Rockstar Red Dead Redemption

[Havok83]

If a game is in HD, it does not need a remaster/remake. It would be nice, but the only games that need a remaster/remake are those not in HD.

Which this wasnt. It had a resolution of 1152 x 640 on PS3. Thats sub-HD. It would be great to finally play it at 1080p/60 fps on my PS4. Resolution aside, the frame rate fix is enough to warrant a remaster

 

[Galactus123]

Red Dead Revolver is available on PS4. I have wanted to play that game so I might buy it at some point. The price is 15 euros. Too much for a PS2 game.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which this wasnt. It had a resolution of 1152 x 640 on PS3. Thats sub-HD. It would be great to finally play it at 1080p/60 fps on my PS4. Resolution aside, the frame rate fix is enough to warrant a remaster

There is no standardized measure for HD. Though theoretically anything that exceeds 480p in the US or 576p in Europe, is technicality HD. If we were talking about TVs, it would not qualify as HD, but we are not talking about TVs. We are talking about the resolution of the game. That is of course where upscaling comes in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video

Would I like a remaster? Yes. But I'd definitely prefer a sequel if I could only have one, as I have never struggled with actually playing Red Dead on either my 360 or PS3. It isn't like trying to play a PS2 or original Xbox game. It isn't plugging in your Super Nintendo.

 

[SpideyVille]

Which this wasnt. It had a resolution of 1152 x 640 on PS3. Thats sub-HD. It would be great to finally play it at 1080p/60 fps on my PS4. Resolution aside, the frame rate fix is enough to warrant a remaster

Yeah, remasters don't necessarily mean making a game "HD". You can have a game in "HD" that is not in full 1080, or it doesn't run as smoothly as it could. Especially in the case of RDR, which was never released on PC, so it's not like there is this "superior" version already out there.

But doing a remaster that does run in 1080p and runs in at least 30fps on console is good, but they can prosper even more with a PC version that hits 60fps.

 

[SpideyVille]

Red Dead Revolver is available on PS4. I have wanted to play that game so I might buy it at some point. The price is 15 euros. Too much for a PS2 game.

Not sure how the conversion rate is here in the US, but it's $15 here and that's the same price as the other PS2 games that were added for PS4, especially the Rockstar games.

With that said, I do believe they dropped in price quickly, so it may be worth it to wait a bit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, remasters don't necessarily mean making a game "HD". You can have a game in "HD" that is not in full 1080, or it doesn't run as smoothly as it could. Especially in the case of RDR, which was never released on PC, so it's not like there is this "superior" version already out there.

But doing a remaster that does run in 1080p and runs in at least 30fps on console is good, but they can prosper even more with a PC version that hits 60fps.

Why do you assume the PC version would run at 60fps? And if such a remaster was made, why wouldn't the game be able to reach 1080p, 60fps on the new consoles?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I did not realize this, but apparently Redemption was released at native 720p on the 360. I did not know there was a resolution difference between the 360 and PS3 versions.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196661/red_dead_redemption_ps3_xbox_360.html

 

[Havok83]

There is no standardized measure for HD. Though theoretically anything that exceeds 480p in the US or 576p in Europe, is technicality HD. If we were talking about TVs, it would not qualify as HD, but we are not talking about TVs. We are talking about the resolution of the game. That is of course where upscaling comes in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video

Would I like a remaster? Yes. But I'd definitely prefer a sequel if I could only have one, as I have never struggled with actually playing Red Dead on either my 360 or PS3. It isn't like trying to play a PS2 or original Xbox game. It isn't plugging in your Super Nintendo.

720p is the common resolution for HD with 1080p being Full HD. My point was that the game was below the standard definition of the system it was released on (640 on the PS3 that outputed 720p). That looks even worse now and it most definitely could benefit from a remaster. We are well into the current gen and most people have moved on from the PS3. Not to mention the fact that there are 50+ million gamers out there when you take into account the PC crowd that never had access to it, that this would speak to. A remaster most definitely makes sense.

Why do you assume the PC version would run at 60fps? And if such a remaster was made, why wouldn't the game be able to reach 1080p, 60fps on the new consoles?

bc its PC. The specs for that platform are quite higher than what was specced out for the 360 in 2010. There really is no reason why it wouldnt be 1080/60fps when more advanced games are released and can do that. The current consoles should be able to hit that as well, but thats not a guarantee considering GTA V didnt, but then again it technically is more advanced than RDR

I did not realize this, but apparently Redemption was released at native 720p on the 360. I did not know there was a resolution difference between the 360 and PS3 versions.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196661/red_dead_redemption_ps3_xbox_360.html

Hence my argument in favor of a remaster bc of the downgrade the PS3 got.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Anyone here who'd be really let down if this tease is just for a next gen re-release?

I almost feel like this would backfire on Rockstar with all the hype of the tease and them not revealing a whole new Red Dead game.

 

[Soapy]

Rockstar would make half a billion dollars just from a PC release alone. There would be no backlash. There would be a few salty people on the internet.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

720p is the common resolution for HD with 1080p being Full HD. My point was that the game was below the standard definition of the system it was released on (640 on the PS3 that outputed 720p). That looks even worse now and it most definitely could benefit from a remaster. We are well into the current gen and most people have moved on from the PS3. Not to mention the fact that there are 50+ million gamers out there when you take into account the PC crowd that never had access to it, that this would speak to. A remaster most definitely makes sense.

I never said it didn't make some sense. I am saying it is unnecessary, which it is. You can play RDR on current televisions without issue.

bc its PC. The specs for that platform are quite higher than what was specced out for the 360 in 2010. There really is no reason why it wouldnt be 1080/60fps when more advanced games are released and can do that. The current consoles should be able to hit that as well, but thats not a guarantee considering GTA V didnt, but then again it technically is more advanced than RDR

PC specs aren't really relevant, it is how they designed the game. One of the reasons why the two GTAs released on PC had problems is because they were designed for the consoles. The architecture is different. Rockstar is not great with PC releases. Even Max Payne had some issues. You see this a lot with WB Interactive as well. PC is not always the answer for a more stable frame rate or overall quality.

The PS3 was stronger then the 360, but it also had incredibly bad architecture that made it difficult to program for.

Hence my argument in favor of a remaster bc of the downgrade the PS3 got.

You could always buy a 360 or Xbox One.

 

[SpideyVille]

Why do you assume the PC version would run at 60fps? And if such a remaster was made, why wouldn't the game be able to reach 1080p, 60fps on the new consoles?

Um, probably because you still have brand new games coming out in 2016 that can't even hit 60fps on console, let alone run at 30fps consistently?

 

[Havok83]

PC specs aren't really relevant, it is how they designed the game. One of the reasons why the two GTAs released on PC had problems is because they were designed for the consoles. The architecture is different. Rockstar is not great with PC releases. Even Max Payne had some issues. You see this a lot with WB Interactive as well. PC is not always the answer for a more stable frame rate or overall quality.

The PS3 was stronger then the 360, but it also had incredibly bad architecture that made it difficult to program for.

specs are of course relevant. With low specs to work with, the game most definitely isnt going to be 1080p/60fps. With high specs, its at least possible

 

[DarthSkywalker]

specs are of course relevant. With low specs to work with, the game most definitely isnt going to be 1080p/60fps. With high specs, its at least possible

If all things are equal, yes. But again, how would you explain the WB Interactive PC releases, or even the Rockstar ones?

 

[Havok83]

If all things are equal, yes. But again, how would you explain the WB Interactive PC releases, or even the Rockstar ones?

exactly what I said in my last post. Low specs limit you. High specs give you more potential. Doesnt necessarily mean you will hit that but you arent automatically cut off from it

 

[DarthSkywalker]

exactly what I said in my last post. Low specs limit you. High specs give you more potential. Doesnt necessarily mean you will hit that but you arent automatically cut off from it

What really matters is what you design the game for. Again the same game can run worse on PCs.

 

[MadVillainy]

Anyone here who'd be really let down if this tease is just for a next gen re-release?

I almost feel like this would backfire on Rockstar with all the hype of the tease and them not revealing a whole new Red Dead game.

Yes very much so. I'd be kinda annoyed. Im not one who cares about remasters of games or next gen re-release.

It would backfire very very slightly on Rockstar. Not so much that people are very mad for a long period of time.

 

[SpideyVille]

Games are easier to develop for all three this generation because PS4/X1 are built more close to a PC than the PS3 (especially) and 360 were. But in the case of most PS3/360 remasters that come to PS4/X1, they use the PC port and translate it to console.

 

[Dave McFly]

been playing RDR on One via Backwards Compatibility. It still holds up pretty well even 6 years later. I hope that R* followup is just as good as RDR was, it will be a hard game to top for sure.

 

[Galactus123]

Why do you assume the PC version would run at 60fps? And if such a remaster was made, why wouldn't the game be able to reach 1080p, 60fps on the new consoles?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't run 60fps on consoles. GTA V didn't either. I can't think of any open-world game outside of MGSV that runs 60fps on consoles. Maybe RDR could because there isn't much going on in the world like in MGSV. I don't know. No cars driving around and people walking that much. A remaster would be great but I don't think there will be one. They wouldn't have let it to be backwards compatible on Xbox One if they want to re-release it.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

We've got another one!

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/52676/new-post-1476706994

 

[Spider-Who?]

My body is ready.

 

[MadVillainy]

Let's Go!

I swear if this is just a remaster...

 

[Bruce Malone]

Is that Marston in silhouette or brand-new characters?

Let's Go!

I swear if this is just a remaster...

I know right? If it's just a re-master they should ease on the teases and just come out with it. The longer this goes on without an official status the larger the expectations for a brand new Red Dead game.

 

[SpideyVille]

Is that Marston in silhouette or brand-new characters?

This is an early theory that I've seen.