Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Part 1 was a completely new engine, Part 2 uses the same engine.
I have a feeling that digital foundry will compare the two and decide that Part 1 is more graphically advanced.
when i compare both PS5pro versions that I own, Part 1 looks better, but PC version is even more advanced.
The Part II remaster looks like a fake remaster, its exactly same game with ZERO graphical enhancements besides higher res textures and higher AF which is not even remaster but basic setting in every PC game. The Remaster just comes with higher res and higher FPS modes thats it.
While Part 1 was REAL full on Remaster with new graphics, models and effect.
How many games out there that Part 1 looks better than Part 2?
google the differences of remaster and remake.
part 2 has enough tech / art design under the hood to not really need a remake. the textures are not higher. it's procedural shaders that make it look higher res. it'll look good in 1080p as intended, back then. not sure how much detail is squeezed in 1440p or 4k.
the only thing that slightly dates it, are some animations. uncannyness. it's like 3-4 years of improvement apart from the part 1 remake. that's normal tho. facial capture / animation in part 1 is pretty stellar thruout the whole game.