Are PS4 games really remastered or just ports? And should we now call all PC games Remasters?
Are Sony remasters really remasters?
- Thread starter BIGJOHN
- Start date
- Status
Are PS4 games really remastered or just ports? And should we now call all PC games Remasters?
Seems like an honest question to me.
Does improved resolution and maybe frame rate deserved to labelled as a Remaster?
Remasters? absolutely, remakes? nope and that's why they aren't called that.
If they were just straight ports there may be some kind of validity to this question but so far they've all had graphical and performance improvements so yes they are remasters. When you see a remastered version of an old movie they don't go back and re-shoot the whole thing with better looking costumes etc, there may be some visual effects upgrades, remixed audio and cleaner picture but it's still essentially the same movie with a few upgrades, that's basically the same thing that's gone on with these remasters.
If they were just straight ports there may be some kind of validity to this question but so far they've all had graphical and performance improvements so yes they are remasters. When you see a remastered version of an old movie they don't go back and re-shoot the whole thing with better looking costumes etc, there may be some visual effects upgrades, remixed audio and cleaner picture but it's still essentially the same movie with a few upgrades, that's basically the same thing that's gone on with these remasters.
Last edited:
Yes.
In the music field, something is called a "remastered edition" with a lot less effort (e.g., an engineer or two remixing things) than what it takes in the game world (an entire team working for months if not a year or more) to move a game from one architecture to another (no small effort, with PS3 to PS4, btw) and to increase its performance in resolution, framerate, and other various technical details. If they can call modestly remixed albums "remasters," game publishers certainly can do it with their games, too.
It's essentially a marketing term anyway, so trying to police it is pointless.
Last edited:
You know what? I didn't even think about it the way JinCa put it in his first paragraph. He pretty much closed the case.
I guess I prefer Remakes if they're going to port older games across.
That is kind of the definition of remaster, I believe. You know, like how music publishers release remastered music. Remastered just meaning released in a higher quality. But Sony's remastered classics like Last of Us has a lot of nice visual upgrades. Last of Us for PS4 has that "Uncharted 4" waterfall simulation used in it. It also has a cool "shadow occlusion" which looks really good. On top of being released at 1080p and 60 frames. I think it counts. I'll post some of my pics of the game if you'd like t to see how cool it looks.
Enough said when I look at ps4/ps3 comparison screens of these "remasters" and I have no idea which is which. lol worthy.
Try doing with MCC or Gears remaster. It won't happen, not to mention you get the resolution and fps bump in addition.
Try doing with MCC or Gears remaster. It won't happen, not to mention you get the resolution and fps bump in addition.
That is kind of the definition of remaster, I believe. You know, like how music publishers release remastered music. Remastered just meaning released in a higher quality. But Sony's remastered classics like Last of Us has a lot of nice visual upgrades. Last of Us for PS4 has that "Uncharted 4" waterfall simulation used in it. It also has a cool "shadow occlusion" which looks really good. On top of being released at 1080p and 60 frames. I think it counts. I'll post some of my pics of the game if you'd like t to see how cool it looks.
I think in some cases they look good, but overall its very similar to the ps3 games. Almost identical in screenshots. I think remaster is a better label for the xbox games here because they are going in and redoing all the textures, not just porting them over. The word still works on the sony side, just not as well.
Halo is the only game is can think that this is true. And really they did not redo all of the textures. They were just lucky enough to have game assets from Halo 3, ODST, and Halo Reach that near perfectly fit what the Halo remasters needed with minimal texture work to retrofit it all for Halo 1 and 2's artistic styles.
That is kind of the definition of remaster, I believe. You know, like how music publishers release remastered music. Remastered just meaning released in a higher quality. But Sony's remastered classics like Last of Us has a lot of nice visual upgrades. Last of Us for PS4 has that "Uncharted 4" waterfall simulation used in it. It also has a cool "shadow occlusion" which looks really good. On top of being released at 1080p and 60 frames. I think it counts. I'll post some of my pics of the game if you'd like t to see how cool it looks.
I had the TLoU remaster. It looked better in HD. But not amazingly so.
Lulz, was looking at the dudes channel, he has a hard-on for Sony.
On topic. upping res/frame rate is a lot different then completely rebuilding the games graphical assets like halo ce anniversary or halo 2 anniversary.
I feel calling the latter a remaster isn't right, because it's such a dramatic difference. A whole new game really.
A remaster imo would be when perfect dark 64 was brought to xbl.
On topic. upping res/frame rate is a lot different then completely rebuilding the games graphical assets like halo ce anniversary or halo 2 anniversary.
I feel calling the latter a remaster isn't right, because it's such a dramatic difference. A whole new game really.
A remaster imo would be when perfect dark 64 was brought to xbl.
Last edited:
Halo 2 anniversary they did redo the textures, the others are like sony remasters, but I mean, that's 3 other complete games so.
Either way, dude in video has a good point. For some reason MS and sony have completely different ideas about how a remaster should be done. Not sure about you guys, but I would have LOVED for sony to have copied MS's stance and reworked the assets too. That would have been a treat to TLoU in its full glory.
Well yeah 60 fps was nice. But I mean texture improvement was minimal. But the game already looked good.
Or the recently released God of War. It looks nice in HD and is smooth at 60 fps. But some of the textures and especially the character models could have been touched up.
Yeah you clearly said it didn't look "amazingly" different, not sure how anyone could contest that. It wasn't amazingly different, if that was the case I guess Gears will be unbelievable.
I can't imagine a game from 2004 (Halo 2) looking significantly different on hardware 2 generations later compared to a game released late in a console's life (TLoU) and released a year later on a new console... I don't believe you!
Sure the disparity is more from 2 generation ago, but even with Gears they took the time to redo it, last gen, 2 gens, whatever it may be.
They just touched up a little here and there on the already existing assets from Halo Reach and ported them over. That was the benefit of that particular game series assets being so largely self-similar. It makes Halo is an exception to how remakes are handled. You shouldn't you this one example alone to show how Microsoft handles their remaster better than Sony.
In regards to video games, remaster is a term for which there is yet no agreed on definition. http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/793097-gta-v-best-example-means-remaster-game
- Status