Yeesh. No, thanks. The originals still look fine, they didn't need a remaster. I'll admit that the water looks better but... that's really about it.
Original Arkham games actually look better than the remaster
- Thread starter Bob_McMillan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Probably because they want to re-release these games on XB1 and PS4 and marketing tells them that "HD remaster" sells better than "re-release". Now these games had PC versions, and the difference between current gen consoles and last gen PCs is not that great. But if they redo some of the art so it looks different, they can call it a remaster and sell more.RiseOfTheWhiteWolf said:
And the theory is difficult to disprove because many people will buy it because it's the only version available for their new console, and you can't prove they weren't motivated by the 'remaster' part.
Harley is prettier in the remake, but she looks better in the original. She looks kind of...damaged, her eyes look like she's gone off the deep end, while she's merely seductive in the remake. Catwoman has also been prettified, looking plastic and less worn.Danbo Jambo said:
OT: "Standouts" have to be:
Hugo Strange of course.
Joker, his suit is now symetrical, rather than asymetrically detailed as in the original, his bow tie has less detail, his flower looks less lifeless, glitches in his teeth, new hair looks fucking awful.
Harley and Catwoman both look plastic and have less haggard detail to them.
Batman himself looks less worn, definitely better face in the original. Again, looks too perfect, whereas in the original he looked like he'd been at it for a few nights on the trot.
That's what I know remasters for these days, well for the last 5 years. Making changes to important aspects that generally look worse, or they completely fuck it up.
Some of the new shots have really ugly lighting, like a lot of films from the last couple of years making most scenes feel unnatural or dry. I also reckon it's disrespectful to the original artists work just to 'modernise' it all, because no matter what, it's not going to be an 'enhanced version', it's going to be a different experience when the atmosphere is changed.
Some of the new shots have really ugly lighting, like a lot of films from the last couple of years making most scenes feel unnatural or dry. I also reckon it's disrespectful to the original artists work just to 'modernise' it all, because no matter what, it's not going to be an 'enhanced version', it's going to be a different experience when the atmosphere is changed.
I'm hearing you on this. I have a number of them, tempted to get some more but resisting. While I can look in awe at how good somethings look, typically, technology has moved on and there have been continual improvements not just in graphics quality but game play as well. Polished Halo 4 on XB1 still not visually in the same league as Halo 5 that actually is for the XB1.WinterWyvern said:
Interesting recent exception: With Gold I got Grid 2 for the 360 on an Xbox 1. I compared it to the Forza 6 demo. My conclusion:
Forza 6 is much shinier but Grid actually has more interesting, detailed visuals.
After that it is about gameplay. Forza 6 smokes Grid 2 on this IMHO. Gotta get the full retail version ASAP.
For the most part I'm okay with the changes. I like the more vibrant palette and the technical enhancements look good too. Not seeing anything that justifies a full priced re-release though.
But my god... what did they do with the hair? Characters facial textures are an upgrade but the hair is atrocious. The worst offenders are Bruce, Strange and Penguin.
I doubt I'd pick this up anyway. Especially after how they (WB) handled Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat X on PC.
But my god... what did they do with the hair? Characters facial textures are an upgrade but the hair is atrocious. The worst offenders are Bruce, Strange and Penguin.
I doubt I'd pick this up anyway. Especially after how they (WB) handled Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat X on PC.
Looks like its almost been cel shaded. I guess to try to prevent performance problems this time.
tl;dr : It's a mixed bag. Overall, the bad outweighs the good, but there are some good changes in there. And some very, very, inexplicably bad ones.
Strange looks godawful. The upgrade managed to make his beard and eyebrows look shittier. And what's up with the reflection in his glasses? In the original you could see Bruce's face, in the remaster you can't.
Penguin and Ra's look awful. They tried to brighten the colours on Ra's tattoos in the remaster and just made it look cartoonish. His face also looks much less sinister.
Scarecrow looks terrible. His mask looks like it's made of yellow rubber. Not to mention the overall brighter lighting works to the detriment of the creepy scarecrow man.
Joker looks mostly the same except for the much brighter colours on his clothes and hair. I'm not sure if I like it, but it's a stylistic choice and not a matter of quality. His eyes are a much brighter green, however, which I love.
Two-Face looks basically the same but, in an inversion of the general trend, is much less well-lit.
Poison Ivy looks...not much different, but still kinda worse. The plants have a cheaper look to them and her hair is much less vibrant for some reason. Her jacket does look better in the remaster.
Harley looks better. It's probably just the brighter lipstick and the slight smile, but I like the reshape of her eyes and the brighter colours in general. The only thing that looks worse in the remaster is her collar, which looks badly rendered.
Batman looks way worse...they did something to his face? He looks like someone just shat in his Batmobile. The rain and snow effects on his cape are more advanced, but somehow make him look worse. The detail on the costume is slightly better, particular on the wrists and shoulders. When the cowl is off, his hair looks much, much worse. The original actually looked like hair.
Catwoman looks better. The darker costume and makeup has a good contrast with the brighter lipstick.
Freeze looks a little better. Better lighting works well with his suit.
Robin looks...a little better?
The shot of Bane has this bloom effect that obscures most of the detail. Not sure if that's indicative of the overall quality. Killer Croc has exactly the same problem, but with water effects. It just makes it harder to see what's there.
Clayface looks orange as opposed to brown. I think that's an effect of the overall brighter light.
Overall, the big changes they made were adding some fine detail to the costumes, adding weather, water and glare effects, and brighting the colours across the board. It sometimes works and mostly doesn't. The brighter colours and lighting sometimes serve to make the models look cartoonish as opposed to sinister or menacing, and when the glare isn't making it harder to see, what you're actually seeing doesn't look good. I think this is a stylistic complaint, but overall I preferred the claustrophobic, poorly-lit nature of the originals.
Strange looks godawful. The upgrade managed to make his beard and eyebrows look shittier. And what's up with the reflection in his glasses? In the original you could see Bruce's face, in the remaster you can't.
Penguin and Ra's look awful. They tried to brighten the colours on Ra's tattoos in the remaster and just made it look cartoonish. His face also looks much less sinister.
Scarecrow looks terrible. His mask looks like it's made of yellow rubber. Not to mention the overall brighter lighting works to the detriment of the creepy scarecrow man.
Joker looks mostly the same except for the much brighter colours on his clothes and hair. I'm not sure if I like it, but it's a stylistic choice and not a matter of quality. His eyes are a much brighter green, however, which I love.
Two-Face looks basically the same but, in an inversion of the general trend, is much less well-lit.
Poison Ivy looks...not much different, but still kinda worse. The plants have a cheaper look to them and her hair is much less vibrant for some reason. Her jacket does look better in the remaster.
Harley looks better. It's probably just the brighter lipstick and the slight smile, but I like the reshape of her eyes and the brighter colours in general. The only thing that looks worse in the remaster is her collar, which looks badly rendered.
Batman looks way worse...they did something to his face? He looks like someone just shat in his Batmobile. The rain and snow effects on his cape are more advanced, but somehow make him look worse. The detail on the costume is slightly better, particular on the wrists and shoulders. When the cowl is off, his hair looks much, much worse. The original actually looked like hair.
Catwoman looks better. The darker costume and makeup has a good contrast with the brighter lipstick.
Freeze looks a little better. Better lighting works well with his suit.
Robin looks...a little better?
The shot of Bane has this bloom effect that obscures most of the detail. Not sure if that's indicative of the overall quality. Killer Croc has exactly the same problem, but with water effects. It just makes it harder to see what's there.
Clayface looks orange as opposed to brown. I think that's an effect of the overall brighter light.
Overall, the big changes they made were adding some fine detail to the costumes, adding weather, water and glare effects, and brighting the colours across the board. It sometimes works and mostly doesn't. The brighter colours and lighting sometimes serve to make the models look cartoonish as opposed to sinister or menacing, and when the glare isn't making it harder to see, what you're actually seeing doesn't look good. I think this is a stylistic complaint, but overall I preferred the claustrophobic, poorly-lit nature of the originals.
Most of these changes just seem to be to make things look more... Comic book-y. More vibrant colours, bigger contrast, slightly less practical design... For instance, look at how Catwoman's costume seems to have gotten a lot more glossy and shiny. Which looks neat, but probably not very practical for a cat burglar. Not that catsuits are ever practical for burglars, but whatever. And Mr. Freeze's suit has a lot more needless glowing.
I mean, yeah, that new lightning tech is pretty impressive in how it works, but in a lot of shots it doesn't actually look any better, because some times the time and effort put into faking it still works better than doing it properly.
Oh, and they made Detective Vision keep a lot more detail, which seems foolish, given how much it was overused to start with.
I mean, yeah, that new lightning tech is pretty impressive in how it works, but in a lot of shots it doesn't actually look any better, because some times the time and effort put into faking it still works better than doing it properly.
Oh, and they made Detective Vision keep a lot more detail, which seems foolish, given how much it was overused to start with.
Whew boy... DC just cannot get there shit together. I know this isn't technicly their fault, WB has never had their shit together and is now 100% just looking for a quick buck by selling their only huge major hit to a market that doesn't have the original available (Due to WB trying to make a quick buck as apposed to making it backwards compatible).
Even still, while WB is at fault, its just sad to see DC in the hands of what seems to be exclusively greedy incompetent company fucks.
Even still, while WB is at fault, its just sad to see DC in the hands of what seems to be exclusively greedy incompetent company fucks.
I really get the impression that they've done something along the lines of "Look, we can actually have his hair be dozens of individually rendered and physically interacting objects in game! Isn't technology incredible?"bastardofmelbourne said:
And it's like, yeah that's impressive, but it still doesn't look half as convincing as someone just making the in-game model look it has real hair. There's no point making the character's hair move like hair, if it doesn't actually look like it. Certainly not when it's an inch long, at most.
(Not that it even showed much sign of moving realistically in the very short clips we saw, so that's even worse.) XP
DC has nothing to do with the Arkham re-release. They license the IP. Everything else is Rocksteady.ninja51 said:
Nope. WB outsourced Return to Arkham to a studio called Virtuos. Wouldn't want Rocksteady to be blamed AGAIN for the short sighted, cash grabbing mistakes of WB. That's not to say I put Rocksteady on a pedestal like some Arkham fans, but as far as I'm concerned they've done good work so far and shouldn't be blamed for the mistakes of greedy publishers. When and if they screw up (pull the video game equivalent of a Pixar flop) then they can take the heat.bastardofmelbourne said:
Well, shit. I guess it's Virtuos' fault, and still not DC.jamail77 said:
If you hire someone to do a job and they do a shitty job, it generally isn't your fault that they did a shitty job. I don't hire a guy to install a toilet and then go "aw, shucks, my bad" when the plumbing explodes the next morning.
I'm fine with remasters of old games. People can shout from the rooftops all they want about how graphics don't matter, but that doesn't change the fact that early 3D graphics look like utter garbage and have aged far worse than even bad 2D. I'd like to see more remasters of ancient games, but I'm still left scratching my head as I try to figure out the purpose of remastering games that still look great. I'm especially baffled when the remaster looks noticeably worse than the originals. I expected them to change the art style slightly, but I wasn't expecting them to look worse from a technical stand point as well.WinterWyvern said:
Haha. A bit Burton-Joker-esq Smylex style maybe?StatusNil said:
I agree with the "worn" points all round. I guess my base instincts are just happier looking at the newer Harley.elvor0 said:
