It's dog [ __ ] Far less offensively than
Return to Arkham of the Etsio
collection. And unless you're on a
Switch, you even have a choice. The
remaster didn't replace the original,
but it never looks much better than the
original, and it quite often looks a
little bit worse. So, yeah, I think
selling yourself entirely on the premise
of at least usually looking better, that
qualifies as being rather ass. Color
grading randomly screwed with, mostly
for the worse. Reflections on the
fountain are just, I don't know, gone.
Chromatic aberration, too. A strange
move considering the ethereal vibe and
theme of photography. Lighting is hit or
miss. better on real rare occasion.
Sometimes it's a neutral change, but
then there's moments of flatness, and
that's such a loss. They touched up the
facial animations a little, mostly in
the eyes, and it's mostly a decent
upgrade, but it can rob certain moments
of their personality and their numbness.
It's hard to believe the remaster team
could have thought Max's empty stare
when she's at the killer's mercy was.
They've done the realism thing in a sort
of different way. It's not HD textures
or flattening out the style. It's adding
the details that would realistically be
there. Clothing sometimes gets a
material texture, and most natural
surfaces now have lots of detailed
flora, a diverse arrangement of grasses,
weeds, and fallen leaves. On the upside,
realism, if you were inclined to view
realism as an upside, which would be
strange in a game like this with such a
defined style, the original looks like
it could have been a sketch in Max's
notebook. It looks painted, dreamed, or
remembered, which is exactly the kind of
feeling Life is Strange wanted to evoke.
And needless detail is a small
detraction in return for nothing. So,
there's an interesting question here.
What would a good remaster of Life is
Strange be like? Let's start with a
different question. What would a good
remaster of Assassin's Creed 2 look
like? At this point, such a thing might
seem difficult to imagine, but I still
wouldn't mind having those character
models fixed. I had realism where
realism wanted to be, but couldn't be.
Never supplant a game's art direction
with realism simply because you can.
That's pretty much the difference
between the remaster of Halo Combat
Evolved, which is generally regarded to
be one of the biggest piles of dog [ __ ]
humanity has ever produced, and the Halo
2 remaster, which is usually quite good.
You have a game where the textures look
like the crisp packet you pull out of
your dog's [ __ ] You recognize that
probably wasn't a productive or
intentional stylistic choice. You fix
it, and you don't view the simplicity of
the art direction as a mistake. So,
there is a way this can be done. But
what about Life is Strange? That's
different. Because to whatever degree
realism was a part of its look, that
realism was already achieved in the
original. It didn't have bad character
models like Assassin's Creed 2. It
didn't have pop-in or busted ass
textures. It wasn't held back, and for
the most part, neither was Arkham
Asylum. There's a texture here and there
that could do with a higher resolution,
and it is obvious that the game isn't
using modern graphical techniques. But
is it also not clear that it has no need
of them? Is there anything wrong with
this image? A bad remaster would throw
in a bunch more realism anyway, and
that's exactly what we got. But then,
what's left for a good remaster to do?
Maybe a pump up the stylization. It can
be done. It has been done. But modding
the blacks of Watchd Dogs Blacker,
contributing a handful of new skyboxes
and careful consideration of the tone
would seem a far easier lot than
improving upon the style would be for
most other games. Think about what you'd
be asking the remaster team to do. See
those original artists, the ones who
knew the game's art direction best
because they created it in collaboration
with the writers and the level designers
and the graphics engineers and the other
creative and technical teams. Yeah. Now
do their jobs better than they could.
You can see how that might be difficult,
disrespectful, implausible. So if you're
looking to be a good remaster, kind of
seems like you're running out of
options. Maybe sometimes the good
remaster is the one that doesn't exist.
So why does it exist? Why was Arkham
Asylum remastered? Well, the answer to
that is money. philosophy will only get
you so far. There are many things I
cannot explain. Like, why is it only the
games that need a visual uplift the
least that get remastered? Because those
are usually the games that sold the
most. In a healthy creative industry, it
would be the other way round. But
instead, remaster and remake teams are
frequently asked to fix the work of some
of the most artistically complete video
games, not only of their time, but of
the medium itself. Yeah, good luck.
Here's another problem. Ports of old
games don't sell like remasters. Because
a remaster can do something a port
can't. A remaster can make an old game
feel new. Not because of what it
actually does to the game, but simply
because it is a new release. And if it's
new, then it's current. And there is a
cherished, though sometimes imprisoning
sense of community in what's current.
And if it's new, that means it's meant
for you, the modern gamer with modern
tastes who might otherwise feel
apprehensive about the accessibility of
older titles, or even something
approaching shame because old games
aren't current. And that kind of thing
is for nerds. And it's validating for a
game you love to be honored this way and
for it to be made new again, which of
course means it isn't old anymore. And
maybe in some part neither are you. And
thanks to some personal blend of all
those things put together. More people
will buy a remaster than a port. And
they'll buy it for a higher price.
Listen to how fans of Arkham Origins
talk about their interest in a remaster.
They want to be able to play the game on
modern hardware. But the fact that
that's a straightforward argument for a
port, not the thing you're forced to buy
for more money instead of a port is
completely ignored. They want something
more. They speak about its exclusion
from the Return to Arkham collection as
an insult. As if what happened to Asylum
and City was an honor. Now, if you want
your takes a little less controversial,
then I've got just the thing. Last of Us
2, whose remaster is a joke, and
everyone knows it. You can't even tell
which is which without one of Digital
Foundry's electron microscopes. No one
believes them when they say they tried.
So why does it exist? Because that word
that they exalted with this fugly ass
orange on the cover art sells. And it
did. So old games in no need of a
remaster get remastered anyway. Games
that are not available on current
hardware are remastered instead of
ported. And there is an incentive not to
port an old game onto a new system if
you even so much as might remaster it
because you want to sell that potential
game for the highest price to all those
who just want to be able to play it.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but consider the
fact that the original version tends to
magically disappear from storefronts the
moment the remaster becomes available.
Wouldn't want to confuse the customer.
I'm sure would be the excuse, but now
you've no choice but to buy Assassin's
Creed 3 remastered and Dark Souls
Remastered, whose original versions
online was shut down to make way for the
new and improved. Here's another
problem. The remaster is not sold based
on how beneficial its changes are to the
experience, nor is it reviewed on that
basis. The remaster is sold based on how
upgraded it can seem in a cherrypicked
instant of a YouTube comparison video.
And most of the time it's either
reviewed on purely technical terms or
not at all. In a second long snapshot of
a random scene, it's impossible to
consider the changes made to color
grading to know or to recall the
emotional intentions of the moment. It's
decontextualized. And in that
environment, what matters most if you're
looking to form a positive impression
are the simplest aesthetic values and
what's most immediately perceptible. You
need to look like you have more graphics
than the original. You need to be able
to see the difference and see that it's
a big one. You don't need to make the
game look better for any longer than
about 5 seconds. Is Hayam's arrival in
America supposed to feel cold? Is Boston
supposed to feel warm and welcoming?
Well, no. But the point is, all you can
tell from the trailer or the comparison
video is that the remaster looks
prettier, and that creates an incentive.
Assassin's Creed 3 remastered has two
big ideas. Make it bright and make it
orange. with all the graphical might of
the eighth generation. And to be
perfectly honest, it does actually look
pretty nice. Meadows are now idyllic
meadows. Towns are now idyllic towns
filled with warmth and notes of calm and
divinity. Wonderful news for your
screenshot tools, but pretty as it is,
what use is that to Assassin's Creed 3.
Connor is meant to feel torn between two
worlds as he walks through Boston, his
lands ravaged by war. But now his lands
in Boston both look like a [ __ ]
postcard. Are those the right notes to
play? The better question is, did that
matter when these decisions were being
made? There's another side to Assassin's
Creed 3 remastered, something that
changes the conversation. It's the fact
that a lot of it actually just looks
like dog [ __ ] By a lot of it, I mean
everyone's faces, everyone's bodies, and
all the cutscenes where that heavenly
orange glow seems to look a lot more
like an ongoing supernova. Shadows gone,
faces already in the process of melting
off, it seems. But the textures have
more pixels in them, I defiantly shout
as the cosmic rays turn me into a future
civilization's petroleum. Now, this is
curious because unlike before, there's
no upside. You're not trading artistic
merit for surface level aesthetics.
You're just getting the part where they
turn you into a hunculus. And everyone
can see that. So, what the [ __ ] going
on? Cuz that can't be explained with
philosophy or incentive. No, but it can
still be explained with money. Remasters
are made on the cheap. I mean, probably.
It's not like they publish their
financials, but there are some things we
know like that they are frequently made
in short periods of time and usually
outsourced to smaller studios. They're
contract work and contracts go to the
lowest bidder. And if quality is what
you're looking for, that's a really bad
place to be. Or maybe not. But I can't
think of any other explanation. Because
if there's one thing I know for sure,
it's that there is no such thing as the
artist who believes that is better than
that. There is something they did not
have, and I'm willing to bet that it's
either money or because of money. Dark
Souls Remastered is probably bad because
of money. It has a new lighting system,
and sometimes that new lighting system
is of use. Most of the time though, its
effect is a sort of mild and general
blandoning. Name the scene, and if you
expect it'll be a more flatly lit
version of its prior self, you'll be
right nine times out of 10. Darkness,
brightened, contrast, flattened. The way
the light plays off clothing, armor, and
skin, reduced of character so severely.
They don't even look like the things
they're supposed to be anymore. Metals
become plastic, and characters come to
look like their own action figures. Look
at the [ __ ] fog doors, man. Usually,
I'd be all for traversing the white
light. But honestly, this time, stay
away from me. I look hideous. Dark Souls
Remastered is too lazy to have actually
committed any major artistic trespass.
Mostly they've just taken a bit of
kitchen towel and dabbed it across the
surface of the game, trying to suck up
as much personality as they could. And
yet, despite the relatively minor
offenses, it stands out among the Return
to Arkhams and the AC2s for the same
reason as Creed 3, not having an upside.
It's not prettier. The textures are
higher resolution, but the remaster
exposes the game's graphical
shortcomings more often than it erases
them. You get a worse looking game for
nothing in return. How does that happen?
Technical talk is speculation. I don't
know. and I don't know anyone who does.
Maybe it has something to do with the
old art assets not being made with a new
lighting system in mind and not having
the money or ability to change that.
Maybe it's something similar. You make
broad systemic changes, but you don't
have the time to make specific tunings
for each individual scene. Maybe that
explains the legendary edition of Mass
Effect 2 that has far better lighting
tech and far worse lighting. I think
that's close to being the truth, but I
can't be sure. of anything besides this.
Money is why the remaster of Silent Hill
2 was the way it was.
>> To change the [ __ ] font to Comic
Sands in the HD. Yeah, cuz cuz
And so it was for Dead Rising and Dark
Souls and Warcraft and GTA 3 and Vice
City and San Andreas and so many more.
And that leaves me with only one place
left to go. When remasters tell us that
they will make our games look better,
why do we believe them? I've avoided
talking about the second party in this
mess until now, but that's us. That's
the gaming public who accept the
remasters premises when they tell us
that realism and new graphics
technologies will make our games look
better. Something is wrong with the way
we think about art. Because if you said
what remasters say about games, about
something like Spongebob or Akira, you'd
be laughed at. If you said the same
thing about a painting, people would
think you're insane. What's happening
there? Well, I think the start of it is
the simple fact that the gaming public
has developed a deeply ingrained
association of realism with quality.
Because for decades, the games that
could be the most realistic were also
the games that could be the longest, the
most explosive and entertaining, the
most accessible, and reliable. The ones
with the best multiplayer, the best
acting, and not uncommonly, pretty good
narratives, too, because those were the
games with the most money. People trust
realism because for nearly 30 years,
they've had a reason to. The four most
visually realistic games of 2025 are
four of its best. And to be clear,
realism is awesome. It's privileged. It
shouldn't be. But the last thing I want
this video to suggest is that you're
some kind of low IQ Neanderthal for
liking graphics. I'm glad that cars in
games can look like the cars I actually
want to drive. The games that want to
deal with Earth as it exists or ever
existed, that want to represent its
beauties or those of the universe beyond
are able to do so. I'm happy that
HideioKhima can just put Leia Sedu in
Magic Mexico. and relatedly that
detailed physical acting is a thing that
can be done. I look forward to every
coming advancement. But there's also
something else and that's the harder
thing. Gamers. Yeah, gamers. Modern
audiences. Yeah, I'm going there. Gamers
don't respect art much and on average,
but come on. We still haven't even
managed to widely convince ourselves
that games are a legitimate art form.
So, it's no surprise that we're
struggling with the notion that visual
art in games is, you know, actual art.
Pay attention to the language we use
when we talk about art in games.
Presentation, we call it in casual
conversation and even in our reviews.
Like that's what it is, a means of
presenting what the things that actually
matter. Like it's makeup, dress up,
rather than being as much the game as
any other part of it. We're happy to
call it art. We're happy to use that
word interchangeably with presentation.
But we don't mean it. We don't treat it
like art, like we'd treat that same art
if we saw it outside a video game. And
that's why when this gets changed to
this, there are people who care more
about how many pixels are up there
instead of how many stars. Or when
remasters [ __ ] with the color grading,
seemingly at random, people don't seem
to realize that by changing the color,
you change the scene. Orange lighting is
different from gray lighting. When
Desmond is rescued from Abstergo and
taken to be among friends and allies,
that's orange for a reason. It's warmth.
It's home. It's an echo of Florence.
It's contrast to the blues and grays of
where I was held captive. Replace the
sun with silver and you're diminishing
that contrast. A statement that would be
pretty uncontroversial if we were
talking about a movie. But with games,
there's a tendency to just let it go
like it never meant anything. Like
there's no purpose to the colors of a
scene. Like it just depends on whether
you prefer the color orange to the color
gray. There is something gravely wrong
with the way we look at art in games.
They've got us paying anything they ask
to have our games bleached and Botoxed,
intention and expression airbrushed away
so we can better perceive a blade of
grass. They're not going to change, so
it's going to have to be us. And with
that, I'd like to return to Arkham.
Yeah, Arkham City is not much better
than Asylum. City's moon was always
white, but you're never under the
impression that if it wasn't, they
wouldn't have changed it. Look at what
they did to the skybox. Why would you do
that? It's so strange. Because the rest
of the game goes in the other direction,
guided by the philosophy that every
visual element would be better if it
stood out as much as possible from its
surroundings. Bolder colors, brighter
lights, clearer details. From the
indentations in a building to the
creases in Batman's cloak. What that
means in terms that matter is that
everything looks less aged and less
weathered. A broad sense of struggle of
an old world crumbling into a ravenous
sea. Shivering in the wind and the cold,
abandoned as the city's warm lights loom
tall, so far from reach. all watered
down. As clothing looks fresh from the
press, like it's been worn for a day,
not enduring hell for months. While
characters like Catwoman are so overpron
pronounced, so clean and sharp and
crammed with attention-grabbing details
that they begin to feel out of place in
their own world. Reflections embolden
the neon tenfold, bringing a sense of
life to a world meant to be fading out.
And yet, the color grading is gone.
Blue, orange, now all of its black, and
you lose that sense of temperature. The
cold has lost its bite. Look at the
steel mill. How the fire used to be the
dominant source of its light. And now
look at the remaster. Where's that sense
of heat? Oh, and before I forget,
where's my other 30 FPS? Why is this
[ __ ] chugging like it's 2011? What hurts
is that this is the new Arkham City. For
so many, this is the only Arkham City,
the only one they ever knew or ever
will. As games continue to be remastered
instead of ported, what will happen to
their image and their memory? What art
will we think of when someone says their
name long in the future as the gap in
accessibility between the original and
the remaster grows ever larger? How much
more time do we have until publishers
decide to make a quick buck by replacing
the PC versions? How much longer until
it happens to our favorite games of
today? How long before they start
getting AI to do this? Stop killing
games and stop defacing them. And stop
believing their insult just because they
sprinkled it with glitter. Or expect a
future where ports don't come and the
best of our generation is contracted out
to the lowest bidder to be remolded in
plastic again and again and again and again.
again. [Music]
And extra special thanks go out to L
Hudson, Lex Williams, Andre Baltuta,
Holy Shift, Dennis Williams, Combat
Wombat, John Lemley, Dylan Schaefer,
Murphy, Have a Nice Day, Dan Walker, DJ
Week, Century, Chino, Chase Baker, Dogs
Ate My Pancreas, William Vosella, Joe
Simmons, Arcturus, Navy Husky, Empty the
Poet, Deluxo, Dr. Harvel, Enzo, John C,
Ethan, SEC, Pib, Fat Guy, 688, Purple,
Pee, Joshua, Lovejoy, Va, James KD,
Cole, Bramlet, Walshie, White, Best
Girl, Tentmaker, Cfka, New XC, Very
Professional, Dodo, Douglas, Totally
Straightup Anonymous, Yo, Mark Carter,
Nikita Shosin, Dog, Best Dog, Icate My
Husband using your voice, Nebulous,
Rascal, Bumble, Grumble, Double Crumble,
Bumhole, Pummel, Shovel, Puddle, Huddle,
Jumble, Tidemore, La Lockwood, Anna
Hagunt, Christopher Sha, Eddie Rams,
Daniel Tankisley, The Lightweight White
Lightweight to Light Whites, Oh My God,
Why 2, Robert Thompson, XD, Shadowfrog,
Chan, Triplicate, Pugsley IV, Midgets,
Shooting Sharp 34, Microlapse, Edward
Franklin Woods, Crane, Virgil's JCE,
Plague BT, Cave Snail, Matten NG, and
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension