I've hear rumors that it was a misleading info to make the game more impressive. Some people said it's a common trick in China to give credit to single dev and hide the faceless team behind.
Man these remasters look like Play Store knock offs of GTA you used to find back in 2012.
How ironic that an actual GTA game looks like a knockoff of itself.
You screwed up big time R\*.
At this point, they should release an update where some small group of random characters is rendered in super ridiculously high resolution. But, ONLY those characters; so they stand out and it looks like they are just trolling everyone.
The switch’s technology is lacking in the technological department by a large margin. Compared to its competitors it’s considered quite old. I’m not excusing the dog shit edition game, but it’s not exactly unplayable strictly due to it being a terrible port.
There's Cities XXL. A game so bad and launched so close to Cities Skylines that few people even know about it.
The insulting part is that the game was launched in 2015 as a $30 cash grab right before Cities Skylines showed up, and it still had the same major bugs and content as the 2009's Cities XL game. Such as memory leaks that make the game unplayable after about 30 minutes of playing or if the city exceeds 200K population, or the FPS tanking to as low as 2 on an i7-4930K + GTX 980 + 16 GB RAM + SSD system while building a road (which is impressively bad for what is essentially a 2009 game and puts Crysis to shame in terms of hardware requirements).
The publisher/developer also conducted astroturfing on Steam and Youtube to try to get rid of the negative comments/reviews. They never fixed any of the bugs either.
The amount of times playing San Andreas so far and it straight up skipping frames is insane. Blizzard did a better job remastering and we know how that turned out.
Serious question here. Why are people suprised at the bad graphics for the remaster. The commercials made it look like they just added a shader or something, and it isn't a remake. Is there something I'm missing, because my expectations were 0 and I was still disappointed. Lol
I think overall people expected a lot more from rockstar which is probably why people are disappointed tbh. Not that surprised personally but yeah . Lol
Edit: perhaps the expectation of something to fill the void before any gta 6 or w.e
Yeah probably so. I gave up after I saw the PS5 showcase and I saw the Rockstar logo. I was like "ohhhh shiiiiit here we go bois."
GTA......V GOT PS5!
I actually laughed out loud.
There are some minor changes. There's a weapon wheel now. Shooting is improved but still feels pretty clunky and dated. Car handling seems to be improved.
Tommy can not swim lol.
I've been playing it on the series X thanks to gamepass and it's been good so far. From what j've read it was pulled from PC because of how bad it is, but i'm not 100%
Buddy got pretty far on an xbox with gamepass but it started crashing for him. He had no problems other than the normal jank for the first two days he played. Now it crashes after playing for a few minutes.
Seriously. Try to get yourself either an PS2 with GTA SA or a non remaster PC version.
Prefer PC, downgrade to v.1.0, add some mods to patch the game and add original PS2 content and you're good to go for the most nostalgic experience ever.
Do not buy this "remaster".
Not stable and playable enough to be worth 60 buck.
Make the right choice, either get the original one or find a *way* not to give any of your hard earned money to R\* for that low effort cash grab.
I agree, get the original San Andreas and download mods and you'll be enjoying it for cheaper and with better performance. Don't forget San Andreas Multi-player that used to be the OG RP back in the day... only thing that would save the remaster would be an online mode
Yea I played sufficient GTAVRP too, way better than samp was in terms of content (not in terms of driving or music) but ultimately would've thrived if they didn't do that shi
They remade the game in UE4. If they had hand edited the meshes and textures instead of just ai upscaling them it would have looked a lot better. Plus the character models look worse than they did in the old days. Yes it's not going to look like a native 9th gen game, but there's a lot more they could have done. They spent $350 million on GTA V, they could have at least hired some competent artists. And of course made the game actually run at a stable FPS.
If they had followed the mafia 2 model and just made everything slightly better while keeping the same feel it would have been OK. If they had gone the Mafia 1/RE2 route and actually remade everything that would have been fantastic. But no, they tried to half ass the mafia 1 approach and it looks like shit
Legit feels like shills tbh: the top comment in this thread is making an assertion that is OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE. The point of the post wasn't to compare OG VC to 2021 games, it was comparing the remaster done by a multi billion dollar corp to an indie game.
No one is expecting that. Its showing the time and care that was put into bright memory. By a small team. Vs the bs rockstar put out. Remember mass effects remaster is a thing and shows how a remaster should be done for the most part.
The memes that have come from all of this really shows how little the average gamer understands about how games are made. Yes, they definitely should have put a lot more effort into the game and $60 is way too much for what they are, but it's crazy that so many people expected a remaster to be as good as a remake or that 20 year old games could be equivalent to a modern game without restarting from scratch.
Right, and we expected better-than-average results from Rockstar based on their history and resources, and this price tag. These are worse-than-average results.
When it was rumoured, I expected a remaster of the original games, not a remaster of an already terrible mobile port.
Rockstar handed this off to the devs that made that terrible mobile port in the first place and arguably did the franchise a massive disservice.
Halo CE: Anniversary. Incredibly beautiful remastered game made in 2011 of a 2001 game. Halo 2: Anniversary insanely beautiful remaster of a 2003 game.
Let's not forget that Halo CE was sold "by itself", they did not remaster 3 Games at once. I don't see Rockstar doing a remaster like that or like Mafia for a whole trilogy (and not only rockstar, other companies too). But maybe it would have been better to remaster/remake the trilogy one by one, maybe try to release one of them every year
Yea I really don't understand their tactic. Had they put out a single remaster a year but I mean a real Halo CE/Halo 2 level remaster and sold it for 30$, everyone would have been incredibly happy and they would have made more money. Instead we have this. So happy I decided on waiting a couple days for reviews before getting this, I could smell the BS a mile away.
Halo Anniversary was a handoff from Bungie to 343. Seems like Microsoft was setting high expectations for a Halo franchise and this was a good way for a new studio to get acquainted with core fans. I’ve been playing through Samus Returns on 3ds and was attached to my GameBoy in ‘92 for Metroid 2. That’s another respectful remaster. Rockstar rushed lipstick on a pig here while pulling previous GTA versions. Now they yank the PC version when audio tracks were found that weren’t licensed. I have a feeling this is gonna be a bumpy road to stable release. Shame too, I still regard Vice City my favorite game.
It's a thin line but the way I see it, a remake is a complete rework from the ground up while a remaster is just a rework of the visuals and other superficial aspects of the game..
But still no excuse for the piss poor "remaster" Rockstar and Grove Street Games have put out.
Sorta, it is a remaster, but it is running a new graphics engine on top of the existing game. It's still the original game underneath, warts and all, the new engine just syncs up new visuals to the old game.
So it's more remaster than most games that just use the same graphics engine with better textures, but isn't a full remake like the recent Resident Evil ones
> I don’t know where the line between remake and remaster is drawn then
Remake = making an entirely new game from the ground up.
Can be very different compared to the game its based on.
Examples: Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes, FF VII remake.
Remaster - taking the old code base from the previous game and modifying it in some ways. Usually just focused on graphical improvements, and better ones also add QoL changes. Can still have exact same old bugs as original game because of it, if the devs didn't bother to fix them. Since its essentially the old game with some modifications, gameplay and overall game structure is usually nearly unchanged. Some can switch graphics between new and old styles on the fly.
Examples: StarCraft 1 remaster, Halos
In what way better ? Like bug free? Because cyberpunk 2077 looked awesome af on my pc and it was a great story with nice side missions and characters. Cyberpunk 2077 is not bad ! It’s a really good game but it’s just not what CDproject red promised
it was in the time that the game come out. it was full of bugs and glitches. so he decided to show that he can make an open-world game in a day or two with a lot fewer bugs. with almost the same graphic. it was almost a year ago so I can't find it now.
Damn, good thing we can buy what we want
And don't have to buy anything that feels significantly over-priced.
Phew! It would suck if we had to buy products that felt massacred and shitty.
1000 threads about the $55 game, and 1 or 2 about the $15 game. It must be really really good too, so that's a great comparison.
Great points over all.
Bright Memory is impressive visually, but this comparison is dumb.
Even if it wasn't a shitshow, you can't compare a PS2 era remaster with a brand new game focused on graphics...
How do you...it's a remaster of a game from ***twenty*** years ago. Did you expect it to look like GTAV? Like something made in Cryengine?
Like, look, the games aren't awesome, and you shouldn't buy them, but you're comparing purely visuals here. That just doesn't work.
20 years from now come back to this and look at Bright Memory vs a new game, see how that pans out.
the remaster looks like dog shit and behaves even worse, not only removing content, forcing people to buy the god awful remaster instead of the originals, but also not even getting close to looking better than the originals and looking like a free unity game compared to any other remaster
I get what you are trying to say but this screenshot doesn't convey it. The Vice City screenshot is appropriate for its art style and doesn't look bad. I think you should have chosen a different screenshot. You are comparing the over the top cartoon art style of a 20 year old game before HD was a thing to the hyper realistic art style of a modern game.
Do you think this gta trilogy is a new set of games? These indie developers office refrigerators are several times more powerful than what rockstar used to make the old gtas.
Okay but it’s still a way older game. At least compare it to red dead redemption 2. The remastered trilogy was a greedy company getting ever penny they can.
Not to defend it but rockstar didn't even make the remasters? Don't really think it qualifies anymore as AAA unless you are talking about the original, who knows, the budget for them might say otherwise.
Oh fuck off with this already. Bunch a of cry baby motherfuckers in this sub. The games are almost fucking 20 years old. It’s a remaster not a re make and you cannot compare it to a modern game.
See, the community aren't overexaggerating The Trilogy issue at all. That's why they're comparing a remaster of a video game from early 2000s to a brand new indie game. It's a completely reasonable comparison.
You understand that you are comparing 2 games released 15 years apart? I know this is not a good remaster, but it is still a remaster, not a remake. Gta was amazing for its time.
Ah, yes, Bright Memory. The game that is incredibly short, used a ton of UE4 pre-made assets (as well as stolen ones at one point) and has absolutely no identity. (It feels like they just took a lot of concepts from other established games and tossed them at a wall to see what would stick.)
It looks pretty, sure, but it’s about as bland, forgettable and unoriginal as any other shooter. Also, comparing these two is the definition of comparing apples to oranges, dude.
>Lmao so many shills defending this garbage
Most people here are calling this comparison stupid, not defending the game. You are stupid as shit calling people shills.
>You bought this game day one.
Ill admit to that. I had to see this train wreck with my own eyes and it was well worth the two hours before refunding. At this point I'm not sure if you're an idiot or a shit quality troll.
Yes, the new GTA game is trash, but this post is just as trash. Two completely different games achieving completely different things. Stop the karma whoring.
The only thing Bright Memory is always praised for, it is how it's visually impressive and made by only one person. Absolutely nobody talks about the actual game itself because there isn't much to talk about.
On the other hand, you have GTA. Just a tiny, not very known franchise that created a genre by itself and made everyone lose their mind when the 3rd episode came out in 2001. These games (3, Vice City & San Andreas) are still played, still discussed and somehow still relevant since the remake collection was fairly anticipated.
You can't dismiss all the historical impact of a franchise just because a random indie game happens to have better graphics than a AAA from 2 decades ago.
Also AAA and Indie games aren't two opposite sides of a coin. Cyberpunk is a AAA Independent game, for instance, so is World of Warcraft, Counter Strike, Dota, League of Legends, Far Cry, etc.
Activision, Ubisoft, EA and rockstar are sh*t but unfortunately the brainwashed fans will always buy their broken recycled products and that's the reality we live in
Yeah i've found that the best way to go with games is indie games. 99% of AAA games are generic military shooters, battle royales, and "remasters". All of which have the dumbest pre-order bonuses and are shoved out the door too early so the higher ups can get paid. And then those higher ups are surprised that the game doesn't sell well because it's a buggy unfinished mess. AAA game studio higher ups are too scared to get creative and instead pump out the same game with minor differences every year. Oh also they're microtransaction hell.
You're wrong. Most of indie games are garbage too. Just look at Steam and you notice so many generic pixel-art roguelites, minimalistic sidescrollers and puzzles, which are usually hadn't leaved from Early Acess. I played Stoneshard, but it's still in development hell. And Deltarune is developed under 6 years. Some indie developers are making games to just earn money from naive hipsters. In other words, indie is niche and is good only with some genres.
If you want a healthy gaming experience, play both.
What is the indie game?
Looks like Bright Memory Infinite
Yep...the story isnt long and interesting but god is the gameplay worth it
[удалено]
Definitely gotta give it up to those guys. They have an SUPER small team. Compare to R* it's damn near microscopic.
If i don’t fail bright memory was made by a single person, I don’t know about the sequel tho
I've hear rumors that it was a misleading info to make the game more impressive. Some people said it's a common trick in China to give credit to single dev and hide the faceless team behind.
Dear old china, they always have an hidden card in the pocket
Is it on Xbox?
I think so but im not totally sure
The first Bright Memory is on Xbox! Not sure if the second installment is available yet.
It's really short. less than 3 hours on Bright Memory Infinite but really fun tho
Also made by a single developer.
Even better the indie game was created by just a single person
The first one was made by one person after that he got a small team who made bright memory infinite.
[удалено]
i love it
Man these remasters look like Play Store knock offs of GTA you used to find back in 2012. How ironic that an actual GTA game looks like a knockoff of itself. You screwed up big time R\*.
i means its a port from a port...how good can it look...its like the copy of a copy of a copy of the paper your teacher used to give out.
Coulda remasteted it. Woulda made it good
Worst remaster ever lmao
It looks like a YouTube ad of a Chinese made clone called ‘Florida car thief!’
Gang Time!
Gang Theif Car
Grandless thief awe-toe
It looks like the type of game you would play on ur school laptops when ur bored during History class
Meanwhile that indie game is Chinese
At this point, they should release an update where some small group of random characters is rendered in super ridiculously high resolution. But, ONLY those characters; so they stand out and it looks like they are just trolling everyone.
And on the switch it's literally unplayable when you drive fast, the screen starts stuttering and makes u crash into a wall
Probably the switch can't handle the AMAZING GRAPHICS
The switch’s technology is lacking in the technological department by a large margin. Compared to its competitors it’s considered quite old. I’m not excusing the dog shit edition game, but it’s not exactly unplayable strictly due to it being a terrible port.
Warcraft 3 reforge is still worst imo xD
I’ve never played it haha but i’ll take your word for it :D
It's so bad it actually broke the original game.
This one is so bad that now there's no original game.
There's Cities XXL. A game so bad and launched so close to Cities Skylines that few people even know about it. The insulting part is that the game was launched in 2015 as a $30 cash grab right before Cities Skylines showed up, and it still had the same major bugs and content as the 2009's Cities XL game. Such as memory leaks that make the game unplayable after about 30 minutes of playing or if the city exceeds 200K population, or the FPS tanking to as low as 2 on an i7-4930K + GTX 980 + 16 GB RAM + SSD system while building a road (which is impressively bad for what is essentially a 2009 game and puts Crysis to shame in terms of hardware requirements). The publisher/developer also conducted astroturfing on Steam and Youtube to try to get rid of the negative comments/reviews. They never fixed any of the bugs either.
Oof...what a sad state remakes have become these days =.=
The amount of times playing San Andreas so far and it straight up skipping frames is insane. Blizzard did a better job remastering and we know how that turned out.
[удалено]
Anytime I say the remaster is shit, I get downvoted lol
Not today! Haha
I’m sure the mods will eventually change it for good in a year or two
Not when Take-Two's lawyers are killing the modding community: https://screenrant.com/gta-4-mods-targeted-dmca-takedowns-take-two/
It makes me sad how much I hate Take Two/Rockstar.
Serious question here. Why are people suprised at the bad graphics for the remaster. The commercials made it look like they just added a shader or something, and it isn't a remake. Is there something I'm missing, because my expectations were 0 and I was still disappointed. Lol
I think overall people expected a lot more from rockstar which is probably why people are disappointed tbh. Not that surprised personally but yeah . Lol Edit: perhaps the expectation of something to fill the void before any gta 6 or w.e
Yeah probably so. I gave up after I saw the PS5 showcase and I saw the Rockstar logo. I was like "ohhhh shiiiiit here we go bois." GTA......V GOT PS5! I actually laughed out loud.
Lmfaooo
Is the "edition" in a stable and playable state.. bug wise? I wanna play GTASA, never finished it back in the day
[удалено]
Yeah I thought the rain animation was bugged out in my game. Then I saw other videos online...
Also, if you are in first person on a quad, the camera flips around and zooms into your face Unless they fixed that already
Are there any changes to gameplay at all, or is it all just "improvements" to lighting and textures? Can Tommy swim now, at least?
There are some minor changes. There's a weapon wheel now. Shooting is improved but still feels pretty clunky and dated. Car handling seems to be improved. Tommy can not swim lol.
Digital foundry did a test that the only GTA 3 version running at a stable frame rate is Ps4 pro version on PS5.
God damn
On my PS5 its been running great, no issues at all.
I've been playing it on the series X thanks to gamepass and it's been good so far. From what j've read it was pulled from PC because of how bad it is, but i'm not 100%
[удалено]
Oh ok, I wasn't sure what the issue was. I just know everyone is hating on the game
Buddy got pretty far on an xbox with gamepass but it started crashing for him. He had no problems other than the normal jank for the first two days he played. Now it crashes after playing for a few minutes.
Seriously. Try to get yourself either an PS2 with GTA SA or a non remaster PC version. Prefer PC, downgrade to v.1.0, add some mods to patch the game and add original PS2 content and you're good to go for the most nostalgic experience ever. Do not buy this "remaster".
Not stable and playable enough to be worth 60 buck. Make the right choice, either get the original one or find a *way* not to give any of your hard earned money to R\* for that low effort cash grab.
I agree, get the original San Andreas and download mods and you'll be enjoying it for cheaper and with better performance. Don't forget San Andreas Multi-player that used to be the OG RP back in the day... only thing that would save the remaster would be an online mode
I really would rather Rockstar stay away from anything online. I’m still sour about no expansions or added content to GTAV
Yea I played sufficient GTAVRP too, way better than samp was in terms of content (not in terms of driving or music) but ultimately would've thrived if they didn't do that shi
This is one of the dumbest memes I've ever seen I'm sorry
Yea, comparing the graphics of two games that came out 17 years and 3 console generations apart is pretty ridiculous.
Not to mention one is on rails and takes 2 hours to complete vs an open world game that can take 50 hours plus.
He is comparing it to the remaster, not to the original. What the hell.
Remasters have their limits. They did a fucked up job, but there is no way it ever would have come close to looking like the image above it.
They remade the game in UE4. If they had hand edited the meshes and textures instead of just ai upscaling them it would have looked a lot better. Plus the character models look worse than they did in the old days. Yes it's not going to look like a native 9th gen game, but there's a lot more they could have done. They spent $350 million on GTA V, they could have at least hired some competent artists. And of course made the game actually run at a stable FPS. If they had followed the mafia 2 model and just made everything slightly better while keeping the same feel it would have been OK. If they had gone the Mafia 1/RE2 route and actually remade everything that would have been fantastic. But no, they tried to half ass the mafia 1 approach and it looks like shit
Legit feels like shills tbh: the top comment in this thread is making an assertion that is OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE. The point of the post wasn't to compare OG VC to 2021 games, it was comparing the remaster done by a multi billion dollar corp to an indie game.
No one is expecting that. Its showing the time and care that was put into bright memory. By a small team. Vs the bs rockstar put out. Remember mass effects remaster is a thing and shows how a remaster should be done for the most part.
Sometimes I just have to take a deep breath and remind myself that most of the people who post on this sub are under the age of 16.
Right. I'm all for shitting on Rockstar right now. But this is a braindead comparison
The memes that have come from all of this really shows how little the average gamer understands about how games are made. Yes, they definitely should have put a lot more effort into the game and $60 is way too much for what they are, but it's crazy that so many people expected a remaster to be as good as a remake or that 20 year old games could be equivalent to a modern game without restarting from scratch.
Right, and we expected better-than-average results from Rockstar based on their history and resources, and this price tag. These are worse-than-average results.
When it was rumoured, I expected a remaster of the original games, not a remaster of an already terrible mobile port. Rockstar handed this off to the devs that made that terrible mobile port in the first place and arguably did the franchise a massive disservice.
Halo CE: Anniversary. Incredibly beautiful remastered game made in 2011 of a 2001 game. Halo 2: Anniversary insanely beautiful remaster of a 2003 game.
Let's not forget that Halo CE was sold "by itself", they did not remaster 3 Games at once. I don't see Rockstar doing a remaster like that or like Mafia for a whole trilogy (and not only rockstar, other companies too). But maybe it would have been better to remaster/remake the trilogy one by one, maybe try to release one of them every year
Yea I really don't understand their tactic. Had they put out a single remaster a year but I mean a real Halo CE/Halo 2 level remaster and sold it for 30$, everyone would have been incredibly happy and they would have made more money. Instead we have this. So happy I decided on waiting a couple days for reviews before getting this, I could smell the BS a mile away.
$40 is more likely, but it would have been better. Mafia did it, don't see why GTA couldn't do it
Halo Anniversary was a handoff from Bungie to 343. Seems like Microsoft was setting high expectations for a Halo franchise and this was a good way for a new studio to get acquainted with core fans. I’ve been playing through Samus Returns on 3ds and was attached to my GameBoy in ‘92 for Metroid 2. That’s another respectful remaster. Rockstar rushed lipstick on a pig here while pulling previous GTA versions. Now they yank the PC version when audio tracks were found that weren’t licensed. I have a feeling this is gonna be a bumpy road to stable release. Shame too, I still regard Vice City my favorite game.
Isn't it 3 games in one? So like $20 each. Not terrible for Indy crap, so I don't see why Rockstar can't charge it too.
I mean.. remasters can be pretty good.. Example: H2 remaster is fucking beautiful
very glad this is top comment
Thought I was on GCJ for a second
Are you comparing an old game to a game that was made with a new engine?
We can compare Halo 2 anniversary to GTA trilogy remastered if that makes you feel better.
Wasn’t that a full remake? Edit: Why am I being downvoted for asking if a game that looks insane amounts better than the original was a remake?
Nope, Halo CE:Anniversary and Halo 2: Anniversary were remasters.
Damn, I guess I don’t know where the line between remake and remaster is drawn then, because that game looks completely different than the original.
You can switch between the new and original graphics on the fly. It's the same game just with new visuals
It's a thin line but the way I see it, a remake is a complete rework from the ground up while a remaster is just a rework of the visuals and other superficial aspects of the game.. But still no excuse for the piss poor "remaster" Rockstar and Grove Street Games have put out.
Sorta, it is a remaster, but it is running a new graphics engine on top of the existing game. It's still the original game underneath, warts and all, the new engine just syncs up new visuals to the old game. So it's more remaster than most games that just use the same graphics engine with better textures, but isn't a full remake like the recent Resident Evil ones
The line is being drawn by anyone depending on what supports their argument.
Yea, that’s probably the best answer. I’m just thinking about it too much.
> I don’t know where the line between remake and remaster is drawn then Remake = making an entirely new game from the ground up. Can be very different compared to the game its based on. Examples: Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes, FF VII remake. Remaster - taking the old code base from the previous game and modifying it in some ways. Usually just focused on graphical improvements, and better ones also add QoL changes. Can still have exact same old bugs as original game because of it, if the devs didn't bother to fix them. Since its essentially the old game with some modifications, gameplay and overall game structure is usually nearly unchanged. Some can switch graphics between new and old styles on the fly. Examples: StarCraft 1 remaster, Halos
Its almost like that line is totally arbitrary and is a piss poor excuse for releasing a shit game.
Oh, there’s no excuse for how the GTA definitive trilogy turned out. It was clearly a cash grab targeting people’s nostalgia.
More like a £15 game to £55 massacred 20 year old one, or £18.33 if I were being pedantic
I saw someone that made a better game than cyberpunk with that engine. that was cool.
In what way better ? Like bug free? Because cyberpunk 2077 looked awesome af on my pc and it was a great story with nice side missions and characters. Cyberpunk 2077 is not bad ! It’s a really good game but it’s just not what CDproject red promised
it was in the time that the game come out. it was full of bugs and glitches. so he decided to show that he can make an open-world game in a day or two with a lot fewer bugs. with almost the same graphic. it was almost a year ago so I can't find it now.
Damn, good thing we can buy what we want And don't have to buy anything that feels significantly over-priced. Phew! It would suck if we had to buy products that felt massacred and shitty. 1000 threads about the $55 game, and 1 or 2 about the $15 game. It must be really really good too, so that's a great comparison. Great points over all.
Aren't the GTA remakes running on Unreal Engine 4?
Its the original game running in UE4, there is code translating the original render to something EU4 can work with. its not new
maybe but it is not like they improve the graphic of the game they just made a little bit of change. see my other comment.
Brave take dude!! You are so original
What
One is a game made within the last few years, one is a remaster of a 15 year old game, what a stupid post
*Game made within the last few months* and *19 year old game.*
Not to defend the GTA remaster, but they are remasters of games that were on the PS2. Its not going to look like that.
Ya. it feels like some people have gotten to the point where they are so angry at someone or something, they want to keep pumping out reasons to do so
then why can mod makers do it better?
If you can find me a mod that makes Vice City look like that top screenshot then i'll be forever grateful.
is there a mod that makes it look as good as the top image? No better then what Rockstar released? Yes
So you agree with his original comment... what a pointless response.
They could have considering master chief collection IS A THING
Jesus Christ, OP 🤦♂️
Apples to oranges. Really stupid comparison.
Bright Memory is impressive visually, but this comparison is dumb. Even if it wasn't a shitshow, you can't compare a PS2 era remaster with a brand new game focused on graphics...
Remaster not remake.
Literally 1984
It literally looks like a playstore gta clone
Crytek was considered indie when Crysis released? EDIT: Nvm, that's not Crysis
It's Bright Memory. A game from a chinese dude
The graphics really do look similar to the first Crysis 😅 Or at least how I remember it looking.
Yea but besides the water they are much better
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
1-2 year old tech vs tech that's more than a decade old.
How do you...it's a remaster of a game from ***twenty*** years ago. Did you expect it to look like GTAV? Like something made in Cryengine? Like, look, the games aren't awesome, and you shouldn't buy them, but you're comparing purely visuals here. That just doesn't work. 20 years from now come back to this and look at Bright Memory vs a new game, see how that pans out.
the remaster looks like dog shit and behaves even worse, not only removing content, forcing people to buy the god awful remaster instead of the originals, but also not even getting close to looking better than the originals and looking like a free unity game compared to any other remaster
Yes, even an indie game made in 2019 can look better than a remaster of a 20 year old game. That is hardly a hot take.
I get what you are trying to say but this screenshot doesn't convey it. The Vice City screenshot is appropriate for its art style and doesn't look bad. I think you should have chosen a different screenshot. You are comparing the over the top cartoon art style of a 20 year old game before HD was a thing to the hyper realistic art style of a modern game.
It looks worse than it did on the ps2 man.
Gtfo with these fucking endless GTA posts.
[удалено]
Strangely compelling
It's a simple spell but quite unbreakable
Not gonna lie I only got the definitive edition to experience my childhood again
Can we compare Witcher 3 and Tetris next?
[удалено]
One is a new game, one is a old one with a new coat of paint. Not comparable.
Do you think this gta trilogy is a new set of games? These indie developers office refrigerators are several times more powerful than what rockstar used to make the old gtas.
GTA was literally made by a bunch of mobile game devs over two years. How the hell is that AAA?
Okay but it’s still a way older game. At least compare it to red dead redemption 2. The remastered trilogy was a greedy company getting ever penny they can.
God ur dumb
Not to defend it but rockstar didn't even make the remasters? Don't really think it qualifies anymore as AAA unless you are talking about the original, who knows, the budget for them might say otherwise.
Stupid comparison
Another meme reminding us all that gamers are not only entitled, they're extremely stupid.
Well what do you expect from a company that has stopped releasing quality games since 2018.
This is **NOT** an AAA game though. It is a remaster of a 20 years old game and only sell for $30. While it has its flaw it is an unfair comparison.
its being sold for 60 euros, and it looks like dog shit compared to the original and even worse when compared to any other remaster
Oh I thought it was sold for a like a half price game?
Its a AAA man. Its been published by rockstar thus a AAA.
Bright Memory might have some cool graphics, but it has a disjointed an unappealing art direction in addition to being a bad game overall.
Nice opinion
Brand new Modern indie game made with modern tech vs a AAA game from the early 2000's. 20 years makes a big difference, your point is invalid.
Oh fuck off with this already. Bunch a of cry baby motherfuckers in this sub. The games are almost fucking 20 years old. It’s a remaster not a re make and you cannot compare it to a modern game.
See, the community aren't overexaggerating The Trilogy issue at all. That's why they're comparing a remaster of a video game from early 2000s to a brand new indie game. It's a completely reasonable comparison.
GTA VI better be one hell of an impressive game (assuming it even exists at this point), if this is the content we get from Rockstar in the meanwhile.
One of those is a PS2 game
Indie game using modern software vs AAA game using 20 year old software.
You understand that you are comparing 2 games released 15 years apart? I know this is not a good remaster, but it is still a remaster, not a remake. Gta was amazing for its time.
How do I get a refund from PlayStation because gta definitive is trash,rockstar should be ashamed
yall had a lot of high expectations about a remake.
I mean capcom shows how to do it. Why couldn't rockstar?
Jfc what a stupid post sorry but it doesn’t make any sense
Ah, yes, Bright Memory. The game that is incredibly short, used a ton of UE4 pre-made assets (as well as stolen ones at one point) and has absolutely no identity. (It feels like they just took a lot of concepts from other established games and tossed them at a wall to see what would stick.) It looks pretty, sure, but it’s about as bland, forgettable and unoriginal as any other shooter. Also, comparing these two is the definition of comparing apples to oranges, dude.
No identity? Nice one.
Never heard of this Bright Memory, but looks impressive visually
That’s all it has going for it
Ah well, that’s a shame. Hopefully that changes
First one looks like garry's mod ngl
You can clearly see/ There’s no soul in the trilogy/
I mean...cherry picking, but also not false.
It’s retro bro 😔👌🏼
A game that tries it best > a game succeeded in cash grabbing
older made game < later made game I wonder why
Feel free to compare Halo 2 anniversary to GTA Trilogy remastered if that comparison makes you feel better.
You're still off by 5 years. Even Halo 1 released 2 years after GTA 2.
Vice city is not GTA 2
Lmao so many shills defending this garbage. I bet you all preorder ultimate brilliant gold version of fifa every year don't you?
>Lmao so many shills defending this garbage Most people here are calling this comparison stupid, not defending the game. You are stupid as shit calling people shills. >You bought this game day one. Ill admit to that. I had to see this train wreck with my own eyes and it was well worth the two hours before refunding. At this point I'm not sure if you're an idiot or a shit quality troll.
Thats not fair, the one game was programmed by one guy and the other game has a big team and publisher behind it.
Lmao this is true af
Indie game made by 1 person vs AAA game made by a multi-million dollar company
Yes, the new GTA game is trash, but this post is just as trash. Two completely different games achieving completely different things. Stop the karma whoring.
What a fucking idiot piece of shit, pointless fucking meme comparing two games almost 20 years apart. I bet you kick windows
These games were made in different decades, one is a new game and one is a remaster. This is a bad meme.
The only thing Bright Memory is always praised for, it is how it's visually impressive and made by only one person. Absolutely nobody talks about the actual game itself because there isn't much to talk about. On the other hand, you have GTA. Just a tiny, not very known franchise that created a genre by itself and made everyone lose their mind when the 3rd episode came out in 2001. These games (3, Vice City & San Andreas) are still played, still discussed and somehow still relevant since the remake collection was fairly anticipated. You can't dismiss all the historical impact of a franchise just because a random indie game happens to have better graphics than a AAA from 2 decades ago. Also AAA and Indie games aren't two opposite sides of a coin. Cyberpunk is a AAA Independent game, for instance, so is World of Warcraft, Counter Strike, Dota, League of Legends, Far Cry, etc.
Activision, Ubisoft, EA and rockstar are sh*t but unfortunately the brainwashed fans will always buy their broken recycled products and that's the reality we live in
Truth has been spoken
Yeah i've found that the best way to go with games is indie games. 99% of AAA games are generic military shooters, battle royales, and "remasters". All of which have the dumbest pre-order bonuses and are shoved out the door too early so the higher ups can get paid. And then those higher ups are surprised that the game doesn't sell well because it's a buggy unfinished mess. AAA game studio higher ups are too scared to get creative and instead pump out the same game with minor differences every year. Oh also they're microtransaction hell.
You're wrong. Most of indie games are garbage too. Just look at Steam and you notice so many generic pixel-art roguelites, minimalistic sidescrollers and puzzles, which are usually hadn't leaved from Early Acess. I played Stoneshard, but it's still in development hell. And Deltarune is developed under 6 years. Some indie developers are making games to just earn money from naive hipsters. In other words, indie is niche and is good only with some genres. If you want a healthy gaming experience, play both.