Remasters that were worse than the originals

[Aniekwe]

On 5/26/2022 at 9:46 AM, NightmareFarm said:

Final Fantasy X. The character models look lifeless.

I felt the same way about the characters of Final Fantasy X when you look at its design which makes me wonder if it was the same Square Enix that made the game. 

[Clasher]

14 hours ago, Aniekwe said:

A friend of mine was actually saying that the game was rushed. It's why everything looked the way they did with the game and  I think that might be true. 

If that's the case, I think game developers should take their time and make high quality games instead of rushing and publishing games that wouldn't give gamers the maximum fun they hoped to derive from playing that game.

[Dannyjax]

39 minutes ago, Clasher said:

If that's the case, I think game developers should take their time and make high quality games instead of rushing and publishing games that wouldn't give gamers the maximum fun they hoped to derive from playing that game.

I think so too because the characters in Final Fantasy 7, 8 and 9 were good enough, so why did the FF 10 go out of place? 

[Shagger]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with redesigns of the character models on FFX Remastered, in anything I think they look closer to how they look on the games cut scenes, so I'd call it an improvement.

[Empire]

The silent hill hd collection and ratchet deadlocked remaster on ps3 were really jarring from a graphical standpoint. Especially with the latter's jittery cutscenes issue.

[NightmareFarm]

5 hours ago, Aniekwe said:

I felt the same way about the characters of Final Fantasy X when you look at its design which makes me wonder if it was the same Square Enix that made the game. 

I'm talking about the remastered version btw. 

[Yaramaki]

On 5/26/2022 at 2:41 AM, Shagger said:

Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning

 

I did a review of thus dumpster fire on VGR, so I urge people to check that out first and read the whole thread to get the full story.

 

Suffice to say, it was tragic. The original game that run perfectly fine with issue I can recall and "remastered" into something at time barely worked. The didn't really look any better either, it just had better compatibility with higher resolution displays (the original has texture scaling issues that make the game very hard to play at anything higher than 1080p). The only real reason to even buy this version was the new Fatesworn DLC that was delayed and took well over a year to come out, and that was also busted. It was also after patches I was finally able to finish it. It was so bad it actually makes me feel ambivalent about the prospect of a sequel form this same studio and publisher. Yes, I'd love a follow up to Kingdoms of Amalur, but the thought of these incompetent pricks making it is a bad omen.

You just know when you can call it a lazy port is that correct me if i'm wrong you can get some of the best weapons (which were dlc) in the game literally in the chest of the first town  you visit + plus they also left the N7 armour in which always seemed a little odd to me. Surprising ea never made a problem about it. 

I played trough kingdoms of amalur remaster last year and while i diden't have any problems performance wise, it just hasen't aged that well from when i first played it like why aren't you able to jump off a cliff instead having to find a wooden jump off point which in turn you have to needlessly run around for no reason. I also find some of the side faction quests like the house of ballads more interesting then the main story which is kinda just your standard rpg afair, losing memory, characters that are forgetable.  

Still the best part about the game is the combat, graphics and also the monster designs are still as good as ever. 

[Shagger]

25 minutes ago, Yaramaki said:

You just know when you can call it a lazy port is that correct me if i'm wrong you can get some of the best weapons (which were dlc) in the game literally in the chest of the first town  you visit + plus they also left the N7 armour in which always seemed a little odd to me. Surprising ea never made a problem about it. 

I played trough kingdoms of amalur remaster last year and while i diden't have any problems performance wise, it just hasen't aged that well from when i first played it like why aren't you able to jump off a cliff instead having to find a wooden jump off point which in turn you have to needlessly run around for no reason. I also find some of the side faction quests like the house of ballads more interesting then the main story which is kinda just your standard rpg afair, losing memory, characters that are forgetable.  

Still the best part about the game is the combat, graphics and also the monster designs are still as good as ever. 

 

You get some unique weapons and armour from that chest you described, but they're low level and don't remain powerful once you get past a certain point in the game.

 

The original Kingdoms of Amalur ran perfectly fine on my laptop, it was the remaster that had issues. I went into more detail in the review I linked, but suffice to say it was an issue with the game'fs resource management of PC hardware that caused the problem. It didn't happen with every hardware set up and I believe the problem was fixed eventually, that's probably why you had no issues. All I can do is tell what why my experience was like.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Shagger

[Scorpion]

Certainly! Some remasters, like "Silent Hill HD Collection" and "Doom 3: BFG Edition," suffered from technical issues and poor visuals.

[killamch89]

Another one I can name is the GTA Trilogy Edition that Rockstar outsourced. Rockstar should sue them for ruining a simple remaster.