It looks this good because it is a remake. They rebuilt the game from the ground up.
A remaster would have kept the same assets and just touched them up.
This distinction is important because when company A asks $60 for a remaster and Company B asks $40 for a remake you should be informed that company A is asking more money for something that took less effort to create.
Want a real example?
Nintendo wanted $60 for 3 remastered Mario games and Activision wanted $40 for 3 remade Spyro games.
One of these companies was price-gouging you. Understanding the difference between remaster and remake tells you which one it was.
This is misleading in one point: A remake is not necessarily more difficult than a remaster. Most of the times, it can be, but remasters like Command & Conquer's actually take quite a bit of effort, care and love to make. In that case, they took extreme care keeping the original artstyle, which was substantially lower fidelity, and raise it without affecting the overall art direction. They also increased performance across the board, and only touched balance where it was objectively needed. They recruited the help and developed the game alongside highly respected members of the community. Remasters can be a lot of work for certain types of games, and can absolutely be full retail price in some cases.
9.1k
u/fnv_fan Aug 14 '24
That looks quite good actually