YouTube Transcript:
You Don't Hate Remasters Enough

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

In preparation for my commentary of

Arkham Knight, I found myself in need of

an answer to a very strange question.

What game do we mean when we talk about

Arkham Asylum? To a PC guy, that

probably doesn't make much sense. But

everyone else has long moved on from the

consoles it was originally released on.

They're broken, sold, collecting dust.

So, if they want to play Arkham Asylum,

and it being Arkham Asylum, that is

likely. What do they do? They play a

different game, a remastered version of

the original. They play Return to Arkham

Asylum. Back when it released, a return

might have been what it was. But as time

has passed and the gap in availability

between the original and the remaster is

widened, it's not a return anymore. It's

Arkham. To most people, you say Arkham

Asylum, this is the game they think of,

which sucks because Return to Arkham is

a joke.

I mean, it's great because it's still

Arkham. But when your existence and

price tag are entirely justified by

having better art than the original, and

you don't have better art than the

original, and you actually have worse

art than the original, and you're paying

far more money for that than you ever

would have for a port, then do you

really think I'm being harsh? Let me

convince you. Return to Arkham is more

realistic, which is not good. See how

the new reflections create a sleekness?

How things become cleaner and prettier?

What use does Batman Arkham Asylum have

for words like that? It makes for a nice

screenshot, but it doesn't make a better

experience. You got realistic materials

on costumes, and that takes from the

sense that this is Batman at his most

elemental. It takes from the comic book

style. Realistic lighting makes the

lighting look more pleasant, but much

less harsh. Instead of the burned whites

of a surgical lamp that create the

impression that it would hurt to stare,

we get clarity and accuracy and beauty

to the benefit of what? The remaster

saturates the electrical blues and

softens their shape, which makes them

feel more advanced, more reliable, more

safe, and again, we're going the wrong

way. Better to look scrappy, strained,

as though a fuse could blow, as though

it would sting to even be near them. The

realism of Return to Arkham, its perfect

reflections and textures, its overworld

and now slick with realistic rain, has

an inevitable effect. Reality

counteracts ethereality. The material

pushes out the immaterial. Basically,

where's the magic gone? That unspoken

magic, that soft sense of something more

that made a green moon make sense. It's

muted. It's quiet. The gates are closed.

And now this world is solid all the way

through. Look at what they've done to

the moon. I don't mean to go moonwoke,

but why did they whitewash the moon? The

moon was green because a green moon is

strange. The sky was red because a red

sky is mad. The color gives the moon a

presence, a life of some sort, as though

it was an extension of the spirit of the

island, or the island an extension of

the moon. It created the sense that the

madness of the asylum was elemental,

larger than its rocks and the makings of

man, deeper and older and more

inescapable. That is a gothic way to

feel. But Return to Arkham clearly

thought that was a mistake. So it breaks

out the bleach and scrubs it down to the

bone. I mean, isn't it offensive enough

that it trades something unique for

something generic? Isn't it enough to

say that Asylum's strength of atmosphere

was by far the most successful part of

its fiction and the remaster has

carelessly made it lesser? If it isn't,

don't worry, there's more. It conflicts

with what surrounds it. It creates

incohesion like with the user interface

which is still under the impression that

there remains a comic book style to

complement or the exterior appearance of

the asylum whose strangeness once in no

need of explanation now looks that

little bit more awkward for being pushed

so much closer to the ground. And

there's the inevitable incohesion caused

by injecting huge amounts of visual

realism into only some of a world. The

remaster updates textures and lighting

but not geometry. PS4 skin on a PS3

body. And then there's the cutscenes now

rendered in engine which helpfully

avoids any feeling of disconnect between

cutscene and gameplay. But the price for

that, you know, tone, personality, not

looking like a source film was, as you

can probably tell, really very much not

worth paying. There are people playing

Arkham for the first time right now. And

meeting a Joker who looks like that.

people who had no choice but play a

version of the game where the visuals

were made with no care nor interest in

what's actually best for the game. So,

it's no surprise you can find so many

small moments that discard intentional

composition in favor of what's prettier.

When we find Officer Balls's corpse,

notice how the lighting's lack of focus

means you get less of the sense that

he's been deliberately displayed, like

an exhibit. The Joker teeth no longer

cast shadows for some reason, and the

now yellow door behind him has lost its

grit and monstrousness. Truth is, the

remaster doesn't always look worse.

Sometimes its changes are either

inoffensive or even good in cases where

the prettier image has no real cost, and

there's value in that. There's value in

the simple beauties. And more often than

not, Return to Arkham is a very pretty

game. But it is not better art. It's not

more interesting, more memorable, more

effective, or more useful in support of

the narrative. and that isn't worth the

trade. Oh, and it still runs at 30 FPS,

too. So, at least you get the same

performance on a PS5 as you did on a

console now 20 years old. But this video

isn't about Arkham Asylum. It's about

remasters, and not a growing trend, nor

a small minority. There are good

remasters, but the truth is, the bad

remasters are most remasters. Why time

again do we find ourselves with no

choice but to play a version of a game

defaced? Good question. But first, it

might be wise to try remastering

yourself. Everyone wants to do software

these days, but software is difficult,

difficult, lemon difficult. It's not

lemon impossible, though. And there's a

website called boot.dev that proved even

a word cell like me can get to grips

with code provided the right tutor.

Substantial lessons that are then put

into practice, leading to crucial

experience actually doing what you'll be

doing on the job, along with clear and

measurable progress. In other words,

it's learning that's not boring. And

that's the learning that sticks. Python,

Java, C, other strange terms, taking you

from the start right to the end of

back-end web development. I managed to

get a baseline understanding of Python

in less than an hour. And I'm very glad

to hear they just came out with the

training grounds, a place where learners

can grind out challenges to practice as

much as they need before moving forward

with the courses. So, if becoming Mr.

Robot sounds as good to you as it does

to me, then check out the link below and

use code whitelight to get 25% off your

entire first year if you choose the

So, what is it then that makes remasters

so frequently awful? Maybe it's bad

philosophy. The idea that a remaster

needs you to believe is that the

original game looks the way it does

because of technical limitations. It's

because the hardware of the time wasn't

good enough, and whatever the game used

to look like is just what they had to

settle for. Which makes it make sense

that a remaster from half a dozen years

in the future could come down like a HDR

angel from a 4K cloud and lift it from

the shackles of the past, make it look

the way it always should have, the way

it always wanted to. That is what

remasters need you to accept. It

justifies positioning themselves as the

definitive version of a game, and it's

what makes the current gen player feel

privileged to be getting the best

possible version of an older classic.

But it's a lie. Thing is though, there

is a nugget of truth in there. And maybe

that's what makes it easy to swallow. We

didn't have the technology to make games

actually look realistic until around

2014. Games like Order 1886, Second Sun,

Unity, Arkham Knight, and Drive Club are

pretty much the first generation of

games that look realistic then and still

look realistic now. But go back any

earlier? Not quite the case. Before the

PS4 generation, if you had even a little

bit of realism in your visual style, you

were going to be held back and people

were going to be able to tell.

Assassin's Creed 2 probably didn't want

its character models to look like this.

It was a limitation and it is a flaw. So

maybe it does interest me if you can fix

that. Maybe in that regard, the remaster

is right and its existence is justified.

But that's not what remasters tend to

do, though. That's not what the

Assassin's Creed 2 remaster did. The

Assassin's Creed 2 remaster believes

that because the game was going for a

certain level of realism, it couldn't

have wanted to be anything else. It

knows that games at the time needed to

have some visual style to cover up for

their technical limitations. But it

mistakenly takes that to mean that the

game's visual style was only there

because it had to be. That that's not

how the developers really wanted the

game to look. And that they chose that

style over any other style they could

have chosen instead. Because, well, I

don't know. There never seems to be an

answer for that. Maybe they threw darts.

The Assassin's Creed 2 remaster is

pretty obviously wrong. The original

game needed style, but its dreamlike

ethereality was chosen, and it was

chosen for a reason. It contributed a

sense of being painted that fit with the

Renaissance period and the narrative's

attitude of expressiveness and freedom.

It contributed the sense of being aged,

historicity in that way, and of being

fragile, which helped to emphasize the

fragility of its world and Etsio's place

within it. But what it doesn't

contribute is realism. So, the remaster

kicks it in the balls. Marvel at it.

Remastered glory. It's more like

everything else and at a complete loss

for everything the original style meant.

Now we've got water that's all but

sterilized itself into invisibility. And

a professional was paid money to do

that. Now the game suffers constantly

from the mismatch of the realism of the

textures with a completely unchanged

2009 looking geometry. Now the

soundtrack and the visual design of the

user interface are lesser because they

were made to support a different vibe. I

guess the remaster must have heard

Dreams of Venice and thought it was just

a coincidence that it was called Dreams

of Venice and not super realistic 4K

Venice. But that's the thing, the

remaster doesn't actually give us super

realistic 4K Venice, does it? That's

just what it would like to be. What it

really is is slightly more realistic

Venice. And that causes a big problem

because if you throw out the style that

softened the roughness of your mediocre

graphics and then you don't actually

improve the graphics that much, their

mediocrity becomes all the more exposed

and you've caused the problem you were

trying to fix. Look at Montigion. What

the [ __ ] Look at it. Actually, don't

look at it. I feel like I'd be better

off posting this type of gore on live

leak. And the remaster just doesn't seem

to care that the music stayed the same.

The track that plays here, Sanctuary, is

a blend of a sort of homely feeling of

comfort with a contrasting sense of

creeping anxiety and a grief that speaks

to all the nuances of Etsio's heart.

Does the game still look like the words

I've just said? It doesn't. It looks

happy. It looks like a normal afternoon.

Don't you think the supposedly

definitive edition of a video game

should care about these kind of things?

And sometimes there's literally just

less graphics in the remaster. Where's

the reflectivity of the marble gone? You

know, they made a movie about this exact

thing where according to some [ __ ]

beauty standard, these industry suits

kept trying to remaster Demi Moore and

she ended up turning into a busted ass

horrible flesh monster. Now, according

to some, the moral of the story is that

we shouldn't pressure women into

thinking they need the latest ray traced

reflections or something, but I think

Far had something a little more socially

conscious in mind. Demi Moore is

Assassin's Creed 2. And honestly,

somebody had to say something about it

because when games get turned into

horrible flesh demons, we thank him for

the privilege. To the remaster's credit,

I think the vibrancy of certain colors

does add a sense of life, which has no

place in Montreion, but works for the

Carnival of Venice and Florence. I think

the game looks fine, but it's not the

definitive Assassin's Creed 2. Also,

guess what? 30 FPS. Yep, 30 FPS. You

could run the original at 30,000 on your

average fridge these days, but a PS5

that can teleport you to real life

Mexico in no seconds at 60fps, 30 for

Assassin's Creed 2. Take it or leave it.

I'd say leave it, but it's not like you

have a choice. Okay, now it's time to

talk about Life is Strange. [Music]

[Music]

People hated it because there were women

in it. People loved it because there

were women in it. It was really [ __ ]

stupid and quite lovely. and its vibe

struck such a chord with people. It was

nostalgia for a place you'd never been,

but of course you had been here. Because

Arcadia Bay was a capturing of the

feelings of a bittersweet childhood

memory, a return to a complicated past

and a misunderstanding of the human root

of that vibe is why so many games have

tried to be the next Life is Strange,

but none of them have even come close,

including Life is Strange Remastered,

which which is great. No, I'm kidding.

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

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

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.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube Transcript:You Don't Hate Remasters Enough

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
You Don't Hate Remasters Enough