Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
if remaster is being made by the same people, they might decide to add content that was cut. it would still be remaster (not a remake). or, if enough well documented data remains of what, where and why things were left out...
key words. what might as well mean: "haven't broadened your understanding over 10 or more years". what potentially is very sad...
People will line up just to see how "improved" the graphics are, and then turn around to complain about missing features that were cut as a result of graphics taking up most of the dev time. Of course, companies won't care because the game still sold well so there's no reason *not* to do that again.
I don't hate remasters/remakes (lord knows it's the only way to make some games playable legally without shilling out an insane amount of money, looking at you klonoa 2) but it should ideally be of games that actually need it. You really don't need to remaster/remake ps3+ era games, most of them still look good enough as is. Not everything has to be some 4k120fps graphical showcase, most people won't care about that.
If your bad at aiming get your credit card ready for the remake
I'm winner.