Rockstar needs to make a REMASTERED Remaster of RDR1

[AGNT009]

This is starting to feel awkward. The prequel is going to be 3 times the game the original was. I feel like they could and should remake John Marstons story, but not just a graphics remaster. I mean rebuild the game from the ground up, with all the game mechanics 2 provides. They could mostly reuse the originals dialogue audio, but they can also make a few tweaks and additions to the original story. Give the option for a few things to play out differently for Marstons game.

 

If they had played this better, they could have built two games at the same time. Release Red Dead Redemption: Arthur Morgan, and have no online with it. Then 6 mo later release Red Dead Redemption II: John Marston, and this game has online with it, practically forcing us to buy the enhanced original again. RDR:Marston would include both game maps for Jake Marston (who will hopefully be less ugly remastered) to play to play in at the end for single player. Id even have Marstons single player story double back and use a little of Morgans map. Online would include both huge maps. So they could have sold TWO games back to back, and STILL made RDR Online shark card revenue after that.

 

They can still do this plan and just let us carry our Morgan online characters over to Marston online. But the titles are still just all sorts of confusing. They could have Marston remastered out by 2021. Maybe they already plan to have both maps combined for Morgan online, but they should definitely do it for Marstons remaster.

[TheGeneralZarbin]

Sadly i don't think Rockstar are ever going to give us proper remakes. They really dont seem interested at all in doing them.

[Nutduster]

Sadly i don't think Rockstar are ever going to give us proper remakes. They really dont seem interested at all in doing them.

 

That seems to be the case. I would love a remaster, even if it was little more than updated graphics on the same map, with the same story; the game was a masterpiece so it hardly needs to be messed with much.

 

But Rockstar seems less interested in doing this kind of stuff than most of their competitors in the AAA bracket.

[DexMacLeod]

Yeah, a full on remaster seems highly unlikely but I still have hope that they'll give us a remastered version of the original's map for online.

[fingo_]

Unfortunately, I think it is very unlikely for Rockstar to make a remaster. Just a Red Dead Redemption port for the ps4 would be awesome already, just like they did with the Xbox One. I would definitely buy it!

[The Algerian]

What would be pretty cool is if they made RDR1 remake a DLC for RDR2.

[Nutduster]

What would be pretty cool is if they made RDR1 remake a DLC for RDR2.

 

I think we can safely put this in the same bucket as Liberty City DLC for GTA Online. Would be cool, but probably not gonna happen. Rockstar seems fairly disinterested in their past successes.

[Sunny_D]

They do need to remaster it like they have with LA Noire. f*ck ps now.

[Cutter De Blanc]

As I understand it, it's a technical marvel that the game works at all. I don't see a remaster happening.

[Len Lfc]

Sadly i don't think Rockstar are ever going to give us proper remakes. They really dont seem interested at all in doing them.

They literally just gave us L.A. Noire 6 months ago...

[Bigglo145]

out of all games to remaster they choose freaking la noire smh id pay $100 for an updated rdr tho

[Cutter De Blanc]

I think it's not so much that they won't as that they can't

Edited May 8, 2018 by Cutter De Blanc

[Nutduster]

I think it's not so much that they won't as that they can't

 

Color me dubious. I know the game is notoriously full of janky spaghetti code, but prettying it up for modern consoles and TVs should only involve a small amount of actual coding, anyway. If they could release a single player DLC, I think remastering mainly the visuals and leaving the rest alone should not be an impossible task. Mainly I just think they don't want to, or think there's more money to be made on other projects.

[ivarblaauw]

Seeing as all nine studios have been working on two, I think it might be possible to see RDR 1 remastered after the ending of RDR 2 included into the game.

​A remastered version of the map is more a given than a no at this time, as there are quite a lot of hints due to the leaked map (having assets in the old map) and the leak. This is the first game from Rockstar which reuses parts of an old map in a new game. So a remaster is way more likely, especially if they want to sell a lot of extra copies.

​In my opinion:
- First time all 9 studios working on Red Dead
​- RDR 2's map directly connected to RDR 1's map
- Leaks mentioning Armadillo and Ridgewood
​- Thieves Landing outside of RDR 2 map still located on the map
​- Storywise it would be actually very logical: First there are no railroads whatsoever and small towns. Slowly over time each town grows bigger, railroads are build. Eventually around 1906, the railroad to New Austin will start being constructed. POSSIBLE SPOILER:

Here we switch to John Marston (as the Reddit leak hints to) and build your ranch after he leaves the gang (is being left for death). After doing these missions Red Dead Redemption 2's story is officially finished and this builds up perfectly to Red Dead Redemption 1.

Now we can continue being John and start the story of RDR 1 as the New Austin bridges and railroad are constructed.

 

so my guess:
​either already included in the game
​or ​as a dlc/add on (free for online) and possibly included in collectors edition

Also we all should have a little bit of hope

Edited May 8, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[Mr. Scratch]

I'd be happy with a 1080p port tbh.

[zuckmeslow]

I think the xbox one x version is as close to a remaster as we will get

[Ash_735]

Seriously I doubt Rockstar could even do as good a job as Microsoft have with the X1 patch. The game runs in 4k, locked 30fps with 2xMSAA and if you have a 1080p screen you get additional supersampling AA making the game looks crystal clear, the art style and direction still holds up really well. If you want to play RDR1 it's the best way to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Ash_735

[oCrapaCreeper]

If RDR was a technical mess and barely got working on the old gen consoles as is, then I wouldn't expect a proper remaster any time soon, let alone a version of the game rebuilt. It would most likely take more development time and money than Rockstar would want.

 

Besides, I think the 4k support update was what most people were looking for aside from a high framerate.

Edited May 9, 2018 by oCrapaCreeper

[ivarblaauw]

If RDR was a technical mess and barely got working on the old gen consoles as is, then I wouldn't expect a proper remaster any time soon, let alone a version of the game rebuilt. It would most likely take more development time and money than Rockstar would want.

 

Besides, I think the 4k support update was what most people were looking for aside from a high framerate.

It is not really a 4K update. Yeah the resolution is upscaled to 4K, but all textures are still a blurry mess. Draw distance is laughable and the movement is very rigid to say the least. In no way is this what people can call a remaster.

 

That said, the game still holds up quite well to a lot of indie games, but falls into graphical disadvantage quite quickly if you start comparing it with the latest AAA games.

 

Also Rockstar has nine studios working on this game. It wouldn't be that costly to let one studio focus by porting the sounds and voices from 1 into the engine of 2. Also they most likely have most characters from 1 in one way or another already in the game.

 

A completely revamped remaster of 1 after 2 wouldn't actually be that far fetched.

 

Also they would make hundreds of millions extra from this, so it would definitely be a smart move.

All gameplay mechanics have already been made for 2, so only the story and side missions soundtracks should be ported (including some mission specific animations, if there are any) and then added to the game with new characters. Hell it is the same amount of work to make a gta online mission...

Edited May 9, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[iddqdvie]

 

Sadly i don't think Rockstar are ever going to give us proper remakes. They really dont seem interested at all in doing them.

They literally just gave us L.A. Noire 6 months ago...

 

literally? i think they really gave as that game... not just literally! *facepalm*

[Ash_735]

 

If RDR was a technical mess and barely got working on the old gen consoles as is, then I wouldn't expect a proper remaster any time soon, let alone a version of the game rebuilt. It would most likely take more development time and money than Rockstar would want.

 

Besides, I think the 4k support update was what most people were looking for aside from a high framerate.

It is not really a 4K update. Yeah the resolution is upscaled to 4K, but all textures are still a blurry mess. Draw distance is laughable and the movement is very rigid to say the least. In no way is this what people can call a remaster.

 

That said, the game still holds up quite well to a lot of indie games, but falls into graphical disadvantage quite quickly if you start comparing it with the latest AAA games.

 

Also Rockstar has nine studios working on this game. It wouldn't be that costly to let one studio focus by porting the sounds and voices from 1 into the engine of 2. Also they most likely have most characters from 1 in one way or another already in the game.

 

A completely revamped remaster of 1 after 2 wouldn't actually be that far fetched.

 

Also they would make hundreds of millions extra from this, so it would definitely be a smart move.

All gameplay mechanics have already been made for 2, so only the story and side missions soundtracks should be ported (including some mission specific animations, if there are any) and then added to the game with new characters. Hell it is the same amount of work to make a gta online mission...

I think you're REALLY over estimating how much work Rockstar would do with a re-release. Also it's clear you've not played RDR1 with the X1 patch as Draw Distance is visibly better, textures look better due to 16xAF,etc. It sounds like you're describing the PS3 version of the game if I'm being honest. Again look at those screenshots above, download them, view them full screen and then compare it to a screenshot from the 360 (720p) or the PS3 (640p).

[Doctor Holliday]

Seriously I doubt Rockstar could even do as good a job as Microsoft have with the X1 patch. The game runs in 4k, locked 30fps with 2xMSAA and if you have a 1080p screen you get additional supersampling AA making the game looks crystal clear, the art style and direction still holds up really well. If you want to play RDR1 it's the best way to do it.

Obviously they did a good job with the X1 update, but at the end of the day, it still feels like the ultimate-troll-move by Rockstar to keep people on the PC from enjoying a legitimate port of Red Dead Redemption... especially when they know that it would still sell like hot cakes to this day. I've lost track of how many times I've played through RDR1 on the ole console and I would happily fork over full price for one more turn on my desktop. I would rather that Rockstar just leave Red Dead to rest in peace, because it doesn't need a remake or a remaster unless it includes a full scale PC version.

 

The master race community has been trying to emulate RDR1 for forever.

https://segmentnext.com/2018/04/02/red-dead-redemption-the-last-of-us/

 

And technically you can 'stream' the game on your PC using PSNow, but it's not quite the same thing as having the game installed on your harddrive and potentially modding it.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstationnow/

Edited May 9, 2018 by Doctor Holliday

[ivarblaauw]

 

 

I think you're REALLY over estimating how much work Rockstar would do with a re-release. Also it's clear you've not played RDR1 with the X1 patch as Draw Distance is visibly better, textures look better due to 16xAF,etc. It sounds like you're describing the PS3 version of the game if I'm being honest. Again look at those screenshots above, download them, view them full screen and then compare it to a screenshot from the 360 (720p) or the PS3 (640p).

 

*I think you meant 'under estimate', so my answer is written to that.

 

I have a Xbox One X myself and played the game yesterday. It looks better, but it is not standing up to todays standard in graphical quality.

 

Still looks okay, but not AAA quality graphics by far. But that is logical as the game is 8 years old.

 

I know a thing or two about coding and game design. If Rockstar has indeed a brand new revamped engine, they only need to port the sounds. The rest can be done almost without coding.

 

Spawn locations can be placed in the map, freeroam or mission based. Look at how easy we as players can make missions in GTA. It wouldn't be made in a night, but a whole studio working on this, who have access to a new engine and assets, trust me, they can easily do this in two years.

 

Nine studios have been working on this title, and the last 5 years almost exclusively on rdr2.

 

As they don't have to work on the engine, the only things they have to do are:

- Porting sound

- Creating models if needed for New Austin and Mexico. (cacti, trees, foliage is all already in the engine, only have to place it)

- create specific character models. (All other characters and animals are already in game)

- place the assets for missions (specific items and spawn locations)

​No work on mechanics, as all is already in the engine. (shooting, horse breaking, hunting, talking to npc's, how npc's react, how you react, falling, walking, running, etc.)

 

​Plus it would also open up the PC option when RDR 2 comes to there (if it will come to PC)

Edited May 9, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[AGNT009]

 

 

 

I think you're REALLY over estimating how much work Rockstar would do with a re-release. Also it's clear you've not played RDR1 with the X1 patch as Draw Distance is visibly better, textures look better due to 16xAF,etc. It sounds like you're describing the PS3 version of the game if I'm being honest. Again look at those screenshots above, download them, view them full screen and then compare it to a screenshot from the 360 (720p) or the PS3 (640p).

 

*I think you meant 'under estimate', so my answer is written to that.

 

I have a Xbox One X myself and played the game yesterday. It looks better, but it is not standing up to todays standard in graphical quality.

 

Still looks okay, but not AAA quality graphics by far. But that is logical as the game is 8 years old.

 

I know a thing or two about coding and game design. If Rockstar has indeed a brand new revamped engine, they only need to port the sounds. The rest can be done almost without coding.

 

Spawn locations can be placed in the map, freeroam or mission based. Look at how easy we as players can make missions in GTA. It wouldn't be made in a night, but a whole studio working on this, who have access to a new engine and assets, trust me, they can easily do this in two years.

 

Nine studios have been working on this title, and the last 5 years almost exclusively on rdr2.

 

As they don't have to work on the engine, the only things they have to do are:

- Porting sound

- Creating models if needed for New Austin and Mexico. (cacti, trees, foliage is all already in the engine, only have to place it)

- create specific character models. (All other characters and animals are already in game)

- place the assets for missions (specific items and spawn locations)

​No work on mechanics, as all is already in the engine. (shooting, horse breaking, hunting, talking to npc's, how npc's react, how you react, falling, walking, running, etc.)

 

​Plus it would also open up the PC option when RDR 2 comes to there (if it will come to PC)

 

Im fairly certain theyd have to redraw the entire RDR1 map for the type of remaster Im wanting. Which still isnt that bad, because they just take the blueprint of RDR1 and place everything exactly the same distance from each other as the first time. No decisions need to be made about map flow, where assets will be, how buildings should look, all that has been decided. You just recreate the map with polished textures, maybe more interactivity, but the bulk of the heavy decisions for the map were already made. Doing that shouldnt take them that long when they have the roadmap to recreate it all quickly.

[Guest Guest176525326]

No. Rockstar needs to remaster GTAIV

[Lock n' Stock]

The original game is fine as is.

[Ash_735]

*I think you meant 'under estimate', so my answer is written to that.

Nope, Over Estimate, Rockstar Games have TERRIBLE legacy support, any ports they have done were mainly farmed out and they hardly helped, see the GTA Mobile titles. You really think they're going to want to redo RDR1 when they couldn't be bothered to even give San Andreas the proper treatment? Especially when they had boxed copies of "San Andreas REMASTERED" when it was a damn emulation of the mobile port with worst framerate, graphics (outside of resolution and reflections) and MUCH worse sound quality that was actually incredibly terrible.

[Emmi]

I don't see a single reason why R* should even bother with remastering any of their games ... that's what every other developer does these days: releasing remasters of their entire portfolio or so. I'm glad R* does not do that but instead focuses on creating fresh, new experiences rather than just re-selling their old games with better graphics for a quick cash grab.

Please no more remasters!

[Mr. Scratch]

Which begs the question, why the hell did they remaster LA Noire in the first place, a game they didn't even develop?

[Emmi]

Which begs the question, why the hell did they remaster LA Noire in the first place, a game they didn't even develop?

Nintendo Switch.