Now that the dust has settled, was it a good remaster and worth the price?
>>741797212it's as good as it can be for a remaster but still. the game is outdated. they should have remade it properly.
I like that it's on a more stable and scaleable game engine, and that it allows you to use the original graphics.
>>741797345The gunplay is a bit wonky and the RPG mechanics are a bit unbalanced for a first playthrough, but other than that I think it plays fine
>>741797212The only real addition is the fixed multiplayer, otherwise there's little real difference between this and a graphics mod
>>741797212i can jerk it to this
No. They used 3 existing mods as the basis for most of their work and lazily updated a couple of graphics features, notably the character models which now look horrendous and inventory icons which look like artwork from a phone game. They also fucked up the lighting in a couple of areas with significantly brighter lights. Then they had the audacity to charge 30 bucks for it and held the original game hostage behind the whole package. About the only positives to come out of it is the ability to play it consoles and slightly more functional multiplayer.
i still need to play it. i own it, i beat the first one (remake and og) and loved it. it's on the list of shit to get to
>>741797212Totally fine for the $20 or whatever it costs. It's just a remaster and not a remake, so you have the most fun with beating it once and getting your ass kicked, but learning the meta, then playing broken builds from that point forward.
>>741797212Looks the same as original with a few mods, so I never bought it. Pretty sure the remake you buy uses those same free mods, lol.
