What's anyone thoughts on SMT III HD in 2023?

[BrysonGaming66]

I do agree that this remastered port isn't the greatest and has flaws, but I did put into hours into it and did enjoy my time with it. I just like to know how you feel about this game in 2023? I'm curious.

[nobalkain]

Origineel geplaatst door The Ludovico Technique:

Origineel geplaatst door nobalkain:

I think people just expected a Remake instead of a Remaster and got disappointed.

Considering the title of the game is: SMT III Nocturne HD Remaster, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the problem.

Perhaps some of us weren't going to allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated through nostalgia to drop $50 on a poorly optimized port complete with 30fps lock, 1080p resolution, and compressed PS2 quality audio. It's insulting and Atlus should be embarrassed to w---- out one the best JRPGs of all time as a low quality update for a quick buck.

You prove my point, thanks .

[Ifrit's ShadowA41™]

No matter what you expected, the music alone is reason enough to be disappointed. I could not care less about all the frame rate not being sixty or the 4k graphics ♥♥♥♥, it is a PS2 turn based rpg but the compressed music is rightly criticised.

[Tr0w]

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

No matter what you expected, the music alone is reason enough to be disappointed. I could not care less about all the frame rate not being sixty or the 4k graphics ♥♥♥♥, it is a PS2 turn based rpg but the compressed music is rightly criticised.

Here's the problem with those things though and why people should care about them, when the game isn't on a deep sale it's price is £44.99 (around $55) for the standard edition and £54.99 (around $70) for the deluxe edition. So do you see the issue when you say it's a PS2 game and you don't expect any improvements? Imagine if MGS 2 on GoG was going for around the same price it launched with on PS2 lmfao.

[nobalkain]

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

No matter what you expected, the music alone is reason enough to be disappointed. I could not care less about all the frame rate not being sixty or the 4k graphics ♥♥♥♥, it is a PS2 turn based rpg but the compressed music is rightly criticised.

Here's the problem with those things though and why people should care about them, when the game isn't on a deep sale it's price is £44.99 (around $55) for the standard edition and £54.99 (around $70) for the deluxe edition. So do you see the issue when you say it's a PS2 game and you don't expect any improvements? Imagine if MGS 2 on GoG was going for around the same price it launched with on PS2 lmfao.

To be fair he isnt defending the Price. I think pretty much everyone agrees it cost to much for what it is. Even though I bought it at release I agree that people should always wait for a Sale.

[The Ludovico Technique]

Origineel geplaatst door nobalkain:

Origineel geplaatst door The Ludovico Technique:

Considering the title of the game is: SMT III Nocturne HD Remaster, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the problem.

Perhaps some of us weren't going to allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated through nostalgia to drop $50 on a poorly optimized port complete with 30fps lock, 1080p resolution, and compressed PS2 quality audio. It's insulting and Atlus should be embarrassed to w---- out one the best JRPGs of all time as a low quality update for a quick buck.

You prove my point, thanks :elma:.

I think that you should reread my post, except slower this time.

[Ifrit's ShadowA41™]

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

No matter what you expected, the music alone is reason enough to be disappointed. I could not care less about all the frame rate not being sixty or the 4k graphics ♥♥♥♥, it is a PS2 turn based rpg but the compressed music is rightly criticised.

Here's the problem with those things though and why people should care about them, when the game isn't on a deep sale it's price is £44.99 (around $55) for the standard edition and £54.99 (around $70) for the deluxe edition. So do you see the issue when you say it's a PS2 game and you don't expect any improvements? Imagine if MGS 2 on GoG was going for around the same price it launched with on PS2 lmfao.

They would have to remake the game to bring any large visual improvements. The current resolution and thirty frames are both fine for a turn based rpg.

Them pricing it at forty five is just them being greedy, it really should have gone for less since this just seems to be a port of the original with the later versions as dlc.

Also not that it matters but I have no idea how much MGS2 went for back when it released or how much it is on GoG now.

[nobalkain]

Origineel geplaatst door The Ludovico Technique:

Origineel geplaatst door nobalkain:

You prove my point, thanks .

I think that you should reread my post, except slower this time.

You already helped, no need to keep reinforcing it .

[Tr0w]

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

Here's the problem with those things though and why people should care about them, when the game isn't on a deep sale it's price is £44.99 (around $55) for the standard edition and £54.99 (around $70) for the deluxe edition. So do you see the issue when you say it's a PS2 game and you don't expect any improvements? Imagine if MGS 2 on GoG was going for around the same price it launched with on PS2 lmfao.

They would have to remake the game to bring any large visual improvements. The current resolution and thirty frames are both fine for a turn based rpg.

Them pricing it at forty five is just them being greedy, it really should have gone for less since this just seems to be a port of the original with the later versions as dlc.

Also not that it matters but I have no idea how much MGS2 went for back when it released or how much it is on GoG now.

All it needed was 60 fps, 1440p and 4K support, a proper job done with the audio, and to be sold at £20-£30. And yeah even though you can select 1440p and 4K in the menu it doesn't actually use them as the internal render resolution doesn't go beyond 1080p.

[Ifrit's ShadowA41™]

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

They would have to remake the game to bring any large visual improvements. The current resolution and thirty frames are both fine for a turn based rpg.

Them pricing it at forty five is just them being greedy, it really should have gone for less since this just seems to be a port of the original with the later versions as dlc.

Also not that it matters but I have no idea how much MGS2 went for back when it released or how much it is on GoG now.

All it needed was 60 fps, 1440p and 4K support, a proper job done with the audio, and to be sold at £20-£30. And yeah even though you can select 1440p and 4K in the menu it doesn't actually use them as the internal render resolution doesn't go beyond 1080p.

Why does it need 60 frames, 1440 resolution and 4K support though? If this was not a turn based game, I would get it but what is the benefit to all that on an old turn based game when what we have works just fine?

[Tr0w]

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

All it needed was 60 fps, 1440p and 4K support, a proper job done with the audio, and to be sold at £20-£30. And yeah even though you can select 1440p and 4K in the menu it doesn't actually use them as the internal render resolution doesn't go beyond 1080p.

Why does it need 60 frames, 1440 resolution and 4K support though? If this was not a turn based game, I would get it but what is the benefit to all that on an old turn based game when what we have works just fine?

There's loads of turnbased games that run at 60fps or higher, obviously only being 1080p is bad, why would you even argue against having resolutions higher than 1080p? Do you enjoy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ image quality?

[Ifrit's ShadowA41™]

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

Why does it need 60 frames, 1440 resolution and 4K support though? If this was not a turn based game, I would get it but what is the benefit to all that on an old turn based game when what we have works just fine?

There's loads of turnbased games that run at 60fps or higher, obviously only being 1080p is bad, why would you even argue against having resolutions higher than 1080p? Do you enjoy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ image quality?

I am curious what the point is. 1080 does not look bad at all, since when was 1080 considered "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥"?
Sixty frames are not necessary for a turn based game at all, it is not an issue if this two decade old(?) game did not get that treatment.

I am just not a graphics ♥♥♥♥♥. As long as it runs well and looks decent for the time it was released, I am content.

[bud]

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

Origineel geplaatst door Tr0w:

There's loads of turnbased games that run at 60fps or higher, obviously only being 1080p is bad, why would you even argue against having resolutions higher than 1080p? Do you enjoy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ image quality?

I am curious what the point is. 1080 does not look bad at all, since when was 1080 considered "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥"?
Sixty frames are not necessary for a turn based game at all, it is not an issue if this two decade old(?) game did not get that treatment.

I am just not a graphics ♥♥♥♥♥. As long as it runs well and looks decent for the time it was released, I am content.

This is a remaster for modern systems including PC, that should be justification enough to implement basic things like a framerate unlock and other customization options. I dont understand people who defend low framerates and such, as if wanting more fluid motion on screen is somehow asking too much just because it doesnt offer some kind of gameplay advantage.

But if I had to specifically justify a higher framerate, I'd point towards the fact that this is a 3D game with fairly free 3D movement and camera controls. The game definitely isnt unplayable at 30, but unlocking the framerate makes the game feel so much nicer.

As for a 1080p+ justification, I personally dont think 1080p is too bad, but again, if you try the game at a higher resolution (even if just supersampled onto a 1080p screen like in my case), it looks much better. 1080p is neither especially low enough to look stylised or retro, nor high enough to eliminate many jaggies.

But again the vanilla game isnt unplayable because it lacks these things, its just a shame.

[The Ludovico Technique]

Origineel geplaatst door nobalkain:

Origineel geplaatst door The Ludovico Technique:

I think that you should reread my post, except slower this time.

You already helped, no need to keep reinforcing it :tamamosquee:.

Gosh, I really don't know how else to say this without being a jerk, but you're not quite as clever as you seem to believe you are.

I honestly question at this point if you even understand the difference between remaster and remake.

[The Ludovico Technique]

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

The current resolution and thirty frames are both fine for a turn based rpg.

No, they aren't. They're really not OK, at all. If Atlus was able to fully optimize P4G, they easily could have done the same for Nocturne. Stop giving corporations excuses for mediocre quality products.

[Ifrit's ShadowA41™]

Origineel geplaatst door bud:

Origineel geplaatst door Ifrit's ShadowA41™:

I am curious what the point is. 1080 does not look bad at all, since when was 1080 considered "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥"?
Sixty frames are not necessary for a turn based game at all, it is not an issue if this two decade old(?) game did not get that treatment.

I am just not a graphics ♥♥♥♥♥. As long as it runs well and looks decent for the time it was released, I am content.

This is a remaster for modern systems including PC, that should be justification enough to implement basic things like a framerate unlock and other customization options. I dont understand people who defend low framerates and such, as if wanting more fluid motion on screen is somehow asking too much just because it doesnt offer some kind of gameplay advantage.

But if I had to specifically justify a higher framerate, I'd point towards the fact that this is a 3D game with fairly free 3D movement and camera controls. The game definitely isnt unplayable at 30, but unlocking the framerate makes the game feel so much nicer.

As for a 1080p+ justification, I personally dont think 1080p is too bad, but again, if you try the game at a higher resolution (even if just supersampled onto a 1080p screen like in my case), it looks much better. 1080p is neither especially low enough to look stylised or retro, nor high enough to eliminate many jaggies.

But again the vanilla game isnt unplayable because it lacks these things, its just a shame.

I would not say I am defending "low" frame rates, I am just indifferent so long as it is consistently thirty at least.

I guess we might as well agree to disagree because it would not feel any nicer to me. Played other rpgs that were originally thirty frames with an unlocked frame rate and I can switch between the console and pc version without issue.

Even if it does look better, there is only so much you can with a game this old without a mod or a remake.

Regardless I appreciate the detail.