Nope. The FPS is likely tied to game logic and would require massive amounts of reworking others people's spaghetti code, because its doubtful anybody that worked at R* during RDR works there anymore. At that point they might as well remake the game, which would require too many resources being diverted from GTA6.
30 locked somehow, i had the 360 version and the framerate sank in thieves landing, more specifically near the cabin with the mummified woman, it never drops in the switch version even in portable mode.
I know, and it was probably wrong for me to assume most people knew that too. I own the 360 version and it dropped pretty hard riding through some places, especially forested areas. From what I heard, the PS3 was a slideshow. Hell, most PS3 versions of games were generally worse, thanks to the power of the CELL and overly complicated architecture.
It's literally the ultimate edition of the game with no multiplayer. It's why they didn't release it for xbox. Nobody would buy it as the original is still available and plays better than this port.
SeX plays it at 4K30 just like the new "remaster".
The AA difference is exceptionally marginal, but if it's worth $50 and no multiplayer to you then that's your prerogative.
nothing has changed, not even visuals
There is nothing wrong with this. In fact this is what a remaster should be. A bump in resolution and framerate, the fact that this is locked to 30fps is really the only thing that sucks about this port.
The fact that people are crying over the fact that they didn't redo the graphics is a bad fricking sign for this industry, its letting devs know that straight remasters are apparently no longer acceptable because babies need new shiny graphics when the ones we had were completely fine and look great to this day.
the problem is they're charging 50 fricking dollars for it
the prime remaster was $40 and that was a complete visual overhaul with entirely new assets of one of the already best aging games ever made, and it doesn't even have the fricking multiplayer
there's nothing wrong with a no nonsense port, but this is pure fricking robbery
Remasters never were acceptable. It's lazy, nothing stops you buying a PS3 for $50 and a copy of the game for $2. That would still probably be cheaper than the fricking port. If you don't want to do that you clearly aren't bothered about playing the game anyway so you don't need the remaster.
You're right there, that idiots here will complain about everything. However, this release was extremely moronic. >Switch and PS4 only >$50 for a 22 year old game.
yes it is called examining the facts and judging everything on a case by case basis. they are charging $50 for this. please cull your family tree, ranjesh
They couldnof just not called it remastered and been honest its just a port which im fine with tbh but i know some people would not have spent money on just a port so they had to add the remastered part too it like its something more
>I know how to win the fans back, a long awaited rerelease/remaster of Read Dead Redemption! >But only on the Switch though, don't want them to think we actually listen haha
the switch cant even handle switch games you dumb homosexual
switch is weaker than PS3. Next switch will be weaker than the PS4.
>RDR on PS3: 640p20 >RDR on Switch: 1080p30 (up to 60 if unlocked via emulation) + better shadows >switch is weaker than PS3
You Black folk are the stupidest Black folk in the world
I didn't like RDR2 because of how heavily the missions are streamlined and how every actions are slow as frick and your character moving in molasse.
Could I like rdr1 on switch? I don't care about GRAFFIKS XDXDXD.
Yes, RDR1 has the better story, better characters and the missions are much less annoying in holding your hands that RDR2. The beginning is a bit slow, so be patient.
headless glitch and zombies spawning as regular npcs which would frick up any town you'd try to take over, unfixed on ps3/360/xbone since the last patch
it's literally the same game but higher resolution and not even in an asset change way for anything but button prompts. hell, now that it's out on Switch it's easier to emulate on that then it is on Xenia for Xbox 360, but otherwise it's not even a remaster, it's a barebones as frick port with not even multiplayer included.
Fatlus adds $15 worth of content and makes you buy the entire game again at full price and won’t let your saves carry over. This is just straight israelitery, porting the SP only.
>remaster
IT ISN'T ONE NOR WAS IT EVER MARKETED AS SUCH YO ULYING SACK OF homosexual SHITS
It's a piss lazy port that changes some minor values (shadows) and adds functional AA, nothing else.
Eat shit, and enjoy baldurs gate on PS5 next month. Not to mention pc gaming has so far dwarfed both "next" gen platforms. You guys are embarrassing sometimes.
Rdr1 multiplayer was the only decent rockstar multiplayer game outside of free roam gta4. It was so good people did actually play shit like standard deathmatch.
Sad its not here
Everyone who wanted to play it played it a long time go and tendies don't play games not made by Nintendo, wich is why technology that is 20+ years old blows their minds.
What is there to discuss?
what’s wrong with the price tag? there’s still development costs in porting plus I bet a lot of work went into getting it to run smoothly on the switches potato hardware
>I bet a lot of work went into getting it to run smoothly on the switches potato hardware
Considering it runs at 1080p 50+ FPS on Switch, but is locked to 30, no, it doesn't seem that way
Because most people played it a decade ago.
Exactly what is there to talk about?
Ever since it became easy to emulate there's no reason for them.
Is it 60fps
No.
For me it's this weird line of Xbox 360/Xbone cases they made for some back compat games
Too bad they removed the cool physical manual in those versions. I bet that the new physical versions don't even have the physical map.
Nope. The FPS is likely tied to game logic and would require massive amounts of reworking others people's spaghetti code, because its doubtful anybody that worked at R* during RDR works there anymore. At that point they might as well remake the game, which would require too many resources being diverted from GTA6.
People have already uncapped the fps on emulators, and on the switch using homebrew. I think it's just sheer laziness mate.
Care to explain why Xenia can run it at 120fps?
it is if u put the switch version through an emulator
>>>>>>>>>
Hopefully it’s because no one was dumb enough to buy it but I know there are some tendies here starved for good games
dropped just a few days ago
It did?
What's there to talk about? its the same exact game and they managed not to screw everything up like GTA remasters.
So does the switch version run at a silky smooth 15fps like the 360 version did, or is it more like the PS3 version?
30 locked somehow, i had the 360 version and the framerate sank in thieves landing, more specifically near the cabin with the mummified woman, it never drops in the switch version even in portable mode.
It runs pretty nicely, 1080 30 docked, 720 30 on tablet mode. You can also get around 50fps with a homebrew switch on docked
Wtf are you talking about x360 run the game way better than the ps3
both original 360 and ps3 versions run this game at 20fps or even lower during the action, take nostalgia goggles off.
I know, and it was probably wrong for me to assume most people knew that too. I own the 360 version and it dropped pretty hard riding through some places, especially forested areas. From what I heard, the PS3 was a slideshow. Hell, most PS3 versions of games were generally worse, thanks to the power of the CELL and overly complicated architecture.
as someone who played alot of ps1 and PS2 with sub 30, rdr on ps3 never bothered my gameplay, but it is undeniable that it runs like dogwater.
So which version is better to emulate, Switch or 360? Anyone tried both?
Switch has better shadow quality and can run at 60 fps via emulation easily
can switch version run at 120fps?
not yet but unlike Xenia you can install mods with Ryujinx and Yuzu
>literally nothing has changed, not even visuals
>no multiplayer
>still low framerate shit/not on PC
>50 bucks to boot
I don't even know how Rockstar of David is still in business after the fiasco that was GTA Trilogy The Shitfinitive edition
>no multiplayer
What
It's literally the ultimate edition of the game with no multiplayer. It's why they didn't release it for xbox. Nobody would buy it as the original is still available and plays better than this port.
The xbox one version is not rendered at 1080 and has worst anti aliasing tho
SeX plays it at 4K30 just like the new "remaster".
The AA difference is exceptionally marginal, but if it's worth $50 and no multiplayer to you then that's your prerogative.
nothing has changed, not even visuals
There is nothing wrong with this. In fact this is what a remaster should be. A bump in resolution and framerate, the fact that this is locked to 30fps is really the only thing that sucks about this port.
The fact that people are crying over the fact that they didn't redo the graphics is a bad fricking sign for this industry, its letting devs know that straight remasters are apparently no longer acceptable because babies need new shiny graphics when the ones we had were completely fine and look great to this day.
the problem is they're charging 50 fricking dollars for it
the prime remaster was $40 and that was a complete visual overhaul with entirely new assets of one of the already best aging games ever made, and it doesn't even have the fricking multiplayer
there's nothing wrong with a no nonsense port, but this is pure fricking robbery
They took a page out of fatlus' book
>console gays
Remasters never were acceptable. It's lazy, nothing stops you buying a PS3 for $50 and a copy of the game for $2. That would still probably be cheaper than the fricking port. If you don't want to do that you clearly aren't bothered about playing the game anyway so you don't need the remaster.
>nothing stops you buying a PS3 for $50 and a copy of the game for $2.
Yeah, the 25 fps and 720p does. That's what remasters fix, have a nice day.
they ruined the visuals of the gta games and you people complain, then they leave them alone in rdr and you still complain.
You're right there, that idiots here will complain about everything. However, this release was extremely moronic.
>Switch and PS4 only
>$50 for a 22 year old game.
>22 years
Please I don't want to check, someone tell me this man is wrong.
My first console was the ps1 and I feel like it was 15 years ago.
It came out in 2010
>rdr was 42 years ago
dear god
yes it is called examining the facts and judging everything on a case by case basis. they are charging $50 for this. please cull your family tree, ranjesh
>people complain that nothing has improved in a 'remaster' of a game that is only available on 2 shitty consoles and costs 50 bucks
Gee, I fricking wonder why. Hell, I'd spring for it if it were maybe 10 bucks but that anon is correct in calling them 'rockstar of david'.
They couldnof just not called it remastered and been honest its just a port which im fine with tbh but i know some people would not have spent money on just a port so they had to add the remastered part too it like its something more
>I know how to win the fans back, a long awaited rerelease/remaster of Read Dead Redemption!
>But only on the Switch though, don't want them to think we actually listen haha
>Still not on Steam.
Nah.
The 360 version on series X is the definitive version it looks like the right in 4k
is it coming on PC?
Anon, I...
That's why I haven't played red dead 2, cause I'm waiting to play 1
never ever
>remaster
It's just a port. Literally nothing is different other than the game runs better because it's running on better hardware.
>switch
>better hardware
Switch launched on 2017, ps3 and 360 are from like 2006 whats ur point
the switch cant even handle switch games you dumb homosexual
so just like the ps4, xbone ps3 and 360?
switch is weaker than PS3. Next switch will be weaker than the PS4.
>RDR on PS3: 640p20
>RDR on Switch: 1080p30 (up to 60 if unlocked via emulation) + better shadows
>switch is weaker than PS3
You Black folk are the stupidest Black folk in the world
I didn't like RDR2 because of how heavily the missions are streamlined and how every actions are slow as frick and your character moving in molasse.
Could I like rdr1 on switch? I don't care about GRAFFIKS XDXDXD.
Yes, RDR1 has the better story, better characters and the missions are much less annoying in holding your hands that RDR2. The beginning is a bit slow, so be patient.
No it's the same thing. Slightly faster paced but fundamentally it's the same exact kind of game
It looks good, but I've got too many games to play atm, hope it goes on sale in October for Undead Nightmare
does the switch version at least let you use gyro aim?
no.
Don't pretend like anybody used anything other than the snap auto aim in Rockstar games.
I recently played through Grand theft auto IV with the steam controller and the gyro aim is great with it.
Undead Nightmare is no longer broken which is a plus
what was broken about it
It basically ran at 15fps all time when the game rendered more than 10 zombies
do you mean on the original game or the port
headless glitch and zombies spawning as regular npcs which would frick up any town you'd try to take over, unfixed on ps3/360/xbone since the last patch
can you emulate the shitch version yet
yes, read the thread, it runs on 60
On 60 whats, Joao?
60 macacos per second
Disingenuous image there.
That's not what the original looked like what a crock of shit.
>ayy we were playing on 240p TV's in 2010 lmao
Don't mind me, just posting the definitive RDR version
it's literally the same game but higher resolution and not even in an asset change way for anything but button prompts. hell, now that it's out on Switch it's easier to emulate on that then it is on Xenia for Xbox 360, but otherwise it's not even a remaster, it's a barebones as frick port with not even multiplayer included.
>brainlet ironically defend this barebone port
Is it on PC?
>30fps
>no multiplayer
>$50
does it at least come with undead nightmare?
Yeah it has undead nightmare
Fatlus adds $15 worth of content and makes you buy the entire game again at full price and won’t let your saves carry over. This is just straight israelitery, porting the SP only.
They ported smt3 for 50 bucks + 20 bucks in dlc and they couldn't even be arsed fixing the compressed soundtrack
Becase its a lazy incomplete port.
It should have had Lan and Host only Servers.
>remaster
IT ISN'T ONE NOR WAS IT EVER MARKETED AS SUCH YO ULYING SACK OF homosexual SHITS
It's a piss lazy port that changes some minor values (shadows) and adds functional AA, nothing else.
>"Remaster"
>For one dead console and another console in which that genre is nowhere near popular
Why are Rockstar this dumb?
No PC No One Cares
More like no one cares about PC
>biggest install base of all platforms
Uh huh, havin fun with baulders bate on ur xbox
Or are you waiting for 1 game to on your PS5 to exist?
Or are you playing the one game on ur switch which is a survival building sim with shit that disappears when you walk in a door LOL
I can play this game on PC already but i want mouse and Keyboard but rockstar hates money i guess.
Nobody cares, homosexual. PC is irrelevant.
Eat shit, and enjoy baldurs gate on PS5 next month. Not to mention pc gaming has so far dwarfed both "next" gen platforms. You guys are embarrassing sometimes.
>baulders
No one cares about your gay sex simulator, homosexual namegay.
RDR is a great game but Rockstar doesnt deserve any money for a lazy port
Damn OP, that's a very impressive enhancement.
Never noticed how blurry the PS3 version looked until I saw your screenshot.
Finally, a proper remaster
Rdr1 multiplayer was the only decent rockstar multiplayer game outside of free roam gta4. It was so good people did actually play shit like standard deathmatch.
Sad its not here
It’s not a remaster, it’s an overpriced port with the multiplayer removed.
>remaster
>port
Pick one nintendo cuck
Everyone who wanted to play it played it a long time go and tendies don't play games not made by Nintendo, wich is why technology that is 20+ years old blows their minds.
What is there to discuss?
>not on pc
why?
>remaster
It is an ini edit to allow rendering to 1080p not a remaster. Also missing the DLC and multiplayer.
It's a PORT you dumb Black
It's another lazy cash grab port job from Rockstar. I'd call it a minimum effort but I don't even think they did that much.
>no PC release
why in the FRICK
I play it regularly on my xbox so this re release means nothing for me.
Does it have undead nightmare? Might emulate it on switch instead of xenia if so.
AFAIK yes, it's included.
It isn't a remaster, it's a port.
It’s literally called Remaster, dumbass.
I don't care, they didn't remaster anything.
>Remaster
It's a fricking port.
Do tendies really?
because it's a shit game. it's literally the same as gta but with worse weapons on a cowboy setting
It's a port
>no PC
I sleep
>360 version on Series X
I've been eating good for at least a year now, lads.
>still not as good as the Series X backwards compatibility version
laff
>Youtube screenshot
>Huge reason to even use Xenia is now dead because it's better to emulate the Switch verison.
Damn. There really isn't much to emulate on the 360.
Why did Ganker pretend that 2 was worse than 1?
>another shitty brown rockstar movie game
>"wow why isn't anyone talking about it"
FTFY OP
does it have the old pre order skins
What the frick were they thinking.
what’s wrong with the price tag? there’s still development costs in porting plus I bet a lot of work went into getting it to run smoothly on the switches potato hardware
>I bet a lot of work went into getting it to run smoothly on the switches potato hardware
Considering it runs at 1080p 50+ FPS on Switch, but is locked to 30, no, it doesn't seem that way
reminds me of when assassins creed rogue (a native ps360 game) got ported to the ps4/xbone and it was still 30 fps