It's hilarious how the complaint was that a remaster of a one year old game is unnecessary. Now we have an older game and the argument changed to "but it's still not old enough". How about some people just enjoy their console of choice and their remasters of old games and keep out of threads about games they have zero insterest in?

Also, is lying really allowed here? Saying that most of Sony's games are remasters and that they are focusing on remasters with only a single remaster released by Sony so far. That's a straight up lie and I fail to see how it is allowed around here.

Anyway. I'll wait for the price to go down and will buy it eventually.

I honestly don't get it...but whatever I guess, scoring points in a game with no winner.

I think that people should be open-minded enough to respect both sides of the argument.

On one hand, it's great to see games you loved looking and running better. If 1080p/60fps Bioshock Trilogy and Uncharted Trilogy end up becoming a reality I'll buy a PS4 eventually.

On the other hand, I think many people are just surprised at how many remasters we've had so soon this gen - many that were only year old games no less - and many that weren't multi-game compilations, either. I mean, GOW collection on PS3 was great and it was only $30 IIRC. If Ascension were included with GOW3 and the price was right then it would make this news much better.

I would only want a remaster of the first two games if they update the graphics like Halo 1 and 2. Maybe that's something they want to do eventually.

Anyhow, I hope they don't charge more than $40 for just GoWIII. They should have included GoW:Ascension as well. Its one of the best looking games of the 7th gen and many skipped it.

Lol so lame.

Do you honestly consider GoW3 to be an "older game"? Or rather, did you ever honestly think that anyone felt that a game needed to be a certain time interval old to get a remake? Its always been about how a game has aged, and GoW3 is only one gen behind and it is widely considered one of the best looking games of that generation. Its aged pretty damn well...

Don't act like there is rampant hypocrisy when you were just wrong. Simple as that.

Man, this is hilarious. So, since you think I'm wrong, I must be. Makes perfect sense.

Check the comments on people criticizing remasters. Tons of comments focus on when the game was released, not how good it looked. The argument was, "but the ps3 version was just released last year". Not that it looked good already. So, yes, GoW III is an older game compared to The Last of Us or DmC.

Again, even if it has aged well for you, it doens't mean that people who like graphics more than others would not appreciate the upgrade. I have zero interest in MCC or most MS franchises, that's why I stay out of those threads and I most certainly don't go around telling them if MCC is necessary or not.

You should I enjoyed it.  It has the deepest combat of the series and some great boss battles.  The story is lacking and it is STILL GoW (some were surprised and penalized it for being samey even though it's a sequel) so if those are problems then maybe skip it.

Well I believe you are wrong...as I said, it doesn't matter if a game came out a year ago or five years ago, if a remaster doesn't improve enough to validate its existence, it will get shit on. As I said, a large part of this is how a game has aged and games can only age so much in a year, but thinking that there is some specific time interval that people have in mind sounds like you are severely misinterpreting the arguement. Additionally, just because somebody said that one year was too quick for a remaster in no way implies that five years should be acceptable.

Not a fan of God of War but its still an amazing game, I enjoyed God of War 3 on the PS3 but I'm certainly not willing to spend the big bucks on a remake. They should put the effort on an old classic instead, not something we played not so long ago.