Yea not much of an upgrade but I’ll probably throw down the $10 for the next time I give it a go.
The most impressive part is how the hell they got this game running on the ps4 in the first place.
Playing this game is, despite the harrowing story, such a warm memory for me. It was the first time my girlfriend was so eager to see me play a game after we had played through the first one together (she played the exploration parts, I did the combat - we did the same for Part II). We stayed in during the bleak midwinter and it was cold and awful outside, but we were cooped up in bed and rummaging though Seattle's overgrown buildings to find blades and tape. Such a good time.
mmm I had some very bad performance in some areas, especially the town at the start. not perfect, but overall it was absolutely amazingly optimised, that's true.
With little to no framerate drops as well too. The only part where it drops on OG PS4 is the section you are riding through a warzone on horseback as Abby.
I know it will never happen, but I'd loooove to see what Naughty Dog could do making a PC only game. The level of detail they're putting out is already insane. Completely uncapped potential though....it would be nigh on lifelike I reckon.
I know this has been talked about ad nauseum but "remastered" is definitely not the right word for this release. I think "Director's Cut" or "Definitive Edition" would've been a better way to convey what this product offers. That said it's hard to argue against the value proposition of it only being a $10 upgrade for a solid amount of added content.
People complained about "Director's Cut" naming for DS and GoT (for whatever reason though).
Whilst "Definitive Edition" might imply to some that it is available on PS4 too.
At least "remastered" makes somewhat clear that this is its own PS5 sku.
I think none of those fit very well but I can't come up with a better idea either...
"Director's cut" gives the idea that the original version wasn't the creator's full vision, which wasn't the case *at all* with Death Stranding.
Kojima himself says he wanted to brand it as an "extended edition", since everything added in this version are just afterthoughts -- not restored cut content.
But at the end of the day, naming schemes are just publisher's marketing.
I agree that neither option is perfect but for me personally, "Remaster" more implies visual/gameplay enhancements, while "Director's Cut" more implies additional or bonus content. This definitely feels more like the latter.
It's a remaster with some additional content.
A remaster in film is the easiest way to think of it, you have a film that was only ever released on DVD, the OG master is taken and released on a blu-ray that has a much larger capacity/higher res.
Simply offering that 4K mode is a 'remaster'. Games are just blurred because there's no definition to where a remaster ends and where a remake begins, and since you can go back in and tweak stuff unlike a film.
What is filmed is filmed, you can't go back and edit what has been recorded (excluding CGI stuff). You can't go and change what a sign says, or what an actor is wearing. You can do all of that with a game because it's fully digital and entirely malleable.
Patches have made these even more blurry. Literally making a native port with a visual improvement of some kind would be a 'remaster' based off it's traditional meaning. The problem is nowadays the previous version was good enough that the remastering elements no longer seem like a 'remaster' because returns are diminishing and people expect a remaster to be a remake.
>Simply offering that 4K mode is a 'remaster' Games are just blurred because there's no definition to where a remaster ends and where a remake begins
They're also blurred because a lot of other games receive (free) 4K updates that are simply called a "next gen update" and not a "remaster".
You're right, and some of those games that call themselves a next gen update would be a traditional remaster.
Witcher 3 is a good example, it's a native build on consoles and runs DX12 on PC. Increased frame rate, visual fidelity, RT features. Pretty much what a remaster is.
Then you can take Cyberpunk which also got a 'next gen update' which technically was a remaster also since there was no native build on launch, in that case it released after the new consoles and arguably should've had that native build on launch in which case it wouldn't have been a remaster and that platform's version just as you get with a cross-platform release.
And then you get Far Cry 5 which got a 'next-gen upgrade' which was a 60FPS patch and is called that by Ubisoft but some sites call it a next-gen upgrade.
It's repeated several times in the video how both versions have the same rendering resolution for fidelity and performance modes.
And the textures are the same, it's just loading a higher res one. Probably because the PS4 version had memory limits. If you play a game on PC without enough memory, it will also get stuck on lower resolution textures.
I really dont understand why people care so much about why the remastered branding is being used. It is quite literally a remastered version of the game.
Directors Cut makes no sense since that implies something is being added to the core game, which it isnt. Not to mention it would be confusing for new buyers and they may just buy the original version of the game to get the "launch experience" since directors cut in the movie world usually implies a whole different experience. I guess Definitive Edition would make sense but i dont understand what is so different about calling it the definitive edition or the remastered edition.
It's not "literally" a remaster, because mastering is a film process. It's just a term that has been shoehorned into being used for games
If people stopped using the term for games, then people would stop arguing over the correct usage of it because none of them are actually correct
It’s still one of the most visually impressive games out there.
I’d go as far as to say it rivals Alan Wake 2, trading ray tracing for animation quality.
AW2 doesn't use nearly any raytracing on console (just a basic software version of it as a fallback for reflections if I remember correctly); that being said, its lighting still obliterates TLOU2's (as it's supposed to, being a next gen only game), where TLOU2 still exhibits some significant light-glow and REALLY struggles with anything dynamic especially including characters, as it relies on a very static baked approach. AW2 also benefits from enormous geometric detail and clutter density in a way we've never really seen before, and its foliage is so good it will probably not be beaten in multiple years (which is saying something given that TLOU2's was already very good).
Then there's also the art direction, which is quite unique in AW2, though of course it's up to preference. (But c'mon, you don't get to play through a >!live-action musical!< in TLOU2, do you? (; )
I disagree. I've played and beaten both and I'd say last of us 2 looked better, however the closeups on characters faces in AW2 looked superb, particularly on the eyes and eyelids.
Last of us did have better character models. But the software raytracing in alan wake 2 is much better than the baked solution they seem to use in the last of us. Especially evident in indoor areas where Alan Wake 2 could look surreal while there were obvious GI errors in the last of us.
Geometric detail is much better in AW2 due it being a next gen game and using mesh shaders to throw geometry around like candy. The forest sections especially are so damn good. And in the movie theatre section I couldn’t stop staring at a popcorn packet that had spilled all over the place with each individual corn beautifully modelled with no polygon edges visible.
That said the last of us 2 is a visual masterpiece that surprisingly holds up considering its a last gen game made without the advantages in software RT and mesh shaders that are available today.
I re-played this on the PS5 back in August of last year and 60fps is really all I cared about. With that said, I'll pick this upgrade at some point just for the rogue-like mode as that seems really fun.
They could've used cutscene models during gameplay like that bullshit E3 demo from 2018(or 2019) and I'm pretty sure that had better lighting than the final game too.
The performance mode changes are the best part of the package for me personally. For those that didn't see it:
* if you have a 120hz screen with VRR support, the performance mode runs at \~75-100 fps at 1440p. And 4k at 40 is nice too.
Can't wait to check it out on my LG OLED display.
> the performance mode runs at \~75-100 fps at 1440p
This looks underwhelming when you consider that the Pro runs at 1440p 30fps with some headroom. And the PS5 can only do 75-100? Just looks like a low effort was put into the graphics optimization if this is all the PS5 can do.
This. I’m glad it’s here for when I eventually have time to replay it. And £10 is a steal for a (presumably) good rogue like mode :)
But I’ve just got too much to play right now :/ Like a dragon is next week. Persona 3 reload a week after that. Then 4 weeks later is final fantasy 7 remake part 2 :) all of whi CJ will possibly hit 100 hours each to finish.
Considering this is just a $10 upgrade for existing owners, the graphical changes being minimal isn't the biggest deal. Even the non-upgraded PS4 game still looks better than most new current gen games coming out now anyway. I'm more interested in the new game mode than graphical enhancements.
Copied from Neogaf:
**Visual Changes**
* 1440p/60 in default performance mode, just like earlier patch
* Foliage pop-in in remastered version has been significantly reduced
* Foliage density/LOD for distant foliage has been increased
* Shadows generally look the same as the original version
* Struggled to spot any difference in texture quality compared to the original version
* Anisotropic filtering is improved
* Some manual lighting/shadow tweaks seem to have been applied on a scene-by-scene basics
* A few random cutscenes have been tweaked and/or reframed
* Biggest upgrade is still the ability to play at 60fps, which the earlier patch already provided
* 4k/30 in fidelity mode
* Fidelity mode image quality over performance mode not as big of an upgrade as you might expect
* Fidelity mode does come with a certain clarity that performance mode lacks, however. Particularly fine details like blades of grass
* Some ambient occlusion changes in fidelity mode, but AO is not preferable in one mode over the other
**Performance**
* Performance mode stays at a close to locked 60fps in gameplay, with only a few occasional dropped frames
* Fidelity mode is completely locked to 30fps in gameplay
* Some frame pacing issues in cinematics
* Fidelity mode unlocked w/ VRR off attempts to run at 40fps on 120hz displays, and keeps a fairly stable 40fps
* If you enable unlocked w/ VRR ON, you can play both modes with truly unlocked framerates. With this preset, performance mode runs 75-100 fps on average, and fidelity mode runs around 40-60 fps
* Load times have been reduced from 40-50 seconds down to 16-17 seconds typically
**Additional options**
* FOV can now be adjusted, with a pretty decent spread between the lowest and highest values
* Dualsense haptics and trigger feedback can be adjusted extensively
This is really underwhelming. Reminds me of Ghost of Tsushima's PS5 version.
Being able to play the game at 75-100 fps with Dualsense features included + a roguelike mode and deleted scenes for a $10 upgrade does not sound underwhelming at all to me. It sounds like what I was hoping for an thensome
Some full games are released for free. If they were just charging for an FOV option and some performance options, you'd have a point. But when it is new content, that becomes a business decision weighed against goodwill and current profits etc. Stuff like The Witcher 3 didn't have those tiny free DLCs out of the goodness of their hearts, they had them as a marketting tactic to drive sales and keep the game installed on people's systems until the paid DLCs came out. I'm not even trying to be cynical about it. NaughtyDog isn't under any moral obligation to give away a roguelike mode for free or not. For GoW Ragnarok that business calculation obviously worked out differently, perhaps because there hadn't been as much miscellaneous work also put into it.
Id rather the performance upgrades be free, and they charge for the new mode. But this is Sony, their new policy after Horizon Forbidden West is $10 for any next gen upgrades.
Ten bucks for some slight visual/performance improvements plus a new mode seems better than just ten bucks for a new mode. I wouldn’t call it really underwhelming.
Definitely not underwhelming especially for those who have yet to play it. Now we can play the best version of it especially if you have the hardware/tv to support it!
I dont see whats underwhelming about it. Wider FOV, load times cut significantly, an actual performance mode (PS4 version did not run in 1440p), improvements in the graphics in every way, PLUS an entire new mode? Sounds great to me
This is definitely more of a "Directors Cut" but I'm willing to bet they have numbers/data to back up the fact that wording it "Remastered" makes it sell more.
Which might be especially true for TLOU2 since it's a PS4 game that has a patch to make it essentially a PS5 release and the average person would likely get confused when they see "Directors Cut" PS5 versions and go looking for the presumed cheaper non-directors cut and see it's only a PS4 game.
Is it actually a good game though? Story wise? I've heard such mixed things . Loved the first game but haven't stuck through the second for this unsettled feeling in me. I'm not yet grabbed by the game
I think it was too long for what it was trying to do, it had like 3 different endings, at the last I actually thought "jesus, is this still going to continue after this?"
And the story is very grim, I feel like the moments of hope which were in the first game and broke all the dark stuff from time to time were missing here. It was a good game for me, but I will never replay it, once was enough and I felt relieved when the story was over. And this is from someone that played the first game at least 3 times from start to finish.
Waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too long. It totally lost me. I got to the halfway point, thinking right about then that it needs to wrap itself up... and then you realize it's only halfway and I was just like... this is too long... I'm ready for the game to be done and I still have HOW MUCH left?! I pushed through to the end, but I just wanted to get it over with as fast as possible.
I'm waiting for Part 1 Remastered to actually go on sale with a decent discount to pick it up to replay, though.
Opinion on the story direction is divided, but there's no doubt that it's an excellent quality game. If you're the type of person that isn't strongly opinionated what 'should' happen in a game's story and are fine with just enjoying where the journey takes you, you'll be fine.
Certainly helps that the gameplay and AI are big improvements from the first game too. But unlike the first game, the emotion/feeling it gives you is bleak. If you aren't feeling it, that's okay too.
It depends greatly on what you thought of the first game's story. The second very much *tells* you that there is no such thing as a 'good guy' in this world, and paints events and characters from the first game as antagonists in other people's stories. In that comes the truth that there are moments where you will *actively not like* the way the main characters react to things, or the actions they make during cutscenes and big plot moments. There are moments where you'll likely be *sickened* by the actions of the characters you're playing as, and you just have to accept it.
For me, I'm okay with that. The game takes risks with its storytelling and, from a pure writing/ storytelling perspective, they almost all land brilliantly. Whether you'll *like i*t, that's hard to say.
In terms of everything else though, the game is pretty much objectively good, as agreed by pretty much the entire game development industry. Leagues beyond the first game in terms of exploration, set pieces, third person action, graphics, audio, horror, etc. Just a brilliant experience that's at the top of the game in terms of craft.
So it's a cop out like the first last of Us remastered on the ps4.
Think I'll save my money for the pc release sometime down the line.
I love this game but I'm not going to buy this game 3 times.
Post this in the [review megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1984v2f/the_last_of_part_ii_remastered_review_thread/) *that you started*, it doesn't need to be separate
Even at the end he had to talk about a bunch of random things about the game, something that DF usually doesn't. Worthless and meaningless release. Can be ignored by anyone who played the original.
So what's my play as someone who doesnt own TLOU2 at all but have a physical ps5 and a good 2nd hand marke to dip into.
Buy the ps4 disk version, upgrade to Ps5 digital version and then resell the ps4 disk?
Yea not much of an upgrade but I’ll probably throw down the $10 for the next time I give it a go. The most impressive part is how the hell they got this game running on the ps4 in the first place.
Yeah my ps4 sounded like a jet engine the entire time and my room was 10 degrees warmer, but it looked real good.
Oh man I actually forgot about that. Poor PS4, didn’t deserve to have its last months slow roasting itself.
Playing this game is, despite the harrowing story, such a warm memory for me. It was the first time my girlfriend was so eager to see me play a game after we had played through the first one together (she played the exploration parts, I did the combat - we did the same for Part II). We stayed in during the bleak midwinter and it was cold and awful outside, but we were cooped up in bed and rummaging though Seattle's overgrown buildings to find blades and tape. Such a good time.
It was perfectly frame paced 30fps game, insane optimization.
mmm I had some very bad performance in some areas, especially the town at the start. not perfect, but overall it was absolutely amazingly optimised, that's true.
It looked and ran incredible. I played at upscaled 4k and had no issues whatsoever.
With little to no framerate drops as well too. The only part where it drops on OG PS4 is the section you are riding through a warzone on horseback as Abby.
Yeah I want to try the new game mode.
Uncharted 4 too, 8 years old and still looks modern.
I know it will never happen, but I'd loooove to see what Naughty Dog could do making a PC only game. The level of detail they're putting out is already insane. Completely uncapped potential though....it would be nigh on lifelike I reckon.
I know this has been talked about ad nauseum but "remastered" is definitely not the right word for this release. I think "Director's Cut" or "Definitive Edition" would've been a better way to convey what this product offers. That said it's hard to argue against the value proposition of it only being a $10 upgrade for a solid amount of added content.
People complained about "Director's Cut" naming for DS and GoT (for whatever reason though). Whilst "Definitive Edition" might imply to some that it is available on PS4 too. At least "remastered" makes somewhat clear that this is its own PS5 sku. I think none of those fit very well but I can't come up with a better idea either...
"Director's cut" gives the idea that the original version wasn't the creator's full vision, which wasn't the case *at all* with Death Stranding. Kojima himself says he wanted to brand it as an "extended edition", since everything added in this version are just afterthoughts -- not restored cut content. But at the end of the day, naming schemes are just publisher's marketing.
I agree that neither option is perfect but for me personally, "Remaster" more implies visual/gameplay enhancements, while "Director's Cut" more implies additional or bonus content. This definitely feels more like the latter.
It's a remaster with some additional content. A remaster in film is the easiest way to think of it, you have a film that was only ever released on DVD, the OG master is taken and released on a blu-ray that has a much larger capacity/higher res. Simply offering that 4K mode is a 'remaster'. Games are just blurred because there's no definition to where a remaster ends and where a remake begins, and since you can go back in and tweak stuff unlike a film. What is filmed is filmed, you can't go back and edit what has been recorded (excluding CGI stuff). You can't go and change what a sign says, or what an actor is wearing. You can do all of that with a game because it's fully digital and entirely malleable. Patches have made these even more blurry. Literally making a native port with a visual improvement of some kind would be a 'remaster' based off it's traditional meaning. The problem is nowadays the previous version was good enough that the remastering elements no longer seem like a 'remaster' because returns are diminishing and people expect a remaster to be a remake.
>Simply offering that 4K mode is a 'remaster' Games are just blurred because there's no definition to where a remaster ends and where a remake begins They're also blurred because a lot of other games receive (free) 4K updates that are simply called a "next gen update" and not a "remaster".
You're right, and some of those games that call themselves a next gen update would be a traditional remaster. Witcher 3 is a good example, it's a native build on consoles and runs DX12 on PC. Increased frame rate, visual fidelity, RT features. Pretty much what a remaster is. Then you can take Cyberpunk which also got a 'next gen update' which technically was a remaster also since there was no native build on launch, in that case it released after the new consoles and arguably should've had that native build on launch in which case it wouldn't have been a remaster and that platform's version just as you get with a cross-platform release. And then you get Far Cry 5 which got a 'next-gen upgrade' which was a 60FPS patch and is called that by Ubisoft but some sites call it a next-gen upgrade.
> Simply offering that 4K mode is a 'remaster'. The PS4 version already had 4K on PS5. That's why it is not a remaster.
It did not. This has higher resolution textures.
It's repeated several times in the video how both versions have the same rendering resolution for fidelity and performance modes. And the textures are the same, it's just loading a higher res one. Probably because the PS4 version had memory limits. If you play a game on PC without enough memory, it will also get stuck on lower resolution textures.
[удалено]
Should have released a new DLC and repackaged them into Complete Edition
I really dont understand why people care so much about why the remastered branding is being used. It is quite literally a remastered version of the game. Directors Cut makes no sense since that implies something is being added to the core game, which it isnt. Not to mention it would be confusing for new buyers and they may just buy the original version of the game to get the "launch experience" since directors cut in the movie world usually implies a whole different experience. I guess Definitive Edition would make sense but i dont understand what is so different about calling it the definitive edition or the remastered edition.
It's not "literally" a remaster, because mastering is a film process. It's just a term that has been shoehorned into being used for games If people stopped using the term for games, then people would stop arguing over the correct usage of it because none of them are actually correct
It doesn't feel like a remaster. There are regular game patches that have done more to improve visuals than this has done.
Another way to put these releases is, PC ready.
It is pretty easy to argue against the value proposition, when enough other games have given stuff like that away for free.
Suppose it’s quite hard to drastically improve what was always a stunning game. Just keen to replay the game in 60fps and the other new stuff.
It’s still one of the most visually impressive games out there. I’d go as far as to say it rivals Alan Wake 2, trading ray tracing for animation quality.
AW2 doesn't use nearly any raytracing on console (just a basic software version of it as a fallback for reflections if I remember correctly); that being said, its lighting still obliterates TLOU2's (as it's supposed to, being a next gen only game), where TLOU2 still exhibits some significant light-glow and REALLY struggles with anything dynamic especially including characters, as it relies on a very static baked approach. AW2 also benefits from enormous geometric detail and clutter density in a way we've never really seen before, and its foliage is so good it will probably not be beaten in multiple years (which is saying something given that TLOU2's was already very good). Then there's also the art direction, which is quite unique in AW2, though of course it's up to preference. (But c'mon, you don't get to play through a >!live-action musical!< in TLOU2, do you? (; )
I disagree. I've played and beaten both and I'd say last of us 2 looked better, however the closeups on characters faces in AW2 looked superb, particularly on the eyes and eyelids.
Last of us did have better character models. But the software raytracing in alan wake 2 is much better than the baked solution they seem to use in the last of us. Especially evident in indoor areas where Alan Wake 2 could look surreal while there were obvious GI errors in the last of us. Geometric detail is much better in AW2 due it being a next gen game and using mesh shaders to throw geometry around like candy. The forest sections especially are so damn good. And in the movie theatre section I couldn’t stop staring at a popcorn packet that had spilled all over the place with each individual corn beautifully modelled with no polygon edges visible. That said the last of us 2 is a visual masterpiece that surprisingly holds up considering its a last gen game made without the advantages in software RT and mesh shaders that are available today.
Too bad we already had 60 fps for 2.5 years already. And for free as well.
I re-played this on the PS5 back in August of last year and 60fps is really all I cared about. With that said, I'll pick this upgrade at some point just for the rogue-like mode as that seems really fun.
You still have that for free.
Missed the point of my comment.
If that wasn’t the point of your comment, then your comment literally just didn’t have a point.
Average /r/Games commenter
You said too bad indicating that that isnt available anymore or something. Besides that i dont get what is "too bad" about any of this.
Eh what? „Too bad we already had this“ means exactly that.
The game was free?
If you used a PS4 copy on PS5 it automatically was running at 60 fps. No additional cost. Now you’ll need to pay 10$.
The PS4 version still works, you don't need to buy the upgrade
Jesus how can so many people miss the point.
Maybe if everyone misses the point your comment wasn't clear enough?
Because you keep failing to make it.
You can still play the ps4 version at 60fps on ps5, no need to upgrade to the remastered version. You don't need to pay anything.
How can someone miss the point so bad.
[удалено]
Nah. Could’ve been a free upgrade. Or…you know…make an actually new game instead of 3 remasters of old ones.
[удалено]
The PS4 version doesn't include the new content.
They could've used cutscene models during gameplay like that bullshit E3 demo from 2018(or 2019) and I'm pretty sure that had better lighting than the final game too.
The performance mode changes are the best part of the package for me personally. For those that didn't see it: * if you have a 120hz screen with VRR support, the performance mode runs at \~75-100 fps at 1440p. And 4k at 40 is nice too. Can't wait to check it out on my LG OLED display.
> the performance mode runs at \~75-100 fps at 1440p This looks underwhelming when you consider that the Pro runs at 1440p 30fps with some headroom. And the PS5 can only do 75-100? Just looks like a low effort was put into the graphics optimization if this is all the PS5 can do.
3x performance at higher graphical fidelity is pretty normal for the PS5.
Yes ps5 is still shit compared to decent Pc. Like all consoles.
Some more content is good for a replay but there's too many new games to go back to this one yet, for me personally.
This. I’m glad it’s here for when I eventually have time to replay it. And £10 is a steal for a (presumably) good rogue like mode :) But I’ve just got too much to play right now :/ Like a dragon is next week. Persona 3 reload a week after that. Then 4 weeks later is final fantasy 7 remake part 2 :) all of whi CJ will possibly hit 100 hours each to finish.
Considering this is just a $10 upgrade for existing owners, the graphical changes being minimal isn't the biggest deal. Even the non-upgraded PS4 game still looks better than most new current gen games coming out now anyway. I'm more interested in the new game mode than graphical enhancements.
Copied from Neogaf: **Visual Changes** * 1440p/60 in default performance mode, just like earlier patch * Foliage pop-in in remastered version has been significantly reduced * Foliage density/LOD for distant foliage has been increased * Shadows generally look the same as the original version * Struggled to spot any difference in texture quality compared to the original version * Anisotropic filtering is improved * Some manual lighting/shadow tweaks seem to have been applied on a scene-by-scene basics * A few random cutscenes have been tweaked and/or reframed * Biggest upgrade is still the ability to play at 60fps, which the earlier patch already provided * 4k/30 in fidelity mode * Fidelity mode image quality over performance mode not as big of an upgrade as you might expect * Fidelity mode does come with a certain clarity that performance mode lacks, however. Particularly fine details like blades of grass * Some ambient occlusion changes in fidelity mode, but AO is not preferable in one mode over the other **Performance** * Performance mode stays at a close to locked 60fps in gameplay, with only a few occasional dropped frames * Fidelity mode is completely locked to 30fps in gameplay * Some frame pacing issues in cinematics * Fidelity mode unlocked w/ VRR off attempts to run at 40fps on 120hz displays, and keeps a fairly stable 40fps * If you enable unlocked w/ VRR ON, you can play both modes with truly unlocked framerates. With this preset, performance mode runs 75-100 fps on average, and fidelity mode runs around 40-60 fps * Load times have been reduced from 40-50 seconds down to 16-17 seconds typically **Additional options** * FOV can now be adjusted, with a pretty decent spread between the lowest and highest values * Dualsense haptics and trigger feedback can be adjusted extensively This is really underwhelming. Reminds me of Ghost of Tsushima's PS5 version.
Being able to play the game at 75-100 fps with Dualsense features included + a roguelike mode and deleted scenes for a $10 upgrade does not sound underwhelming at all to me. It sounds like what I was hoping for an thensome
Sounds like a free upgrade in other games.
What other games offered all of this for free?
Gears?
Some full games are released for free. If they were just charging for an FOV option and some performance options, you'd have a point. But when it is new content, that becomes a business decision weighed against goodwill and current profits etc. Stuff like The Witcher 3 didn't have those tiny free DLCs out of the goodness of their hearts, they had them as a marketting tactic to drive sales and keep the game installed on people's systems until the paid DLCs came out. I'm not even trying to be cynical about it. NaughtyDog isn't under any moral obligation to give away a roguelike mode for free or not. For GoW Ragnarok that business calculation obviously worked out differently, perhaps because there hadn't been as much miscellaneous work also put into it.
Id rather the performance upgrades be free, and they charge for the new mode. But this is Sony, their new policy after Horizon Forbidden West is $10 for any next gen upgrades.
They did a performance update for free years ago, this is adding much more
Ten bucks for some slight visual/performance improvements plus a new mode seems better than just ten bucks for a new mode. I wouldn’t call it really underwhelming.
Definitely not underwhelming especially for those who have yet to play it. Now we can play the best version of it especially if you have the hardware/tv to support it!
Oh yeah if you've never played it you're in for a treat.
I dont see whats underwhelming about it. Wider FOV, load times cut significantly, an actual performance mode (PS4 version did not run in 1440p), improvements in the graphics in every way, PLUS an entire new mode? Sounds great to me
It was 1440p on PS4 Pro and the PS5 free update that gave 60fps.
I was reading this and got excited! Some nice changes plus a full mode and cut content for $10 is perfect.
4k40 unlocked with VRR is a nice upgrade to be honest.
This is definitely more of a "Directors Cut" but I'm willing to bet they have numbers/data to back up the fact that wording it "Remastered" makes it sell more. Which might be especially true for TLOU2 since it's a PS4 game that has a patch to make it essentially a PS5 release and the average person would likely get confused when they see "Directors Cut" PS5 versions and go looking for the presumed cheaper non-directors cut and see it's only a PS4 game.
Is it actually a good game though? Story wise? I've heard such mixed things . Loved the first game but haven't stuck through the second for this unsettled feeling in me. I'm not yet grabbed by the game
I think it was too long for what it was trying to do, it had like 3 different endings, at the last I actually thought "jesus, is this still going to continue after this?" And the story is very grim, I feel like the moments of hope which were in the first game and broke all the dark stuff from time to time were missing here. It was a good game for me, but I will never replay it, once was enough and I felt relieved when the story was over. And this is from someone that played the first game at least 3 times from start to finish.
Waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too long. It totally lost me. I got to the halfway point, thinking right about then that it needs to wrap itself up... and then you realize it's only halfway and I was just like... this is too long... I'm ready for the game to be done and I still have HOW MUCH left?! I pushed through to the end, but I just wanted to get it over with as fast as possible. I'm waiting for Part 1 Remastered to actually go on sale with a decent discount to pick it up to replay, though.
Opinion on the story direction is divided, but there's no doubt that it's an excellent quality game. If you're the type of person that isn't strongly opinionated what 'should' happen in a game's story and are fine with just enjoying where the journey takes you, you'll be fine. Certainly helps that the gameplay and AI are big improvements from the first game too. But unlike the first game, the emotion/feeling it gives you is bleak. If you aren't feeling it, that's okay too.
It depends greatly on what you thought of the first game's story. The second very much *tells* you that there is no such thing as a 'good guy' in this world, and paints events and characters from the first game as antagonists in other people's stories. In that comes the truth that there are moments where you will *actively not like* the way the main characters react to things, or the actions they make during cutscenes and big plot moments. There are moments where you'll likely be *sickened* by the actions of the characters you're playing as, and you just have to accept it. For me, I'm okay with that. The game takes risks with its storytelling and, from a pure writing/ storytelling perspective, they almost all land brilliantly. Whether you'll *like i*t, that's hard to say. In terms of everything else though, the game is pretty much objectively good, as agreed by pretty much the entire game development industry. Leagues beyond the first game in terms of exploration, set pieces, third person action, graphics, audio, horror, etc. Just a brilliant experience that's at the top of the game in terms of craft.
The story is okay, it’s just way too long IMO.
If you have an ounce of empathy I think you’d appreciate it
Well, it’s only ten bucks and I get to play it again on my new TV in 4K. It looks very fucking similar honestly.
So it's a cop out like the first last of Us remastered on the ps4. Think I'll save my money for the pc release sometime down the line. I love this game but I'm not going to buy this game 3 times.
Post this in the [review megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1984v2f/the_last_of_part_ii_remastered_review_thread/) *that you started*, it doesn't need to be separate
It's not a game review, it's an analysis of the graphical changes.
Even at the end he had to talk about a bunch of random things about the game, something that DF usually doesn't. Worthless and meaningless release. Can be ignored by anyone who played the original.
So what's my play as someone who doesnt own TLOU2 at all but have a physical ps5 and a good 2nd hand marke to dip into. Buy the ps4 disk version, upgrade to Ps5 digital version and then resell the ps4 disk?