By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - On MCC and remasters.

20happyballs on 04 September 2014
BraLoD said:

Why is LBP3 even being named here? It's a cross-gen game, it's not a port '-'
It's not at PS3 being ported to PS4. It will see a full release in both consoles by the same day.
It was even announced with the PS4 version being the one played.

And no, MCC is the same as every other collection, a port/remaster of more than one game.
Like the GoW collection and a lot of others, all are the same, which difference is only more or less games into them.

Lol, how can you read the OP and still have that opinion. Remasters like The Last of Us  and GOW are not even close in the amount of work and value going into them. The MCC collection provides Halo 1 & 2 using completely new graphics rendering engines accompanied with completely new textures. The audio work was also redone with newly recorded sound effects and even new higher-quality recordings of the games' original soundtracks. There are also many other new features.

A remaster such as The Last of Us, doesn't really do anything but provide higher resolution textures and maybe a framerate boost....which on a PC would be just a change in settings. I've played  original copies of my PS2 games emulated on my PC and found that the original assets in those games can still be made to look good without any actual work done on them. Seriously, I was playing KH2 using the original release version and it honesty looked as good as the PS3 KH2 remaster. With that being said, it's hard to imagine how much work is actually done for those playstation remasters. Surely not even close to the amount of work done on the MC Collection.





Around the Network
eva01beserk on 04 September 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Phronesis said:


How do you even expect the difference from TLOU to be so high if the game was released last year? It's not 2 decades of difference. There's no 'shame'. The game looks AMAZING. Obviously much better looking than the Halo 2 remastered since it's a more recent game.


I'm not saying that MCC won't be cool, my problem is how there's so much hate about TLOU remaster but Microsoft has a FREE PASS to remaster.
Let's not forget, TLOU remaster was a tremendous success and this debate it's old since daily there were topics saying how "Sony is being extorsive" but Microsoft "Oh yeah, these amazing games are back!".


Stop believing everybody played the game. Some came from 360 and wii and want to enjoy the game.
And as long as people tries to say that Sony is "this and that" but MS remaster it's ok... Then they are just being hyprocrite and are clearly in denial. Both are remaster, this is just a fact.

I am not expecting that level of difference from a one year old game but Sony could have chosen any other game to remaster and made look just as amazing in terms of noticable differences but no, instead, they chose a one year old game which is why it got some flack. I mean, its fine, I get it, not everyone has played it which is fine but that doesn't mean I am not gonna say how much more of a difference MCC has cause clearly, MS is putting a lot of work on their MCC and its showing it cause the level of difference in this looks amazing compared to the Last of Us or WWHD and MS really do deserve a lot of credit for it

You serious with WWHD? You do know wind waker is almost 2 years older then halo 2 right? It might look like a bigger improvement, but thats due to halo being a realistic game, so with better power the game is easyer to see the improovements. Unlike wind waker wich is meant to look cartoony, but even so, you can really see the improovements. The caracters you can see a boost, but the scenary is almost a diferent world.

Here you can see so pics of it before and after.  http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-legend-of-zelda-wind-waker/HD_Screenshot_Comparison 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

20happyballs on 04 September 2014
eva01beserk said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Phronesis said:


How do you even expect the difference from TLOU to be so high if the game was released last year? It's not 2 decades of difference. There's no 'shame'. The game looks AMAZING. Obviously much better looking than the Halo 2 remastered since it's a more recent game.


I'm not saying that MCC won't be cool, my problem is how there's so much hate about TLOU remaster but Microsoft has a FREE PASS to remaster.
Let's not forget, TLOU remaster was a tremendous success and this debate it's old since daily there were topics saying how "Sony is being extorsive" but Microsoft "Oh yeah, these amazing games are back!".


Stop believing everybody played the game. Some came from 360 and wii and want to enjoy the game.
And as long as people tries to say that Sony is "this and that" but MS remaster it's ok... Then they are just being hyprocrite and are clearly in denial. Both are remaster, this is just a fact.

I am not expecting that level of difference from a one year old game but Sony could have chosen any other game to remaster and made look just as amazing in terms of noticable differences but no, instead, they chose a one year old game which is why it got some flack. I mean, its fine, I get it, not everyone has played it which is fine but that doesn't mean I am not gonna say how much more of a difference MCC has cause clearly, MS is putting a lot of work on their MCC and its showing it cause the level of difference in this looks amazing compared to the Last of Us or WWHD and MS really do deserve a lot of credit for it

You serious with WWHD? You do know wind waker is almost 2 years older then halo 2 right? It might look like a bigger improvement, but thats due to halo being a realistic game, so with better power the game is easyer to see the improovements. Unlike wind waker wich is meant to look cartoony, but even so, you can really see the improovements. The caracters you can see a boost, but the scenary is almost a diferent world.

Here you can see so pics of it before and after.  http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-legend-of-zelda-wind-waker/HD_Screenshot_Comparison 

 

Microsoft is not getting a free pass. Halo 1 & 2 have new graphics rendering engines with completely new textures. That's why the annivsary editions look so much better and different than the original releases. The Last of Us, however, is basically the exact sames game with the same engine, but the difference is that the "Max Settings" was enabled. As mentioned in my earlier post, using my original release copy of KH2 I was able to emulate the game on my PC in 1080p. The results look just as good as the remastered PS3 version. It really makes you wonder how much work is really gone into these remasters.





Nicklesbe on 04 September 2014
20happyballs said:

 

Microsoft is not getting a free pass. Halo 1 & 2 have new graphics rendering engines with completely new textures. That's why the annivsary editions look so much better and different than the original releases. The Last of Us, however, is basically the exact sames game with the same engine, but the difference is that the "Max Settings" was enabled. As mentioned in my earlier post, using my original release copy of KH2 I was able to emulate the game on my PC in 1080p. The results look just as good as the remastered PS3 version. It really makes you wonder how much work is really gone into these remasters.


They arn't running on a new engine...Look up a few posts to the ign link I posted it says the games are "Halo: The Master Chief Collection is a Xbox One game that brings together Halos 1,2,3 and 4, all on one disc, running at 60FPS, 1080p. Each game will have its full multiplayer suite, including all DLC maps, and each game will be running on its original engine" so its literally just improved textures with higher aspect ratios and frame rates... No different than any other remaster.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

jlmurph2 on 04 September 2014
Nicklesbe said:
yeah.. there is no real difference between the remasters. Well there is one difference. Most of the remasters has dedicated servers for their multiplayer while MCC keeps true to the old halo games and keeps p2p connections and needing to connect to a host to play multiplayer. That's really the only difference between them.


No, dedicated servers is all 343 has been talking about with this game. I believe there's p2p only for custom game lobbies but the actual multiplayer is dedicated servers. 



Around the Network
JerCotter7 on 04 September 2014

Both sides of this argument are stupid. People enjoy the remakes for PS4 and they seem to be selling so what's the problem. Same with MCC,



rik on 04 September 2014

But wouldnt you prefer a brand new ip being developed by mc instead?,I mean its still essentially the same game we all played 10 years ago just looks prettier?



Nicklesbe on 04 September 2014
jlmurph2 said:
Nicklesbe said:
yeah.. there is no real difference between the remasters. Well there is one difference. Most of the remasters has dedicated servers for their multiplayer while MCC keeps true to the old halo games and keeps p2p connections and needing to connect to a host to play multiplayer. That's really the only difference between them.


No, dedicated servers is all 343 has been talking about with this game. I believe there's p2p only for custom game lobbies but the actual multiplayer is dedicated servers. 

i'll take your word for it, however as I've already shown the places I read about it just said new p2p, and not really anything about dedicated servers. Only one way to know for sure and that's to play the game. Who knows maybe when they talked aobut dedicated servers they were just talking about all the share/record features? Either way when I get it if I run into any issues or have to connect to a host like in past games then I'll know for sure whether or not I should trust IGN's reporting, or 343's PR.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

jlmurph2 on 04 September 2014
Nicklesbe said:
20happyballs said:

 

Microsoft is not getting a free pass. Halo 1 & 2 have new graphics rendering engines with completely new textures. That's why the annivsary editions look so much better and different than the original releases. The Last of Us, however, is basically the exact sames game with the same engine, but the difference is that the "Max Settings" was enabled. As mentioned in my earlier post, using my original release copy of KH2 I was able to emulate the game on my PC in 1080p. The results look just as good as the remastered PS3 version. It really makes you wonder how much work is really gone into these remasters.


They arn't running on a new engine...Look up a few posts to the ign link I posted it says the games are "Halo: The Master Chief Collection is a Xbox One game that brings together Halos 1,2,3 and 4, all on one disc, running at 60FPS, 1080p. Each game will have its full multiplayer suite, including all DLC maps, and each game will be running on its original engine" so its literally just improved textures with higher aspect ratios and frame rates... No different than any other remaster.

Halo 2 Anniversary is the game running on a new engine. If you look at gameplay you'll see that it is running an upgrade from Halo 4's engine using new assets. The Halo 2 regular multiplayer included is on its original engine for people who like the original engine better.



eva01beserk on 04 September 2014
20happyballs said:
eva01beserk said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I am not expecting that level of difference from a one year old game but Sony could have chosen any other game to remaster and made look just as amazing in terms of noticable differences but no, instead, they chose a one year old game which is why it got some flack. I mean, its fine, I get it, not everyone has played it which is fine but that doesn't mean I am not gonna say how much more of a difference MCC has cause clearly, MS is putting a lot of work on their MCC and its showing it cause the level of difference in this looks amazing compared to the Last of Us or WWHD and MS really do deserve a lot of credit for it

You serious with WWHD? You do know wind waker is almost 2 years older then halo 2 right? It might look like a bigger improvement, but thats due to halo being a realistic game, so with better power the game is easyer to see the improovements. Unlike wind waker wich is meant to look cartoony, but even so, you can really see the improovements. The caracters you can see a boost, but the scenary is almost a diferent world.

Here you can see so pics of it before and after.  http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-legend-of-zelda-wind-waker/HD_Screenshot_Comparison 

 

Microsoft is not getting a free pass. Halo 1 & 2 have new graphics rendering engines with completely new textures. That's why the annivsary editions look so much better and different than the original releases. The Last of Us, however, is basically the exact sames game with the same engine, but the difference is that the "Max Settings" was enabled. As mentioned in my earlier post, using my original release copy of KH2 I was able to emulate the game on my PC in 1080p. The results look just as good as the remastered PS3 version. It really makes you wonder how much work is really gone into these remasters.

That is excelent for them, but what does that have to do with my statement? Nothing. He clearly tried to downplay the WWHD in wich I showed that probably more work went into it then the MMC. Its harder to upgrade a game that its meant to look cartoony and keep the same look and feel, while for realistic games is almost a click of a button on the pc.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.