The Extra Credits crew discusses why there's a lot more in determining a console's quality and predicting its sales than the specs of the hardware itself. Many interesting insights shared within.
Lam is among the 120 characters available for recruitment in Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes. While she is one of the many straightforward recruits, a known bug may prevent players from recruiting her if certain conditions are met. Despite developers’ assurances of fixing the bug, some early access players still encounter issues with recruiting Lam despite attempting the standard method.
Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered players are ticked off by the game’s most recent patch, which censors in-game pin-up posters of Lara Croft.
This is why gaming is screwed. When people change things to fit someone’s agenda, it’s a slippery slope downhill.
Even if that agenda is of the developer? Way to remove developer rights.
***One player called it a “huge problem with modern games,” saying they can now be “ruined AFTER people buy them”.***
The level of drama. Yes, I recall sitting there for more hours than I did anything else in the game. These two pinups are the core of the game, after all!
rlow1's cringe catastrophizing aside, I do think developers *ought* to strive to maintain an original work to the best of their ability. The language of a "remaster" tacitly implies that - for good or ill - what's being resold is what fans remember but better.
Games can be ruined after purchasing them yeah we know this not from this but from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal.
This pin up poster is a bit of nonsense but the whole argument of modern games can be ruined post launch is Absol true.
It's not their work to censor. They are incharge of restoration & remastering the work, not overwriting it.
It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score.
Way to support censorship...
It’s not the end of the world for sure, but I understand the hate towards this kind of change. I believe it’s also a matter of principle.
Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people.
Have all original devs signed off on this change? Even if it’s the case, are we saying older gamers are better mentally equipped to process what was there than current gamers, hence the change?
Enough time ago the case was made that games are an art form. We’re supposed to have won that case.
So which is it? Are games art or not?
Hasn't this been happened for over a decade since remasters? I can't see that it's any worse now. Maybe if Sweet Baby starts getting their hands on remasters we will definitely have a problem.
tbh I dont see something like this as censorship. Does anyone else not find it strange for someone to stick pin ups of themsleves in a locker room?
Now of it was a pin up of some half naked firefighters it might make sense as Lara might like that, and if they removed that I would cry censorship. But removing pin ups of the main character, yeah I get it.
It's a game, and they were placed there for the audience. It's not real life. If it was, she wouldn't have fought a T-Rex now would she?
Yes, it's censorship but it's a bit less in your face. If they were in the original game, then they should have been in the remasters. It's bad enough that they have that ridiculous unnecessary warning at the start, but then they start removing things post launch. I don't care how small the change, they shouldn't be doing it. It's nothing but ESG pandering but in a subtle way.
Look bro, if you have pictures of yourself naked on a bear skin rug up in your house let me tell you, its not normal.
I never said censorship is based on what I say dumbass. Just because I dont see this as censorship doesnt mean I’m saying others cant.
How about you come at me with your opinion rather than snarky comments with no thought on the matter.
By the year 2030, this remaster collection will totally be changed and censored. Probably will remove Lara as a playable character. It's ridiculous. Glad that my family didn't buy this.
I still have Tomb Raider 2 PS1 as a memory.
It’s mentioned in the article, and it’s a point i 100% agree with, it’s the fact that they can censor a game after you buy it. That’s total bullshit.
Whilst it's an overreaction to say this has "ruined" the game, it's still problematic that this has happened post launch and for many, post-purchase.
I don't want someone to change a product for the worse after I've bought it. The same goes for implementing micro transactions after reviews.
I wonder why they did this? Nobody was kicking up a fuss as far as I'm aware.
Gary Green said: In a time where an enhanced, 3D remake of Final Fantasy III already exists, it’s hard to argue that Final Fantasy III Pixel Remaster is the definitive version we were expecting. With Final Fantasy III already being the last in the series to be translated and make its way west, this is something of a slap in the face for the fans. Still, let’s not be disheartened. There may be many shortfalls in this edition of Final Fantasy III, however there’s no denying that this classic JRPG still holds some nostalgic value, even if it struggles to break away from its original hardware limitations.
It’s funny I’m seeing these articles about pixel remaster, and I just platinumed 1-4 within 8 days lol. I’ve been on FF5 for about a week now. Let’s just say 5 was the start of FF having content like crazy. I should have the plat within 2-3 days.
The game being an accurate represantation of the original was not a slap in the face to the fans. The 3D remasters looked like ass (visually) tbh.
Next gen console sales will be determines on how much features and entertainment each console has to offer at the cheapest price and not by how many GDDRx100 or GPUx100 each consoles has.
@knifefight: He has a point, you cannot compare the 90's and early 2000's economy to todays economy.
People, specially the casual consumer do not care about which product has the most advance and powerful technology but only care that it does what it is suppose to do and its mainstream - The 3DS vs the Vita is one of many examples of this.
Apple and Samsung Galaxy fanatics are a different breed of consumers so my comment does not apply to them as they would rather not buy food or pay child support to buy a new $600 phone each year.
I think they matter somewhat, where I think Nintendo losses it a bit is by not having a more mature first party game to show off what the Wii U can do. If they had brought out a new game that looked better than Uncharted 2, I think people wouldn't have said much, we do know the Wii U can do pretty good things graphically, but the art style of most Nintendo first party games don't allow it.
I got caught up in the "power" wars years ago with the first Xbox, I remember arguing how much better it was, HD capable, high speed internet modem right out of the box and a HDD included, but at the end of the day it didn't do as well as the much less powerful PS2.
Oddly enough, the most powerful console has never really won a generation....weird when you think about it.
I usually buy all the consoles eventually anyway, but power is usually pretty far down the list when I'm considering a new console.
Yes they matter a lot,.. though I still play old games a lot,.. The hell I am buying a new system, if it does not have better sound, graphics, features and new gaming experiences produced on that basis.
Of course it matters or we would still be happy gaming on the playstation 1, Sony certainly seem to have set the bar high for next gen console gaming and as long as they don't charge for online gaming they seem to be in the box seat as far a performance and features go.