Last Of Us - 2022 Remake (careful with spoilers Plz)

[Kevvy Metal]

19 minutes ago, BitterToad said:

It's just the price for me. I love the idea of The Last of Us being this big blockbuster series that all looks amazing, and the remake really does look amazing. Miss the old colour palette? Well I've got good news for you that game already looks great when you play the PS4 Pro version on PS5. This remake is there to tie everything into TLOU2 and have this flagship series all looking at the same level and (hopefully) playing as well too. 

 

But £70 is just pure greed. There's 0 justification for it outside of "we want your seventy pounds." I was happy to pay it for Demon's Souls because I had a shiny new toy, wanted something shiny for it, and the original Demon's looked like ass. I'm verging on happy to pay it for God of War Ragnarok, a new game built from the ground up that I know I'll get a new experience and value from. But that much money during a cost of living crisis for a game that doesn't include the multiplayer portion of TLOU1 is frankly disgusting and has justifiably left a bad taste in people's mouths. 

 

The PS5 is an absolutely incredible console with a whole raft of great (and in Returnal GOAT worthy) exclusives but it sucks that Sony have basically turned anything good they're doing on it into a "yeah but SEVENTY POUNDS!?" argument that completely justifiably rears its head every few months. TLOU Remake is absolutely the worst, most money grabbing example yet and while I think it looks unbelievable in that video I can understand people wanting to know why a bit of a paint job and some new AI costs almost the price of the Nintendo DS at launch. 

The U.K. DS launch price was £99, so the game is 2/3rds the price. Or actually available at £60 from most retailers. 
 

 

Also adjusted for inflation, the cost of this game is less than half the cost of a launch DS. 

[Popo]

Without the gameplay enhancements of Part Two it’s wasted effort. 

[Benny]

My issue isn't so much that it looks "worse" from a technical perspective (though those early shots definitely looked like they'd messed up the texture detail), but simply that the art direction has changed. So if I want to replay it I would choose to stick with the PS4 version for that reason, even if price was no object. It's "worse" if you care about such things.

[Mr Do 71]

On 22/07/2022 at 11:22, BitterToad said:

It's just the price for me. I love the idea of The Last of Us being this big blockbuster series that all looks amazing, and the remake really does look amazing. Miss the old colour palette? Well I've got good news for you that game already looks great when you play the PS4 Pro version on PS5. This remake is there to tie everything into TLOU2 and have this flagship series all looking at the same level and (hopefully) playing as well too. 

 

But £70 is just pure greed. There's 0 justification for it outside of "we want your seventy pounds." I was happy to pay it for Demon's Souls because I had a shiny new toy, wanted something shiny for it, and the original Demon's looked like ass. I'm verging on happy to pay it for God of War Ragnarok, a new game built from the ground up that I know I'll get a new experience and value from. But that much money during a cost of living crisis for a game that doesn't include the multiplayer portion of TLOU1 is frankly disgusting and has justifiably left a bad taste in people's mouths. 

 

The PS5 is an absolutely incredible console with a whole raft of great (and in Returnal GOAT worthy) exclusives but it sucks that Sony have basically turned anything good they're doing on it into a "yeah but SEVENTY POUNDS!?" argument that completely justifiably rears its head every few months. TLOU Remake is absolutely the worst, most money grabbing example yet and while I think it looks unbelievable in that video I can understand people wanting to know why a bit of a paint job and some new AI costs almost the price of the Nintendo DS at launch. 

But you get to pet a giraffe.

[makkuwata]

It’s fascinating to see the subreddit for TLOU2 savaging this and the one for TLOU being in complete denial about any concerns. I didn’t think two distinct communities existed.

[Hewson]

Just if nothing else, the delivery of top-class accessibility options seems to me a really positive thing that doesn't get enough credit. I think questions about value can only really be answered once the game's in people's hands, and depends on your history with the game, but I think describing it as greed considering the obvious effort that's gone in is a bit crazy.

[Vemsie]

2 minutes ago, Hewson said:

Just if nothing else, the delivery of top-class accessibility options seems to me a really positive thing that doesn't get enough credit. I think questions about value can only really be answered once the game's in people's hands, and depends on your history with the game, but I think describing it as greed considering the obvious effort that's gone in is a bit crazy.

Definitely.

To me cash grab sounds like an easy up res with a big price tag slappend on, but they've clearly put a lot of work into this. Whether or not that is worth 70 bucks is for every individual to decide.

[BitterToad]

59 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

The U.K. DS launch price was £99, so the game is 2/3rds the price. Or actually available at £60 from most retailers. 
 

 

Also adjusted for inflation, the cost of this game is less than half the cost of a launch DS. 

Are you a laugh? 

[Rorschach]

I think the fact that they haven't completely redone the gameplay is fair enough. If you could go prone, shimmy through gaps, and had the same vertical movement options, then the original level designs would need to be totally rethought to maintain the balance and challenge. My view is, you can still play Part 2 if you want that stuff. It calls into question the price of course, but I think they were probably stuck between a rock and a hard place. Make too many changes, and then you've got a project with much bigger scope that people may criticise for changing the experience too much, and missing the same gameplay beats they remember fondly. Make to few, and you're facing accusations of making a remaster instead of a remake.

 

The visual changes by themselves are a big deal. Some of the darker environments in the original had this murky, greenish look to them (I'm thinking particularly one of the bits where Ellie demonstrates her lack of swimming abilities) which maybe was okay when we all had first gen "HD ready" TVs, but it genuinely looks quite wierd on a modern HDR capable display with good contrast levels. Changes like they're showing here (timestamped link) will actually make the game more playable for a lot of people.

 

I won't buy it day one or anything, already bought it once and played it many times (some of those playthroughs were on a borrowed PS4 copy) but I will get it down the road. I think the price is aimed a newcomers and it's probably worth it for them. Being able to play it on PC is a big deal for me, it's a game I could see myself wanting to dip back into 10 or 20 years from now and only PC offers that kind of backwards compatibility. Even if it might require some reading of wikis to get everything working once enough time has passed for it to be considered "retro".

 

Tess looks great in the new trailer, the old version just doesn't look like a real person in the same way:

 

 

[Lying Cat]

£70 is a bit much for some extra polygons, especially as the Polygons in the Remaster still look pretty good.

I think my biggest issue with it is that the play areas of the game are pretty constrained and claustrophobic these days, especially compared to TLoU:P2, so if they've not actually updated the layouts and designs to be a bit more in line with that they're basically looking for a big chunk of money for some pretty old rope. I can understand the desire to have both of these games stand in some sort of parity with each other so they can truly be seen as two parts to the same story - but I also don't think that the older technology the first game was build on and then subsequently remastered to ever held back the narrative or the impact of the tale they were telling.

 

I dunno. This just seems a little pointless without the gameplay getting remixed too. I know that would be a big job and pretty hard - but they're asking the same amount of cash off me as a very expensive new game that's been built from the ground up, so for the price I don't think that expectation is particularly unfair.

[Benny]

1 hour ago, Vemsie said:

Definitely.

To me cash grab sounds like an easy up res with a big price tag slappend on, but they've clearly put a lot of work into this. Whether or not that is worth 70 bucks is for every individual to decide.

 

My issue with that is that if they cared about disabled players they would be patching it into the existing game at no extra cost, rather than requiring them to buy a new release. It's obviously good they're doing it at all though.

[Captain Kelsten]

It looks a lot better, incredible in parts, and is clearly going to be the “definitive” way to play the Last of Us, but it ain’t worth £70 of anyone’s money. 

[Hewson]

19 minutes ago, Benny said:

 

My issue with that is that if they cared about disabled players they would be patching it into the existing game at no extra cost, rather than requiring them to buy a new release. It's obviously good they're doing it at all though.

I think this is a bit unfair. ND have really led the way on accessibility and I think have changed the expectations and standards in the industry. They clearly do care about it and have invested in it by building it into their engine. Of course it'd be better if they could just update old games to that standard and release them for free but I don't think it's terrifically realistic in this case considering the effort that has gone in. Again, value is a subjective issue and I totally understand people not feeling it if they've played the original or remake to death.

[Kevvy Metal]

1 hour ago, BitterToad said:

Are you a laugh? 

Im am not “a laugh” sorry no! 
I’m merely here to correct your financial comparison inaccuracies.

[Kevvy Metal]

36 minutes ago, Doctor Shark said:

It looks a lot better, incredible in parts, and is clearly going to be the “definitive” way to play the Last of Us, but it ain’t worth £70 of anyone’s money. 

I think people need to learn to speak for themselves a little bit more…

[yakumo]

I feel this game is going to sell well, I remember people were going to boycott Pokemon Arceus from the trailer and in the end it sold bucket loads. 

[Chadruharazzeb]

2 hours ago, Hewson said:

I think describing it as greed considering the obvious effort that's gone in is a bit crazy.

 

The complaint, as far as I've seen, is that the effort isn't at all obvious. 

[Down by Law]

I'd argue it's anything but the definitive version if the multiplayer's missing. Double more dissapointing that it was cut from LOU II to be it's own thing, which is cool, but now it's 2 years late and will undoubtably be an MTX infested hellscape. It would have been worth it to have the final version of the original multiplayer printed on disc with some tarted up graphics.

 

I got the platinum trophy for remastered so there's nothing here for me especially at full price. 

[Monkeyspill]

2 hours ago, Mr Do 71 said:

But you get to pet the giraffe’s.

Pet the giraffe’s what?

[Lying Cat]

2 minutes ago, Monkeyspill said:

Pet the giraffe’s what?

 

Physical forms.

[Monkeyspill]

I’ve got the ps plus top tier for about year (I can’t remember what it’s called. Essential? Extra? Extended?). I’m betting on it turning up there before too long.

[Hitcher]

There's also the problem that, if this sells well, it sets another £70 game precedent but this time for a remake (upgrade).

[K]

Maybe if it does well, Sony will start charging £140 for their games.

[Benny]

Maybe if it does well, they can afford to manufacture some more consoles to actually play it on.

[Vemsie]

3 hours ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

 

The complaint, as far as I've seen, is that the effort isn't at all obvious. 

Which is a bit weird to me. The game has been graphically overhauled from the ground up, has new physics, animations and AI, new graphics modes, new game modes and collectibles, over 60 accessibility options that were never in the original and PS5 specific features like 3D audio and DualSense implementation. 

In a way, it's more substantial than the Demon's Souls remake in terms of stuff they've added. Of course the graphical difference isn't that big and TLoU is already on PS4, but the point still stands.

Whether or not all of this is worth 70 bucks will vary from person to person, like it does with pretty much every product.
Basically what 9 VOLT says:

 

4 hours ago, Benny said:

 

My issue with that is that if they cared about disabled players they would be patching it into the existing game at no extra cost, rather than requiring them to buy a new release. It's obviously good they're doing it at all though.

Well, if they wouldn't care they wouldn't implement it at all. The Last of Us Part II was probably the gold standard for accessibilty options and it seems this has even more, like the voice-over describing the scenes in what I assume a multitude of languages. It takes a lot of work (and money) to create and implement all that stuff. Porting all of that to the PS4 version probably is a lot more work that just clicking a button labeled 'Port to PS4'. Not that I want to speak on behalf of disabled gamers. Steve Saylor does however and if he's happy with it than who are we to argue?
 

 

[Hitcher]

1 hour ago, Vemsie said:

The game has been graphically overhauled from the ground up, has new physics, animations and AI, new graphics modes, new game modes and collectibles, over 60 accessibility options that were never in the original and PS5 specific features like 3D audio and DualSense implementation. 

All built with TLOU2 game engine!

 

Existing game engine + existing game assets ≠ £70.

[teddymeow]

I watched the new ND video this morning on my phone and thought the remake looked good.

 

Just rewatched it on my TV in 4K60 and I'm proper excited! Bill's Town looks so much better and the particles and destruction look ridiculous!!

[Monkeyspill]

I wonder if they’ve finally fixed the gamma issues that Remake had in some areas.

[K]

50 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

All built with TLOU2 game engine!

 

Existing game engine + existing game assets ≠ £70.

Yes, surely you just open up the LOU1 level editor, select all the character models, drag and drop them into the LOU2 engine, and click “save”. Then just repeat for the levels, the cutscenes, and the graphics. It would take half an hour, max. 

[Lying Cat]

1 hour ago, K said:

Yes, surely you just open up the LOU1 level editor, select all the character models, drag and drop them into the LOU2 engine, and click “save”. Then just repeat for the levels, the cutscenes, and the dialogue. It would take half an hour, max. 

i get what you’re saying, but you can get a whole new game, built from the ground up to next gen standards for £70.

 

i don’t think anyone is claiming it’s a copy and paste job with FancyTextures=1 and ExtraPolys=1 set in the .ini, but it is very expensive for something that inherently has a load of the work already done in terms of script, level design and all that.