Remastering a game that isn't even that old just seems weird.
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
237 points (99.2% liked)
PC Gaming
8556 readers
425 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's like they don't want to release new games.
New Games? That's risk we can't have that. Gotta have a sure thing or investors will revolt!
I'm still a bit salty that naughty dog hasn't announced anything yet
Theres a remaster for this game? What could you possibly remaster so soon? Its still new
They redid her face, tons of lighting across the gameworld, and re-recorded tons of voice acting. I think maybe they also redid some motion capture. The original faces and animations were memorably pretty awkward. I read a bit from a developer suggesting they learned lots about what they would have done differently, so they did that.
As a huge fan of the original though, I'm hesitant to ever touch this since they changed so much. It'll feel like some ripoff or something. I find the original a gem, with flaws and all. Every game has flaws, and that's okay.
It feels like those creators who can't just leave their music or movies as it was and keep fucking with it.
This was a George Lucas move for sure. I feel like these issues described here could possibly have been an update instead of a complete rerelease? At least the animations could have. I wouldnt be willing to buy this game again had I bought it only seven years ago. I bought some indie games around the same length of time ago and I'm still playing those. Shit, Rain World is getting a new DLC next year and its about the same age.
I do think the voice acting is god awful in a lot of places in the original.
That's how I was with Spiderman. Played through the entire game with the original face so that is the Peter Parker I associate with the first game. Little interest in the remaster as a result.
I didn't even know the Remaster changed his face for whatever reason until after I finished the game.
I got a mod that changes it back and it looks a lot nicer imo. I know they wanted to make Peter look a bit more like Yuri, the VA, but I still don't know why. Maybe it was a contract thing? Idk.
It feels like those creators who can't just leave their music or movies as it was and keep fucking with it.
I'm in this comment and I don't like it.
At some point, you need to let your art be what it is.
I don't think it needs a remaster considering how good the game still looks, but it's 7 years old now. That's not exactly "new" anymore.
The lifespan of a game is much longer than it used to be. Games no longer look or feel out of date the following year. Roblox is 20 years old, Minecraft came out in 2009. Seven years is really not that long to be getting a remaster. Shit a Killzone could probably use a remaster before any of the Horizons.
Graphic power and displays didn't significantly evolve since then, gameplay mechanics neither, so the experience is still good.
This remaster is pointless. It's a remaster of a game from 2017.
That as far as I can tell looks exactly the same as the "original"
Except for the bugs, those are new
A bad one at that!
Like seriously, the game wasn't good back then, but everyone went googoo gaga over art style. I've never seen worse story with such a boring open world content, it makes Ubisoft game design look good..
Like seriously, the game wasn't good back then
Yes, it was, and I'm a salty cunt who doesn't even like new games a lot of the time
Same. It was dissapointingly shallow in characterization and the dialogues could have used some editing but ot was a fun and functional game that looked great and had well-designed gameplay. I played it through the end ana am looking to get a sequel in a few years on a deep sale.
Too far
I would love HZD on PC but fuck the PSN requirement. As long as Sony keeps trying to monetize the player's info via PSN they will lose business. Why can't companies be happy when we buy their game? Why do they have to steal info from the players now?
The OG version is still on GoG! Includes all of the original DLC but none of the new PSN bull.
I would love HZD on PC but fuck the PSN requirement.
They removed the OG version. Who didn't have the PSN requirement.
I guess I'm glad I got it before they took it down? I played through it and enjoyed it for what it was, but I'm not entirely sure I'll even play through it again anytime soon.
Do people genuinely not realize that sony and microsoft had a great data collection source (console gamers) that have largely "aged out"? This new push for account sign-ins is obviously because their user data flow needs a big kick. They used to get data when people bought the game on their own platform, ran it on their own platform, even how many hours their gameplay sessions were individually throughout the week. With a lot of their studios games they had either complete or timed exclusivity to really find out what was driving gamers to game, and beyond that it's a popular commodity and likely a loat or reduced revenue stream.
With helldivers 2, the account controversy sprung up on the back of Helldivers 2's stats page not showing correct numbers for anything (and sometimes being rolled back asynchronously from your currencies and unlocks). Seemed obvious to me at the time they wanted a head count from another source (a sign-in) and probably data beyond that like session time/length. Whatever people are upset about sign-ins over, I don't actually see it articulated much; there are a lot of good reasons to dislike it (potential stoppage of the service causing games to be harder to play like end of service for Games for Windows Live) and I never see them mentioned, just general vitriol for the companies. I don't find the companies sympathetic, but I do find it odd that people just slam it aimlessly everywhere instead of identifying the issues beyond basic understanding of privacy fears.
They could make the psn account optional, and most people wouldn't care. Make it easy to click "No thanks" once and be done. Some people would voluntarily do it because they like seeing their own stats in one place.
They could generate a unique ID for a given install and send metrics home when there's a connection but no psn account, and most people wouldn't even notice.
I think most of the consumer anger is coming from getting a worse experience for no gains. It makes the corporation seem unreasonable.
I'm playing it now, I haven't noticed any serious glitches. Also, the game asked me to sign-in to the Playstation Network when I first started it up, I said "nope" and it hasn't bothered me since.
Edit: Ok, scratch the part about not running into glitches. Just within the past five minutes the right trigger has stopped registering twice and I've had to restart the game to get it to come back.
Good to know you can just nope the PSN login. I haaaate games requiring accounts for single-player experiences, but if you can just say no, I don't resent them asking as much.
I was worried that Spider-Man (the remaster not the second game) would pull some shit when I first launched it and saw a big thing on the corner of the screen that said "link your PSN and unlock a costume" but I completely ignored it and you get the costume by playing the game anyway. It's not like some exclusive thing.
Enshittification of the past
Yeah.... Pass.
Sony and completely unnecessary PSN login requirements. Name a more iconic duo.
If you own the original it's only $10. Still not clear that it's worth $10 though.
STOP BUYING SHIT WITH LAUNCHERS FOLKS
DENY THE PARASITE PROFITS UNTIL THEY COMPLY
If you watch the side by side you can tell that they adjusted the lighting and it doesn't look right. There's a few scenes where the only light is the sun and there's a shadow on the ground, but the characters are lit like shadows aren't a thing, making them look weird and, in some cases, worse than in the original.