@@massterwushu9699 My take on the remaster is that they appear to have taken the most-updated engine for Horizon Forbidden West, and ported the Horizon Zero Dawn content into that engine, using as much of the graphical assets like foliage, ground textures, etc. from Forbidden West and then basically creating any new assets where there wasn't anything from Forbidden West to fill some requirement.
Guys, this isn't actually a remaster. It's more like an enhanced edition esque release kinda like how Metro Exodus had one since you can just pay 10$ if you own the game
@@HapPawhere the marketing department and Sony themselves fucked up massively by calling this a remaster and fucking around with the price of the original even taking it down for purchase. If they just left the original game, released an enhanced edition client for 10$, no one would bat an eye
There is no such thing as a "remastered" video game. Games are _mastered_ to begin with, so they can't be _remastered._ It's meaningless marketing fluff. Someone borrowed the concept of remastering from audio/video recording --- precisely because it _sounds good_ and doesn't actually _mean_ anything specific when applied to video games. That way no one can pin them down when there's any question of whether a game is a good remaster or a bad remaster or a "true" remaster. Who's to say?
Yeah, it absolutely did NOT need a remaster. I played almost all of the Killzone games (PS2, PS3, PS4 and PSP) except for the one on PS Vita. Why not remaster one of those for the PC? It was their bread and butter before HZD.
Guerrilla Games was sick and tired of Killzone so they put all their focus into HZD hoping it would take off. It was never the breakout success they were hoping so they are milking it. *Art Director Roy Postma says,* _"We were done with it as a team. As a studio, we needed to refresh the palette. It was, by choice, the opposite of Killzone.”_
@@BigDoggTheDon It's not about the pay, it's about the fact that you have to learn all these engines and to some extent the game's code. If you think that's not so bad, think about how many studios are unfortunately planning to abandon their in-house engines in favor of UE5. Personally, I don't like them abandoning their in-house engines because UE4 and UE5 in the final products feel like very crappy and poorly optimized engines with alot of gimmicks which tanks performance, and every game has the same problems. But all these gimmicks and the fact that multiple studios will be working with the same engine means that it will be much easier and save a lot of time on the actual development of the game.
I think it is "unfortunate" that the original version has been de-listed for sale, that the remastered version has received a modest price increase, and especially unfortunate that the discounted price that were routinely available on the original version are not being offered on the remaster and almost certainly will not be offered until the remaster has been in the market long enough to reach the same point as if it were a new title ready for discounts.
@@dondumitru7093 That is the whole point of this unecessary remaster. The goal is to massively inflate the price of heavily discouted and relatively older game. Not a bad strategy for milking the money for the exactly same thing. This should be free update like Witcher 3 next gen update. It is also really funny that everybody is talking about this for me really overrated game while Days Gone remaster is in works. Again not necessary as Days Gone 2 would be better but still more interesting imo. Horizon is one of a few unfinished games sitting on my nvme to this day. Comes from a person that is routinely 100% every game.
Let's say you are going to put in only a total of 70 hours in any particular game, as a 10 hours per day, 7 days a week activity. So that is one game played-out per week. If you don't take a vacation, you need 52 games every year to accomplish that. Are there 52 games published every year that are long enough that they take at least 70 hours? I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes". So not to worry. Remasters are not sucking up so many development resources that the supply of original games is threatened.
@@DaAlphaDawg Damn that would be a dream come true. Never understood why they just released the 4th on pc without any of the first 3 being even somewhat close to in sight. It was never going to be a huge success on pc because of that, and the somewhat bad performance on day one didnt help😅
Probably most convenient for Sony to do. They already had the game engine and assets from forbidden West. A lot of things probably could be copy pasted over. Hardest part was redoing the voice lines.
Don't forget how many games have awful color filters on them (or whatever the appropriate term is). You look at a game like Starfield (there are plenty of others, including Cyberpunk 2077), and you think: "Man, this looks off." Then you realize the game looks washed, often with a tint of green or blue. It feels like we're not getting games that look natural anymore. I get that it's an artistic choice, but in my experience, the game looks better without it.
They Run worse by design I suspect. It's just a way for them get us to either keep upgrading hardware every year or 2, or get the highest end hardware and sacrifice a kidney. Just look at Monster Hunter Wilds PC specs. They are abysmal!. I didn't spend over $1500 on a PC only to have it run at medium 1080p/30fps. Gaming is becoming unsustainably expensive.
@@Herr_Affe whatever the term is, Horizon Zero Dawn is also looking awful. too much yellow and orange + it's ridiculously oversaturated. someone cranked the saturation slider to the extreme thinking it would look good. it doesn't.
@@Herr_Affe _WHAT?_ C2077 looks washed out??? It better not! I've really, really been looking forward to playing it. I thought the visuals were some of the best to-date. And realistic --- e.g. bright bright areas and dark dark areas.
@@bricaaron3978 if you have the proper rig for it then yes it's worth giving a shot. most of the folks that complain about the "diminishing returns" usually have mid tier pc specs at best or lower then complain "it don't look much better" 😂
@@jeremylotrtypical ahhh sony fanboy. Yeah huge fanbase which want to play the FUCKIN same story and still pay 70$ for minimal graphical changes. Brainless ahh fanbase. Also, dont see a lot of people ask for it. Mark my word this is gonna flop HARD.
Not everyone has a short attention span and can only focus on new games. Lots of people play older games still. Many people stay a few years behind so they don't have to constantly upgrade their video cards. 👍
Also graphical updates mods, used to be done by moders... for free. Now that is mostly gone and people are sometimes paying full price, for essentially the same game, all because of "better graphics", the AAA gaming industry to me, has lost all its creativity, sad state of affairs.
I would like to see the comparison between original and remastered in a way like, same hardware, but different settings turgeting same performance. So if we take 3060, remastered is promised to get 1080/60 at medium settings, original might get same performance, same hardware, high settings
Aspect ratio doesn't matter, only pixel count. On a 3840x1080 32:9 or 3840x1200 32:10 monitor you can expect similar performance to 1440p 16:9, the amount of pixel on screen is pretty similar and therefore also the system load (+10/+25% pixel vs 1440p, so in this example simply assume you need a card one tier higher than in the chart for @60, and two tiers higher if you want 60 w/o resolution scaling). Same deal with 21:9. Do the math and use your noggin
1650 has features that improve the performance a lot if used. But at the time it came those features were not used in games. And it's the most logical cut off point from software design point. I definitely would like the cut off point around new shader models and effective 16bit support. 16 and 20 series were a feature upgrade generation where it brought many performance improving features that were burried under RTX hype.
on PC you can achieve this with Reshade. decrease colors like orange and yellow a bit, add luma sharpen and clarity effects to make the image sharper and more clear, and done.
You just had to gas light the toxic ps fanboys lol 😂 ( I mean look at the defenders for this in other comments. It's like they have seen a drastic visual upgrade that rivals that of ps2 to ps3 lol )
Reshade will improve NPC animations in cutscenes? Swap textures for high res, new water rendering, lighting, etc. I'm a PC gamer first, but all these Reshade kids are really annoying. In most cases they are destroying picture quality by oversharpening, oversaturating colors and they call it Ultra Quality Reshade Preset🤮
@@dr.sivavignesh664. I personally don't care about HZD at this point, so from my perspective Sony is wasting Nixxes time, but If someone really loves this game $10 upgrade is not that bad for what you get.
Guys, yes the game did not *need* a remaster, but it certainly does seem to make good use of it, at least from early reviews. If you don't want to play the remaster then don't, but imo this seems like a great way to future-proof the game a bit more.
Agreed. The remaster looks more advanced and thus will preserve the interest in this game for a lot longer period. Plus, it puts the first game in line with the second one visual-wise, which is great. I love when my gaming experience is consistent throughout the whole gaming franchise. And I love the fact that Sony improves their older games, so that they can be in line with the following games in the series.
Currently playing Zero Dawn on my 3080 10gb 5800X3D. Does not need a remaster. The remaster looks like shader mods and other mods that just changes Alloys appearance lol
@@ZackSNetworkeven 8gb is fine if utilized right game optimization just suck if you think 10gb won't survive even 16gb won't survive in 2 years if games take avg of 14-15gb even 16gb won't survive the 2gb or 4 gb of 12 or 16gb cards would save 10gb But the thing is the lower the graphics the lower VRAM cost In 2 years 3080 won't be able to push max settings it will be at medium settings so 3080 10gb is safe no matter what
Doesnt NEED a remaster but it sure does make it look a ton better, if they fixed the HDR implementation thats a huge bonus already, and they added frame generation! They improved facial animations, water quality, textures, foliage interactivity. All that for $10 is a steal personally. I love the game and this prolongs the lifespan of the game for newer gamers.
There is no shader mod that does shit like this, you don't need to lie to justify your opinion of this not being worth it. It can be a non trivial graphic change and still not be worth 10 usd
Some people talk about cdpr gave it to us for free, let me remember why. There was already a mod you can download to make the witcher 3 a next gen game: "the witcher 3 hd reworked project". Cdpr just added some lighting, reflection, dlss3 etc. Anyway, what I want to say about all this talk is this if we pass price situation: Sony says that we are bringing remastered version of game but the system requirements they want for what they call it is crazy. We can get between 40 - 60 fps with 3060 due to dlss in 4k resolution. What do they want a gpu like the 4080 or 7900xt for? It is not a remake just a remastered, oh my gosh this is mindblowing.
No, the 3060 wasn't pushing 4k when using DLSS. In fact, it was "only" rendering at 1440p, then upscaled. Since DLSS lowers the advertised res set in the game.
I think it's safe to say we didn't need a remaster. I think any PS4 game that received a PS4 Pro patch should not receive a remaster, and that a straight PC port is fine. Doing both is just absurd, and I predict that Sony will see an absolute trickle of purchases for this version of the game.
What I'd like to see is a comparison on equal terms. I can run Zero Dawn on maxed out settings, while Forbidden West needed Medium settings (and still had some issues in certain areas). If comparisons are done on e.g. 4090s with maxed out settings on both games, it's hardly equal terms...
don't get RX 6800 or any other RX 6000. RX 6000 series don't have AI and early 2025 AMD will release RDNA 4 gpu with AI upscaler and you won't be able to use it. buy an RX 7800 XT instead that has AI and will be able to use it. and at this point i'd say to wait for RX 8000. with RX 6800 you will be 2 gens behind in a few months, and you won't be able to use the AI upscaler. if you don't want to wait for RX 8000, at least get an RX 7800 XT.
@@SapiaNt0matathe 6000 series can use fsr and also fluid motion frames, idk what you mean in reference to ai upscaling but i dont have the money for a 7800 xt and i found some deals for 300 usd for a 6800, i mostly need the vram coming from the only 8 gb i have currently.
@@Boba_Fett1980 AMD will release new gpu on early 2025(RX 8000 line) that will use AI upscaling which will be better than current FSR. the RX 6000 don't have AI support so RX 6800 will not have the AI upscaler.
@@SapiaNt0mata doesn't really matter to me cause fsr is still decent especially 3.1 that's coming out in newer games and it won't be running out of vram in a lot of the games I play like my 3060 ti
Remasters & Remakes used to be reserved for games that were multiple generations old, or bringing old SD games into the HD era. Sony has changed that, and now it's OK to remaster 3 year old games that already ran at 4k/60 on PS5, or do a remake of a remaster from just last gen! And all this while constantly iterating on those same games, giving PS4 Pro enhancements, then PS5 enhancements, and soon to be PS5 Pro enhancements! It's absolutely too much at this point! And all the while, they charge $50 or a $10 upgrade, then double the price of the original on PS Store... These games like great already, so now it just feels like they're milking these IPs to death. How many times will people care about the same games? How many times will Sony sell new hardware based on enhancements to these same games? It's frustrating, especially when they've barely provided jack else to play this gen.
I like the more saturated look of the original as opposed to the more flat looking remaster (subjective, maybe I'm in minority here), but it looks like they improved some textures too, and that is always worthwhile. Might require more VRAM though?
NO, you say "considerable upgrades" here at 0:28 I say it's just different, but not better, and if you need to expain how it's better, then it's not worth it.
I gladly paid the update price already, so I guess me? I was just planning to restart the game, saw the news today and then read information on all the changes they'd made.
As silly as this "remaster" is, i'm happy this game is getting some polish, the animations in cut scenes were bad and many other things that I will enjoy now that its fixed with this update
I really appreciate the specs needed for this, even if I think this is following The Last of Us and starting to put us into the "ant death spiral" of remastering/remaking... Unrelated comment below because I don't know how to do a DM on RU-vid (although I swear that was a feature 2+ years ago...): With the Monster Hunter Wilds "beta" occurring Oct 31st (8pm EST, if I had to guess based on release time for Monster Hunter World and Monster Hunter Rise content over the years) - Nov 3rd, will there be benchmarks for such? Don't really need an answer, was just hoping this would be seen.
@@danielowentech That'd be awesome. I think you were one of the only channels I watch that even noted the concerning specs put out, so I figured you would have noticed. But many thanks! Regardless of if you have time, I'll be certain to try to get info from my friends to gauge what things will look like by the time February rolls around...
Honestly, guys. I've had a 750GB SSD for my OS volume since Feb 2014. I'll have a 2TB SSD for my OS volume soon. And 8TB HDDs have been on sale for as low as $95. There is no reason to complain about game size. It's anti-progress. 135GB is 7.3% of a 2TB volume (Post-formatted size of 1.86TB). In 2007 WoW: Burning Crusade expansion was 15GB, which was 10% of the 160GB HDD that many people had back then (Post-formatted size of 148.8GB). And that was on _top of_ the base WoW installation. In the same year, Crysis was 12GB (8%) and BioShock was 8GB (5.4%). Games take up _the same or less_ percentage of OS volume space than they did 20 yrs ago. If someone is making the mistake of buying a laptop or other mobile device for serious gaming, that's his fault.
That is for installing. It will be below 100 gb after installing, something about 93 or slightly more. Original game states 100gb required and actually takes 72 gb
@@ninja.saywhat *"why do you still use HDDs for secondary drives in 2024?"* Because SSD technology is at minimum _4 times_ more expensive per TB than HDD technology, and because the speed and latency of an SSD aren't important for information that is backed up, or otherwise only accessed very infrequently.
I just bought the upgrade it's a full remaster for £10 if anyone like me who bought a Ryzen CPU or GPU back in 2020 you got the original version for free. So getting this remaster for £10 is a good deal
Please, Daniel, if you can, it could be interesting to see a review of the game from you, and see if there are some other improvements, besides the textures... Have a nice week-end !! 😊 EDIT : Well, I'd say : 'never mind', because I've juste watched the Digital Foundry review, and the results of the remastered are really great :)
It's somewhat interesting, though HZD is recent enough it's probably not having needed a remaster, this might be good for those who never played the original. Honestly a remaster like this and this recent, looking close enough with the original reminds me of reasons my ex-boyfriend generally disliked remasters of games that were all ready HD to begin with.
the game needed a patch to fix anti aliasing, ghosting and shimmering, adding better fsr dlss and disable depth of field option. but it didnt need a remaster (played it recently)
What im most curious about is how do the visuals compare if you target a certain framerate rather than a specific setting. If my 7900xt can play the original at ultra 1440p 144hz, what settings would i need to get the same fps and how does it look compared to the original maxxed out.
This kind of thing makes me laugh. Literally the only game I would care to have this would be MSFS. For the games I play I rarely have time to stare at the pretty graphics. I even lower my settings to high now, even though my computer can handle ultra. It's diminishing returns for the most part.
Bought this during the summer sale. The wooden character models and line delivery definitely killed the game for me. Haven’t touched the game in like 2 months now. Looking forward to a more “lively” world when I play the remaster. Only $10 so why not
On the PS5, it's a pretty impressive remaster. Between playing the PS4 version and the PS5 is a no-brainer. But it doesn't require a higher GPU, it'll run on the PS5 and looks like a PS5 Pro game. Decima might be the best engine used in PS4 and PS5.
I honestly don't know what magic Guerilla pulled to get Forbidden West running at native 1800p at a solid 60fps on PS5. My PC has slightly better specs + DLSS and it still struggles to run at 1440p with DLSS balanced. But it's absolutely flawless on PS5.
@@PteryxZoroxys314 Yeah, the PS5 is capable of amazing graphics with the right engine and developer. All the games that struggle are not taking proper advantage of the hardware and I think that's mandatory when you make games that will run on the same spec hardware for eventually 100 million folks. All Sony titles seem to hit 60fps without any issues.
The most important thing about the remaster is the new mocaps for the conversations. You can't tell me with a straight face that those robotic ass animations doesn't look horrible by today standard. Plus it's only $10 and it's by Nixxes. People get outrage by anything these days. 🤷♂
Yep, the biggest issue with the old one is the facial animation and reduced textures but just porting everything to Forbidden West levels is definitely welcome and worth a replay.
I can. I'd be perfectly content with old school style text dialogues with portraits, tbh. The least important thing to spend up limited resources on, imo. Though I guess the main limitation was PS5's hardware capabilities, so... 🤷🏻♂️
The PSN account requirement for single player games is the most annoying thing Sony does. I'll never buy any of their games because of this. Notice I said "buy" and not "install and play".
people need to stop complaining about remasters or remakes. there’s a lot of people, like me, who hadn’t played some of these games before so of course i would most definitely rather be able to play it. no i don’t care about paying full price bc i never owned it to begin with. only thing i agree with is that they shouldn’t charge full price for those already owned the game.
i actually hoped for this remaster, ive bought the pc version when it came out same for forbidden weat this year but didnt played any of them, except for zd but it looks so bad nowadays. Very hyped for the remaster one of my most anticipated games since it got announced
Nix is did a brilliant job on converting games so far. Really the remaster is for those gamers that play HFW at better quality than HZD can achieve. HZD was unbelievable, but when HFW came out, top end PC 4K it was night and day. HZD looks really poor in 4K, whereas 1080p looks great. My biggest issue though, I bought HZD on GOG so I don’t get the $10 upgrade. I have to pay full price if I want it. 🤬
@@jonboy602 between HFW and original HZD. Definitely bad. The gap in quality opens up in 4K. Especially on indoor scenes. Don’t get me wrong, still a great game. But being an absolute fan of the Horizon series, I’d love to play right through HZD and then straight into HFW with both DLCs included at the same quality as HFW. HFW is still stylised, but immersion levels will be greater which would really pay off with HZD since it was a decent emotion inducing story with a truly decent climatic ending.
I picked it up for 10 since I have been meaning to go back and finish my playthrough. If I can’t get 200 fps on the new game I’ll just play the old version where I get 300
I wouldn't mind seeing some performance testing for this one I think that would make for a good video. Already having this game on the PS4 I'll probably wait until it's discounted to about $20 or so but I think at that point it should be a good buy and be some good times.
Hey daniel, I've seen people complaining about performance issues on games with drms like denuvo? Would you mind comparing the perfomance costs of games with and without the drms and why they impact the performance in another video?
Grapgics didn't really imrove over the last like 5 years, games that came out in 2019 still look amasing, even by todays standarts. Thay don't need remakes!
I don't know. The RX 6700XT should be more equivalent to a RTX 3070. Not to forget that all those Playstation ports are developed with AMD GPUs in mind. The RX 6800 should be able to beat even a 4070Ti without a sweat.
Yes, it needs a remaster because (the primitive grass, Aloy's rubber face, the mid-distant terrain quality) Sony can't sell Horizon 3 enough on PS6 if they must push down in the throats of the millions of newcomer players (just check US's, EU's, China's, Japan's demography data, it's public) a PS4-level Horizon 1. It's Sales. Sony's sales.
GTX 780 has fallen off of Nvidia driver updates not too long ago if memory serves my memory correctly.. That'd be one reason to not include it anymore.
Sorry to hear that. I played hzd on pc a lot. I havent had any issues since purchase in q4 2022. (rx 6600m 5800H similiar hardware to a ps5) running the latest chipset and graphics drivers available at the times on win 11. Perhaps updating chipset, graphics drivers or game patch and windows update in case some updates got turned off would help.
