Ok, so it was a one-off, and you decided to remaster the most recent one, the one that didn't need a remaster.
Thanks, Beth
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;51644397]Ok, so it was a one-off, and you decided to remaster the most recent one, the one that didn't need a remaster.
Thanks, Beth[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that, being updated to the newest version of creation and having 64bit capabilities is very nice. It was well worth the $10 for Skyrim LE.
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;51644397]Ok, so it was a one-off, and you decided to remaster the most recent one, the one that didn't need a remaster.
Thanks, Beth[/QUOTE]
It's not nearly as straightforward as you might think.
They remastered Skyrim because of the recent overhaul of the Creation engine, meaning that they could get it done far more quickly than developing an entirely new game. The new Skyrim is now far more stable (due to the available memory permitted by x64 version being far, far in excess of the 4 GB or so memory limit alloted by the x32 version) because of the fact that it can pull as much memory as it needs. It will likely have a far more active playerbase over a longer period of time than normal as a result.
A remaster of Oblivion or Morrowind would take just as long to develop as an entirely new Elder Scrolls game, if not longer. Why remake a game when you can focus development time on something new instead?
[editline]9th January 2017[/editline]
Not to mention that the remaster was free if you had the base game and the DLC when it released.
Skyrim remaster got me actually giving Skyrim another chance. And I hated Skyrim on release. Now this playthrough, I'm sort of... Eeeh, it's actually alright!
So uh... I guess I'm happy it happened. Because it made me give the game a second chance. And let me see past a few of the many flaws I felt it had.
[QUOTE=Lyonidis;51644430]It's not nearly as straightforward as you might think.
They remastered Skyrim because of the recent overhaul of the Creation engine, meaning that they could get it done far more quickly than developing an entirely new game. The new Skyrim is now far more stable (due to the available memory permitted by x64 version being far, far in excess of the 4 GB or so memory limit alloted by the x32 version) because of the fact that it can pull as much memory as it needs. It will likely have a far more active playerbase over a longer period of time than normal as a result.
A remaster of Oblivion or Morrowind would take just as long to develop as an entirely new Elder Scrolls game, if not longer. Why remake a game when you can focus development time on something new instead?
[editline]9th January 2017[/editline]
Not to mention that the remaster was free if you had the base game and the DLC when it released.[/QUOTE]
Also, to bring the game to the next gen consoles.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51644425]I don't know about that, being updated to the newest version of creation and having 64bit capabilities is very nice. It was well worth the $10 for Skyrim LE.[/QUOTE]
It has features from the latest version of the creation engine, but it isn't the latest creation engine. Doesn't even support fallout 4's nif format, pbr, or external materials like fallout 4.
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;51644397]Ok, so it was a one-off, and you decided to remaster the most recent one, the one that didn't need a remaster.
Thanks, Beth[/QUOTE]
They remastered a 5 year old game mainly so people can play it on the next generation consoles [B]with mods[/B]. It was also a big help on PC.
Bethesda basically increased the lifespan of Skyrim by another 5 to more years for everyone. The console version of Skyrim brought so much new life with the remaster with mods.
People should really look to Bethesda for how to get a large amount on longevity from your game. People are still playing Fallout 3 and NV today on PC at least, and now tons more will still be playing Skyrim and Fallout 4, at least, until the next games of each series comes out.
[QUOTE=Lyonidis;51644430]Not to mention that the remaster was free if you had the base game and the DLC when it released.[/QUOTE]
I got the remaster for free and my friend didn't, because I owned DLC that lets you build a house and he didn't? Seems like a really bad line to draw.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51644968]I got the remaster for free and my friend didn't, because I owned DLC that lets you build a house and he didn't? Seems like a really bad line to draw.[/QUOTE]
Considered Remastered comes with all the DLC, I doubt they really wanted to give stuff out to people who never bought it in the first place.
that's not a weird line to draw at all, they were very explicit in the run up to the release in saying you need all the DLC, and that DLC was heavily discounted prior to remastereds release.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51644968]I got the remaster for free and my friend didn't, because I owned DLC that lets you build a house and he didn't? Seems like a really bad line to draw.[/QUOTE]
Special edition is 40€ and DLC's for normal edition are 45€ combined :v:
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51644968]I got the remaster for free and my friend didn't, because I owned DLC that lets you build a house and he didn't? Seems like a really bad line to draw.[/QUOTE]
Skyrim Remaster is the complete game, Hearthfire included. As arbitrary of a line as it seems, why distribute copies of an upgraded complete game to people who don't have the original complete game?
It wouldn't make sense for the remaster to have the DLC divided up or excluded. In FAQ's posted months before, Bethesda explicitly stated that Skyrim with ALL DLCs was required for the free copy.
Hearthfire was very cheap anyway, especially when on sale.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;51644407]dunno man, they made a shit load of money from it - probably a good decision to remaster the one the normies loved the most and would definitely buy again on their new consoles.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously using normies non ironically? Jesus christ lol
I think it would've been better if they'd waited a couple years to release Skyrim instead of having to re-release it. Base Skyrim's insane memory limitations are an issue, and it's pretty surprising that Bethesda even addressed it.
Besides, it was 100% free if had the full base game. Can't think of any other company who's done that.
Shame they remade the shit one in the series
[editline]9th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;51645007]Are you seriously using normies non ironically? Jesus christ lol.[/QUOTE]
Why does this bother you
[QUOTE=SirJon;51645010]Why does this bother you[/QUOTE]
it's no different than using the term 'gamer' the way most people do
also it's 4chan speak
This remaster was kinda pointless to me, can't mods add like 99% of the changes made anyway?
[QUOTE=portalcrazy;51645026]it's no different than using the term 'gamer' the way most people do
also it's 4chan speak[/QUOTE]
According to 4chan it's reddit speak
"Remake", "Remaster", no, it's a port to next-gen consoles with a slightly updated engine and a few new shaders injected.
It's a modern version of HD re-releases from the previous generation.
Sure, it might not be an incorrect but I'd prefer terms like "remake" be reserved for games that... remake something. Remaster kinda works, mostly due to the updated engine opening up new possibilities but remake to me would mean something that is more built from the ground up, like Resident Evil Remake or Serious Sam HD.
I feel like the terms are used too often these days.
The only reason why I'm happy that SSE is a thing is because the game now has a 64 bit executable, which means having a texture mod installed won't cause your game to crash on the Windhelm docks. It also runs a fuckton better than Oldrim.
And yeah, I would've preferred a Morrowind remaster (even Oblivion might have been nice), but the amount of work they'd have to put in to put those games into their newer version of Gamebryo is a huge undertaking, and that's not mentioning the new assets they would have to create.
At that point, they'd essentially be making a new Elder Scrolls, and I'm sure they'd just rather do that. Skyrim was chosen because it was much less of a hassle to port.
SSE might seem absolutely pointless now, but once SKSE64 reaches feature parity with the Oldrim SKSE, there will basically be no reason to go back to Oldrim outside of installing Enderal.
I also appreciate how SSE ALMOST makes ENB seem redundant, because while you can make Oldrim look amazing with it, I'd rather not have my FPS max out at 40 most of the time because of its rather hacky implementation.
[QUOTE=nox;51645043]This remaster was skinda pointless to me, given that if I had to choose between pretty lighting and water effects and the ability to mod the game which you can just mod all the new graphical effects in at that point.[/QUOTE]
Waste of time how?
The old version of Skyrim still exists and nobody is forcing anyone to play the remaster. The upgrade to x64 gives it a much longer shelf life and eliminates one of the biggest causes for crashes. Yes, mods are lacking in the short term but new mods are being developed/updated for the remaster and the mods for classic Skyrim aren't going anywhere. Once the script extender is brought up to date, mods will hardly be an issue at all.
The remaster does far more than add in some god rays and fancy water textures.
[QUOTE=Lyonidis;51645072]Waste of time how?
The old version of Skyrim still exists and nobody is forcing anyone to play the remaster. The upgrade to x64 gives it a much longer shelf life and eliminates one of the biggest causes for crashes. Yes, mods are lacking in the short term but new mods are being developed/updated for the remaster and the mods for classic Skyrim aren't going anywhere. Once the script extender is brought up to date, mods will hardly be an issue at all.
The remaster does far more than add in some god rays and fancy water textures.[/QUOTE]
Ah, excuse my ignorance then, wasn't aware of those benefits. My beef is with the rift that the remastered version creates in the modding community between mod creators who are going to move their mods over to remastered Skyrim and those who are going to stick with vanilla.
[QUOTE=nox;51645087]Ah, excuse my ignorance then, wasn't aware of those benefits. My personal grudge is the rift that the remastered version creates in the modding community between mod creators who are going to move on to remastered Skyrim and those who are going to stick with vanilla.[/QUOTE]
It's all good, and you do bring up a valid point.
A similar thing happened when Dark Souls II rereleased on current gen. You couldn't play with players on the complete edition as original edition with all DLC, and vice versa. No clue who thought [i]that[/i] was a good idea. :v:
I think this is more of a quirk of being in an earlier period for the current console generation. In any case, I expect the special edition to stand the test of time far more capably than the original version. Once the script extender is updated sufficiently enough, most mods and modders would have no reason not to migrate, seeing how stability and mod loading are both enormously improved.
[QUOTE=nox;51645087]Ah, excuse my ignorance then, wasn't aware of those benefits. My beef is with the rift that the remastered version creates in the modding community between mod creators who are going to move their mods over to remastered Skyrim and those who are going to stick with vanilla.[/QUOTE]
Most of the modders who make mods I use have already ported their mods over and are crazy enough to maintain both versions. Even mods that you'd think would be reliant on SKSE and SkyUI are already on the SSE Nexus.
As for mods that haven't made it over yet, chances are, you might be able to actually just throw it in your load order (with maybe some minor changes here and there) and have it work without issue. That's what I did for Scenic Carriages, and it seems to work fine. Other mods that I use that need to be converted (like some texture mods, or mods that bring new meshes) usually haven't been updated in years, so support for them seems dead anyway.
[QUOTE=Lyonidis;51644430]
A remaster of Oblivion or Morrowind would take just as long to develop as an entirely new Elder Scrolls game, if not longer. [/QUOTE]
This is completely untrue.
[QUOTE=nox;51645043]This remaster was kinda pointless to me, can't mods add like 99% of the changes made anyway?[/QUOTE]
64bit, no. Thats the whole point of it on PC
[QUOTE=SirJon;51645057]According to 4chan it's reddit speak[/QUOTE]
which according to interpretation is possibly worse
Bethesda do some really goofy things sometimes deserving of criticism but is releasing a 64 bit upgrade to the engine of their most popular game in a series with some new graphical features and additionally giving it out as a free upgrade to pc users really one of them?
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;51644397]Ok, so it was a one-off, and you decided to remaster the most recent one, the one that didn't need a remaster.
Thanks, Beth[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying, but i can't complain since i got it for free.
And the original Skyrim on console hat fucking awful loading times. [I]Looks at PS3[/I]
[QUOTE=Megaman1811;51645841]And the original Skyrim on console hat fucking awful loading times. [I]Looks at PS3[/I][/QUOTE]
PS3 ports of Bethesda games (Except for Oblivion, which wasn't ported by Bethesda) have always been iffy at best. I've had Fallout New Vegas [I]crash to desktop[/I] on PS3.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.