>a studio instead takes an old game that used to be popular, slightly updates graphics

That's not a remake, that's a remaster.

A remaster is adding high res textures and upscaling the resolution and such.

A remake is entirely rebuilding the game from the ground up, from scratch. FF7 remake was rebuilt from scratch. Dead space was rebuilt from scratch. Skyrim was remastered.

You aren't understanding the difference between the two. It's a big difference.

How do I know? Because I was there? Why do you think people buy PC's over consoles? Because they have always and will always out perform them. Consoles are the budget options, not the best option.

Consoles have always been and still are equivalent to a low - mid range PC

> It didn't deserve to bankrupt Lion's Gate, or to be lauded as the worst game ever.

Oh yeah. Idk I just wanted to voice a gripe I had with the game. But maybe I am misremembering. I just remember thinking it was annoying being locked out of stuff from not progressing the story. I would love for fable to come back, overall they were fantastic games.

>Whenever Dead Space comes out for VR, I'm pretty sure I'll literally poop my pants from fear.

That's not anything that's ever been mentioned right?

I found f.e.a.r I think a little better with the jump scares, dead space had better tension/atmosphere.

I'm refusing to play Visage on flat screen in the hopes they bring that to VR (it was part of their Kickstarter campaign, and the goal was met...but dead silence about it).

I disliked fable 3 because it stripped you of a lot of your "choices" and made the game more "linear". I hardly even remember this far out but in the first 2 games I could go into a village and just kill everything and get all the exp and put that into slow time, and I could do that basically whenever I wanted. In fable 3, you would unlock x ability by getting to 75% of the story and unlocking it by opening a chest or whatever. Instead of leaving all that player faculty open, they dumbed it down.

At least, that's the way I remember it.... So many years....

I wouldn't call it a must play. It's good. It's nothing revolutionary.

Agreed. Just starting to get on track.

Yeah absolutely, just saying it hurts even more so that even those that have wanted to upgrade (and have had the money), haven't been able to. It's putting a delay on top of the normal buffer zone they 'have' to provide. And it's potentially going to delay a tech leap (not the same kind as PS1 to PS2 but still), unless Microsoft/Sony just say "fuck it, it's time to make people upgrade or get left behind".

it was very very easy to notice graphical changes and small technological increases back then. Changing from 100 pixels to 200 pixels was a big deal. That's no longer the case. Graphical leaps are....for the foreseeable future, going to be in minor details, the texture on a pair of pants, how hair moves and interacts as individual strands, how lighting reacts naturally and reflects off surfaces. These are not things you just turn on a game and automatically go WOW! But they all come together to make the scene more realistic looking. You say wow when lightning strikes and the scene pops and looks natural and realistic.

'everyone' still has a PS4/Xbox one. Ps5's are literally only JUST coming into stock at a regular rate to support demand. Games are still being made for the PS4/Xbox one. God of war is on the PS4... You can only push a game so far when you still have to make sure it will be compatible and run on 10 year old hardware. When the PS4 and Xbox one are phased out, and games were no longer coming out for the old hardware, games will really be able to take advantage of the tech... Unfortunately it doesn't usually take over 2 years for a console maker to have enough supply to meet demand.

Sometimes the hardware/tech doesn't go straight into graphical advances like how that chair looks as a asset model, like the PS5/Xbox one hardware that now supports 4k resolution, at 60 frames per second (some at 120), with HDR and VRR. That alone takes a lot of the tech specs, being able to support that. If you don't have a TV that supports 4k @ 120 you also aren't taking advantage of the features of the game/console you are playing and so obviously it's not going to look as good as if you did have a TV that could. If games look disappointing to you, and you still have a 1080p cheap TV.... Thats not the console or the games fault (I'm not assuming you don't, just saying).

Lastly, a console is still always going to be "mid-range" hardware for the time. If you want those settings really cranked up...that's what a high end gaming PC is for, but in order to unlock the full graphical fidelity and frame rates of the game, be ready to spend ~$3,000. The $600 hardware, as good as it is for that price ($ for $ console performance is fantastic) is just not truly how good the game can look. And if you are upset about graphics not really keeping up with the "new gen" you should think how people with gaming PC's feel that are always like 7 years ahead of the "new gen", and games are being made with mid-range console hardware that only gets updated every 7-10 years in mind.

Yes, Thorsday the 38st.

Marvels avengers just released cloning labs today, really late in 2020. Wild time for delays.

It's a leap year.

December 8th

Exactly. I mean it absolutely is a good thing to have higher difficulty also mean more aggressive enemies and potentially more varied move sets and introduce maybe an additional moveset or more. I definitely think that adds value. But more aggressive enemies really doesn't mean much if the game is ultra forgiving on the "artificial difficulty" and you can take so many hits that the aggressiveness barely makes a difference. Having both forms of "difficulty" is definitely better than just increasing health and damage but there is nothing wrong with increasing health and damage. It forces you to play more "perfectly" which is exactly the point.

No problem!

It doesn't mean anything, really. Basically all difficulty is "artificial difficulty", or at least heavily influenced by it. Games give you a certain amount of health, allow you to do a certain amount of damage, take a certain amount of damage etc... That changes from game to game, and difficulty to difficulty. From soft games allow you to take like 3 consecutive hits and bosses take like 40.

When people say "artificial difficulty" they mean that they made the game more difficult by making enemies hit harder, you take less damage, enemies take more damage. That's it. Which is exactly how every game tailors it's difficulty to some extent.

"Non-artificial difficulty" is when a game is difficult because of mechanics, like a boss having hard to predict movesets that are difficult to dodge. But if you didn't have "artificial difficulty", and you could take 300 hits before dying then you could just ignore the boss movesets and eat the hits and kill the boss.

When people complain about artificial difficulty it's because they feel like it is not tuned correctly. That enemies take too much damage or you can take too little and the game doesn't feel good because of it. But this is obviously subjective, as someone else might love the feel of that difficulty.

But artificial difficulty is really just tuning of a bedrock function of the game. Without "artificial difficulty" there would be no game, essentially. Every game has it. Even from soft games.

What would be more worthwhile to say, is that "bosses need their health tuned down" or "enemies need their damage tuned down". Or "they should add more complex mechanics". Because "this game has some artificial difficulty and it's BS RAWR". Is not descriptive or helpful and just sounds like they just know a buzzword.