Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Tuners
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. GTA San Andreas

      1. Classic GTA SA
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    2. GTA Vice City

      1. Classic GTA VC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    3. GTA III

      1. Classic GTA III
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. Bugs*

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    6. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

      1. GTANet 20th Anniversary
    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

The ridiculous outrage for the remastered trilogy


MetroFloaty
 Share

Recommended Posts

MetroFloaty

The outrage is downright comical, with some people being so dramatic as to claim that they have ruined the franchise simply because Claude's skin looks a bit more yellow (when illuminated by a yellow lamppost).

It is so pessimistic and dramatic in nature that it makes me question exactly who the people complaining so much are. Are they middle schoolers? They surely reacted like ones. 
Now it's perfectly fine to have gripes and criticisms about the remasters, but as anything goes, that would be within the realm of logic. Would it have been fair to say Blade Runner 2046 was a complete garbage, unredeemable movie just because it was a little more colorful than the original? Is it fair to call Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition sh*t because it doesn't have ray tracing despite being well over 20 years old?

I don't think so, I think this specific group of people I'm referring to are taking ONE legitimate criticism and blowing it out of proportion so that it engulfs the entire discourse and frames the entire Trilogy as a failure, going as far as to doxx the developers and throwing a hissy fit over the sole fact that they supposedly developed the mobile ports.

 

LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS

Obviously, I'm not saying the remasters aren't without faults. 
The characters do look a bit cartoony and could've benefited from different art direction, but that seems to mostly depend on the game, as I personally believe San Andreas is fine in that regard, for the most part.

Still, the characters don't look that much more cartoony than they did in the original games, and anyone thinking so likely hasn't removed their nostalgia tinted glasses. 

There don't really seem to be many props in Ocean Drive in Vice City, which makes me somewhat worry that they haven't added much to the emptier areas of the game, but then again, that would be in line with the map design of the older games, and it's not like they took anything out. Questionable choice, I guess, but overall not much of a big deal. 

Some textures look low res. This is a weird one because most of the textures seem to be HD, but one particular texture that caught my attention was CJ's jeans. For some reason the texture looks worse than most others in the game.

There are other minor issues like hand rigging on weapon models and other various visual bugs seen in screenshots and whatnot, but all in all they are rather minor and will be likely unnoticeable during gameplay, and hopefully might even be fixed by release.

I think the biggest culprit of all is the 60 dollar pricepoint. I'd say 40 dollars is more appropriate. We've already played those games and while the new graphics and controls are welcome additions, I don't think they're worth 15 dollars on top of the 5 dollars you would normally pay for a game key for one original game from the trilogy.

 

There are some questionable decisions involved in the creation of this remaster, but in no way do they all warrant the degree of outrage it's seen by some people. You think Vice City is ruined because Tommy looks a little weird? Nothing short of a temper tantrum I'd say.

 

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Scouring internet forums and Discord chats, it becomes abundantly clear that people have no clue what the word "remaster" means, using it interchangeably with the word "remake".

All a remaster is supposed to be is a port to newer consoles with QoL changes in the controls department and small graphical enhancements like upscaled textures and HD resolution support.

RARELY are there any remasters where the game has a completely new lighting system and completely new shaders. In the case where they happen, it's considered a big deal, and in case you want to see

how rare it is for that to happen, check out this Wikipedia page lol.

If you want some examples of what the average remaster looks like, I'll give you some.
 

Resident Evil 4:

Spoiler

Resident Evil 4 Remastered (Ps4) Vs Resident Evil 4 (Ps3) Graphics  Comparison [60fps] - YouTube

 

 

Call of Duty Modern Warfare:

Spoiler

Call of Duty Modern Warfare – Mission Crew Expandable Remastered vs.  Original Graphics Comparison - YouTube

 

Assassin's Creed II:

Spoiler

Assassin's Creed 2 The Ezio Collection PS4 vs PC Original Graphics  Comparison - YouTube

 

Gears of War:

Spoiler

Gears 3 doesn't even need a remaster, just port it to PC and feed it  straight to my face please!: GearsOfWar

 

Age of Empires II

Spoiler

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Dark Souls:

Spoiler

maxresdefault.jpg

 

As you see, these remasters' changes range from slightly better textures and resolution to lighting changes at most. That doesn't mean that they are bad remasters per se, but that they do their intented job, which, as previously stated, is only to port the game to newer systems with updated control schemes, HD support and other minor eye candy. 

It is NOT a remaster's job to completely overhaul a game's rendering pipeline complete with new shaders and effects such as ambient occlusion, anti-aliasing, anistropic filtering, bloom, screen-space reflections, ambient fog, tessellation, volumetric clouds and particles AND shadow mapping. People who downplay the weight of these VERY noticeable changes in the trailers are missing the point of what a remaster is supposed to be and very clearly don't understand what effects end up making a game's graphics good. 
Now that you've seen what an average, serviceable remaster looks like, let's take a look at the oh-so-outrageous remaster created by Grove Street Games and how it absolutely does not live up to expectations set by the industry. 

 

Spoiler

iRRkfKO.png

nAbgsoc.png

 

unknown.pngImage

 

hm9ptaZ.pngp60zvdd.png6PJGa6T.pngxhVEOvx.png

 

Considering that Rockstar NEVER advertised this as anything more than a remaster with some upgraded controls and lighting, and the industry standard for a remaster, they actually went above and beyond the traditional definition to bring consumers a more polished experience.

The main criticism aimed at these changes is that the characters look "too plastic" and "too cartoony". 
For one, I believe that San Andreas cut scenes look as good as the ones from GTA 4, if not better in some instances. GTA 3 and Vice City have less noticeable improvements, but bad? 
No way. If anything, people are complaining that the art direction concerning the character design isn't what they expected, despite the fact that THIS is what the older games used to look like:
 

Spoiler

XBOX/Mobile Claude head in cutscenes - Characters - GTAForums

GTA Vice City Intro Cutscenes Fix Mod - GTAinside.comGrand Theft Auto: Vice City - Mission #28 - All Hands On Deck! - YouTubeGTA: San Andreas - Best Cutscene (Drive-Thru) (HD) - YouTube

Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA 4) Cutscenes: Intro + 1 & 2 Missions. Eng sub.  Part 1. - YouTube

Grand Theft Auto IV: Mr. & Mrs. Bellic - Revenge (Mission #86) - YouTube

Kendl Skin for GTA San Andreas

 

Right. Not a sliver of cartoony in these screenshots. The pinnacle of realistic, gritty art direction. 

Sarcasm aside, you can say that they were going for a pseudo-realistic style with these games given by the amount of pixels they tried to cram into these skins, but you can NOT maintain the classic look of these games by remaking the skins as if they were to fit in GTA 5.

Rockstar advertised the remaster as something that would elevate it while trying to be authentic to the originals. Did they do an ideal job at it? No, but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination.

People have been playing these games with the horrible 128x128 textures for 20 years and praising them as masterpieces, you're telling me now that because the characters look a little brighter and smoother that your experience will be ruined? Sounds stupid if you ask me. 

I've seen people outraged over THIS screenshot as well!

Spoiler

d31bd91f2973e4005066.jpg

 

When the original Claude in-game looks like this

 

Claude Speed HD for GTA 3 (iOS, Android)

 

 

 

Really, I don't get to see the issue! Is his skin too human-like and alive for the purists? Are they surprised that his face actually reflects light now and looks yellow when illuminated by a yellow streetlight?
I mean Niko Bellic used to look like this for f*ck's sake

 

GTA Gaming Archive

 

If you ask me, the so-controversial screenshot of Claude doesn't look like it would be too far from an in-game model from GTA 4.

 

What's all this outrage about? In my opinion, it's because they dared to make the games look too bright, as the community GUSHES over this edited version of a cut scene:

Spoiler

oQy3ZpH.jpg

 

Seems to me that if they turned the saturation slider way down and increased some contrast then people would have absolutely no qualms with these trailers, lol. 

Now it's fine to think the saturation should be lower in general, but to claim that these games were totally RUINED because of this?? That's another story.

 

All in all, I think they did a fine job adapting these games, minus some oversights and somewhat questionable art direction, but absolutely NOTHING to warrant this level of outrage. 

 

"MODS ARE BETTER"

Another recurring statement thrown around to discredit the remasters. There are so many issues with this I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, the modding scene for GTA is incredible, especially for San Andreas. San Andreas modders have been insanely dedicated to the game for almost 20 years, managing to create some stunning mods in the process. 

To mention some famous ones, ENB Series, RenderHook, RoSA, ViceCry and others have done a great job at upgrading some aspects of the game. DirectX 3.0, a collection of ENB shaders developed for San Andreas, looks awesome in screenshots: 

 

Spoiler

GTA San Andreas, DirectX 3.0 beta graphics: pcmasterrace

 

It adds many modern effects and graphical enhancements to RenderWare, and it looks great, making the game look more realistic, but that's NOT what Rockstar intended for the remasters, and that's not what should be expected of them. 
That's like saying that Fortnite looks worse than San Andreas with mods because one has a more realistic approach to art direction than the other, but you CAN'T condemn Fortnite for being more cartoony because that's the look it's going for. 
If the remasters were trying to look more realistic and ended up looking like GTA 4, then that would've been awful, but as it stands, what Rockstar wanted was a game that preserved the original aesthetic of the trilogy, and that's more or less what was delivered, albeit with better models and textures.

 

To complain that the remasters can't outdo the graphical level of ENB Series or RenderHook is to downplay the skill, knowledge and passion of the creators bringing you these mods. 

People say the remasters are just ports with stolen mods, but DirectX 3.0 isn't some low level garbage that's easily outdone, it's a work with countless hours of passion put into it and a serious display of technical knowledge regarding computer graphics worthy of a professional, and its shaders are simply just standard in modern game development. 

If GTA 6 comes out tomorrow and has car reflections and god rays has it stolen from DX 3.0? No, that's simply expected of modern day videogames, and it would be also expected of a modern day remaster

of the original trilogy.

While being technically impressive, DirectX 3.0 isn't revolutionary in what it does, as it simply updates RenderWare with industry standard graphical shaders.

Is it GSG's fault that modders are so good that they can bring professional-level enhancements to RenderWare? If anything, that's just a testament of how dedicated the community is. There are VERY FEW mod communities in the videogame world as dedicated as that of GTA. 

 

With that said, mods like this don't completely lack issues.

People seem to think that San Andreas with graphics mods is some flawless, seamless experience, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. In screenshots, the game looks pretty, sure, but when you're actually playing the game, it's a completely different story.
I've been modding San Andreas for close to 10 years of my life. I know a few things about modding, and let my tell you, finding a decent way to play San Andreas with graphics mods was absolutely nerve-wracking.

You have only two mods to greatly enhance the graphics: RenderHook and ENBSeries.

RenderHook, while relatively well-optimized, is still under development and suffers from many hiatuses. I think the last build of RenderHook compatible with SA dates to over a year ago. Secondly, the builds that are available feature an annoying amount of visual bugs, both relating to the mod itself and RenderWare. 

ENBSeries, meanwhile, barely works. Many older builds will straight up prevent your game from booting up, while the latest version doesn't work properly. 

Try to install ENBSeries and you'll have to go through hoops and sh*t just to get the game to boot up, and then most of the effects, for some reason, won't work, and the ones that do, like dynamic shadows, completely TANK your FPS.

Setting up graphics mods for San Andreas is NOT a user-friendly experience, it will have you go through tons of trouble-shooting and mix and matching .dll's to get your game to run properly, and when it does, the 20 to 30 FPS clean shaven off your game will hardly be worth the improvements, considering that the game will suffer from HORRENDOUS pop-in and LOD flickering due to the removal of distance fog and other effects that mask the horrible draw distance of the older titles. 

Like I said, in screenshots these mods look pretty (they're just screenshots after all), but in-game it's revealed that RenderWare struggles with these new shaders like a mule trying to drag about a semi and getting an anal prolapse in the process. Have a look:

https://youtu.be/AzZWN-6Rqus?t=54

https://youtu.be/2xmCjLsElYA?t=82

 

So while these mods are impressive and a great testament to the skill of their developers, they're not very practical while playing the game as they highlight a plethora of issues which turn out to be a complete turn-off. What good is a shiny car shader if I can't drive twenty feet without a tree materializing in front of me and a billboard having a seizure in the background?

And if you want to further fix these issues, you'll have to tinker with other mods like 2dfx and the likes which, unfortunately, completely f*ck your FPS and are in turn incompatible with other mods.

 

Graphics mods do NOT offer a smooth and polished experience, and if the people claiming that the remaster looks worse than modded really care about detail as much as they say they do, they would realise that all the little bullsh*t bugs and issues exacerbated by these graphics mods, on top of all the troubleshooting and performance issues, would not be worth it. 

 

The biggest issue with this narrative that mods are somehow better is that no regular person will go through all this sh*t just to have a few more shaders in RenderWare. 

Seriously, people fail to see how not user-friendly these mods are from a consumer standpoint.

First of all, San Andreas is the only game of the trilogy that has good gfx mod support. Graphics mods for Vice City and III are more limited and present just as many issues. There is absolutely NO WAY to make III look as good as it did in the remastered trailer with mods, not even using RenderHook.

Secondly, like I said, no average Joe who plays Call of Duty is going to go through the trouble of going on sketchy sites like GTAInside which try to install mods onto your game with their custom installer which will litter your pc with adware to install graphics mods that will tank the game's performance. 
And lastly, has everyone forgotten about consoles? Are people expected to jailbreak their PS4 to mod their game with graphics mods and likely completely break their game in the process as these mods require certain .dlls and other runtime libraries to even let the game boot up? 
 

This notion that Rockstar was somehow lazy and that modders could do a better job is completely retarded. Not only do mods not create a better experience than an official, polished remaster, but they also cut out what represents most of the market share for these remasters, which are CONSOLE PLAYERS

 

THE ROCKSTAR GAMES HATEBONER & THE INDUSTRY

The previous paragraph enunciates a recurring idea that Rockstar Games have become a lazy, greedy game studio incapable of creating quality products. Every time any news regarding a Rockstar Games production comes out, a good amount of people will bash the studio saying "keep your expectations low".

The problem with this is that time and time again, with every new game release, Rockstar has set THE standard for detail. GTA 5 STILL competes with games released nowadays, and it was released close to 8 years ago. Red Dead Redemption 2 was released only two years ago and was the fastest selling piece of media ever created and set yet another standard for open world games with an unprecedented level of detail, but somehow people seem to forget that.

Because of GTA Online.

 

People don't seem to understand the difference between game studio and publisher. When a game ends up being a microtransaction-ridden piece of sh*t, that is the publisher's fault. No game studio wants its game to be seen as a simple cash grab, as game studios are the real creators behind a game, they are developers that have a passion for videogames who wanted to make a living out of it, no sane person would ruin a work of art with greedy monetization tactics. The ones involved in those practices are the publishers, because they need to recoup their investment in PUBLISHING the games developed by these studios and satisfying share holders in their earnings reports.

To that purpose, Take Two started pushing Rockstar to create ghastly counterparts of their superb singleplayer experiences solely aimed at aggressive monetization, being GTA Online and RDR Online, but the sole existence of those titles does not invalidate the existence of their singleplayer counterparts. For some reason, though, people seem to have forgotten those exist!
When people talk about GTA 5, for some obscure reason, they only refer to GTA Online and not the singleplayer game.

GTA Online doesn't exist to me, it's not equivalent to GTA 5 and I'll never play it.

 

Rockstar hasn't had some incredible decline in quality throughout the years. Their last release was incredible, the PUBLISHERS and PARENT COMPANIES are to blame for the clusterf*ck of greed that are GTA Online and GTA 5's release schedule.

Unfortunately, these practices have become standard in the industry and have disgruntled gamers, rightfully so, but I've noticed it's also turned a lot of them into unbearable pessimists who sh*t on everything because they feel some sense of accomplishment from their "X franchise is dead they don't care anymore" doomsday predictions.

The state of the videogame industry kind of sucks, but there's nuance to it. The presence of greedy publishers does not rule out the existence of competent game developers which can deliver quality products. The existence of GTA Online does not mean that Read Ded Redemption 2 is somehow comparable to Cyperpunk 2077.
People just like to hop on the bandwagon and be outraged to get their rocks off, and that's even more evidenced by the incredible reactions of some people. 

 

THE VOCAL MINORITY

A poll on this forum reveals that most people actually liked the trailer, with only 10-15% of people hating it. 

This was to be expected, as no regular, sane person would have a complete spergfest over the fact that Claude doesn't look like a real life replica of Tom Cruise in a remaster of a 20 year old videogame. 

It just highlights how absurd and ridiculous this level of outrage is. 
I mean come on, Rockstar didn't even announce they were going to release these remasters until like 3 weeks before the trailers, they were supposed to pretty much come out of nowhere, except that people started leaking documents and some set their expectations too high, not knowing what the word "remaster" means.

It was never supposed to be some incredible hyped release, it was never supposed to be a complete remake with GTA 5 level graphics, it was supposed to be a fine remaster which would bring some new graphical features and QoL changes to newer platforms, and to that end I think they succeeded.
It makes me wonder what exactly were people thinking when they found out about these remasters, what sort of wild insurmountable expectations they set for this release that the reaction they had was to throw slurs at a group of 20 developers. 

 

This outrage is simply idiotic, pointless, and disingenuous.

It downplays the merits of the remasters while shifting goalposts and placing unrealistic expectations onto regular consumers.

 

tl;dr the remasters aren't peak perfection but they look fine, and if you throw an autistic spergfest over how they ABSOLUTELY RUINED the original games you come off as a middle schooler.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IzzyBlues

I think the biggest issue with this is that nobody has seen the gameplay footage yet, so it's really hard to make a fair judgement/call on what these remasters will be.

 

In saying that, I definitely think some things can be improved. Some elements of the trailer look too bright/fortnite-like for my tastes, but overall I think it looks pretty good. They seem to have struck a decent balance.

Edited by IzzyBlues
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MetroFloaty
5 minutes ago, IzzyBlues said:

I think the biggest issue with this is that nobody has seen the gameplay footage yet, so it's really hard to make a fair judgement/call on what these remasters will be.

 

In saying that, I definetaly think some things can be improved. Some elements of the trailer look too bright/fortnite-like for my tastes, but overall I think it looks pretty good. They seem to have struck a decent balance.

 

I agree with this as well, I think gameplay footage will have us pleasantly surprised and the detractors will end up buying/pirating the game anyway lol

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iNSANE666

Long story short, the biggest issue for people with Definitive Editions are the characters, people can oversee some texture bugs (there will 100% be some), but those are not the issue.

Its using Unreal Engine so lighting, shadows, reflections and everything engine based will be perfect.

Even if they altered atmosphere colors, those can be put back using ReShade, so those too aren`t an issue.

 

My opinion is that people are gutted mostly because of Characters, if they focused more on them there would be no outrage.

IMHO they are really an issue, because they are the biggest part of these games, you spend most of the time looking at them, especially for example what they had done to Tommy, before he looked like hardened gangster and it went with his personality and story, he looked intimidating and bossy, but now he looks like a sissy IMHO.

Claude and CJ look ok to me though.

(Other side characters not so much though, Misty, Avery, Ken, Lance....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americana

I just want to point out that in my opinion Grand Theft Auto III looks really good, the best out of these three. However, I've never liked how Vice City looked, so here is that. San Andreas is okay, I guess.

 

The atmosphere in Grand Theft Auto III is awesome, and now it's even better - also Liberty City looks better than ever. It's just great.

 

Too bad they didn't remodel the vehicles, some of them look really out of place. Also, they should added have some small details like decals for a Taxi in Vice City and San Andreas.

 

Some characters do look weird, of course.

Edited by Americana
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GhettoJesus

I am rather unsure about the purpose of this post. You can't be objective about a single topic, no one can be. So I am gonna take this as a subjective criticism of the criticism and I will respond in such manner. I do appreciate the fact that you didn't just see well formed criticisms and cried "b&m topic please" as many others.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Now it's perfectly fine to have gripes and criticisms about the remasters, but as anything goes, that would be within the realm of logic.

See the problem is that "realm of logic" is more subjective than it appears to be. I can not personally reflect to any of the examples but I am going to try and come up with some. Is it an issue that GTA III doesn't have the greenish tint anymore? Not really. It would look nicer and more faithful to the original if it had it so I am still criticizing the remaster for it but it's not on the top of the list of things that went wrong. I find this to be perfectly within the realm of logic but I wouldn't say that this ruined the remastered GTA III.

 

Is criticizing plastic Tommy within the realm of logic? I think we both agree that it is. Does it ruin the game's feel? Maybe not for you but it does for me. Is that within the realm of logic? For me, yes.

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

The outrage is downright comical, with some people being so dramatic as to claim that they have ruined the franchise simply because Claude's skin looks a bit more yellow (when illuminated by a yellow lamppost).

Did someone actually say this? I'd love to know.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Still, the characters don't look that much more cartoony than they did in the original games, and anyone thinking so likely hasn't removed their nostalgia tinted glasses. 

I have said this many times before that this is not the case in my opinion. GTA III was first and foremost developed for the Playstation 2.  If GTA III looked like the alpha version (picture below) then I'd say yeah, this is 100% cartoonish. But it ended up looking like the second image. I don't see the cartoonishness. It looks very good for the era, it could have been better but keep in mind that this was a console game originally. So don't bring up Mafia which came out a year later and ended up being way better, that was made for PC originally. Yes the characters looks blocky which they got rid of later but I fail to see the cartoonish look. There wasn't much to improve on them. They are detailed, albeit very compressed. But I think the comparison below shows that R* ditched the cartoonish look through the development. Yes it's still present somewhat but only barely.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

give-me-liberty.jpg

 

I feel R* also shares my opinion.

 

Screenshot-at-Oct-23-12-28-40.png

 

Screenshot-at-Oct-23-12-28-59.png

 

To close off this train of thought I am just gonna say that I don't mean to frame my point as an objective truth and neither should you. This is going to be a subjective topic where none of us are right and yet both of us are right.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

There don't really seem to be many props in Ocean Drive in Vice City, which makes me somewhat worry that they haven't added much to the emptier areas of the game, but then again, that would be in line with the map design of the older games, and it's not like they took anything out. Questionable choice, I guess, but overall not much of a big deal. 

I have noticed that they removed the bushes near Ocean Drive for some reason which makes it very plain. These things do matter, though if anyone says that the bushes are the dealbreaker then they are clearly trolling.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

I think the biggest culprit of all is the 60 dollar pricepoint. I'd say 40 dollars is more appropriate. We've already played those games and while the new graphics and controls are welcome additions, I don't think they're worth 15 dollars on top of the 5 dollars you would normally pay for a game key for one original game from the trilogy.

I am actually surprised that you brought up this point because this is where I will actually disagree or rather, won't contribute to the criticism. I am really out of touch on video game prices. People seem very happy to pay 60 euros for this game and some have pre-ordered before the trailer. Part of me says that the environmental graphical updates are good enough for 60€, part of me says remasters should never be full priced. Granted I am not interested in playing and buying the game this doesn't affect me much so it's easy for me to stay neutral.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

I agree, I was baffled to find people who actually expected this to turn out like Mafia DE. Though I don't trust Kotaku, even they stated that the games looked "heavily modded" which already told me to keep my expectations low. For the record, I just expected HD textures. So the final product actually bested my expectations.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

I've seen people outraged over THIS screenshot as well!

Claude got the best treatment but what is with his face? It's like he is about to have a nervous breakdown. I think it would have been better if they gave him the same expressionless and emotionless face. That is highly subjective though.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

t adds many modern effects and graphical enhancements to RenderWare, and it looks great, making the game look more realistic, but that's NOT what Rockstar intended for the remasters, and that's not what should be expected of them. 
That's like saying that Fortnite looks worse than San Andreas with mods because one has a more realistic approach to art direction than the other, but you CAN'T condemn Fortnite for being more cartoony because that's the look it's going for. 
If the remasters were trying to look more realistic and ended up looking like GTA 4, then that would've been awful, but as it stands, what Rockstar wanted was a game that preserved the original aesthetic of the trilogy, and that's more or less what was delivered, albeit with better models and textures.

This is an interesting argument. On one hand I feel like that it is unreasonable for us to expect something that they didn't conceptualize (see Mafia DE comparison above). On the other hand I think they outdid, for example, the DirectX 2.0 mod when it comes to the environment. I didn't expect the remasters to be on that level (I expected them to be lazy texture size increases) but I don't think it would have been an outlandish expectation if I wanted them to look like the DirectX 2.0 mod.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Rockstar hasn't had some incredible decline in quality throughout the years. Their last release was incredible, the PUBLISHERS and PARENT COMPANIES are to blame for the clusterf*ck of greed that are GTA Online and GTA 5's release schedule.

I disagree. I think R* is in on it. They have no shame in thanking the "supportive community" while some modders are getting sued. Regardless, this doesn't influence my opinion on the remaster. A sh*tty company can still produce gold. The only thing that their behavior influences is whether I will buy games from them or not.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

A poll on this forum reveals that most people actually liked the trailer, with only 10-15% of people hating it. 

Not factual. Currently 55.15% says that they like it, 31.53% saying "eh" (I am among them) and 13.22% says they hate it. But "hate" is a lot more nuanced. If I were ready to support R* financially would I give them money for this product? No, the cartoonish characters ruin it for me. Do I hate it? Can't say so because the environment looks quite nice. So can I be counted as someone who hates it? i am put off by the game so I might as well be counted as one but I think it's hard to say that everything is perfect or everything sucks. It is nuanced.

 

4 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

tl;dr the remasters aren't peak perfection but they look fine, and if you throw an autistic spergfest over how they ABSOLUTELY RUINED the original games you come off as a middle schooler.

See this isn't a very mature take. Spergfest? I haven't seen much of it directed at the game. Though I agree that personal insults are out of the line. For me the character models ruin the game and if I weren't holding off my money in solidarity I still wouldn't buy it. The characters are too smooth, too plastic, too cartoonish. This is a highly subjective topic by the way so you can't argue that they objectively aren't. Nor can I argue that they objectively are. Am I sperging? I don't think so. You should have probably provided some anonymous quotes imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MetroFloaty
1 hour ago, GhettoJesus said:

You should have probably provided some anonymous quotes imo.

 

I couldn't really do that without actually calling out some posters on this forum, but it really doesn't take long to go on the bitch & moan thread to find perfect examples of what I was talking about, people writing long paragraphs about how the game is ruined beyond their wildest expectations and that GSG are a bunch of politically correct fa**ot punks.
Some posters were banned too so you won't get to see the full extent of the temper tantrums thrown over this game, but this thread serves to point out how ridiculous those are.
Obviously I can't say that GSG/Rockstar's decisions were objectively good, but there's a point after which the complaints about the game become completely unreasonable and unwarranted.

 

On the screenshot of Claude I posted, which looks completely fine for 99% of people, someone went on to go on a tirade about how they supposedly completely butchered him and shat all over the game studio as if they'd replaced him with minecraft steve, it was baffling 

  • CJ Wat... 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock n' Stock

I mean, I get how it's definitely polarising for some people, and they more than have the right to voice their displeasure. There's even some sh*t about it I don't like so much.

 

Some of the reactions have been disproportionate however. In fairness, I think a lot of us felt the exact same when that E&E insult was revealed.

Edited by Lock n' Stock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GhettoJesus
1 hour ago, MetroFloaty said:

 

I couldn't really do that without actually calling out some posters on this forum, but it really doesn't take long to go on the bitch & moan thread to find perfect examples of what I was talking about, people writing long paragraphs about how the game is ruined beyond their wildest expectations and that GSG are a bunch of politically correct fa**ot punks.

That's the point of the thread though? I really don't see why you had to go there and argue with the posters if the thread was exclusively created for the purpose of complaining as some members already have a hard time accepting criticisms in the main thread. Why not just use the main thread for an argument? I agree that there is a difference between level headed criticisms, full on paragraphs about why the games are bad and personal insults. But if you are so uptight about criticisms (I mean the out of proportion ones as well) why do you view the thread? As I was told "these threads are for people who wish to criticize the game without seeing the hype" or something along these lines. I honestly think you have only yourself to blame for this.

 

1 hour ago, MetroFloaty said:

Some posters were banned too so you won't get to see the full extent of the temper tantrums thrown over this game, but this thread serves to point out how ridiculous those are.

If you mean the doxxing, I can understand banning those people. So you won't get an argument from me there. That is just ridiculous and scummy on the behalf of the doxxers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: What I will talk about will be based solely on screenshots and the trailer showcased by R* and their posts on social media and the R* newswire. This might not hold up once the game gets released.

Remaster

I don't agree with classing this game as a remaster, it simply isn't. It is a remake which mostly uses old assets. I don't know where people get the "remaster" as R* uses this term nowhere themselves. (I've looked through (Ctrl+F) their twitter and the newswire posts regarding The Definitive Edition). So the games are neither advertised as such nor are remasters themselves. (In case someone can show me where R* said it themselves I'll update this here)

 

Remake

I think what we are getting is a remake not a remaster, and not a good one at that. The game uses Unreal Engine 4 and some portion of game assets were fully recreated for the new engine. Some were changed to fit the games to feel more modern (rounded street corners, lamp posts). And sadly many things were just straight up ported with just upped textures. Many buildings and terrain parts suffer this fate sadly. The controls will be updated to GTA V standard so I expect vehicles and weapons and player characters to act more like GTA V, but not exactly. Thanks to the new engine the game gets a whole new rendering engine and many new graphics features. The clouds and fog is rendered more nicely and the reflections look great in my opinion.

 

Characters

I do agree SA got off most lightly in this treatment. I actually don't hate it that much. I feel like most of the time it is at least not a worse experience than the original. However the characters look a bit uncanny, didn't keep the original look of them. Sweet and Kendl being the worst ones out of the bunch in my opinion. CJ is meh, but not bad and Ryder and Big Smoke are alright. Now when it comes to VC and III character I think everyone can agree they look bad. From the cone shaped arm of Salvatore to Claude's hair and Joey's and Misty's face. These just don't look natural. It isn't a lost cause they'd just have to put a bit more effort into it. Like look at CJs model. I'd say he wasn't modeled badly, just a bit unfaithfully. I think this is what most people hate about the new editions.

 

Autos

The vehicles seem to be going many different ways. There are ones that got a nice remodel and retexture. Some of them could even fit in GTA Vs early days if it weren't for a few small details. There are models that have received small updates to round off a few edges and make them seem a bit more up to date (GTA III Stinger). And some models were left unchanged from the PC release, eventhough the xbox version had better ones (GTA III Police car). Overall the vehicles seem mostly faithful, but because of the lack of work also feel very lazy. Also from the look of it vehicles kept the same old dated feeling damage model.

 

Weapons

Some weapons look nice, but Tommy's UZI and CJ's AK look from funny to very sad. It is horribly inconsistent.

 

Interiors

This is a part where I can say the game shines. Interiors used to look from bad to bland, but now they look amazing. Look at the little details in Sweet's house. It is the quality that I expected, maybe even more. The lighting looks great this is a part where the team can be proud of this game. Not sure if other interiors look as good as this, but Sweet's house is only shown a few times in cutscenes so I would expect more used interiors to retain the same quality. If everything looked and felt like these new interiors almost no one would have a problem.

 

Buildings

Every building from the outside retained the old models with new textures. Thus feeling out of place like most of those HD texture mods. I would have expected similar rework we have seen in the interiors. Take the buildings and just try to add more details onto them. Some buildings being literal cubes made sense in 2004, but not in 2021 (or 2007 for that matter). For me this is one of the most annoying aspects of these editions. They should've remodeled the buildings. The city should have stayed the same layout wise and the buildings would just be a more detailed version of themselves with minor changes done so they don't look out of place next to all of the new things. It just feels really bad when a kitchen counter in an interior is more detailed than whole buildings in the city.

 

Terrain

The new trees look very nice and fitting. They have remade them from the ground up and look amazing with the new textures, but sadly everything else stayed the same old low poly model. The desert is still a jagged edgy terrain, although a bit less noticeable this time. The stash of logs show in the Wu Zi Mu mission (The one with the ZR350) we can see that bunch of the cut down trees are the same as in the previous versions. I just feel like props and details like this deserve better. At least lamp posts (not counting the repeating texture issue that might get fixed later) look nicer than before and they have rounded the street corners.

 

Mods
I've been modding gtasa since probably 2014 or so, so I think I can give an opinion on how I see things. Is TDE better than some mods in certain aspects? Yes. Are mods close to TDE? Also yes. Most of the mods for these games are free. Some are paid while in development and some are paid forever. Although these practices are not necessarily new. I remember back on the LSRP forums you had to pay for skin mods and stuff. Modding is mostly a painless experience if you keep a clean game on your pc as a backup. Modding to me (looking back) didn't seem like that big of a hassle. If my game crashed after changing a few files I reverted back. I can't talk about developing my own ENBs, because I never did that, but downloading other people's ENB presets was a fairly easy process. And many times the first thing people do when they start out modding is look up modpacks. These used to be much more popular back in the day. Just drag the files in and as long as you had 1.0 of gta you were golden if your pc could handle it. Yeah, mods are usually not as optimized as you'd want, but you have to keep in mind its usually made by people who do it out of passion and not for money. If you took time you could actually put together a mod that would come pretty close to what we have here. Renderhook based mods implement a ray tracer layer on top of the game. The person who you showed doesn't have the most high-end PC and it shows. (rtx 2060 (not really an rtx card based on its performance), r5 2600x (2 gens old mid-range processor). Graphics modding when not talking about ultra performance mods will always be for people whose PCs are capable of handling. Ray tracing is exceptionally demanding on your GPU. Also the flickering issue could be eliminated by not removing the distant fog effects, or if you remove it also be sure to install an extended draw distance mod to combat that. When you get into this kind of modding that isn't adding a different car to the game you have to be prepared to troubleshoot and learn stuff. If you aren't willing just don't get into it.

 

Mods just can't

There are many aspects in this game that mod advocates like to ignore. We have to keep in mind that this is an old, unsupported and outdated engine. There is only so much you can do with it. There are some things the game just isn't capable of and would be hell to implement. These aspects require a ground up rebuild of the game (like what we see here).


The Rockstar Hateboner

The biggest fans can become the biggest haters, because they can see how far you fell from. I feel the same way, although I don't hate the company I'm just disappointed in this product. Grove Street Games should not have gotten the opportunity to work on this game after what they have done with the original mobile ports and x360/ps3 versions. Also the recent treatment from T2 regarding modders is a serious issue. The suing and harassment of our community members and their families should not be forgotten. This is the least we should keep them accounted for.

Grove Street Games Hateboner and Political Correctness
Do I think it is dumb to remove the confederate flag? Yes. Am I gonna bitch about it? I already did so Yes. Am I gonna send hate and harassment towards GSG and their employees? f*ck NO. No one should. This crosses a certain line that should not be crossed. GSG did your beloved game dirty, but this should not be done nor tolerated.

 

Final note

R* and T2 are billion dollar companies. We should expect more from them and not something like this. The game with this mixed-match old-new style just look bad. Either do a more down to earth remaster that runs well on modern systems or go all out on a remake that makes sense in 2021, but not this. I feel like after 2018 this is the new R* and this is as good as it gets for us fans and used to be fans.

Also remember again mods died for this. And people got sued and harassed.

Edited by LaszloR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CynicalMexican

Yeah... what should have been a pretty happy day for the community turned out to be a complete sh*tshow, all things considered.

 

What was really odd was that it started to become less of "do you like the game or not" and it became oddly... partisan? It felt a lot like a political forum where people support one politician or party and the other people support another. So, a lot of people became extremely vindictive and vocal on their position as if they were discussing politics. Not to mention that people did start to bring up politics, which lead to people posting bigoted comments which were completely unnecessary and irrelevant. It was embarrassing sh*t to see. The GTA community has always had a bit of an abrasive reputation, but it was utterly ridiculous.

 

(I think the fallout from the Saints Row reboot seeped into some people's expectations for The Trilogy: Definitive Edition, and there was an attempt to equate the two and make it look like PC culture was taking over gaming... even though aside from a removed Confederate flag from Phil Cassidy's tank, there was nothing to indicate that this was the case, and even then that was such a minor detail that hardly anyone cared about)

 

While the anger over the modding takedowns is justified, and the removal of the original versions is suspicious, ultimately most mods are still available to download, and most people who want to play them probably already have the game. I don't think anything justifies T2's sticking their dick in the community; had they not taken down mods, the reaction would be far less visceral.

 

But I can't say Expanded & Enhanced is in any way relevant to The Trilogy. I don't understand why people keep bringing up E&E. Yeah, no one will defend that disaster. I sure as sh*t won't, I crucified that announcement hard, and I was pretty convinced there would be no Trilogy: Definitive Edition (I thought they were going to do some sh*tty Online DLC based on it or something) after that reveal. Leave it aside, at the end of the day it's a PS5/XSX port that should have never been marketed the way it was. Had it been relegated to a Newswire/trailer announcement with no appearances at major events, there would be less outrage.

 

And, truth be told, I think some users were just determined to hate the announcement no matter how it looked. I'm sure, had these been remakes, with RDR2/Mafia Definitive Edition levels of detail, people would have said "they ruined the original look of the games! they weren't supposed to be realistic!". Even when Mafia: Definitive Edition was announced, some people were still sh*tting on that game before it had released because "they changed the mechanics" or some other minor details. Some fans will just be petty for the sake of it.

 

I do hope that these games are moddable though, as a bit of an unspoken apology to the community for the mess of mod takedowns. 

 

Finally, let's not even go into the doxxing. Targeting individual developers over executive decisions they probably didn't have influence over is pretty ridiculous; I'm sure a lot of these developers loved the original games as well, and it's obvious that they poured a lot of effort into this. GSG may be a rebranded War Drum, but they certainly are doing a far better job than they did with the mobile "remaster" disgrace that was supposedly GTA San Andreas. Remember that Hangar 13 received a lot of flack for Mafia 3, but they redeemed themselves with Mafia DE and probably have saved that franchise from death. Given that Rockstar Games is probably expanding their footprint, I would imagine Grove Street Games received a lot more resources on this, and there was probably a lot of changes after the disastrous original remaster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plocospermataceae

I feel like you're cherrypicking some very specific complaints that maybe one or two people tops have mentioned. It's the internet, so there will be tons of people responding and reacting in all manner of ways. Especially with a series like GTA, that has millions and millions of fans, with millions of opinions

 

But ultimately, they've removed the original versions from stores and made it impossible to buy them legitimately. I'm not a fan of remasters like this anyway, where they pretty much just try to rewrite history and entirely replace the original version with a remaster. For all intents and purposes, this will be the "official" version of these games going forward, so I don't think people are in the wrong to voice their complaints and demand a high enough quality out of them, especially when they're charging more money for these 20-year-old games than before. That's my biggest beef with all this, they've basically overwritten the original games with this "definitive" edition. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when someone is going back to play these for the first time, this will be the version they're playing. It's like those Star Wars remakes, where they've made it very hard to enjoy the original version of the films, and you just need to deal with the awkward CGI Jabba inserted into scenes. Except now the entire game looks like that CGI Jabba

Edited by Plocospermataceae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MetroFloaty
1 hour ago, GhettoJesus said:

That's the point of the thread though? I really don't see why you had to go there and argue with the posters if the thread was exclusively created for the purpose of complaining as some members already have a hard time accepting criticisms in the main thread. Why not just use the main thread for an argument? I agree that there is a difference between level headed criticisms, full on paragraphs about why the games are bad and personal insults. But if you are so uptight about criticisms (I mean the out of proportion ones as well) why do you view the thread? As I was told "these threads are for people who wish to criticize the game without seeing the hype" or something along these lines. I honestly think you have only yourself to blame for this.

 

The fact that dumb takes and fits are relegated to a single thread doesn't exclude them from scrutiny. I felt like making a thread because of the amount of things I had to say about it felt like they deserved their own, and I was hoping to change some minds and make people realise how banal the whole situation is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Plocospermataceae said:

But ultimately, they've removed the original versions from stores and made it impossible to buy them legitimately. I'm not a fan of remasters like this anyway, where they pretty much just try to rewrite history and entirely replace the original version with a remaster. For all intents and purposes, this will be the "official" version of these games going forward, so I don't think people are in the wrong to voice their complaints and demand a high enough quality out of them, especially when they're charging more money for these 20-year-old games than before. That's my biggest beef with all this, they've basically overwritten the original games with this "definitive" edition. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when someone is going back to play these for the first time, this will be the version they're playing. It's like those Star Wars remakes, where they've made it very hard to enjoy the original version of the films, and you just need to deal with the awkward CGI Jabba inserted into scenes. Except now the entire game looks like that CGI Jabba

I think this is my main gripe too for the most part. I can't really be mad or upset over these remasters like others are since my expectations weren't very high to begin with. Best to have low expectations and be unsurprised than get excited and be disappointed I suppose.

But it's mainly the fact that Rockstar took down the originals and appear to be going out of their way to make these versions the only versions you can buy legit. The earlier copies are out of print and all digital storefronts will have to have these new ones so these are the versions future generations will grow up with. Obviously sites like eBay and such will still allow you to buy the old versions legit, with other methods being available for anyone desperate enough to play the oldies. But when it comes to the Average Joe who heard about these classics, they'll have to make do with orange, pompadour Tommy.

I personally still have the trilogy on both PS2 and Xbox so I'm good and don't need to buy these remasters. Though I kind of feel for the future generations that won't get to experience what San Andreas was like on the old systems. It reminds me of when games like Scott Pilgrim vs the World and such get taken away forever (though it came back eventually but that's besides the point) meaning no one can ever experience them again legally. Video game preservation is pretty important imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

If you ask me, the so-controversial screenshot of Claude doesn't look like it would be too far from an in-game model from GTA 4.

 

h7yUFgW.png

 

Yeah its gonna be a no from me chief. It looks very far. But the bad aspect doesn't come from the fact that the model is 20 year old made with 20 year old tech (like gta iii), it comes from the art direction and lack of effort and detail put into the characters.

A lot of criticism also stems from the leaks that said Ruffian Games (now R* Dundee) were working on the remaster. People probably expected similar quality to what was seen in the Halo Master Chief Collection Remaster. At least I expected that. The most I would have wanted if they wanted to make it even better was try to bring it to the HD era. This game doesn't make sense in the current videogame landscape, with the mix of old and new it is going way too many directions for its own good.

 

22 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Sarcasm aside, you can say that they were going for a pseudo-realistic style with these games given by the amount of pixels they tried to cram into these skins, but you can NOT maintain the classic look of these games by remaking the skins as if they were to fit in GTA 5.

 

Not necessarily GTA 5/HD universe style, but something more modern. In the beta GTA III was gonna be cartoony as explained by GhettoJesus above, but they changed midway through the development. The only cartoony aspect that those games have are because of the technical limitations of 2001-2004 and the limits of the renderware engine. Not because they were going for that style. This looks like they smoothed and upscaled the old models not a reimagination. The problem is they based it on the old character models and not what those models were based on. Also I'm only saying HD might not be the best for it because it would open the can of worms that is the gta universes. Although even R* doesn't seem to respect it themselves with characters crossing over from one another whenever they like.

Edited by LaszloR1
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock n' Stock
16 hours ago, Plocospermataceae said:

I feel like you're cherrypicking some very specific complaints that maybe one or two people tops have mentioned. It's the internet, so there will be tons of people responding and reacting in all manner of ways. Especially with a series like GTA, that has millions and millions of fans, with millions of opinions

 

But ultimately, they've removed the original versions from stores and made it impossible to buy them legitimately. I'm not a fan of remasters like this anyway, where they pretty much just try to rewrite history and entirely replace the original version with a remaster. For all intents and purposes, this will be the "official" version of these games going forward, so I don't think people are in the wrong to voice their complaints and demand a high enough quality out of them, especially when they're charging more money for these 20-year-old games than before. That's my biggest beef with all this, they've basically overwritten the original games with this "definitive" edition. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when someone is going back to play these for the first time, this will be the version they're playing. It's like those Star Wars remakes, where they've made it very hard to enjoy the original version of the films, and you just need to deal with the awkward CGI Jabba inserted into scenes. Except now the entire game looks like that CGI Jabba

Ya, I definitely think the removal of the originals (along with the modding sh*tshow) has added fuel to the fire, as if R* wants these new versions to "replace" the originals. Just a really stupid move that they deserve sh*t for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiamiViceCity1986

While there are things I'm not happy about surrounding the definitive edition like the removal of the original versions from digital storefronts and the outlook towards modding (and I'm not even a PC player) I'm still willing to give these games a chance even if Ken's missing some wrinkles or there's a shrub missing from Ocean Beach.

 

If I'm being completely honest there are some things that look great and other things that look like they could use some work, but probably wont since the games are releasing so soon. Despite that I don't think it's enough to write them off as the antichrist before getting the chance to feel what they actually play like.

 

  • Like 2

GTA Vice City Signature+Avatar Combo Request | PlayStation Universe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CynicalMexican
16 hours ago, D9fred95 said:

I think this is my main gripe too for the most part. I can't really be mad or upset over these remasters like others are since my expectations weren't very high to begin with. Best to have low expectations and be unsurprised than get excited and be disappointed I suppose.

But it's mainly the fact that Rockstar took down the originals and appear to be going out of their way to make these versions the only versions you can buy legit. The earlier copies are out of print and all digital storefronts will have to have these new ones so these are the versions future generations will grow up with. Obviously sites like eBay and such will still allow you to buy the old versions legit, with other methods being available for anyone desperate enough to play the oldies. But when it comes to the Average Joe who heard about these classics, they'll have to make do with orange, pompadour Tommy.

I personally still have the trilogy on both PS2 and Xbox so I'm good and don't need to buy these remasters. Though I kind of feel for the future generations that won't get to experience what San Andreas was like on the old systems. It reminds me of when games like Scott Pilgrim vs the World and such get taken away forever (though it came back eventually but that's besides the point) meaning no one can ever experience them again legally. Video game preservation is pretty important imo.

 

 

 

Yeah, removing the originals from the storefront was a stupid move. The only legitimate reason I could think of for them to remove these games is that they are a pain in the ass to maintain for modern systems (EA did something similar with The Sims 2; they just straight up gave up and effectively made yar-har the only option to get the game without a physical copy). Otherwise, it makes me think they don't want people to just buy the old version and mod it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS_BlackScout

The problem with removing the older versions is that it makes it appear as if Rockstar is forcing this version down our throats.

 

"We are the ones who choose what you will play, not you. You won't have an option anymore.

Well, if you owned the games, sure, but if you're new for some reason. Nope.

This is the definitive edition, forget about any other versions. This is the one."

 

I assume the only reason they didn't take away the OGs (besides insane backlash) from those who already own is because it's probably illegal to do so. 

 

_

 

Apart from that I'm only really upset about the lack of effort and care put into some of the characters.

I'm sorry, not even a Fortnite comparison is fair. Fortnite has better looking characters.

 

Anyway, Tommy's design is just awful. It looks rushed, amateurish and I cannot believe that Aaron Garbut (an Art Director), Sam and his brother Dan (who doesn't work anymore but is still Sam's brother so he probably still gives some input by proxy) approved this mess. 

 

I feel like unless they were unaware of this and someone throws a tamper tantrum inside Rockstar, Tommy will look like this on November 11.

 

For one thing, editing his model would necessitate additional QA to ensure that nothing strange comes out of it (rigging, cutscenes, gameplay).  Second, it takes an entire iterative process of editing, tweaking and approval, which is unlikely to happen that at this stage of development. Only a future a patch would be able to address it. Even if that happens, the damage will already be done.

 

Only a delay can save this but it won't happen, 99% unlikely. 

Edited by BS_BlackScout
fixed grammar and some stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eternal Moonshine

What a completely useless tirade that's not going to change anyone's opinion. I expected better from Rockstar. This is not the level of quality I'm used to seeing from them. Making the characters appear more round and adding a cheap specular shader to their hair, is not sticking to the original art style. It's being lazy. They should have put far more work into making sure that the characters look right. 

If anything, these remasters are not being criticized enough, as most people seem to be perfectly happy with Rockstar's noodle arm tech being put to full use

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock n' Stock
3 hours ago, BS_BlackScout said:

Anyway, Tommy's design is just awful. It looks rushed, amateurish and I cannot believe that Aaron Garbut (an Art Director), Sam and his brother Dan (who doesn't work anymore but is still Sam's brother so he probably still gives some input by proxy) approved this mess. 

Forgive me if I likely missed something, but where did Garbut say he approved it?

Edited by Lock n' Stock
  • excuseme 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to inject on the part about mods...

 

1) YES, we agree that modding isn't easy up front, especially with how awkwardly supported III/VC were. You know what the community did though? re3/reVC, a simple EXE file that runs the game instead and included all the benefits of mods like SkyGFX, SilentPatch, GInput, etc. This ONE file was meant to act as a fresh build to run the game in a simple and easy way for people and by default you could chose what filters you wanted for the game. Want the overly bright and sharp Mobile style? Select that! Want the classic PS2 colour filter and trails? Select that! And if you had shader knowledge, you could inject that into a build, which people out there started to do which was pushing these old games further. 

 

So what went wrong? Take-Two and Rockstar went on their mass DMCA take down and then sued the main contributors to that project. THE biggest attempt at making III/VC easy to use for modern players was struck down.

 

2) YES Modders don't have the time or resource to do things to scale like DE, but that's the difference, Modders are doing this for free in their spare time, Grove Street Games have worked on this for over two years getting paid to do so and have access to the sources. IF the modders had access to the sources and were being paid, you can sure as hell bet the results would be pushed further.

 

For example on this, I'm just going to mention my work here:

 

Specifically the GTA IV section, I only started my remasters for that game under a year ago (with another vehicle update coming soon whenever I have the time to polish up some stuff), I'm doing this on essentially minimal time, not even an hour a week and I'm doing this all by myself. Now IF I was being paid and had access to the sources I would've finished all of this ages ago, hell I'm hesitant to start the map stuff but if I had a team and was being paid to do so I'd be running with that! 😛

 

It's not that a lot of the modders don't have the SKILL, it's just the difference between TIME and MONEY. I know a lot of people like to look down on the modding community but a lot of us have actual professional jobs and work in the industry in various ways, for us this stuff is just side fun stuff that we want to put out there to better these games for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS_BlackScout
1 hour ago, Lock n' Stock said:

Forgive me if I likely missed something, but where did Garbut say he approved it?

He didn't say anything. But to re-release a game where he was the Art Director (not only those) and let that sh*t pass is downright disrespectful. 

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1014850/

 

No way they didn't show it to him. If they didn't, Rockstar has some serious issues going on internally. He deserves to know. 

Edited by BS_BlackScout
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock n' Stock
1 hour ago, Ash_735 said:

Just to inject on the part about mods...

 

1) YES, we agree that modding isn't easy up front, especially with how awkwardly supported III/VC were. You know what the community did though? re3/reVC, a simple EXE file that runs the game instead and included all the benefits of mods like SkyGFX, SilentPatch, GInput, etc. This ONE file was meant to act as a fresh build to run the game in a simple and easy way for people and by default you could chose what filters you wanted for the game. Want the overly bright and sharp Mobile style? Select that! Want the classic PS2 colour filter and trails? Select that! And if you had shader knowledge, you could inject that into a build, which people out there started to do which was pushing these old games further. 

 

So what went wrong? Take-Two and Rockstar went on their mass DMCA take down and then sued the main contributors to that project. THE biggest attempt at making III/VC easy to use for modern players was struck down.

 

2) YES Modders don't have the time or resource to do things to scale like DE, but that's the difference, Modders are doing this for free in their spare time, Grove Street Games have worked on this for over two years getting paid to do so and have access to the sources. IF the modders had access to the sources and were being paid, you can sure as hell bet the results would be pushed further.

 

For example on this, I'm just going to mention my work here:

 

Specifically the GTA IV section, I only started my remasters for that game under a year ago (with another vehicle update coming soon whenever I have the time to polish up some stuff), I'm doing this on essentially minimal time, not even an hour a week and I'm doing this all by myself. Now IF I was being paid and had access to the sources I would've finished all of this ages ago, hell I'm hesitant to start the map stuff but if I had a team and was being paid to do so I'd be running with that! 😛

 

It's not that a lot of the modders don't have the SKILL, it's just the difference between TIME and MONEY. I know a lot of people like to look down on the modding community but a lot of us have actual professional jobs and work in the industry in various ways, for us this stuff is just side fun stuff that we want to put out there to better these games for people.

Sorry you guys have been treated as sh*ttily as you have. To me, the devotion you put into modding simply shows the passion you have for the material, not to mention trying to keep it alive. You'd think the scum at Take-Two would be a little more appreciative.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NasranSalleh

While I am baffled by the removal of the original GTA Trilogy releases, I also have mixed feelings.
Personally, I don't like the emulated PS2 ports that arrived for the PS4 years ago; I felt that a machine like the PS4 deserved better than an emulated PS2 game.
Putting the exact same PS2 game into a PS4 could be good for nostalgia, but in general, I don't like it that mucj (Maybe it's just me) .Mostly bcos these 'ports' are the exact ones from the PS2 and have little to no enhancements (apart from Achievements).

That being said, anybody who has NEVER played the Trilogy games are probably gonna enjoy what the Trilogy DE has to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jezus Holy Christ
On 10/23/2021 at 5:00 PM, MetroFloaty said:

Seems to me that if they turned the saturation slider way down and increased some contrast then people would have absolutely no qualms with these trailers, lol.

 

It certainly would've helped. I don't get what makes it so annoying to you.

Color grading is important. If the trilogy didn't have the certain style they do, or their distinct look was purely caused by hardware it'd be another story, but that's not the case here. I don't think anybody can remember San Andreas without thinking of its orange sky - which btw, you can see that they've attempted to recreate, with varying degrees of success. It's impossible to play GTA III without seeing the little bit of teal and blue tone present everywhere.

I don't hate colorful scenery. In fact Vice City was the most colorful out of the original three. It's just that some people, a minority or whatever you want to call them, notice details like that. Imagine how a lot of great movies would look with neutralized, bright, "realistic" colors.

Is it really idiotic and autistic to want a remaster of GTA Vice City that looks more like GTA Vice City than Kirby Star Allies? Of course lighting and shading had a different process when these games were originally made but it doesn't mean you can just skip past that now that there are different tools available. It's like recreating "In The Air Tonight" with no reverb, and adding a distorted trap 808 to make the mix more "modern". I hope you see what I'm getting at: There's a difference between higher fidelity and changes in style.

 

I'll just leave these screenshots from different games here. I think they explain the importance of colors more than I ever can:

 

Spoiler

Screens From Red Dead Redemption 2 - Rockstar Games

 

Assassin's Creed joins Xbox One backward compatibility list - Polygon

 

Ravenholm (d1_town) - valvearchive.com > archive > Half-Life > Half-Life 2  > Screenshots > Ravenholm (d1_town)

 

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2005) promotional art - MobyGames

 

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Screenshots for Windows - MobyGames

 

r/DeadSpace - [Best screenshots from dead space]

 

Need for Speed Most Wanted 2005 [XBOX 360] Qualification - YouTube

 

Cyberpunk 2077 looks absolutely beautiful in 1440p UW with an RTX 3080:  nvidia

 

OutRun 2 / Outrun 2006: Coast 2 Coast – Hardcore Gaming 101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this previously in another thread, but I think it should be seen here as well:


 

Quote

 

I've rewatched the trailer and I think I noticed something. One of the things that makes this uncanny is that there are way too many styles clashing.


Interiors: Mostly up to date sorta modern/realistic looking
Buildings: Old 20 year old models with new textures on them

Characters: Really cartoony (and half baked)

Rendering: Up to date lighting and reflections (possibly volumetric clouds and fog)

 

 

Cartoony characters and realistic lighting and reflections just don't go together. I haven't seen enough of the game yet, but I really feel like what we see here is due to laziness. It was easy to use to the old models. It was easy to put better resolution textures on them. It was necessary to remake the interiors. It was easier to make the characters cartoony. It was easy to implement UE4 stuff. Doing it another way would've taken more effort on their end. Either stylize nothing or stylize everything.

Edited by LaszloR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MetroFloaty
22 hours ago, LaszloR1 said:

People probably expected similar quality to what was seen in the Halo Master Chief Collection Remaster. At least I expected that.

https://imgur.com/g61ZJ6C

https://i.imgur.com/NdDu9Ui.png

https://i.imgur.com/0IA35MB.png

Halo Master Chief Collection was a fine remaster, but the changes weren't any more drastic than those seen in this Trilogy remaster. They've redone a bunch of models, upscaled the textures and added more vegetation to open areas, but literally so did the GTA remasters. Aside from some outliers, I'd say most textures we got in the GTA remasters look far better than those seen in the Halo remasters, regardless of art direction. 
Not to mention, many people shat on the Halo remasters as well, lol

 

7 hours ago, BS_BlackScout said:

Fortnite has better looking characters

Some characters in GTA III still look a bit outdated compared to Fortnite skins but their styles are totally different

 

6 hours ago, Eternal Moonshine said:

What a completely useless tirade that's not going to change anyone's opinion. I expected better from Rockstar. This is not the level of quality I'm used to seeing from them. Making the characters appear more round and adding a cheap specular shader to their hair, is not sticking to the original art style. It's being lazy. They should have put far more work into making sure that the characters look right. 

If anything, these remasters are not being criticized enough, as most people seem to be perfectly happy with Rockstar's noodle arm tech being put to full use

You don't know whether this is going to change anyone's opinion or not, I'd say people sh*tting themselves at this remaster and claiming it's going to be a total failure aren't making tirades that are any more useful than mine, in fact most people outside this forum are excited for this remaster and are saying it actually met or exceeded their expectations.

Given that GTA 3 looks like this, Vice City looks like this and San Andreas like this, I'd say they did a pretty damn fine job, and most people agree, in fact. I've seen most people say that they've perfectly captured the aesthetic of the older games and that anything more realistic would be uncanny and would ruin the atmosphere, so I'd say your preference is moreso a matter of personal opinion rather than proof of Grove Street Games's "laziness". 

 

4 hours ago, Ash_735 said:

It's not that a lot of the modders don't have the SKILL, it's just the difference between TIME and MONEY. I know a lot of people like to look down on the modding community but a lot of us have actual professional jobs and work in the industry in various ways, for us this stuff is just side fun stuff that we want to put out there to better these games for people.

I never claimed modders don't have the skill, I claimed that, factually, mods don't have the same level of polish and they can't stand up to an official remaster. 

I've seen someone unironically imply that because San Andreas has mods that add better lighting, a weapon wheel, waypoints and such that the remasters are unnecessary, while conveniently forgetting that San Andreas is not the only game in the collection and that not only do you need a PC to mod the game but that it's not exactly convenient to do so.

While the quality of individual mods may be fine, their interactions and the issues they create when more are put into the game hardly rival the seamless experience of an official release.

These remasters are necessary for people who want to replay these games on newer systems and with improved features but lack the technical knowhow on how to troubleshoot and mod the game on modern systems, let alone modern consoles. 

I should NOT have to download a mod for the game not to crash when using the pause menu or being able to simply use the camera.

 

2 hours ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

Of course lighting and shading had a different process when these games were originally made but it doesn't mean you can just skip past that now that there are different tools available.

The trilogy games lacked the filters and shaders from the console versions on PC and hardly anyone but the more dedicated fans noticed, let alone made a fuss about it. 

They are welcome additions, sure, but deal-breakers? Not in the slightest.

Compared to the PC version of San Andreas, I'd say the remaster's colorgrading doesn't look that much different 

https://i.imgur.com/YdxRKnO.png

 

GSG could've obviously done better, but all things considered, I think they did a fine job, no game will ever be perfect relative to one's own taste.

These games have an incredible legacy due to their record-breaking amount of freedom and immersion, and these remasters have added a great deal to these games. I find it petty as f*ck to focus on Tommy's shiny hair to downplay the amount of graphical and technical features they've added and revamped, and most of those complaints are because the remasters don't meet some

arbitrary standard that fans have set for the looks of these characters in their heads. 
Yeah some aren't exactly all that great, but no matter what GSG would've done some people would've still complained because they ALWAYS do. Even with the Halo remasters, despite the characters' new textures looking better, people still said sh*t along the lines of "it just looks off". 

 

I've played these games for over 10 years of my life, there hasn't been one year in the past decade where I haven't played at least a single GTA game, and I've enjoyed them to the fullest with and without mods, and not once have I felt unhappy with the character models, despite the fact that their arms are composed of 4 polygons and their faces look like mush. 
GTA is about the story, the dialogue, the city and the immersion. When I was playing Vice City and cruising down Ocean Drive on an Infernus with Get Down Saturday Night playing on the radio, I didn't give a sh*t about the 40 polygon count on Tommy's model or the pixelated textures on the car, I felt like I was a mobster driving down a street in 80's Miami, and I know that in this remaster, Tommy having slightly darker skin and shinier hair that I won't even notice during gameplay won't change that feeling in the absolute slighest, and anyone saying otherwise is either kidding themselves or is too pedantic.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Halo Master Chief Collection was a fine remaster, but the changes weren't any more drastic than those seen in this Trilogy remaster. They've redone a bunch of models, upscaled the textures and added more vegetation to open areas, but literally so did the GTA remasters. Aside from some outliers, I'd say most textures we got in the GTA remasters look far better than those seen in the Halo remasters, regardless of art direction. 
Not to mention, many people shat on the Halo remasters as well, lol

I can agree on the drastic part, but something being drastic doesn't mean its good. Here are a couple of shots from Nick930's video

 

Spoiler

5cbxYrD.jpg

NRjx0Cr.jpg

ZEfLJ5N.jpg

It kept the essence of the original while never looking worse than the original.

 

3 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

Some characters in GTA III still look a bit outdated compared to Fortnite skins but their styles are totally different

I don't get how a 20 year old game looking worse than a 2016 game matters to the point of the Trilogy remasters. Say what you want but the art style is very close to what you'd see in Fortnite.

 

3 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

I've seen most people say that they've perfectly captured the aesthetic of the older games and that anything more realistic would be uncanny and would ruin the atmosphere, so I'd say your preference is moreso a matter of personal opinion rather than proof of Grove Street Games's "laziness". 

Everyone has their opinions. I've mentioned in what ways laziness happened in previous posts that I don't want to go into, but I think once the game gets out this can either strengthen the laziness argument or disprove it mostly. We have to wait and see how the game plays for this one.

 

3 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

These games have an incredible legacy due to their record-breaking amount of freedom and immersion, and these remasters have added a great deal to these games. I find it petty as f*ck to focus on Tommy's shiny hair to downplay the amount of graphical and technical features they've added and revamped, and most of those complaints are because the remasters don't meet some

arbitrary standard that fans have set for the looks of these characters in their heads. 

And I find it petty as f*ck to downplay legitimate and easily proven criticism like this. You say it as if everyone had unrealistic expectations. Some did, most people didn't. Even you admit a little bit that things could be improved. So why this whole charade? Wouldn't it be to the benefit of every fan that the game gets improved. Anyways not that it matters, at this late stage of development we can bitch, but nothing will change.

 

3 hours ago, MetroFloaty said:

I've played these games for over 10 years of my life, there hasn't been one year in the past decade where I haven't played at least a single GTA game, and I've enjoyed them to the fullest with and without mods, and not once have I felt unhappy with the character models, despite the fact that their arms are composed of 4 polygons and their faces look like mush. 
GTA is about the story, the dialogue, the city and the immersion. When I was playing Vice City and cruising down Ocean Drive on an Infernus with Get Down Saturday Night playing on the radio, I didn't give a sh*t about the 40 polygon count on Tommy's model or the pixelated textures on the car, I felt like I was a mobster driving down a street in 80's Miami, and I know that in this remaster, Tommy having slightly darker skin and shinier hair that I won't even notice during gameplay won't change that feeling in the absolute slighest, and anyone saying otherwise is either kidding themselves or is too pedantic.

I've been a fan of the series and still kinda am. But everything should be enjoyed in context. I can enjoy the original games in their context. They had technical limitations and it is amazing what they have achieved. We give a sh*t about it this time because this was meant to be the definitive edition that replaces the originals. I feel like this doesn't do justice to the originals.

 

After all of this the only thing I can say is everything bad I say about this remakster is coming from a place a genuine love for these games. I want them to do better. We don't have to say everything sucks or everything is great. Life isn't binary. There are downsides and there are upsides on this remaster (neither side wants to mention the other for some reason, I wonder why). So to the people who like this new edition all I want to say is as long as you are truly happy about the quality of this game do go and play it and enjoy it to death, but remember this sets a bar for the future regarding R*'s products. If you think you are concerned this is the time to push back.

Edited by LaszloR1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.