The problem is that the general public doesn't understand a simple thing: a remake it's a REMAKE so it's NEVER going to be the same as the original. If you want to experience the original thing, buy and play the original thing.
this stupid belief also changed the meaning of the word remake. Now remakes are just glorified remasters. I wish studios would actually fully remake games into different ones, where they vaguelly follow the original design but with a completely different vision and idea
@@AmelpsXett remake is making the game from the ground up in another engine remaster is the same engine but with high resolution textures what you want is a reimagining or a reboot
@@iztyt7032 the word "remake" has nothing to do with technology and details like this. Its a loose terms that just means retelling, make anew or in a different form. What you're saying is just the current standart in the medium that was entirely made up by both companies and gamer "needs". And its an incredibly insulting way of using the word.
@@AmelpsXett this remake changed the gameplay as a whole the only thing that's the same is the story and cutscenes which is perfect nobody wants a poor man version of snake eater where they get a director and a story writers who doesn't understand what made the original good
except its not a masterpiece. The campaign gameplay is actually kinda weak compared to MGS2. I wish they did something unique, like making you call for airdrops to get US made equipment and ammunition instead of randomly getting it from guards. And when you do call an airdrop in specific areas you can backtrack into, you need to carefully get it while swarmed by guards in constant Caution mode
@@AmelpsXett Airdropping US equipment means flying into soviet airspace from a near-by supply base, not something a solo spy behind enemy lines can expect. It also goes against Fox Unit’s M.O.: ”Major Tom: This will be a sneaking mission. You must not be seen by the enemy. You must leave no trace of your presence. Is that clear? This kind of infiltration is the FOX unit's specialty. In other words, weapons and equipment are procure on-site... that goes for food as well. You're completely naked, just as your name implies.”
@@AmelpsXett MGS2 was great but I always thought by far the best part of the game was the ship at the beginning. You got to play as snake and the ship was fun. The shell way overstayed its welcome and I got sick of that location while the variety of environments in 3 was so much better. Then again I am pretty sure mgs 2 was 60fps while 3 was 30 so thats a massive win for 2. Both great games.
The gap between "Delta Snake Eater" and "The Phantom Pain" is going to be about the same as between "OG Snake eater" and "Phantom Pain". (Snake Eater -> TPP: 11 years) (TPP -> Delta Snake Eater: 10 years)
I just find there's something so much more immersive about older looking games. That ps2 and gamecube era has my favorite graphics bar none. That early-ish 3d style where they just figured out how to smooth those jagged polygons of generation prior and turn that into something that looks so real and yet still have that "low quality" feel of being on an early 2000's machine. That look is what invests my brain, it's so realistic and yet so not perfect that I can fill in the gaps and make it feel so much more intriguing and good looking than something actually high fidelity. The ratio of video game graphics to real world has never been more in balance than this era. We are so shifted in the real world direction now that it just feels a little uncanny. I can't help but be a little more skeptical when something still looks 3d instead of real. I just don't get that feeling from older games.
That’s nostalgia, jagged polygon do not look real High fidelity isn’t like real life, there is still a lot of thing missing to be like real life Not it wasn’t more balanced in that era, just asking the player to make up everything in their head isn’t necessarily great when the game is trying to express something more precise and showcase a consistent artistic direction Look at death stranding 2 for example, this game just could not work with ps2 graphics cause it wouldn’t have this movie feel, if player have to use their mind to makeup details on texture they cannot use their mind to think about the world being showcased
@@Ay-xq7mjslightly reducing fidelity in exchange of getting a stable image isn’t a problem, many games without TAA look absolutely disgusting when there is any movement
@@ni9274 well that's a different game doing a different thing. Yeah if a game was built from the ground up to look as real as possible, sure. It works for death stranding, it works for last of us, I think it's a little more debatable for games like god of war and whatever, but that's besides the point. They made mgs3 work on the ps2. It looks best as a ps2 game, and I just personally gravitate towards games that look like how they did in that era. I like a more gamey looking game.
So... basically don't waste your time listening to this what he is basically saying is that he feels nostalgia seeing mgs3 blah blah blah i dont like remake
He didnt say that at all actually he was just appriciating that mgs3 was able to pull off the graphics it had considering the era it came out and the tech available. No hate toward the remake whatsoever
To be pedantic back to you, the remaster is not trying to recreate the feeling of the original. If you want the original then play that, it would be useless to recreate it. This is another experience that has it's own value, so measuring or comparing them is moot. And "better graphics" has almost always meant more fidelity through the entire history of video games.
yeah tbh, this is the 50th video on this topic. I think the remake will give me different feelings im still gonna cherish. plus im sure the gameplay will feel more polished. even if theyre not tooo different
I always say: if someone else re-paints the Mona Lisa, then that re-paint is not the Mona Lisa. I'm not sure why this analogy would be needed to shine a light on something so obvious to me, but it seems to serve a purpose.
Another aspect of old tech I love is the shadows being part of the textures, turning them into something akin to either paper mache dolls, action figures, etc, so they're a lot nicer to look at when observing the "raw" model, in say, Blender ('cause realistic ones would need a lot more settings applied to make the material look accurate to in-game) I'm looking forward to Project Justice's upcoming re-release, but there's something about the scrunkly fucky wucky PS1 Rival Schools that's almost more eyecatching to me, hah. Anyway, good vid! Glad I subbed.
Ah thanks man! Yeah I love those kinds of shadow textures. Something painterly about them. You have to put them in intentionally. Can't just let the engine figure it out.
I think Konami did right by at least porting the old one to modern consoles first before tackling the remake. I wouldnt have wanted it any other way. What I cant stand is when companies remove the old version of a game to just only sell the remake.
I gotta disagree with this one somewhat. I agree that higher fidelity graphics don't NECESSARILY mean better graphics, but I think you picked a really weird example. I love MGS3 but it hasn't exactly got a super stylised art style, it's aiming to look mostly realistic. The remake so far looks like it's 100% inkeeping with the spirit of the original. I couldn't imagine Konami ever persuading me to give them a single penny otherwise. So, a remake that looks more realistic than the original, which was trying to look as realistic as possible, without sacrificing any style in the process, is just doing what the original did but better. Like, yes, it was much more impressive when the original did it, considering the hardware, but that's not really gonna make many people appreciate it over the remake unless they're either nostalgic or appreciate the process behind the making of the original, which most people don't care about, or if they just plain prefer how low-poly games look, which I can uinderstand. You're obviously more than welcome to enjoy what you enjoy, but you haven't altered my opinion on the remake at all.
Yes. The PS2 hardware limited the scope of the game in terms of visuals, the remake is trying to do the same thing but with current generation hardware and I believe that's why they've chosen to do it on Unreal 5. It doesn't look as impressive because graphical leaps became much less noticeable overtime, we're pretty much close to the ceiling of visual presentation, pushing hardware to its limits while looking impressive is much harder for that reason because now developers already have too much room for creating the game's visual presentation.
MGS3 remake may be "realistic" but it still looks flat in many places. It has better tech but that tech isn't being used creativity. It's just brute-forcing the realism. Character models are perfect example of the game fundamentally looking very bland and awkward. Not to mention how MGS3 remake features dumbed down animations of MGSV which are still somehow looking very clunky compared to a game that has been out for 9 years now.
I do agree the ps2 version will always have that unique and charming look. They achieved such a unique style that probably wouldnt have happened if they didnt work with the ps2 hardware.
It's a bit more specific, it just means that it doesn't look as aged like the original. Metal Gear games always aimed for stylized realism like every average AAA title. Thanks to the hardware advancements in the last decades, the scope is much bigger, so now they can achieve a higher fidelity presentation than what they could do on 2004's hardware, this is a huge benefit for games that always looked for those types of visuals back in that era, so the result will obviously end up being different because of the graphical fidelity leap. The remake isn't meant to replace the original, its purpose is to bring new players and get the fans of the original to recover interest by updating it to today's standards both in visuals and controls. To put it simple, they're remaking and updating MGS3 appealing to current and old audiences.
The point is that in comparison to other games of it's generation, MGS3 stood out because its graphics were unlike anything else. The remake is more realistic, just when compared to other games of its generation, it isn't unique. It relies on how the original looked to bring it's sense of awe rather than it standing on its own. How good a game looks is subjective while how realistic is objective.
he's saying that its not binary. We live in a moment, meaning we should appreciate the moments more when it comes to entertainment and art, and not the factual "value"
No matter how anyone explains these kinds of things, whatever angles to come at the topic or examples anyone gives, so many people just wont get it and say it's just nostalgia. Higher fidelity is just automatically better to them. There's something off-putting about remaking good games and sends the message the original isn't worth playing anymore. Welp the remake's out, no need to play the original. Younger gens need to learn to appreciate older games. Remakes rarely ever evoke the same magic or atmosphere as the originals, playing a remake isnt a substitute for the original. You didnt experience the same thing. God, the fixation on only the most high fidelity graphics in some circles in gaming is so lame.
Honestly the mud caking snake and leaves sticking to him is fucking amazing bro the rain hitting the characters when they're moving with attacking with cqc looks great
Okay im going to be 100% honest and i will get a lot of hate. Most of you are pure nostalgia tripping saying shit like "i dont want them to change anything at all" then what is the point of remaking the game. Just buy the original at that point. Its not supposed to be a carbon copy of the original. Its supposed to re-tell the same story with new mechanics and graphics. When i heard about the remake i was hoping they would put MGSV game mechanics in there actually. I understand why they didnt and im still happy with the results that it will still be the og game mechanics but more polished.
3:20 dear gamedevs, LIGHT DOSENT WORK LIKE THIS. If its super cloudy outside things dont look like california without a blue sky. no, things look depressing, sad, and like jesus might come down at any moment to stop a breakup.
I really appreciate this video; I quite like how you aren't arguing that one is better or the other, and are moreso just expressing how you really don't think it's fair to say a game's graphics are better due to it simply being higher fidelity. It's pretty common for people to try to bash graphics on a new release or something and be all combative about it.
Thank you! And you're right. Both versions of the game are made by passionate people working very hard. Both should be appericiated for what they achieve.
When i played through silent hill 2, i literally stoped in the bared off room with maria just to watch the animation of her siting down. It was so good for a game in 2001 to pull off.
I was worried it would be a 1:1 recreation of the game in ULTRA HD without tweaking anything to make sense for modern graphics/design. And that's what it is. So we'll have infinite draw distance on tiny 20x20 foot jungle segments. So awkward. I wonder if those cutscene/loading transitions with area title card will still be there.
God im excited for the snake eater remake. It doesnt seem like a cashgrab ps5 remaster but a remake they have put soul into if that makes any sense. My biggest fear is if it will be a buggy mess
@@EpicFudgemuffin but it does have superior artstyle. The "remake" clearly just tries to replicate the original very hard without adding anything new. It can never surpass the original this way, or even be on par
@@AmelpsXettwithout adding anything new? from its first trailer, we’ve already seen it add crouch walking to the original. not to mention the very limited scenes it’s showed us so far. give it time, you’re making assumptions without any knowledge of its current state.
I grew up with the MGS series and on their consoles at the time (PS1, PS2,PS3 etc) and fully understand and agree with this video, I cannot wait for Delta to release but Those games were pushing the technical limitations of the hardware at the time and so it felt groundbreaking and unique. Now with 4K starting to become the norm in gaming with the technology we have, graphical constraints are no longer an issue and all of those little touches back then are now standard in most games. An example would be Splinter Cell and it’s core gameplay mechanic was to hide in the shadows to avoid detection with breakable light sources, this is now the norm in most open world games in some form and so it’s hard to justify making a game based solely on this concept in 2024. That’s why games have such long development times is because we as gamers expect so much as a standard today in terms of “basic” gameplay. Let’s not kid ourselves though, this game is 20 years old with a new coat of paint on it 😂
It's been happening for years and it'll keep happening. Remakes are the best argument against games being art, no other industry celebrates like this one when a game is "fixed" with a remake. They just released a near 1:1 port of the original less than 2 years ago while simultaneously announcing a 1:1 port of the original but... with a graphical overhaul (and maybe some tweaks to the controls?)
games have never been an art, only small parts of them are art. And even that is mostly a stretch. Videogames are just that - computer toys. Also i wish it was an actual remake and not a remaster. Similar idea and design, but a completely different vision and presentation. Iterate on the original, not just replicate it
Movies have been doing the remake/reimagining thing for decades at this point. Sequels and other movies have been rehashing old ideas to death aswell. Does this mean that now there is no artistry involved in making movies or that there are no passionate artists working in that industry? The answer is definitely no. IMO the same can be said of videogames.
@@Andreas-ww5eg Movie remakes are almost always derided for being junk that didn't need to be remade in the first place, the only exception being when the original was critically or commercially panned. And you also don't see them completely having their genre changed all 3 "The Thing" adaptations are horror, rather than romcoms (they were also spaced apart by 30 years). Remakes like RE2,3,4 are more what I'm referring to when people talk about gameplay being "fixed" because they don't understand that things like the control scheme of (OG) RE4 was deliberately chosen because it helps with building tension. They're not 'bad' games, they're quite well made, but they're also not scary or tense in the slightest. Honestly I think the MGS D remake looks like they've genuinely poured a lot of hard work into simply making it look more photorealistic while keeping the original art design and gameplay intact.
@@Doubles_Advocate So you think movie remakes/reimaginings have better artistry than video-game remakes? I slighly agree. Although this doesn't make me believe all videogames are bereft of any artistry or that there are no passionate artists working on videogames. I mean, do we have to consider all their work to be slop just because many games play it safe when it comes to graphics, cutscenes or gameplay mechanics? I don't think that's a fair judgement.
No, you're right. The way we've always described it is that the limitations of older hardware forced dev teams back in the day to come up with creative "stylistic" solutions to convey certain ideas. With newer hardware, coupled with this push to make games look more and more realistic, some of those "style" choices and creative solutions fly out the window. Still excited for Delta though.
a lot of the substance and original direction is lost in a ton of these remakes. the limitations in creating specific lighting, coloring, as well as the director's chocies were core to the 'feeling' you would have, and higher fidelity does not even remotely create that unique experience, especially when the original creators aren't on board to showcase their vision anymore. happened with RE4 Remake and especially looking to be the case with Silent Hill 2. the latter is a tragedy because that game is just built on atmosphere and feeling.
Hell yea, appreciation for early 3D is always nice. For me (and I imagine for you as well), it's not just the fact that they pushed old tech to its limit, it's also about the resulting visual style that was born from those efforts. I still love new games that try to mimic that style. It's actually just as impressive to me, because the current game engines like UE4/UE5 make things look realistic by default. Meaning it's actually more effort to make games mimic the PS2 style than it is to make them look real. Well, a different kind of effort anyway. Also, 3D games from the PS1-PS2 very much look like no other medium.. even the most realistic ones like MGS3 have this almost dream-like approximation to them that makes it easier for your imagination to take over and suspend your disbelief. It's like your brain accepts that it's looking at a video game and then focuses on getting immersed into it, but when the game starts to look like real life, your brain scrutinizes any flaw and never really fully accepts the visuals as "a video game" despite knowing it's not reality. Maybe. I dunno. All that said, the remake looks really great for what it is, I'm excited to try it out.
Yeah I'm excited about the remake. Apparently the game design is almost 1 to 1 and I kind of like the idea of a modern looking game that plays like a Playstation 2 release. Should be interesting.
A game can look realistic and have a visual style and artistic direction can make up for not having a visual style. Death stranding 2 is ultra realistic yet it’s one of the most evocative game ever just looking at the trailer, there is no way you could express the same thing with old graphics, you would be missing so much details and limiting the artists so much in what they want to express. No it’s not more effort to mimic old games, making games with UE4/5 is extremely difficult, these engine are extremely complex and every games we had with UE5 took at least 5 years to make with hundreds of devs. Suspension of disbelief isn’t hard to get when a game is good. I’d say it’s your fault if you start scrutinizing any flaws, that’s mean your not appreciating the experience you’re having and you’re not appreciating the visual style of the game you’re playing. Cause even ultra realistic games can have a strong visual style, I don’t know of any recent AAA games that really tried to look like real life and do not have their own visual style.
@@ni9274 I would challenge that. There are plenty of games with highly realistic terrain, lighting and assets nowadays; commonly referred to as "the generic UE4 look". Indie games that use this style often get called "amateur UE4 projects" and other names like that. You've mentioned budget (studio size + development time), but that doesn't have much to do with what I'm talking about. Big studios might have easy access to expensive facial capture tools, and more people to make assets for the game, but all that means is that they can make games that are bigger in scope. That's why they take a long time to make. It's true that more people working on a game means a bigger "collective effort", but that would be the case regardless of the art style chosen. I was talking about the effort it would take to recreate the old PS2 look within a modern engine. The thing that gives modern games their "modern look" is all the heavy lifting that UE4/5 does by default to make them look that way. In short, you don't have to tweak much to achieve that modern realistic style in UE4, because the engine was made to facilitate this type of graphics. So if you had to recreate an accurate PS2 look from scratch instead, with all the limitations, that would take a lot of effort. Hopefully this clears up the effort part. As for the suspension of disbelief, that is indeed subjective, and I never meant to imply that my opinion was universal. If you're accusing me of being close-minded towards modern graphics, you might have a point if I hadn't made it clear I was excited to play the remake. But let's say I end up preferring the original art style. It's not like I can change that. It's possible to enjoy two things for different reasons, and prefer one over the other.
I just feel this game deserves a better remake. 1:1 down to segmented loading areas... its just sad. I dreamt of this remake since i played MGSV, and its a shame its not going to be anything like that. Konami didint want to invest real money into this.
Restriction breeds creativity. As games get more and more easy to make some of the "How did even do this?" factor just, wains a bit. Its like seeing how DOOM was ported to a pregnancy test, its not good looking compared to the pc version but its more the fact they got it working in general.
The remake objectively has “better graphics”. It’s not like the og was going for a unique artstyle like borderlands or sea of thieves, they just wanted to make the game look as real as possible and the remake does just that. I don’t care that the original looked great for it’s time (although impressive) the remake has better graphics it’s just fact
Few seconds in and already got annoyed. The Remake already looks and plays better putting the MGS V gameplay into MGS 3 makes me want them to remake 1 and 2 and 4 and have these controls and gameplay.
It's just good manners to cite a source when you're using it. The article you're referencing (based on the title you gave) is using "better graphics" to mean "high fidelity" or at least that's how I read it. Fair point though. Your experience with a console does sometimes shape your response to what a game manages to do with it. If they somehow managed to run Cyberpunk 2077 (a demanding game in my eyes) on a Switch and, that's how I experienced it for the first time, I'd be blown away cus I would never have thought that such a thing would be possible. The article you're referencing seems to be - "Metal Gear Solid 3 Remake Sounds Like It's Basically The Original Game With Much Better Graphics" || By Ethan Gach || Published August 26, 2024 || Kotaku
That's the article I used, yeah. People have been very weird and combative towards game journalists lately and since I don't even talk about the article, just use its title as a jumping off point to talk about a broader trend, I felt it was best not to link to it.
its the care & attention to detail, i think its cool that alot of people are excited for metal gear in a mainstream sort of way but i can't help think of konami and kojimas history, and i felt it with the graphics too, there is something about the older metal gear games, everything is cohesive, and modeled efficiently, everthing there has a clear purpose and it's optimized well to run even on low end hardware, something about this remake feels like assets put together in a unreal engine type software, the trees dont feel connected to the roots, everything looks separated. also the camoflauge and radio upgrade to be used on the go, quality of life changes i guess? but then they said they''re gonna keep the cut transitions inbetween each level, why be faithful to that when it was a clear hardware botteneck then and you can improve it now? unless im guessing the game is so poorly optimized and hard to run that you actually have to rely on the old cut inbetween each level system
I think it's probably going to use UE5 level streaming for that but it makes a big difference on the balance of how stealth works. Actually doing seamless transitions would have a huge effect when fleeing between areas during alert phase. So either way I'd prefer the areas staying as separated as the original
It's just not done like in the Anniversary version of Halo 2, y'know? It's not done to breathe new life into an original while keeping its own distinct artstyle as well as trying to fight as hard as possible against the limitations of a console. Nowadays gaming consoles are so powerful that we can bypass art direction in favor of more real-life like graphical fidelity, but that only means things are losing their artistic identity through a swap of sculpturing. There are little to no more limitations to anything, so we can always take the easy way out, artistically speaking. Great video by the way, I enjoyed it!
You playing Rule of Rose surprised me because I know that is one EXPENSIVE game. I am assuming you are not playing it on an actual PS2, though. Great video by the way. I really liked the appreciation for how much effort they put into the original game. They really did try to make a cinematic piece that you could play
Yeah the game is crazy expensive! I recorded the footage using an emulator. It's a real shame that there's basically no way to play Rule of Rose. It's a fantastic game.
@@Voxridian Yup! I got Rule of Rose on the go thanks to my laptop haha! Absolutely no point in paying an absurd amount of money to get a real copy of the game, the developer will see 0% of that money. Besides, they went bankrupt over a decade ago (rip)
They did heavily improve the gameplay to though, I’m not saying that makes everything good but everyone should stop talking about how the only change is graphics
If it makes you feel better, just consider it a different art style. It is better from a technical standpoint, which is usually what people mean when people say "better" when talking about something technical like video game/computer graphics. "Higher fidelity" is just a pretentious way to say "technically better." This whole video feels like a generic youtube video essayist parody
Remember me how I sometime like old game versus recent, its different but sure its amazing when they do the best they can with the tech they have. Something I like less with more recent games its with something visueally more realist every mistake, bugs, whatever are like an elephant to my eyes and immediatly hard to dont noticed.
to me the biggest problem, visually, about the remake is WHERE IS THE OVERLY GREEN CAMERA FILTER?! everything looks TOO green in mgs3 and that, my friends, is style. The iconic visual style the game gave us. But in the remake everything looks realistic, cool, but not _green_
One of the gameplay trailers showed they have several different tonemapping options which includes a classic too-green look iirc. I'd have to check it out again to be 100% sure
i see graphic design is your passion based on the slides but yeah, you're right. Unfortunately, though, most people (and especially "gamers"), aka peasants dont have a clue about all of this. They don't care, they're superficial. They only care about random little feelings staring at the monitor gives them, not the work put behind the games. When you think about how something is rich in detail and well composed, about all the tiny references it has, about all the technology developed and used, these people just have their mind blank. 1:48 also its funny they didnt give this effect to the guy in the background in the "remake". In the original he didnt have it because he was a lower quality model, while in the "remake" they just blindly followed the original also about the jungle: the most impressive thing i noticed about it is the sense of scale. If you go out of bounds you will notice that the levels are actually incredibly small, but they feel so rich. I honestly couldnt bear to watch it out of bounds, because it ruined all the illusion they carefully crafted
Me when someone says Maverick Hunter X looks better than Megaman X just because it uses more advanced technology (they are objectively wrong and must be punished)
Nah. MGS Delta is as much as a Remake as the Crash Bandicoot and Spyro remakes, or the Epic Mickey remake, or Super Mario All Stars, or Kirby Super Star Ultra, or Ocarina of Time 3D, or Wind Waker HD, or Pokemon Fire Red, or Samus Return's, etc.
i really don't like how int mgs delta all faces look. And what i mean is how they are so smooth and plasticy. it feels more like final fantasy than metal gear.
Agreed. The PS2 game is THE result. Put aside the style of the MGS3 on ps2 graphics. Do we know what Kojima and staff were exactly envisioning when they made the game, no. But the PS2 game is what resulted from the talented devs at KojiPro. It’s the closet you’ll get at reflecting the creators vision. Do you prefer the graphics that are the most realistic/ up to date? That’s fine, but there are also people who don’t. One isn’t “better” than the other.
Why are you talking about the PS2 version but using the master collection footage? Like I played in the PS2 and the graphics were way worse than you are showing us in the video
Konami is making remakes now without consulting or having the original teams involved, what could possibly go wrong with these "remakes" right? The SH2 remake is going to be a mess, and that "remake" of MGS2 probably is going to have the same fate.
Thank God they have a classic filter on it you can turn on which makes things much better but gosh it's awful. I really hope people will stop touching the classic because it's a heresy to remeke legends like this one or Silent Hill. Especially with dirty hands of Konami who would sell a soul for another panchiko if they could. I hope this remeke will fail and whoever is responsible wil be fired. Or better yet studio who made these remekes will be closed
Games that look primitive can age well, like the original MGS 1 and 2. But the ambition to push the PS2 is the exact reason I think MGS3 graphics aged poorly. They had to fill the outdoor environments with fog and blurry textures, and frame rate drops.
I'm playing MGS3 Subsistence rn on an actual PS2. Got my copy CIB and everything. I fail to understand why exactly this game needs a remake, it's much better than any of the dogshit modern games I've tried playing. I honestly feel like this is a cashgrab for Konami since they don't have Kojima anymore there's no way that can make another successful Metal Gear game.
Lol this is like saying resident evil 4 remake isn’t good because it looks amazing compared to the original. The remake was better than the original by the way and I’m sure that will be the same case with this game
This uncompromising fixation on the highest digital fidelity at all cost has really gotten out of hand and seems to prevent people from experiencing old games as they were without "fixing" them with arbitrary modern standards. The most popular mods for older games are almost always high resolution texture packs and as many as I've seen or played, NONE of them fit very well in the context of the game. Even with the recently updated Silent Hill 2 Enhanced Edition, for all its wonderful fixes and restorations, the biggest fanfare comes from the recreated images, and upscaled FMVs, which look....frankly not great but technically "cleaner" and higher fidelity I guess, which again, doesn't fit well with Silent Hill 2's grungy dilapidated art style. I often praise Resident Evil 2 and 3 Remakes, not for being the best games, but for being additive experiences to their originals, which still makes you want to replay the original versions. As well made as RE4 Remake is, the only thing it really has over the original is fidelity and other current trend modernisms. Also: The way your voices wavers when you get too excited sounds like runforthecube and I hate it, thanks. Also also: F.E.A.R. still has the best lighting in any game, only rivaled by Left 4 Dead.
there is nothing wrong with striving for high fidelity. I hate when people either vouch for one or the other like its binary. The issue is that MGS Delta is trying to remaster the original in a botched way that completely misunderstands the source. It could have looked even better if they didnt just mindlessly replicate everything. Its very clear that their end goal is appeasing to fanboys, not creating something great
also also: FEAR has the same lighting as any other game with per pixel lighting and yeah L4D is pretty great but not because of the lighting, but insane color correction and textures. When you actually start seeing the source lighting and all of the radiance on the surfaces it starts to fall apart a little
@@AmelpsXett But the lighting looks really good in F.E.A.R. compared so say Doom 3 which also looks great, but those moments in F.E.A.R. when you walk past lights with grates over them just look really nice with the specific textures. I don't know technicals, I just know that I like how it looks in F.E.A.R. and have never seen another game really hit that zone.
@@Lippeth its not because F.E.A.R lighting is way better, its because Doom 3 has a lot of bulbous shapes and bumpmaps. F.E.A.R just naturally looks sharper because all of its environments are sharp
ily rubyfallz pin me please
You always get the pin, niche internet micro-celebrity Thomas J. Ashwell!
@@Rubyfallz if you pin me you can be on Smash Sundays again
The problem is that the general public doesn't understand a simple thing: a remake it's a REMAKE so it's NEVER going to be the same as the original. If you want to experience the original thing, buy and play the original thing.
this stupid belief also changed the meaning of the word remake. Now remakes are just glorified remasters. I wish studios would actually fully remake games into different ones, where they vaguelly follow the original design but with a completely different vision and idea
@@AmelpsXett remake is making the game from the ground up in another engine remaster is the same engine but with high resolution textures what you want is a reimagining or a reboot
@@iztyt7032 the word "remake" has nothing to do with technology and details like this. Its a loose terms that just means retelling, make anew or in a different form.
What you're saying is just the current standart in the medium that was entirely made up by both companies and gamer "needs".
And its an incredibly insulting way of using the word.
@@AmelpsXett this remake changed the gameplay as a whole the only thing that's the same is the story and cutscenes which is perfect nobody wants a poor man version of snake eater where they get a director and a story writers who doesn't understand what made the original good
100% agreed with original comment thread here.
Mgs 3 is a masterpiece that's why personally i don't want them to change anything in it at all
so I'm happy with what we're getting
I've read people complaining about it being a one to one remake, and personally am very happy with that alleged news.
I heard you can put like filters over the game in the remake which I think a lot more games should add 😭😭
except its not a masterpiece. The campaign gameplay is actually kinda weak compared to MGS2. I wish they did something unique, like making you call for airdrops to get US made equipment and ammunition instead of randomly getting it from guards. And when you do call an airdrop in specific areas you can backtrack into, you need to carefully get it while swarmed by guards in constant Caution mode
@@AmelpsXett Airdropping US equipment means flying into soviet airspace from a near-by supply base, not something a solo spy behind enemy lines can expect. It also goes against Fox Unit’s M.O.:
”Major Tom: This will be a sneaking mission. You must not be seen by the enemy. You must leave no trace of your presence. Is that clear? This kind of infiltration is the FOX unit's specialty. In other words, weapons and equipment are procure on-site... that goes for food as well. You're completely naked, just as your name implies.”
@@AmelpsXett MGS2 was great but I always thought by far the best part of the game was the ship at the beginning. You got to play as snake and the ship was fun. The shell way overstayed its welcome and I got sick of that location while the variety of environments in 3 was so much better. Then again I am pretty sure mgs 2 was 60fps while 3 was 30 so thats a massive win for 2. Both great games.
I just realized there's a wider gap between MGS3 and this remake than between Metal Gear for the MSX2 and MGS3... 🤯
The gap between "Delta Snake Eater" and "The Phantom Pain" is going to be about the same as between "OG Snake eater" and "Phantom Pain".
(Snake Eater -> TPP: 11 years)
(TPP -> Delta Snake Eater: 10 years)
I just find there's something so much more immersive about older looking games. That ps2 and gamecube era has my favorite graphics bar none. That early-ish 3d style where they just figured out how to smooth those jagged polygons of generation prior and turn that into something that looks so real and yet still have that "low quality" feel of being on an early 2000's machine. That look is what invests my brain, it's so realistic and yet so not perfect that I can fill in the gaps and make it feel so much more intriguing and good looking than something actually high fidelity. The ratio of video game graphics to real world has never been more in balance than this era. We are so shifted in the real world direction now that it just feels a little uncanny. I can't help but be a little more skeptical when something still looks 3d instead of real. I just don't get that feeling from older games.
TAA DLSS Ray Reconstruction all reduce fidelity.
It's good for it's time i'm an old school gamer too but they don't hit the same anymore.
That’s nostalgia, jagged polygon do not look real
High fidelity isn’t like real life, there is still a lot of thing missing to be like real life
Not it wasn’t more balanced in that era, just asking the player to make up everything in their head isn’t necessarily great when the game is trying to express something more precise and showcase a consistent artistic direction
Look at death stranding 2 for example, this game just could not work with ps2 graphics cause it wouldn’t have this movie feel, if player have to use their mind to makeup details on texture they cannot use their mind to think about the world being showcased
@@Ay-xq7mjslightly reducing fidelity in exchange of getting a stable image isn’t a problem, many games without TAA look absolutely disgusting when there is any movement
@@ni9274 well that's a different game doing a different thing. Yeah if a game was built from the ground up to look as real as possible, sure. It works for death stranding, it works for last of us, I think it's a little more debatable for games like god of war and whatever, but that's besides the point. They made mgs3 work on the ps2. It looks best as a ps2 game, and I just personally gravitate towards games that look like how they did in that era. I like a more gamey looking game.
"Just because the graphics look better doesn't mean the graphics look better"
What
@@Nombrenooriginal 0:25
So... basically don't waste your time listening to this what he is basically saying is that he feels nostalgia seeing mgs3 blah blah blah i dont like remake
He didnt say that at all actually he was just appriciating that mgs3 was able to pull off the graphics it had considering the era it came out and the tech available. No hate toward the remake whatsoever
@@porkeywingsno, the OP boiled down this video extremely accurately.
@@adamthompson9785He never said he dosent like the remake idiot,he just didnt like the reductionist sentiment of the headline.
To be pedantic back to you, the remaster is not trying to recreate the feeling of the original. If you want the original then play that, it would be useless to recreate it. This is another experience that has it's own value, so measuring or comparing them is moot. And "better graphics" has almost always meant more fidelity through the entire history of video games.
yeah tbh, this is the 50th video on this topic. I think the remake will give me different feelings im still gonna cherish. plus im sure the gameplay will feel more polished. even if theyre not tooo different
2:13
To fall into a rabbit hole of pedantry it's a remake...
I always say: if someone else re-paints the Mona Lisa, then that re-paint is not the Mona Lisa. I'm not sure why this analogy would be needed to shine a light on something so obvious to me, but it seems to serve a purpose.
So you basically just stuck too much to nostalgia feeling that you hating the remake for no reason.
He literally just said to not think of this video as him bashing the remake. He also said he's gonna play it and thinks he's gonna love it.
I love how you talk in this video. You are so kind and nice about everything.
Another aspect of old tech I love is the shadows being part of the textures, turning them into something akin to either paper mache dolls, action figures, etc, so they're a lot nicer to look at when observing the "raw" model, in say, Blender ('cause realistic ones would need a lot more settings applied to make the material look accurate to in-game)
I'm looking forward to Project Justice's upcoming re-release, but there's something about the scrunkly fucky wucky PS1 Rival Schools that's almost more eyecatching to me, hah. Anyway, good vid! Glad I subbed.
Ah thanks man! Yeah I love those kinds of shadow textures. Something painterly about them. You have to put them in intentionally. Can't just let the engine figure it out.
What the heck are u even on about bro are u a boy as your name literally says or are u one of the ungrateful ones
I think Konami did right by at least porting the old one to modern consoles first before tackling the remake. I wouldnt have wanted it any other way. What I cant stand is when companies remove the old version of a game to just only sell the remake.
I gotta disagree with this one somewhat.
I agree that higher fidelity graphics don't NECESSARILY mean better graphics, but I think you picked a really weird example.
I love MGS3 but it hasn't exactly got a super stylised art style, it's aiming to look mostly realistic. The remake so far looks like it's 100% inkeeping with the spirit of the original. I couldn't imagine Konami ever persuading me to give them a single penny otherwise. So, a remake that looks more realistic than the original, which was trying to look as realistic as possible, without sacrificing any style in the process, is just doing what the original did but better.
Like, yes, it was much more impressive when the original did it, considering the hardware, but that's not really gonna make many people appreciate it over the remake unless they're either nostalgic or appreciate the process behind the making of the original, which most people don't care about, or if they just plain prefer how low-poly games look, which I can uinderstand.
You're obviously more than welcome to enjoy what you enjoy, but you haven't altered my opinion on the remake at all.
Yes. The PS2 hardware limited the scope of the game in terms of visuals, the remake is trying to do the same thing but with current generation hardware and I believe that's why they've chosen to do it on Unreal 5. It doesn't look as impressive because graphical leaps became much less noticeable overtime, we're pretty much close to the ceiling of visual presentation, pushing hardware to its limits while looking impressive is much harder for that reason because now developers already have too much room for creating the game's visual presentation.
MGS3 remake may be "realistic" but it still looks flat in many places. It has better tech but that tech isn't being used creativity. It's just brute-forcing the realism. Character models are perfect example of the game fundamentally looking very bland and awkward.
Not to mention how MGS3 remake features dumbed down animations of MGSV which are still somehow looking very clunky compared to a game that has been out for 9 years now.
@@GutsTheBeast just play in legacy mode
I do agree the ps2 version will always have that unique and charming look. They achieved such a unique style that probably wouldnt have happened if they didnt work with the ps2 hardware.
When people say "better" the really just mean more realistic
It's a bit more specific, it just means that it doesn't look as aged like the original. Metal Gear games always aimed for stylized realism like every average AAA title.
Thanks to the hardware advancements in the last decades, the scope is much bigger, so now they can achieve a higher fidelity presentation than what they could do on 2004's hardware, this is a huge benefit for games that always looked for those types of visuals back in that era, so the result will obviously end up being different because of the graphical fidelity leap.
The remake isn't meant to replace the original, its purpose is to bring new players and get the fans of the original to recover interest by updating it to today's standards both in visuals and controls. To put it simple, they're remaking and updating MGS3 appealing to current and old audiences.
You’re saying you don’t like it because the old one was considered high quality at the time, but now that it is high quality it’s not better anymore?
The point is that in comparison to other games of it's generation, MGS3 stood out because its graphics were unlike anything else. The remake is more realistic, just when compared to other games of its generation, it isn't unique. It relies on how the original looked to bring it's sense of awe rather than it standing on its own. How good a game looks is subjective while how realistic is objective.
he's saying that its not binary. We live in a moment, meaning we should appreciate the moments more when it comes to entertainment and art, and not the factual "value"
@@TheRealWalterClements "It relies on how the original looked to bring it's sense of awe rather than it standing on its own." ...so it's a remake...?
You got it!
No matter how anyone explains these kinds of things, whatever angles to come at the topic or examples anyone gives, so many people just wont get it and say it's just nostalgia. Higher fidelity is just automatically better to them.
There's something off-putting about remaking good games and sends the message the original isn't worth playing anymore. Welp the remake's out, no need to play the original. Younger gens need to learn to appreciate older games. Remakes rarely ever evoke the same magic or atmosphere as the originals, playing a remake isnt a substitute for the original. You didnt experience the same thing.
God, the fixation on only the most high fidelity graphics in some circles in gaming is so lame.
Extremely true!!!
Honestly the mud caking snake and leaves sticking to him is fucking amazing bro the rain hitting the characters when they're moving with attacking with cqc looks great
Okay im going to be 100% honest and i will get a lot of hate. Most of you are pure nostalgia tripping saying shit like "i dont want them to change anything at all" then what is the point of remaking the game. Just buy the original at that point. Its not supposed to be a carbon copy of the original. Its supposed to re-tell the same story with new mechanics and graphics. When i heard about the remake i was hoping they would put MGSV game mechanics in there actually. I understand why they didnt and im still happy with the results that it will still be the og game mechanics but more polished.
I get where you're coming from.
Art isn’t just about clarity it’s about taste too. It’s the difference between having soul and being soulless.
Same about re4 og.The og version has its vibe but remake is also awesome i gave both 10
3:20 dear gamedevs, LIGHT DOSENT WORK LIKE THIS. If its super cloudy outside things dont look like california without a blue sky. no, things look depressing, sad, and like jesus might come down at any moment to stop a breakup.
It looks cool
@@OKF. that i do get. Just never use the words "realistic" and "graphics" or their relatives. Not in the same phrase, not in the same essay.
I really appreciate this video; I quite like how you aren't arguing that one is better or the other, and are moreso just expressing how you really don't think it's fair to say a game's graphics are better due to it simply being higher fidelity. It's pretty common for people to try to bash graphics on a new release or something and be all combative about it.
Thank you! And you're right. Both versions of the game are made by passionate people working very hard. Both should be appericiated for what they achieve.
I’m waiting for „European Extreme 2: electric boogaloo“.
nostalgia glasses the video...
that said, great video hahaha.
holy shit he explained the concept of soul in video games
When i played through silent hill 2, i literally stoped in the bared off room with maria just to watch the animation of her siting down. It was so good for a game in 2001 to pull off.
There are few things in life I love more than Silent Hill 2.
Thor High Heels
Yes.
I was worried it would be a 1:1 recreation of the game in ULTRA HD without tweaking anything to make sense for modern graphics/design. And that's what it is. So we'll have infinite draw distance on tiny 20x20 foot jungle segments. So awkward. I wonder if those cutscene/loading transitions with area title card will still be there.
Holy what a pleasant surprise! What a great video, hope to see more of you in the future.
I'm not gonna lie, I don't think I've ever heard a UA-cam video use monkey island music as background. And I don't know why people don't!
It's so good!!
Never let bro cook again
God im excited for the snake eater remake. It doesnt seem like a cashgrab ps5 remaster but a remake they have put soul into if that makes any sense. My biggest fear is if it will be a buggy mess
Konami Should Remake Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker
ua-cam.com/video/wpKBbCrfnIs/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
All i ask... PLEASE BRING BACK THE APE ESCAPE SIDE STORY! "Did you say monkeys?!"
At last, somebody has put my thoughts about remasters into words when I could never.
The first four MGS games are very special to me. I tried PW and V but that special feeling wasn't there.
All the characters in the remake look like cosplayers.
Disagreed, but understandable. Nostalgia can be very obfuscating to the senses.
Disagree on what? The graphics of the remake are much higher fidelity, but are not "better", because art style is a thing.
@@unr8ted77 I disagree that the old one necessarily has superior art style.
@@EpicFudgemuffin but it does have superior artstyle. The "remake" clearly just tries to replicate the original very hard without adding anything new. It can never surpass the original this way, or even be on par
@@AmelpsXett I believe that you believe that.
@@AmelpsXettwithout adding anything new? from its first trailer, we’ve already seen it add crouch walking to the original. not to mention the very limited scenes it’s showed us so far. give it time, you’re making assumptions without any knowledge of its current state.
I grew up with the MGS series and on their consoles at the time (PS1, PS2,PS3 etc) and fully understand and agree with this video, I cannot wait for Delta to release but Those games were pushing the technical limitations of the hardware at the time and so it felt groundbreaking and unique.
Now with 4K starting to become the norm in gaming with the technology we have, graphical constraints are no longer an issue and all of those little touches back then are now standard in most games.
An example would be Splinter Cell and it’s core gameplay mechanic was to hide in the shadows to avoid detection with breakable light sources, this is now the norm in most open world games in some form and so it’s hard to justify making a game based solely on this concept in 2024. That’s why games have such long development times is because we as gamers expect so much as a standard today in terms of “basic” gameplay.
Let’s not kid ourselves though, this game is 20 years old with a new coat of paint on it 😂
It's been happening for years and it'll keep happening. Remakes are the best argument against games being art, no other industry celebrates like this one when a game is "fixed" with a remake.
They just released a near 1:1 port of the original less than 2 years ago while simultaneously announcing a 1:1 port of the original but... with a graphical overhaul (and maybe some tweaks to the controls?)
games have never been an art, only small parts of them are art. And even that is mostly a stretch. Videogames are just that - computer toys.
Also i wish it was an actual remake and not a remaster. Similar idea and design, but a completely different vision and presentation. Iterate on the original, not just replicate it
@@AmelpsXett Talk about illustrating my point for me. lmao
Movies have been doing the remake/reimagining thing for decades at this point. Sequels and other movies have been rehashing old ideas to death aswell. Does this mean that now there is no artistry involved in making movies or that there are no passionate artists working in that industry? The answer is definitely no.
IMO the same can be said of videogames.
@@Andreas-ww5eg Movie remakes are almost always derided for being junk that didn't need to be remade in the first place, the only exception being when the original was critically or commercially panned. And you also don't see them completely having their genre changed all 3 "The Thing" adaptations are horror, rather than romcoms (they were also spaced apart by 30 years). Remakes like RE2,3,4 are more what I'm referring to when people talk about gameplay being "fixed" because they don't understand that things like the control scheme of (OG) RE4 was deliberately chosen because it helps with building tension.
They're not 'bad' games, they're quite well made, but they're also not scary or tense in the slightest.
Honestly I think the MGS D remake looks like they've genuinely poured a lot of hard work into simply making it look more photorealistic while keeping the original art design and gameplay intact.
@@Doubles_Advocate
So you think movie remakes/reimaginings have better artistry than video-game remakes? I slighly agree. Although this doesn't make me believe all videogames are bereft of any artistry or that there are no passionate artists working on videogames.
I mean, do we have to consider all their work to be slop just because many games play it safe when it comes to graphics, cutscenes or gameplay mechanics? I don't think that's a fair judgement.
No, you're right. The way we've always described it is that the limitations of older hardware forced dev teams back in the day to come up with creative "stylistic" solutions to convey certain ideas. With newer hardware, coupled with this push to make games look more and more realistic, some of those "style" choices and creative solutions fly out the window. Still excited for Delta though.
4:40 no amount of content will make this normal. I know what ape escape is but why is snake blowing them up?
He's just silly like that.
dw it was just a flashbang
he just blows up their eardrums. He's a trained animal control officer
I’m glad it’s 1 to 1 because the game was almost perfect and now more people will get to play it because a lot of people avoid old games
a lot of the substance and original direction is lost in a ton of these remakes. the limitations in creating specific lighting, coloring, as well as the director's chocies were core to the 'feeling' you would have, and higher fidelity does not even remotely create that unique experience, especially when the original creators aren't on board to showcase their vision anymore.
happened with RE4 Remake and especially looking to be the case with Silent Hill 2. the latter is a tragedy because that game is just built on atmosphere and feeling.
the entire RE Remake line is such a disaster. Enjoyable on their own, but creatively bankrupt in comparison
Please don't ever do a PowerPoint presentation in your life I'll find you I swear
Hell yea, appreciation for early 3D is always nice. For me (and I imagine for you as well), it's not just the fact that they pushed old tech to its limit, it's also about the resulting visual style that was born from those efforts. I still love new games that try to mimic that style. It's actually just as impressive to me, because the current game engines like UE4/UE5 make things look realistic by default. Meaning it's actually more effort to make games mimic the PS2 style than it is to make them look real. Well, a different kind of effort anyway.
Also, 3D games from the PS1-PS2 very much look like no other medium.. even the most realistic ones like MGS3 have this almost dream-like approximation to them that makes it easier for your imagination to take over and suspend your disbelief. It's like your brain accepts that it's looking at a video game and then focuses on getting immersed into it, but when the game starts to look like real life, your brain scrutinizes any flaw and never really fully accepts the visuals as "a video game" despite knowing it's not reality. Maybe. I dunno. All that said, the remake looks really great for what it is, I'm excited to try it out.
Yeah I'm excited about the remake. Apparently the game design is almost 1 to 1 and I kind of like the idea of a modern looking game that plays like a Playstation 2 release. Should be interesting.
A game can look realistic and have a visual style and artistic direction can make up for not having a visual style.
Death stranding 2 is ultra realistic yet it’s one of the most evocative game ever just looking at the trailer, there is no way you could express the same thing with old graphics, you would be missing so much details and limiting the artists so much in what they want to express.
No it’s not more effort to mimic old games, making games with UE4/5 is extremely difficult, these engine are extremely complex and every games we had with UE5 took at least 5 years to make with hundreds of devs.
Suspension of disbelief isn’t hard to get when a game is good.
I’d say it’s your fault if you start scrutinizing any flaws, that’s mean your not appreciating the experience you’re having and you’re not appreciating the visual style of the game you’re playing. Cause even ultra realistic games can have a strong visual style, I don’t know of any recent AAA games that really tried to look like real life and do not have their own visual style.
@@ni9274 I would challenge that. There are plenty of games with highly realistic terrain, lighting and assets nowadays; commonly referred to as "the generic UE4 look". Indie games that use this style often get called "amateur UE4 projects" and other names like that.
You've mentioned budget (studio size + development time), but that doesn't have much to do with what I'm talking about. Big studios might have easy access to expensive facial capture tools, and more people to make assets for the game, but all that means is that they can make games that are bigger in scope. That's why they take a long time to make.
It's true that more people working on a game means a bigger "collective effort", but that would be the case regardless of the art style chosen. I was talking about the effort it would take to recreate the old PS2 look within a modern engine. The thing that gives modern games their "modern look" is all the heavy lifting that UE4/5 does by default to make them look that way.
In short, you don't have to tweak much to achieve that modern realistic style in UE4, because the engine was made to facilitate this type of graphics. So if you had to recreate an accurate PS2 look from scratch instead, with all the limitations, that would take a lot of effort. Hopefully this clears up the effort part.
As for the suspension of disbelief, that is indeed subjective, and I never meant to imply that my opinion was universal. If you're accusing me of being close-minded towards modern graphics, you might have a point if I hadn't made it clear I was excited to play the remake.
But let's say I end up preferring the original art style. It's not like I can change that. It's possible to enjoy two things for different reasons, and prefer one over the other.
I wish we would have gotten remakes for MG1 and MG2.
I just feel this game deserves a better remake. 1:1 down to segmented loading areas... its just sad. I dreamt of this remake since i played MGSV, and its a shame its not going to be anything like that. Konami didint want to invest real money into this.
Monkey Island music is so good!
These people have never seen Black Mesa.
I watched all of your videos and i can't wait for more ❤
Thank you!!
Restriction breeds creativity. As games get more and more easy to make some of the "How did even do this?" factor just, wains a bit. Its like seeing how DOOM was ported to a pregnancy test, its not good looking compared to the pc version but its more the fact they got it working in general.
BASICALLY this guy is mad because the developers of the remake don't have the same restrictions that the original team did. Kinda stupid IMO
True, however I can’t wait to screw around with the color filters in delta
Omg drink a glass of water 😭 i listened to this with headphones
The remake objectively has “better graphics”. It’s not like the og was going for a unique artstyle like borderlands or sea of thieves, they just wanted to make the game look as real as possible and the remake does just that. I don’t care that the original looked great for it’s time (although impressive) the remake has better graphics it’s just fact
Few seconds in and already got annoyed. The Remake already looks and plays better putting the MGS V gameplay into MGS 3 makes me want them to remake 1 and 2 and 4 and have these controls and gameplay.
I See graphics as an Artstyle, so old Games dont really Look old to me ITS Just another Style 👌
BUT THE REMAKE LOOKS AWSOME, HYPED
Same here. Will be buying it day 1.
It's just good manners to cite a source when you're using it. The article you're referencing (based on the title you gave) is using "better graphics" to mean "high fidelity" or at least that's how I read it.
Fair point though. Your experience with a console does sometimes shape your response to what a game manages to do with it. If they somehow managed to run Cyberpunk 2077 (a demanding game in my eyes) on a Switch and, that's how I experienced it for the first time, I'd be blown away cus I would never have thought that such a thing would be possible.
The article you're referencing seems to be - "Metal Gear Solid 3 Remake Sounds Like It's Basically The Original Game With Much Better Graphics" || By Ethan Gach || Published August 26, 2024 || Kotaku
That's the article I used, yeah. People have been very weird and combative towards game journalists lately and since I don't even talk about the article, just use its title as a jumping off point to talk about a broader trend, I felt it was best not to link to it.
Best studio ever is naughty dogg tha numbers speak for themselfs
its the care & attention to detail, i think its cool that alot of people are excited for metal gear in a mainstream sort of way but i can't help think of konami and kojimas history, and i felt it with the graphics too, there is something about the older metal gear games, everything is cohesive, and modeled efficiently, everthing there has a clear purpose and it's optimized well to run even on low end hardware, something about this remake feels like assets put together in a unreal engine type software, the trees dont feel connected to the roots, everything looks separated. also the camoflauge and radio upgrade to be used on the go, quality of life changes i guess? but then they said they''re gonna keep the cut transitions inbetween each level, why be faithful to that when it was a clear hardware botteneck then and you can improve it now? unless im guessing the game is so poorly optimized and hard to run that you actually have to rely on the old cut inbetween each level system
I think it's probably going to use UE5 level streaming for that but it makes a big difference on the balance of how stealth works. Actually doing seamless transitions would have a huge effect when fleeing between areas during alert phase. So either way I'd prefer the areas staying as separated as the original
It's just not done like in the Anniversary version of Halo 2, y'know? It's not done to breathe new life into an original while keeping its own distinct artstyle as well as trying to fight as hard as possible against the limitations of a console. Nowadays gaming consoles are so powerful that we can bypass art direction in favor of more real-life like graphical fidelity, but that only means things are losing their artistic identity through a swap of sculpturing. There are little to no more limitations to anything, so we can always take the easy way out, artistically speaking.
Great video by the way, I enjoyed it!
Me when the remake is not like the original game but only similar
You playing Rule of Rose surprised me because I know that is one EXPENSIVE game. I am assuming you are not playing it on an actual PS2, though.
Great video by the way. I really liked the appreciation for how much effort they put into the original game. They really did try to make a cinematic piece that you could play
Yeah the game is crazy expensive! I recorded the footage using an emulator. It's a real shame that there's basically no way to play Rule of Rose. It's a fantastic game.
@@Rubyfallz Are you playing it through a computer as well? Having a hardcopy would be impressive
@@Voxridian Yup! I got Rule of Rose on the go thanks to my laptop haha! Absolutely no point in paying an absurd amount of money to get a real copy of the game, the developer will see 0% of that money. Besides, they went bankrupt over a decade ago (rip)
same game, different man
Ruby... Pls don't put green on pink ever again.
I cannot be stopped.
They did heavily improve the gameplay to though, I’m not saying that makes everything good but everyone should stop talking about how the only change is graphics
Ps2 is still a thing, Metal Gear Solid 3 for ps2 is also still a thing. Go play that instead if you don't want to play the remake. Plain and simple.
If it makes you feel better, just consider it a different art style. It is better from a technical standpoint, which is usually what people mean when people say "better" when talking about something technical like video game/computer graphics. "Higher fidelity" is just a pretentious way to say "technically better." This whole video feels like a generic youtube video essayist parody
Remember me how I sometime like old game versus recent, its different but sure its amazing when they do the best they can with the tech they have.
Something I like less with more recent games its with something visueally more realist every mistake, bugs, whatever are like an elephant to my eyes and immediatly hard to dont noticed.
This might be the first video I've ever clicked off just due to a guys voice. Fkn brain grinding
to me the biggest problem, visually, about the remake is WHERE IS THE OVERLY GREEN CAMERA FILTER?!
everything looks TOO green in mgs3 and that, my friends, is style. The iconic visual style the game gave us. But in the remake everything looks realistic, cool, but not _green_
One of the gameplay trailers showed they have several different tonemapping options which includes a classic too-green look iirc. I'd have to check it out again to be 100% sure
i see graphic design is your passion based on the slides
but yeah, you're right. Unfortunately, though, most people (and especially "gamers"), aka peasants dont have a clue about all of this. They don't care, they're superficial. They only care about random little feelings staring at the monitor gives them, not the work put behind the games. When you think about how something is rich in detail and well composed, about all the tiny references it has, about all the technology developed and used, these people just have their mind blank.
1:48 also its funny they didnt give this effect to the guy in the background in the "remake". In the original he didnt have it because he was a lower quality model, while in the "remake" they just blindly followed the original
also about the jungle: the most impressive thing i noticed about it is the sense of scale. If you go out of bounds you will notice that the levels are actually incredibly small, but they feel so rich. I honestly couldnt bear to watch it out of bounds, because it ruined all the illusion they carefully crafted
Bro i really like pink w green style
Thanks man!
I don’t think that halo jump cutscene looks real at all. Basically the same kind of… with a shader applied imo.
You know what I will say, I actually do think it matters. IDK. Maybe some games that aren't that old should stay as they are.
Well, it was going to be released on PS3...
why this guy speaks like he is smiling
I'm happy.
Me when someone says Maverick Hunter X looks better than Megaman X just because it uses more advanced technology (they are objectively wrong and must be punished)
remake looks 10 times better and im a mgs fan too.
Hm, nah, higher fidelity is better no matter the style everything being equal.
Nah. MGS Delta is as much as a Remake as the Crash Bandicoot and Spyro remakes, or the Epic Mickey remake, or Super Mario All Stars, or Kirby Super Star Ultra, or Ocarina of Time 3D, or Wind Waker HD, or Pokemon Fire Red, or Samus Return's, etc.
i really don't like how int mgs delta all faces look. And what i mean is how they are so smooth and plasticy. it feels more like final fantasy than metal gear.
The world has gotten so weird and complain-y and this video says it all.
Agreed. The PS2 game is THE result. Put aside the style of the MGS3 on ps2 graphics. Do we know what Kojima and staff were exactly envisioning when they made the game, no. But the PS2 game is what resulted from the talented devs at KojiPro. It’s the closet you’ll get at reflecting the creators vision. Do you prefer the graphics that are the most realistic/ up to date? That’s fine, but there are also people who don’t. One isn’t “better” than the other.
Why are you talking about the PS2 version but using the master collection footage? Like I played in the PS2 and the graphics were way worse than you are showing us in the video
Nope. Recorded the footage myself on PCSX2.
Konami is making remakes now without consulting or having the original teams involved, what could possibly go wrong with these "remakes" right? The SH2 remake is going to be a mess, and that "remake" of MGS2 probably is going to have the same fate.
sh2 remake will be great
I honestly think SH2 will be great. Dunno about the delta tho.
SH2 and delta will be great. You guys are annoying. Lmao
shh go play og games then unc
@@prod.b4bnik SH2R looks great so far.
Weird take. I’m excited for this. go play the ps2 version, I’m going to enjoy tf out of this game. there’s no reason to hate it
It is what they mean
Thank God they have a classic filter on it you can turn on which makes things much better but gosh it's awful. I really hope people will stop touching the classic because it's a heresy to remeke legends like this one or Silent Hill. Especially with dirty hands of Konami who would sell a soul for another panchiko if they could. I hope this remeke will fail and whoever is responsible wil be fired. Or better yet studio who made these remekes will be closed
Dude, a remake is meant to have more graphics
You want still see the dusty @$$ graphics of PS2
Games that look primitive can age well, like the original MGS 1 and 2. But the ambition to push the PS2 is the exact reason I think MGS3 graphics aged poorly. They had to fill the outdoor environments with fog and blurry textures, and frame rate drops.
Totally fair, though I personally think the game looks great. It's just fun to me to see a PS2 do all that stuff.
Don’t care, still buying
I'm playing MGS3 Subsistence rn on an actual PS2. Got my copy CIB and everything. I fail to understand why exactly this game needs a remake, it's much better than any of the dogshit modern games I've tried playing. I honestly feel like this is a cashgrab for Konami since they don't have Kojima anymore there's no way that can make another successful Metal Gear game.
Graphics matter, get taste
Naaaa, the best remake was the Nintendo 3DS one.
Jokes aside, I really enjoyed that version xD
Lol this is like saying resident evil 4 remake isn’t good because it looks amazing compared to the original. The remake was better than the original by the way and I’m sure that will be the same case with this game
This uncompromising fixation on the highest digital fidelity at all cost has really gotten out of hand and seems to prevent people from experiencing old games as they were without "fixing" them with arbitrary modern standards. The most popular mods for older games are almost always high resolution texture packs and as many as I've seen or played, NONE of them fit very well in the context of the game. Even with the recently updated Silent Hill 2 Enhanced Edition, for all its wonderful fixes and restorations, the biggest fanfare comes from the recreated images, and upscaled FMVs, which look....frankly not great but technically "cleaner" and higher fidelity I guess, which again, doesn't fit well with Silent Hill 2's grungy dilapidated art style.
I often praise Resident Evil 2 and 3 Remakes, not for being the best games, but for being additive experiences to their originals, which still makes you want to replay the original versions. As well made as RE4 Remake is, the only thing it really has over the original is fidelity and other current trend modernisms.
Also:
The way your voices wavers when you get too excited sounds like runforthecube and I hate it, thanks.
Also also:
F.E.A.R. still has the best lighting in any game, only rivaled by Left 4 Dead.
Someone compared me to runforthecube. Time to delete the channel.
there is nothing wrong with striving for high fidelity. I hate when people either vouch for one or the other like its binary.
The issue is that MGS Delta is trying to remaster the original in a botched way that completely misunderstands the source. It could have looked even better if they didnt just mindlessly replicate everything. Its very clear that their end goal is appeasing to fanboys, not creating something great
also also:
FEAR has the same lighting as any other game with per pixel lighting
and yeah L4D is pretty great but not because of the lighting, but insane color correction and textures. When you actually start seeing the source lighting and all of the radiance on the surfaces it starts to fall apart a little
@@AmelpsXett But the lighting looks really good in F.E.A.R. compared so say Doom 3 which also looks great, but those moments in F.E.A.R. when you walk past lights with grates over them just look really nice with the specific textures. I don't know technicals, I just know that I like how it looks in F.E.A.R. and have never seen another game really hit that zone.
@@Lippeth its not because F.E.A.R lighting is way better, its because Doom 3 has a lot of bulbous shapes and bumpmaps. F.E.A.R just naturally looks sharper because all of its environments are sharp