I think even the base PS4/XONE version is clearly a bit step above even the remaster of GTAV, not to mention the One X version which is a further step beyond that. GTAV's improvements were mostly visual whereas TLOU was visual and performance. So I think they were both impressive remasters, just with different focuses. Both games included new assets and textures, but instead of bumping up performance GTAV went a lot further in adding even more assets. Yes, it does a better job of sticking to 30fps and now at 1080p, but TLOU Remaster bumped performance up to 60fps AND resolution to 1080p. What you're also not mentioning is that GTAV was still capped to 30fps in the remaster, same as its original PS3/360 release. It's still operating on the exact same game mechanics. Yes, they included a first person mode, which is great, but that's just a new view mode.
#Destruction allstars cost code
But it doesn't change that it was the exact same engine with the exact same code and the exact same gameplay. Like I said, I do agree GTAV was a fantastic remaster, in that they went beyond the usual res bump and added more assets such as vastly increased foliage and the like.
#Destruction allstars cost Ps4
GTAV PS4 is a lot closer to RDR2 than the original.Ĭlick to shrink.You've said "remake" a couple times when I think you mean "remaster"? Seems like you were referring to the 2014 TLOU Remaster when you said remake at the beginning, but correct me if I'm wrong. If you ignore the timeline, and RDR2 comes out before GTAV, it’s almost the same situation as TLoU here.
I don’t know what people have against GTAV, but I just don’t see how it’s closer to something like TLoU Remaster, that is all. But people are already using these terms quite loosely anyway. It’s just my 2 cents and if we want to use these terms it’s only logical because at least this way it’s consistent. Just lots of upgrades.īut this is not like an industry standard. It’s not like there are “new” engines anymore.
#Destruction allstars cost upgrade
It might not received an engine upgrade on the scale of Part I but there were still considerable improvements. With this categorization I really don’t know how it would pass as a mere Remake since it included a whole FPS mode and tons of new assets. It might not be as much of a step forward as Part I but it’s a lot closer to it and DS than to the TLoU Remake. I draw the the line mostly on gameplay and the underlying assets and tech. And dare I say if enough people do not buy games at $70, the powers that be would be forced to make them cheaper.
My issue with ALL these game price arguments is that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy. I mean, they already know what happens in the game. Those that aren't, should really just wait till it's at a price they are comfortable with. But there are a lot of people out there that would be buying for the first time. In which case, I would say its not with $70. I feel this project started off being something that was made for the PC, and rather than re-release a 12+ year old game, they figured they should remake it.Īnd honestly, anyone that has already played this game, is really only buying t for improved graphics and mechanics. I tend to look at this as a game remade for people that haven't played the original. If this game was remade and released only on PC, without the multiplayer, and sold at $70, would the argument still be the same? Click to shrink.TLOU2 didn't have any multiplayer.
0 kommentar(er)
