Original was better

[The Bible is King.]

No point to buy this.

[Rare Utobitha Employee]

Point being to experience the same great game with some quality of life and modern graphics? It's literally still running on gamebryo lil bro

[ebolaconundrum]

Originally posted by The Bible is King.:

No point to buy this.

If you haven't bought it how do you know?

Anyway imo having played both this looks better some mechanics like leveling are a bit improved, otherwise they play more or less the same.

[The Minted Lady]

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to agree to disagree. I bought this version because the game mechanics in the previous version made it difficult for me to play. With the years that have gone by, my interest was lost because far better and more graphically pleasing games came out. But because they have updated the graphics, and made the few modern touches I needed to make the game playable for me, it's been worth every penny in my personal opinion. But I don't think you started this thread for a real discussion, otherwise you might have included more detail in your starting post.

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by Rare Utobitha Employee:

Point being to experience the same great game with some quality of life and modern graphics? It's literally still running on gamebryo lil bro

What quality of life though? Ui is even more cumbersome to get through. More bugs introduced on top of the old ones, and a really bad optimization/performance. No reason that a system that can run rdr2 on high settings flawlessly should be struggling with this game. The graphics aren't better than RDR 2

[★REM★]

Originally posted by The Bible is King.:

No point to buy this.

This is the same as original, except two animations and better graphics.
I really don't see what makes you think the same identical product is worse than the original. they the same.

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by ★REM★:

Originally posted by The Bible is King.:

No point to buy this.

This is the same as original, except two animations and better graphics.
I really don't see what makes you think the same identical product is worse than the original. they the same.

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

[minisith]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by ★REM★:

This is the same as original, except two animations and better graphics.
I really don't see what makes you think the same identical product is worse than the original. they the same.

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

You will never get the original modded enough to look as good as this one. After a year this one will improve through patches or modding.

[Sgt. Flaw]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by ★REM★:

This is the same as original, except two animations and better graphics.
I really don't see what makes you think the same identical product is worse than the original. they the same.

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

UI was slightly worse in the original..tho both atrocious

You can't even run the original at more than 60 fps without bugs or mods...vanilla for vanilla the new one runs better but that really comes down to adequate hardware....

also, the new one is 2.5 times the cost....doesn't have controller support and looks dated beyond vanilla Skyrim without any true overhaul mods to help it..

[Sgt. Flaw]

Originally posted by minisith:

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

You will never get the original modded enough to look as good as this one. After a year this one will improve through patches or modding.

I don't know where these people think the original had this massive modding scene like Skyrim lol

They always assume you can mod it to make it look like a modded Skyrim lol..when a graphically modded Oblivion doesn't even match Skyrim vanilla

[homek76]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by ★REM★:

This is the same as original, except two animations and better graphics.
I really don't see what makes you think the same identical product is worse than the original. they the same.

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

The terribad levleing system was a no go in the original for me. Tried to finish it two times, but got a burn out just from tracking my attributes and skills for the level up.
Together with the sprinting and the glorious graphics (i have not a single problem with crashes ot stuttering with a 7900XT/5800X3D) this game is a no brainer for me.

Give me F3 with those graphics and iron sights, and i will gladly buy it too.

[EricHVela]

OP's post history puts everything into proper context. I recommend everyone take a look.

[Rare Utobitha Employee]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by Rare Utobitha Employee:

Point being to experience the same great game with some quality of life and modern graphics? It's literally still running on gamebryo lil bro

What quality of life though? Ui is even more cumbersome to get through. More bugs introduced on top of the old ones, and a really bad optimization/performance. No reason that a system that can run rdr2 on high settings flawlessly should be struggling with this game. The graphics aren't better than RDR 2

Rdr2 is a dated ps4 era game that doesn't render ue5 assets alongside an engine from 2006, oblivion still is and behaves the exact same. You must never have played original oblivion if you got no clue what's been improved. Go back and play the original, little man.

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by homek76:

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Except one is like 10x the cost, and has a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UI and performance.

Two "identical products" with one being 10x the cost makes for a clear winner, the cheaper one.

The terribad levleing system was a no go in the original for me. Tried to finish it two times, but got a burn out just from tracking my attributes and skills for the level up.
Together with the sprinting and the glorious graphics (i have not a single problem with crashes ot stuttering with a 7900XT/5800X3D) this game is a no brainer for me.

Give me F3 with those graphics and iron sights, and i will gladly buy it too.

The leveling system is the same though. Like yeah the remaster allows you to allocate points, but it wasn't because of attributes that you are weak or strong because attributes actually did so little in the game. The problem with the leveling still exists in the remaster and is actually slightly worse because all skills contribute to leveling up now.

You only tracked attributes in the original because you either followed bad advice or to appease OCD. The attributes weren't the reason why you'd be weak. You become weak because either you leveled too many non combat skills to reach the next tier of enemies (which is a bigger problem in the remaster because all skills contribute to leveling) or you didn't have the gear of your current tier.

For an example of how little attributes did, if you had 30 strength and used an iron longsword, and then leveled to 100 strength (so 14 levels of +5 bonuses), you'd increase your damage the same amount as simply switching to a steel longsword with 30 strength (and steel longsword are available at level 1, you can even get them for free in fighters guilds).

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by Rare Utobitha Employee:

Originally posted by psychotron666:

What quality of life though? Ui is even more cumbersome to get through. More bugs introduced on top of the old ones, and a really bad optimization/performance. No reason that a system that can run rdr2 on high settings flawlessly should be struggling with this game. The graphics aren't better than RDR 2

Rdr2 is a dated ps4 era game that doesn't render ue5 assets alongside an engine from 2006, oblivion still is and behaves the exact same. You must never have played original oblivion if you got no clue what's been improved. Go back and play the original, little man.

I guarantee you I've played more of the original than you have. The improvements were mostly just graphics (at the cost of extremely bad optimization and performance).

And there's no "quality of life" improvements here, the ui is much worse to navigate through and that's saying something because the original was bad too.

Still not worth the price difference.

[homek76]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by homek76:

The terribad levleing system was a no go in the original for me. Tried to finish it two times, but got a burn out just from tracking my attributes and skills for the level up.
Together with the sprinting and the glorious graphics (i have not a single problem with crashes ot stuttering with a 7900XT/5800X3D) this game is a no brainer for me.

Give me F3 with those graphics and iron sights, and i will gladly buy it too.

The leveling system is the same though. Like yeah the remaster allows you to allocate points, but it wasn't because of attributes that you are weak or strong because attributes actually did so little in the game. The problem with the leveling still exists in the remaster and is actually slightly worse because all skills contribute to leveling up now.

You only tracked attributes in the original because you either followed bad advice or to appease OCD. The attributes weren't the reason why you'd be weak. You become weak because either you leveled too many non combat skills to reach the next tier of enemies (which is a bigger problem in the remaster because all skills contribute to leveling) or you didn't have the gear of your current tier.

For an example of how little attributes did, if you had 30 strength and used an iron longsword, and then leveled to 100 strength (so 14 levels of +5 bonuses), you'd increase your damage the same amount as simply switching to a steel longsword with 30 strength (and steel longsword are available at level 1, you can even get them for free in fighters guilds).

Like, no? It is not the same. And attributes, especially INT/WILL for spellcasting and AGI for stealth gameplay are extremely important. You just cherrypicked strength without even considering the other applications for it (like carry weight for example).
Just let me tell you, the old system was hot garbage, the new system is absolutely fine for me. So please stop telling me, what i have to think about it. I have 60+ hours in the old and the new version, so yeah, i know how the game works ...