Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning (BARELY Remastered - 30 GB FAIL!!) Comparison - 2012 VS 2020

What can i say, for 20 more gigs... 40 more dollars.. and 40 less fps (yes, less fps!!) I expected the game to not only look a lot more different but also much better.

The majority of the times, it looks the same, at best it looks better every now and then (rarely) and the removed bloom effect really shows how much more pale the game could look.

The bright colorful graphics just seem gone at times.

[Starfals]

Do people also feel like they missed the chance to really update this gem of a game? People keep saying how Crysis Remastered is not good enough, but then what about this one? This is barely touched for the price of $ 50 (might be cheaper now)

Huge fail yeah?

[TheBayOfGame]

the real problem is that in some moment the old one seems graphicaly better lol

[amarbosanac]

It’s kind of sad…this game was one of my favorites when I was a kid, its a really good game, it has a good story telling, this could be a big thing even today - if it was done the right way…this is a disappointment, so it’s better to play the old nostalgic version

[TheDennys]

So, the new one is 20 gigs bigger, actually manages to look worse and it costs a lot more, what a deal!

[AquDrIFT]

Very disappointing.

I was extremely happy when THQ Nordic bought the IP, but I've yet to see them actually do something worthwhile with it or any of the 100 other IP's they bought...

[fogkapitany]

For us console plebs, its totally worth it. Xbox 360 version looks much worse than the Re-Reckoning in backwards compatibility for Xbox. Playstation 4-5 users cant even play the old version.

[Onyxxu]

I'm glad I look into things before buying them, got reckoning for about £4 a few years back on origin (🤮) and I was thinking of investing in re-reckoning. Absolutely not worth the price tag, I'm happy to play with "crappy" graphics honestly

[J_C_CH]

It does seem there is a slight increase in texture quality, and the torchlight looks less vivid in the 2020 version.

Tbh, the game isn't really a remaster, it's simply a re-release.

[ryanmartin]

Thanks man, I have this on 360 backwards compatible so it’s not worth it. I mean I want to support the devs so we get a sequel but they needed to support us and give us a better quality remaster at the same time

[nerdofgames]

Well, they've updated it more and the console versions are definitely better. Oh, and it didn't cost me $50 to buy Re-reckoning. Besides, the fatesworn dlc is absolutely worth it now. This video was good for 2020 only! It can be ignored now.

[sacamentobob]

this is a really well made video, great effort and work put into this. I still have this game to play in my to do list. Im wondering whether it's worth playing the new remastered one at all...

[D.u.d.e.r]

Thank you for the comparison, this really looks like a complete fail!

[EspenFrafalne]

I agree that the changes are more like i would expect a good remaster from several years earlier, but at least its better than the old game, and i think the new graphics is an "OK" balance between improving quality and preserving the "cartoonish" vibes of the old game - which really really suits this particular game. I would have been VERY disappointed if they reworked it so much it ended up looking like Skyrim or something like that...

The improvements are especially noticeable in the player model, but i also remember noticing substantial improvements certain places in the environment. Some of these changes seemed much more noticeable when i played it myself, as well as in other comparison videos, compared to when i watch the clips in this video. I suspect the small "split screen" windows is one reason, and YT messing up quality makes it even more difficult to notice. Colors and bloom are of course personal preference, and i think the old version was a bit oversaturated... You said something about FOV being "different", but there is at least a FOV setting in the new version (not sure about the old).

The new price is definitely a bit high, but i owned the old version, and so i got the new one at half price or something. 100% worth it if im gonna sit 100+ hours and play a game. At full price one might argue that the old game had good enough graphics to be worth playing, and the higher FPS definitely adds to the "value" of the original. Im getting between 50 and 65 FPS @ 1440p with max settings, and for me this is smooth enough that i prefer the new version...

[lolopunzel]

Amalur shine for his gameplay not for his beauty....to me still one of the most fun and really awesome combat rpg ever

[Olafleflibustier]

Wow !! Ok, happy to have the original game in physical version 🙂 Nice video !

[dkllhholjlzd]

In my case I play it on consoles. The PS3 version is nothing, not bad at all. It's very colorful. Of course, if you see the characters up close they seem to be hollow; They have grooves, for example on the face in the absence of light.

"New" version, for PS4 Pro (in my case): It looks noticeably better. It has lost color and some details, that is very true and indisputable, but it looks somewhat more "realistic."

Conversions always go up in size.

For example:
- GTA V on PS3: 13~15 GB with updates (not counting BD content)
- GTA V on PS4: 30~32 GB (not counting BD Disc).

It's something "normal." It is not a Remake either (e.g. See Resident Evil 4 Original, RE 4 Remaster and RE 4 Remake. In the Remake things change a lot. Maybe a good Remake or a more optimized Remaster of KOA R would look better.

[roxassoraxxx]

thanks for making this video it shows a lack of love for the game when you compare the visuals next to each other

[kurrynDev]

The title was supposed to be "kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Release" but I guess they changed it at the last minute.

[ajgujar]

I played the old one with a reshade mod 2 years ago and as far as I remember that reshade mod looked better than the remaster version.

[ryanmoss]

I bet you all that space is re-encoded FMVs for 4k output