Why do people hate on remasters?

Because they could be making new games instead.

I love both. I thought the remasters of games like Monkey's island..etc were great. Remakes can be iffy....like the remake of Thief, even though technically it was a sequel by design, lacked a lot of little things that made the originals great. But overall they didn't really adhere to modern level design and the city by design makes no sense at all so even if they called it something else it would still be lacking a lot.

I can think of a few remakes of games like that but overall I'm always happy to see remakes of anything...at least it's something. I can't wait for Shadow of the Beast...loved the originals. Hope it's not as frustratingly hard though.

Metro redux looks and runs better than the originals on pc, especially now that they patched in missing effects.

Depends on the remaster.

I don't. Especially if the game is old enough. Still, i'd prefer full on remakes, unless the remasters offered something interesting... For example, a new control scheme that's offered in the RE:master.

Exactly. Remasters can be properly done for games that may be harder to find at a decent price or if there are 2-3 games in the package deal.

The Ico/SoTC collection is an example, since trying to find Ico can be a pain at times.

The Silent Hill collection could have been neat, could have.

Remaster of a game less than 5 years old on the same first party platform for $60 = bad

Remaster completely rebuilt, fairly priced for an aging game (e.g. Black Mesa) = good

I don'r. I like them just fine, just not at 50 bucks. 20 is ok.

A year later when the remakes have taken over the industry over the new games just as the DLC today, I can bet the moron of a TC bill be bitching about it and but then fighting over who was responsible for bringing that cheap practice in the first place; was it Sony, MS, or SE. Dumb consolites will be dumb.

I actually think most remasters have good value since the majority take advantage of the newer platform they're on. The best example (for consoles) I can think of is the Metal Gear Solid HD collection.

Gettin' milked and cheated cause your shitty gaming device can't do Backward-Compatibility.

I have nothing against remasters, as long as the time is taken to do them justice. I don't consider it a cash-grab anymore than any other business venture....many new PS4 owners transitioned from MS, Sony knew it, saw it, acted upon it, and smartly seized a capitalistic opportunity as any savvy business would, and the sales figures recently shown speak on the business wisdom of this decision. 1 million added to the barrel of how many other millions nigh what.....only a month after release?

That said, having played many hours of TLoU:R, it is blatantly evident it was not given enough time for testing prior to release as it suffers bugs, some major that compromise playability. It's obvious Sony was on ND's back to get this out ASAP and told them to do their best and then polish it post release through patches. Unfortunate, but perhaps Sony wanted this out early to help meet some upcoming fiscal goal. While the increased framerate, visual fidelty and improved sound are tremendous improvments, there are severe glitches (mostly impacting AI and scripting). A 143 MB patch released a few days ago that may rectify many of these issues, but I've not yet had the time to invest in a few more playthroughs to see if things have overall improved. From the little I've played so far though it's looking good.

The idea of remasters don't bother me. I'm keen to play old games bettered in various ways, and depending, will pay to do so. They're relatively cheap and resource lax to execute, quick to develop, most offer extra incentives warranting the price (also considering TLoU was priced cheaper+GS's 50% off trade in deal), and most importantly--they are optional. BUT....they need to be well done and it pains me to say TLoU:R wasn't, even though it's currently improving.

Just curious, why do you think it's not remastered? Have you played it? The framerate improvement alone warrants the remaster title. It looks better, and plays MUCH better. It has bugs though, so I think calling it the definitive version at this juncture is a bit premature, but if they were absent (as patches are releasing) would you still deny this a remaster?

Does the remaster had new effects, assets, content, something that imediatly pops up to show the difference?

Does it come in a collection?

Is it more than 1-3 years old?

Cool.

Is it basically a resolution, frame rate bump and maybe a small, tiny uplift in graphics, charging full price for it? How about no.

Half-Life to Black Mesa.

That's a Remaster.

N64 Ocarina of Time to 3DS Ocarina of Time.

That's a Remaster.

PS3 The Last of Us to PS4 The Last of Us.

Not a Remaster.

Assassin's Creed IV is on PS4 and PS3. But Assassin's Creed IV on PS4 is not considered a Remaster, but the PS4 version is the overall better package, it runs better, it looks better, it's just the better version. But why isn't it called a "Remaster"? Because it's freakin' NOT. One could even argue that Metro Redux isn't even a Remaster either. It's more like a "BFG" edition or whatever, "Director's Cut?", something.

The Last of Us Remaster honestly offers NOTHING compared to the PS3 version. You can't call it HD, because wasn't it already? Calling it "SUPER HD" is just stupid. It should have been called "The Last of Us: Game of the Year Edition" and released on both PS3 and PS4 and everyone would have gotten the picture. But calling a "Remaster" is literally an insult to actual Remasters like REmake which oddly enough is getting ANOTHER Remaster.

if u think remasters are over priced then dont buy them, u can always wait for a price drop. if people see value in the remaster then they will buy its that simple. tlou remaster has already sold around 1.5-2m so clearly those people saw value in the purchase

which company out there is only developing remakes? all the big companies make remasters along with new games. naughty dog are making 2 games while also developing the remaster.

did u even read op? black mesa isnt a remaster, its a remake

a year later and still no gta 5 for pc. how sad

u poor soul u so seem so confused. black mesa IS NOT a remaster, its a full blown remake. and how the hell is oot 3ds remaster any different to tlou remaster? they both feature an updated version of the original game. and metro redux is a remaster

tlou remaster: '1080p resolution at 60fps in both single and multi-player, a 4x detail increase to texture maps and a 2x resolution boost to shadow maps. Texture streaming is no longer required owing to the PS4's prodigious RAM, and there's longer draw distances, better LOD and improved particle effects'

^^how the hell is that not remaster??

I almost view the Last of Us as a game that was just a bit too ambitious for the ps3 but released anyways. I get the "remaster" moniker, though. It does use higher resolution assets, no?

Also, wanted to comment on the other Remaster thread that just got locked. It compared "remasters" with "mods". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a "donate" button involved with well known modders? If the answer is yes then it is extremely bogus of people to simply take advantage of someones hard work, for free.

@ghostwarrior786:

If you think people are bitching about remasters don't read those posts/threads.

@ghostwarrior786: The trend is there tho. They are focusing more and more on these remasters. Sony, Ubisoft, etc.

Yep basically this.. Last of US was fvcking released last summer for the PS3.. I remember all these jackass fanboys trying to defend these systems for not having backwards compatability because it would add $50 to $100 to the cost of the system supposedly.. Yet they have no qualms with a game remaster that was released last year at $50.. Mind blown.

I guess the general consensus is a remaster of a 10+ year old game is good while remasters from last gen are bad.

I like it when older games I liked a lot are re-released on modern formats. I know it's probably a waste of money, but I enjoy having the best version of my favorite games.

PS 4 launched with almost twice as many new, non remastered games as PS 3.

PS 4 now has about 100 games. Did any past consoles every have that many games 10 months after launch?

That's a flat-out ignorant thing to say and you make yourself look silly in doing so, and answers my question of have you played it since you neglected to answer me. The framerate alone is a MASSIVE improvement, that I'll say again, is enough to warrant a remaster title, along with other improvements ghostwarrior noted. And no it was not HD. It's much crisper in the rerelease, but this is only really apparent when one plays it.

And REmake was a remake. New textures, new assets. So was Black Mesa. I'd also consider OoT 3DS to be a remake as well as a lot of new/updated textures were included, not just old ones upscaled in resolution.

Funny you avoid the actual argument. That's sad. Second, you assume like I give a damn about GTA 5. Third what' even more pathetic having no games that you need to re buy the game you already played. I never felt the need for GTA 5 since I have so many games to play unlike certain factions here.

Because this gen hasn't brought anything new to the table. We've all played these games and the copy and paste formula is getting all too familiar.

What did last gen bring to the table after 10 months?

It brought tech demos and games that showed potential on what the console is capable of doing and what it has to offer to developers.

Remasters should be free for the people that own the original game. Paying for the remastered version (when you own the original version) is equivalent with rebuying all your games when you upgrading your graphics card...

PS 3's launch shooter was Resistance and it looked awful for it's time. PS 4's launch shooter was KZ Shadowfall which looks awesome and it easily demolishes any last gen console graphics.

Ryse is more impressive for 2013 than any 360 launch game was for 2005.

@MirkoS77: Of course I haven't played The Last of Us "remastered". I don't have a PS4. But why should I play it when I already have the PS3 game?

@ghostwarrior786: cause its freaking not. Like I said. Assassin's creed IV its on PS3 and PS4 but you don't call the PS4 version a remaster. Why not? Its higher in resolution, it has better framerate, its just the better version. But why isn't it a remaster?

When Grand Theft Auto 5 is released on PC it will have the better resolution and it will have better framerate but is it called GTAV "remastered"? No it's just GTAV for PC.

The metro redux and tomb raider the definitive edition are my fav remasters.

Because you claim, "The Last of Us Remaster honestly offers NOTHING compared to the PS3 version." as if it's the truth when it's laughably incorrect.

Well, since you haven't played it, and your proclamations are based on ignorance, I rest my case.

@MirkoS77: Yeah, Like you need to play a game to know if it's worth a buy or not. Just one look at Gameplay Videos from this very site and even reading what is actually in the contents of the game TELLS ME that I shouldn't waste my Money on Buying a game I bought for $60 last year. IE: The Last of Us "Remastered" is not making me want to jump up and go buy a PS4.

No, but you do need to play a game to be able to claim differences between the two while holding any semblance of credibility. The visual (and especially) the framerate upgrades aren't apparent until you play it.

Probably because the gaming community is forever a petulant bunch of children. Just ignore them. I look at remasters in the same way as I would a movie studio releasing a classic film on a new format.

remasters are like ur side bitch, u only focus on them while nothing else is really going on. during the first year of x360/ps3 there was **** all so i prefer remasters to nothing at all

dude u have no argument, the remasters are not going to overtake the industry have u even seen whats releasing in 2015? its an awesome lineup

u seriously dont know why ass creed 4 is called a multiplat instead of a remaster? because it released when had ps4/x1 launched and it released at the same time as the last gen version. when tlou released ps4 hadnt even launched. and gta 5 x1/ps4/pc version is a remaster, just because they are not calling it that in the title doesnt mean it isnt

Wait so I have to PLAY a game to tell if what I'm getting is enough Difference between the Copy of the Game I have NOW and another Version of the Game to claim that I need to buy this version.

Okay so You're saying that I can't just look at this video on Gamespot or Look at this article on Eurogamer's Digital Foundry and NOT determine that THIS GAME is not worth a purchase? So I have to PLAY that version of the game to Understand that THIS version of the game is a MUST have even though I already bought the game one year ago and could easily just buy the DLC and the experience would still be there.

With Resident Evil on the Gamecube there was enough of a difference for me to say "Okay, it's like a completely different game." God of War Collection had 2 games for the Price of 1 and it wasn't even a full $60. Metal Gear Solid HD had 3! The Last of Us? Hardly a Remaster. It's just the a delayed release. It's the same game, just on better Hardware.

Like I've been saying before, Why is The Last of Us getting the "Remastered" title? Assassin's Creed IV didn't, Battlefield 4 didn't, Metal Gear Solid V Ground Zeros didn't. But they all did the same thing The Last of Us did jumping from PS3 to PS4. Why is it getting the Same treatment as Halo 2 in the Master Chief Collection, a far better "Remaster" than what Sony decided to give out for you PS4 guys. Heck Nintendo even did it better with Star Fox and Zelda Ocarina of Time and Windwaker.

Overall I just didn't like the Justification of The Last of Us being considered a Remaster. The Game was fine on the PS3, it's a fantastic game and deserved all the awards it got, but it shouldn't be held to the same standards of ACTUAL Remastered titles on Game system, just because it's on the box.

That doesn't excuse anything. GTA 5 isn't considered a Remaster because it's just not. It's just the Game you bought on the PS3 and 360 on better hardware. That's it.

If we're going to call GTA 5 a Remaster then HOLY BALLS Every game on Steam is now Considered a Remaster! EVEN REMASTERS ARE CONSIDERED REMASTERS! Resident Evil Remaster? It's a REMASTER OF A REMASTER REMASTERED! Why? It's on Steam!

Freakin' get a clue.

haha u are so fukin clueless its hilarious. gta 5 on pc/ps4/pc is a remaster of the original thats what everyone in the media is calling it. im not sure how u are not understanding this, if the game releases at the same time/close enough to the same time on all platforms then the game is considered a multiplat. if the game is later enhanced it is considered a remaster. the reason pc games are not considered remasters but simply superior versions of multiplat is because thats what they are, is cod on ps4 a remaster of the x1 version because it runs at 1080p/60fps instead of the x1 version 900p/60fps? no because that makes no fukin sense.

and u havnt been played tlou remaster yet claim it is no different than ps3 version haha just because u are blind doesnt mean the rest of the world is, i will take digital foundry word over yours. i have played the ps4 version and it feels a lot more fluid at 60fps but of course u wouldnt know this because u havnt fukin played it + it looks much sharper

Lets go see.. Maybe due to the fact that Zelda OoT was released over a decade ago.. The Last of US released last summer on the PS3 ffs.

Yeah, I know all the real next-gen games that were supposed to be released in 2014 have been delayed to 2015; which tells me next-gen is costly and devs are having a hard time keeping up with deadlines they initially set. So, if people like you keep buying these cheap remakes companies will see an easy way out with that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

What are you ranting on about?

Stay on topic. My whole issue with you is your sole claim that there's "honestly nothing offered on the PS4 version compared to the PS3 version". That's bullshit, you've been called on it, now you're saying it's "somehow not worth a purchase".

I don't get the hate, no one is for ing anyone to buy them. So what's the problem?