixing that, because otherwise what's the point in the demaster?
Edit 2: Also losing omnidirectional movement since it's based on the PC port. Same reason there's no vibration.
Not a demake or a game, but there is a "Mummy Demastered", which is a Metroidvania demake of the Tom Cruise mummy movie. It's actually decent and considered better than the movie.
Man, you almost feel bad for them, because clearly some effort went into this. It's not like they just slapped high-res textures on and called it a day. ~~You can tell, because that would've looked better.~~
But I don't actually feel bad, because no one forced them to remake such a recent title. You don't run that risk, if you remake something that actually looks bad in the first place.
I haven't played it, but the trailers I've seen were night and day better than the original.
ahhh I see what you did there, you sly devil you.
What did I do? Whatever it was, wasn't intentional. I was commenting in earnest. The trailers looked incredible, big uplift in graphics from just watching those. I am very interested to know why people don't think the same.
hahaha it's gotten called "already dawn" or "after dawn" a lot because they shifted it from cool lighting (that looks like the middle of the night lit by moonlight) to warm lighting (that looks like evening or morning light) so I thought "night and day" was a nod to that. the graphical fidelity is a lot better, but it wasn't even bad in the original and the mood shift caused by the lighting change seems very unbefitting of the story and it also seems like they've cut idle animations? which is an insane choice the characters seem so dull and lifeless without them
Huh. Well I checked out more comparisons and just side-by-side I stand by what I first said, that the remaster looks much better. As for feeling or atmosphere, I'll of course reserve that until I play/watch through the whole game. Love the original and intend to do so on the remaster eventually!
I mean, trailers are going to pick the best-looking scenes. The comparison video linked in the article seems like it's trying to be neutral and lots of scenes just look worse in it. I haven't seen the actual game either, though...
Skimmed the comparison video in the article now, I don't know if I just have different tastes or something but the remaster ps5 version looks so, so, so much better. Like it's not even close.
Yeah, that's fair. I assume whomever headed this remake steered it into this direction, because they also liked it better that way. I also know some people find graphical fidelity a lot more important than I do. I'd rather have pixel graphics and the right vibe than hyperrealistic graphics.
I played a few hours on PC yesterday and if somebody is saying it looks worse than the PS4 version I'm questioning their sanity.
On the other hand, raytracing, HDR and frame generation are all completely broken and it is a disgrace to charge 70 bucks for a remake of a 9 year old game and not even do basic QA on their PC port. You also need a PSN account to play your singleplayer game.
I will treasure my PS4 copy. And it's actually one of the few games where 30 fps isn't a big deal due to fixed camera angles in the original.
I remember it barely scratching 20 FPS and I simply could not finish the game because of it, it was a super jarring experience. Even with fixed cameras.
I have played plenty of 30 FPS games as well, it's less of a problem when it's a consistent framerate, but it was just so insanely bad in Until Dawn. Nowadays I would expect nothing but a minimal 60 FPS though.
They say it runs better but isn’t that because it hovers around 35 fps on PS4 and is locked to 30 on PS5 (as it should have been on PS4)? Some of comparisons are in the yikes territory though.
You had 1 job