Fun fact: Last Of Us on PS3 was one of the few games on the system which were using 100% of the system's complicated processor structure. It was taxing the PS3 to absolute limit, a marvel of optimization to achieve that level of detail.
I know the games obviously doesn't look anything like that on PS3 but it really holds up at 4k. The texture work is incredible! It reminds me of Halo reach. A lot of it's fine details was hidden behind a blurry low resolution smear until it was released on more powerful hardware.
I feel that the games that are being released recently since 2022 is asking for exponential increase in system requirements compared to the upgrade in graphics fidelity they offer. RDR2 a game released in 2018 is graphically more impressive than modern AAA games in 2023 while asking for fraction of system recourse to run well. RDR2 could run high textures within 3.5gigs VRAM , Hogwarts legacy is using 7 -9 gb on my rtx 3060 at 1080p
@@andrerocha3998 regardless of whether you think rockstar are in a league of their own or not, the fact that a less graphically impressive game is harder to run than a game that is a half decade old and more graphically impressive is inexcusable. rdr2 isnt even a well optimized port either like most rockstar pc ports arent, which makes it worse
I def prefer the older faces they seem to have more character or let's say it looks more cartoonish/animated than cursed realistic like the remake. I wish they kept this more animated movie style and didn't go the ultra-realism hardcore mode
@@crysave They most definitely weren't going for an animated movie style for the PS3 version on purpose though, it's a Sony first party AAA exclusive released in 2013, back then this was as close as realistic as it got in terms of graphical fidelity considering the console it was released on
@@crysave I like the remake better, there are some super weird faces in the original that I only noticed after replaying original and remake back to back. Like how weird ellie looked at the ending The character model is also better, Tess for example in the original looked so young for someone who's on her late 40s she kinda cute in the original tho but I much prefer the remake, where she resembles her voice actor more. I would even say its a nice tribute to the late voice actress.
@@crysave they most definitely werent going for a cartoonish style it was just because of hardware limitation so they couldnt go for a realistic look same with uncharted and well every game in that generation
This is an amazing game. I played through it on PS3, PS4 and PS5. I probably won’t do it again on PC but it really is an amazing package of story, voice acting and gameplay
There’s just something I love about the look of the original, even though the lighting and textures are far superior on updated version, it’s almost like they changed a little too much in my opinion, I’m a little mixed right now which version I like best
I think it's the art direction, I feel like the art direction looks better on the ps3 version, in the remake it's just trying to mimic real life, here's the best example of what I mean 1:54, in the original the shadow stretches out to the wall and there's some flickering, kind of giving it an atmospheric feel, in the remake it's juts realistic.
@@dirkdex and maybe global illumination, when rasterization is done right it can look quite good, I hear that in Hogwarts legacy people can't tell when ray tracing is on or off because it looks the same when it's on, game engines and lightning in general has come a long way
Yup, I'm replaying it using Part 1 (on PS5) and I feel something is "off", maybe this is just habit. But also, it seems to me that the AI is easier than before and I play on Hard, I just get through the game and I barely feel any tension.
now THAT'S how you do a comparison. a lot of channels only do comparisons using footage from the ps3 version (which dosent even make sense given the remaster) but here you actually show how good the game actually looks in the original
@@dragonl4d216 a few scenes look admitted whitewashed so it improved but there were other scenes (like the military outpost looking scene) that just looks more drab. guess it's just art direction for ya...
@@MisterUnknown707 I have 13th gen intel. And 40 series gpu. 32gb ram. m.2 hyper ssd. No i dont have a crappy pc. Some of the rpcs3 games are just buggy to the core. Glitchy shadows, textures etc. even someone on a 5k rig will have them because its not user side issues. Its issues in the game itself. They get patched out over time ofc. So please keep ur uneducated *ss quiet. P.s. I play the remake on a solid 80-100 fps with dlss 3.0. So yea.... What does your pc run it at? or you just stuck having to play the emulator version coz u have a shitty pc.
@@airstuck3929 Yeah i highly doubt that the multi-millionare company will care to port an quote unquote "obsolete" version of the game to PC. Emulation and reverse engineering are our main tools to preserve the past of this medium if you ask me.
Wow, it improved by ALOT, the facial animation in the cutscene it's impressive now, and the PS3 version still looks good, what it's funny when I watched the gameplay I felt it didn't changed too much it's because the memory tricks us to think it hasn't changed due to nostalgia but seen a comparison now I can see it's totally different.
Its hard to decide which I like better, the stylized visuals of the original or the grittiness of the remake. Both look really good while feeling like similar but different experiences.
I don't know why, but the remake gives me a Telltale Games vibe without the hard cel-shaded lining. Probably the color because it's got kind of a cartoony vibe to it. I dunno, it's hard to explain. Not a bad thing but I personally prefer the original, but I do like where they were going with the remake.
"2013" We had Crysis 3. I watched the remaster that it has ray tracing, i basically don't notice the difference. For Crysis 1, obviously the indirect lighting is lightyears better on the remaster.
@@saricubra2867 RT implementation may vastly differ. It works the best in games with the night urban areas with a lot of reflective and opaque surfaces and colored light sources. In games with a lot of vegetation and mostly non-reflective surfaces you won't really see a lot of difference. Like RT in the Hogwarts Legacy vs RT in the Cyberpunk 2077 or Ghostwire Tokyo.
Yes, there's no denying the remake looks more realistic and uses more graphical techniques that weren't common or even available in 2013, but the original game looks pretty darn good for a PS3 game. It's impressive what they achieved back then and the remake respects that by adding more details and making everything look more natural while still respecting the original game It's just a shame that the PC port is so poorly optimized and has several bugs that should've been taken care of before it was released
The original shows its age for sure but man it was really impressive for 2013. It doesn't look as good on ps3 because of resolution and AA but still, amazing that ND was able to push that piece of hardware to have those graphics in a playable state. Just seriously impressive attention to detail.
The Last of Us original looks quite good for what it is. You can definitely tell there a couple of generation between these two comparisons, I was blown away at the PS3 version when it came out and I played it first time, but the remake set a new bar in how not to optimise games for PC.
Besides obvious lighting, texture, and shadow improvements, the character models express more emotion and don't have that bug eyed look. Subtle eyebrow movement that you can see in the daughters face close up really can make a difference
Lightning in the original was baked and it actually has a more cinematic feeling to it. Global Illumination is impressive but it's just like the real world , boring!
It's just nostalgia, guys. The brain is sneaky like that, it will trick you into believing things that aren't real. For example, it's the same for me with Quake 2 RTX vs the original Quake 2 - the original will ALWAYS be the one I prefer, but not for objective reasons (because, objectively, the RTX version is a better looking game).
I feel like with restrictions, people where thinking of how the art direction should look since they can't make it realistic, in the original, there's darker shadows making them stand out more, there's an orange tint in the outside scenes giving an ominous but calming feel, and in some scenes like 3:40, there's some water puddles that seem to be removed in the remake for some reason, in the remake it's just realistic. Edit: also Ellie looks more like a kid in the original.
As great as it looks, there are a few things I think are big downgrades in the new version. Like, Joel not having blood on him after shooting his neighbor takes some of the shock value away. Especially since its from Sarah's perspective, who didn't know what was happening, and just saw her dad kill someone. Him trying to calm her, while freaked out and splattered with their neighbors blood is much more impactful. Also, the back window in the intro is originally a lot darker, taking away your spacial awareness, leaving you unsure of your safety as you hear strange sounds outside. Now you can clearly see that nothing is there. It takes away a lot of the fear factor. Overall a massive upgrade, but I'm wondering how many other small, but impactful details have been looked passed in other scenes?
that's really bad nitpicking of some small, irrelevant detail. People always cope with their bad old shit since they couldn't effort the new better things it's funny.
@@larryboyzz I mean they aren't really irrelevant details. This is probably the worst possible answer you could have given in response. You made no actual argument as to why you believe these details don't matter. I own the remake, just beat it and I think it looks absolutely incredible compared to the ps3 version but I actually agree with what Glue is saying.
It would have been interesting to show the FPS for one against the other. People jokingly say that the emulated version currently runs better than the port and I wanted to see if that was the case
Of course it is the case, the emulated game is easier to run than the remake (which has notorious performance problems besides being very demanding to top it all off) RPCS3 is not that demanding at all if you have a modern CPU.
both run horribly but the remake still runs better. You need at least a 3090 and 12th gen intel or ryzen 9 to even stay above 60fps on the emulator while the remake you could at least play it at above 60fps on a gtx 1080 on 1080p high. Or 100fps on 1080p Low FSR
the art direction on the original is so so so much much better. Sure you can have better illumination on modern engines, but the entire game, characters and scenario are so much more expressive in the original. Having better texture sometimes is good but changing the art style is not. The characters are literally different people. I hope skilled people can bring the original textures and assets to this game and use it's lighting and such. Meanwhile, in my head this "remake" doesn't exist. The original is the only TLOU.
I honestly disagree on issue. I look carefully at Joel while playing PC version and I think the issue is they used same art style or even some sort of original high quality assets for remake and its simply shadows and shading making Joel look old at least. Tess has resting bitch face i think it could be animations rather than face because in scenes where she talks and is expressive she looks like PS3 Tess.
And of course they had to kill color saturation in the remake. I don't understand this modern aversion to color. The unique thing about the original is that it's a zombie apocalypse setting in a world with vibrant colors and flora. That's gone now.
I played the remastered only a few weeks after release and just seeing it here... man the quality of the original is just unbeatable, even though it looks dull due to age and isn't as beautiful, it just feels like it was made to convey the true tlou experience, not made to put more cash in their pockets. Or maybe its just my nostalgia speaking... Still remake will get you what you need (and better graphics) if ur a newcomer, just at a premium price.
While the graphics are, indeed, objectively better.....I gotta admit there are scenes where I VERY much prefer the original. The texture work and all may not be as good but the lighting, colour and everything just gives the original a mood and personality that many times is missing in the new one. The part which I feel is definitely better-looking in the new one is the Boston QZ, what with the fog effects and more elaborate backdrops, but many others end up feeling duller than the original, which looks vibrant and oozes ambience. Definitely would NOT say that they "ruined" the game or anything; it's something of a 50-50 where it's gained much in terms of quality, but also some less technical, more artistic aspects were lost in translation. It's still very much TLOU, and even with some DEFINITE technical issues on PC, it still plays phenomenally well and the experience feels just as great.
yea dude a lot of times in the pc remake it just strays too far away from the original, like the pc remake doesnt look bad per se its just like way more bland and generic and looks a lot more just like the average AAA ray tracing fancy graphics game
I'm surprised how flat the lighting is on the original, one of those cases where the remake looks like what my brain remembers the original looking like.
That's what I say when I look at well done remakes: They look like your exaggerated, amplified memories of your favorite. See: Dead Space, FFVII Remake, Resident Evil 4, etc...
Character models from the RPCS3 versions look great still but the environments are not good - Night and day difference there! Thanks for putting this together.
To each their own but I can’t fathom how anyone believes the original looks better. The lighting alone is a significant improvement, let alone the textures. The broken gray contrast in the original was terrible. I’ve played every version of this game and I can’t recommend the remake enough. The improvements to ai transforms many encounters in the game
The color scripting and character faces are completely different in the remake. Not a fan. For example, the dark, haunting feel in the Pittsburg basement sequence is gone, thanks to revamped colors. And the Ellie face model is just not right man...
I honestly miss the less realistic graphics of old. Everything looks so homogenized now. Back then games would come out and have a unique look to them. And once raytracing becomes the standard in 10 years or so everything will look the same.
That's not true at all. Using ray tracing has nothing to do with how realistic a game has to look. Ray tracing benefits both stylized and realism as it's just more accurate in the way it calculates light. Nothing is preventing you from doing ray tracing and cel shading in a game. You're taking issue with visual trends which every generation has. 6th generation for instance was all about stylization until the end where it transitioned into that piss filter that was common in many games from the mid 2000s up until the early 2010s. Don't talk about stuff you don't clearly understand
@@crestofhonor2349 Case in point: Fortnite UE 5.1 and Cyberpunk are both games with extensive raytracing. They look nothing alike, and Fortnite does not look more realistic because of it. In fact, it actually makes it look moreso like the CG animated movies it is strongly mimicking.
No, it didn't but Uncharted needed it though at least the first 2 games for sure, heck even Jack And Daxter need a remake nowadays, any of their games except TLoU which was literally their latest game before TLoU2, that as you can see still holds up pretty well 10yrs later.
@@videogamesruinedmylife3769 Yes and it was barely a remaster. Just a slight resolution upscale and 60fps. The PS4 "remaster" was basically a money grab. At least with this remake they rebuilt it from the ground up and improved the visuals.
Thank you very much, this an amazing comparation. As always, do you you can share the original video with out compression from youtube? Have a great one!
@@KyleRuggles Yeah that something is more emotion in their facial features. The original has a bug eyed look almost as if they are staring off into space.
I have a PS3 nowadays because my condition is not the best And seeing people say that this game's graphics are bad on the PlayStation 3 just broke my mind, the game is beautiful, regardless of the platform The art direction of this game is perfect, I could see the rays of sunlight passing through the foliage on the PlayStation 3
Everything is better in the new one aside from Joel's face. And im not talking about the animations which new one shows more emotion in animation rigging, but I mean the actual model of old Joel's face looks better. More iconic and tougher looking.
The difference is even more noticable when you compare gameplay footage rather than stills. The post fx, particle fx, depth of field, motion blur etc are much better looking in the Remake. Also the animations look life like in the remake. Still though, the 2013 version had no business looking that good 10 years later.
"had no business looking that good 10 years later." It's the PS3 dude, an anomaly of a console, way too fast for it's own good by the weird multicore IBM CELL chip.
@@saricubra2867 the weird CELL chip shines in first party titles like The Last Of Us but it's also the reason why the Xbox 360 was better in every multi-platform game. Having all that power meant nothing when 3rd party developers couldn't take full advantage of it.
The original still looks absolutely insane for a seventh gen title. Like, goddamn, realistic style games that old are NOT supposed to hold up this well. Bravo to Naughty Dog, the undisputed kings of squeezing every drop of power out of the ps3's weird cell architecture lol
I've never played this game so I don't have any rose-tinted glasses while looking at comparisons but I will say that the PS3 original upscaled looks a lot better in many instances compared to the remake. The faces look better on PS3 to me, overall, as well.
the remastered version is still preety much playable. if you want to save money and want to experince the story I would say go for the remastered version.
It's obviously clear, that the remake is in any thing superior (irrespective of the personal taste), but damn for the PS3 era it was a realy beautifull game and still holds up today, with it's own charm and the remake looks, what the original looks in the menetal cinema from it's old time.
@@chloescoolcreations9719 They do a good job of using crepuscular rays, volumetrics, bounced lighting, reflection captures, directional ambient occlusion, and planar reflections. I agree. It looks better than ray tracing does in some games, and it’s all rasterized. If only it were a little better optimized.
People are seriously saying the original holds up?? Lighting, shadowing and shading are INFINITELY better. Like holy s**t you dont realize the difference until they are put side by side. Truly 9 years apart.
I think the more realistic graphics get the less we really care about them, there is something beautiful about graphics that don't need to mimic real world looks.
This is why modern games doesn't feel better on experience when played. The old ones gives us the 'playing a game' feeling, being nostalgic, in control, fun, while new triple A games give us the 'watching a cinematic cutscenes, just go with the flow' type of feeling. I never thought I will dislike better graphics games because back in the day, I always dream of CGI and Cutscenes quality on my actual real time gaming. now that we all have it, I barely get immersed on these games anymore and they feel like a more of a chore for me to do now, and I even prefer playing old games now with lower graphics because I feel like I'm actually playing games and not just watching presentations.
Something is really up with the eyes on the remake, a tad big... Sorta Alita Battle Angel like.. Also I find they don't really have the eyes moving around when stationary, put a bit of life in there, ya know?
Now the PC system requirements feel even more insulting! Yes, side by side the TLoUP1 has a bit more detail, but in full-screen scenes I had to keep checking the corners to tell which version is which! In fact, some PS3 areas look downright better and moodier, and the game has a much cleaner art direction overall. Oh, and PS3 did reflections the old-fashioned way - with clever visual tricks, but on PC you only get reflections with RTX on! Freaking pathetic!
Same thing happened with Skyrim Special Edition. If you look up "Original Skyrim vs. Special Edition," SE looks worse in almost every scene when compared side-by-side.
@@rhysm.5915 The only good thing about Skyrim SE is the mod support and the 64Bit executable that allows more memory allocation and less crashes. As always modders do a better job than bugthesda. And now SE with mods looks better than the OG modded.
Orginal game is more grey, cold pallete of colors and i love it in games, we got to much cozy games with warm colors. But orginal in some ways look old but overall remake is decent
The Last Of Us RPCS3 Playstation 3 Emulator settings below
ibb.co/zx5c79H
ibb.co/nCYKK6r
ibb.co/58HBTnB
ibb.co/pJYqwsB
ibb.co/py6QZRz
Nice Vid. Like most of yours. 👍
my The Last Of Us RPCS3 can't even run
@@gamefandrg you messed up
The links are dead
@@barbioxdogg1 They work just fine
The 2013 version surprisingly holds up pretty well till this day
it really does not, especially on playstation lol
That's not really the graphics standing up but the art direction.
Exclusive games only for ps are made with care only PC can pull off a fallout 76 and people will still Plat it although it's garbage
Plus that’s ps3 graphics too
@@oldtimebenchmarks5294 So true hah. Although I'm a "PC gamer", exclusive games feels so amazing, it's like how games are supposed to be.
Fun fact: Last Of Us on PS3 was one of the few games on the system which were using 100% of the system's complicated processor structure. It was taxing the PS3 to absolute limit, a marvel of optimization to achieve that level of detail.
And now this game brings to its knees almost every 3xxx series nVidia card with the exception of 3080/3090.
@@ml_serenity rtx 3060 12 gb = ultra 1080p 60fps stable
@@ivanandreevich2780 right, forgot about those. VRAM is the key
Uncharted 3 as well. The CPU downgrade is very noticiable on the PS4, Uncharted 4 is a stuttery mess.
@@ivanandreevich2780 only with fsr or dlss
I know the games obviously doesn't look anything like that on PS3 but it really holds up at 4k. The texture work is incredible! It reminds me of Halo reach. A lot of it's fine details was hidden behind a blurry low resolution smear until it was released on more powerful hardware.
I feel that the games that are being released recently since 2022 is asking for exponential increase in system requirements compared to the upgrade in graphics fidelity they offer. RDR2 a game released in 2018 is graphically more impressive than modern AAA games in 2023 while asking for fraction of system recourse to run well. RDR2 could run high textures within 3.5gigs VRAM , Hogwarts legacy is using 7 -9 gb on my rtx 3060 at 1080p
A lot of the AAA games released this year have just been terribly optimized. Hopefully this doesn't become the norm.
you cant compare rockstar to other companies they are a league of their own, thats why their games take long time to make
@@andrerocha3998 regardless of whether you think rockstar are in a league of their own or not, the fact that a less graphically impressive game is harder to run than a game that is a half decade old and more graphically impressive is inexcusable. rdr2 isnt even a well optimized port either like most rockstar pc ports arent, which makes it worse
@@dciplee why you say rdr 2 is not optmized , wich game is optmized for you so i can understand your standarts
@@andrerocha3998 atomic heart is pretty well optimized
Some of the faces can look kinda weird at times on the remake. But there's no denying the lighting and texture work is miles ahead.
I def prefer the older faces they seem to have more character or let's say it looks more cartoonish/animated than cursed realistic like the remake. I wish they kept this more animated movie style and didn't go the ultra-realism hardcore mode
@@crysave They most definitely weren't going for an animated movie style for the PS3 version on purpose though, it's a Sony first party AAA exclusive released in 2013, back then this was as close as realistic as it got in terms of graphical fidelity considering the console it was released on
@@crysave I like the remake better, there are some super weird faces in the original that I only noticed after replaying original and remake back to back. Like how weird ellie looked at the ending
The character model is also better, Tess for example in the original looked so young for someone who's on her late 40s she kinda cute in the original tho but I much prefer the remake, where she resembles her voice actor more. I would even say its a nice tribute to the late voice actress.
@@crysave they most definitely werent going for a cartoonish style it was just because of hardware limitation so they couldnt go for a realistic look same with uncharted and well every game in that generation
@@crysave The original game had hand drawn facial animations. They also changed some of the faces in the remake like Joel's to match Part II's look.
This is an amazing game. I played through it on PS3, PS4 and PS5. I probably won’t do it again on PC but it really is an amazing package of story, voice acting and gameplay
There’s just something I love about the look of the original, even though the lighting and textures are far superior on updated version, it’s almost like they changed a little too much in my opinion, I’m a little mixed right now which version I like best
I think it's the art direction, I feel like the art direction looks better on the ps3 version, in the remake it's just trying to mimic real life, here's the best example of what I mean 1:54, in the original the shadow stretches out to the wall and there's some flickering, kind of giving it an atmospheric feel, in the remake it's juts realistic.
@@ALMASHNI-MAN I definitely noticed that big difference with the shadows, I guess because of ray tracing?
@@dirkdex and maybe global illumination, when rasterization is done right it can look quite good, I hear that in Hogwarts legacy people can't tell when ray tracing is on or off because it looks the same when it's on, game engines and lightning in general has come a long way
Yup, I'm replaying it using Part 1 (on PS5) and I feel something is "off", maybe this is just habit. But also, it seems to me that the AI is easier than before and I play on Hard, I just get through the game and I barely feel any tension.
@@dava00007 That's probably because you know their paths and how the sequences play out.
now THAT'S how you do a comparison. a lot of channels only do comparisons using footage from the ps3 version (which dosent even make sense given the remaster) but here you actually show how good the game actually looks in the original
but its not actually the original. its not even an acual console version. emulators can render better in a lot of cases.
Except this is running on an emulator and highly upscaled
The original ps3 version is something else...
I've got to play this on original hardware...
I like the original outdoor scenes more because it's brighter while the remake always has a filter applied over them to make them grayish.
@@dragonl4d216 a few scenes look admitted whitewashed so it improved but there were other scenes (like the military outpost looking scene) that just looks more drab. guess it's just art direction for ya...
The RPCS3 with your 4K setting clearly make the Original version still hold up pretty well ! Even with nowaday standard 💯
Yeah. They should have ported that version as well from PS4. This PS5 version needed at least 2 more years of port development.
@@nomercy8989 rpcs3 runs games crappy and glitchy mate. Much better to play an original port. Wait for it to be optimized and voila.
@@airstuck3929Maybe you just have a crappy old PC.
@@MisterUnknown707 I have 13th gen intel. And 40 series gpu. 32gb ram. m.2 hyper ssd. No i dont have a crappy pc. Some of the rpcs3 games are just buggy to the core. Glitchy shadows, textures etc. even someone on a 5k rig will have them because its not user side issues. Its issues in the game itself. They get patched out over time ofc. So please keep ur uneducated *ss quiet.
P.s. I play the remake on a solid 80-100 fps with dlss 3.0. So yea.... What does your pc run it at? or you just stuck having to play the emulator version coz u have a shitty pc.
@@airstuck3929 Yeah i highly doubt that the multi-millionare company will care to port an quote unquote "obsolete" version of the game to PC. Emulation and reverse engineering are our main tools to preserve the past of this medium if you ask me.
Wow, it improved by ALOT, the facial animation in the cutscene it's impressive now, and the PS3 version still looks good, what it's funny when I watched the gameplay I felt it didn't changed too much it's because the memory tricks us to think it hasn't changed due to nostalgia but seen a comparison now I can see it's totally different.
Its hard to decide which I like better, the stylized visuals of the original or the grittiness of the remake. Both look really good while feeling like similar but different experiences.
I don't know why, but the remake gives me a Telltale Games vibe without the hard cel-shaded lining. Probably the color because it's got kind of a cartoony vibe to it. I dunno, it's hard to explain. Not a bad thing but I personally prefer the original, but I do like where they were going with the remake.
It's insane to see how "amazing graphics" have evolved since 2013.
As well as cost of playing games on PC lol
@@ml_serenity 2013 - $600 pc was mid range and capable of 1080p high
2023 - $2500 pc still experiences stutters in this game at any res
@@joeykeilholz925 because the optimization is bad
"2013"
We had Crysis 3. I watched the remaster that it has ray tracing, i basically don't notice the difference.
For Crysis 1, obviously the indirect lighting is lightyears better on the remaster.
@@saricubra2867 RT implementation may vastly differ. It works the best in games with the night urban areas with a lot of reflective and opaque surfaces and colored light sources. In games with a lot of vegetation and mostly non-reflective surfaces you won't really see a lot of difference. Like RT in the Hogwarts Legacy vs RT in the Cyberpunk 2077 or Ghostwire Tokyo.
Is it just me or everyone looks more attractive in the PS3 version? I even find Joel more handsome than the next gen
@@trashcontent2463 Joel looks more like a father figure in the next gen version, which fits his character
The ps3 has that nostalgic feeling to it
Yes, there's no denying the remake looks more realistic and uses more graphical techniques that weren't common or even available in 2013, but the original game looks pretty darn good for a PS3 game. It's impressive what they achieved back then and the remake respects that by adding more details and making everything look more natural while still respecting the original game
It's just a shame that the PC port is so poorly optimized and has several bugs that should've been taken care of before it was released
The original shows its age for sure but man it was really impressive for 2013. It doesn't look as good on ps3 because of resolution and AA but still, amazing that ND was able to push that piece of hardware to have those graphics in a playable state. Just seriously impressive attention to detail.
We could basically see it as a PS4 vs PC comparison because the remaster mainly contains a resolution and frame rate upgrade.
The Last of Us original looks quite good for what it is.
You can definitely tell there a couple of generation between these two comparisons, I was blown away at the PS3 version when it came out and I played it first time, but the remake set a new bar in how not to optimise games for PC.
Besides obvious lighting, texture, and shadow improvements, the character models express more emotion and don't have that bug eyed look. Subtle eyebrow movement that you can see in the daughters face close up really can make a difference
Yeah, the microexpressions are just dead on.
I prefer the style of the original. Different vibe, mainly because of the lighting
That's what I thought, somehow the original ( emulated ) seems better.
Lightning in the original was baked and it actually has a more cinematic feeling to it.
Global Illumination is impressive but it's just like the real world , boring!
@@baguete02 Dont think of life like that you have to be happy every day hope it gets better for you
It's just nostalgia, guys. The brain is sneaky like that, it will trick you into believing things that aren't real. For example, it's the same for me with Quake 2 RTX vs the original Quake 2 - the original will ALWAYS be the one I prefer, but not for objective reasons (because, objectively, the RTX version is a better looking game).
I feel like with restrictions, people where thinking of how the art direction should look since they can't make it realistic, in the original, there's darker shadows making them stand out more, there's an orange tint in the outside scenes giving an ominous but calming feel, and in some scenes like 3:40, there's some water puddles that seem to be removed in the remake for some reason, in the remake it's just realistic.
Edit: also Ellie looks more like a kid in the original.
Nice bro. Thank you.
gotta say i prefer joels original model
As great as it looks, there are a few things I think are big downgrades in the new version.
Like, Joel not having blood on him after shooting his neighbor takes some of the shock value away. Especially since its from Sarah's perspective, who didn't know what was happening, and just saw her dad kill someone. Him trying to calm her, while freaked out and splattered with their neighbors blood is much more impactful.
Also, the back window in the intro is originally a lot darker, taking away your spacial awareness, leaving you unsure of your safety as you hear strange sounds outside. Now you can clearly see that nothing is there. It takes away a lot of the fear factor.
Overall a massive upgrade, but I'm wondering how many other small, but impactful details have been looked passed in other scenes?
Stuff like this makes me want to play the original and not to bother with the new shit remake. Emulators FTW!
that's really bad nitpicking of some small, irrelevant detail. People always cope with their bad old shit since they couldn't effort the new better things it's funny.
@@larryboyzz This is a pretty silly response to a valid opinion.
@@larryboyzz I mean they aren't really irrelevant details. This is probably the worst possible answer you could have given in response. You made no actual argument as to why you believe these details don't matter. I own the remake, just beat it and I think it looks absolutely incredible compared to the ps3 version but I actually agree with what Glue is saying.
@@larryboyzz No need to get mad that someone has negative opinions about the thing you like. You will realize this when you grow up to be a big boy.
the stars on the lampshade really made the game enjoyable. best remake ever
Nice comparison, awesome graphic in the remake.
Sarah's facial animation was better in the original in some cases IMHO
It would have been interesting to show the FPS for one against the other. People jokingly say that the emulated version currently runs better than the port and I wanted to see if that was the case
depends on your HW , since emulator is mainly cpu bound, while the pc version is gpu bound
Of course it is the case, the emulated game is easier to run than the remake (which has notorious performance problems besides being very demanding to top it all off) RPCS3 is not that demanding at all if you have a modern CPU.
both run horribly but the remake still runs better. You need at least a 3090 and 12th gen intel or ryzen 9 to even stay above 60fps on the emulator while the remake you could at least play it at above 60fps on a gtx 1080 on 1080p high. Or 100fps on 1080p Low FSR
@@llJeezusll You do not need a 3090 for rpcs3 lmao. It's not GPU intensive at all. Everything lies in the CPU.
@@AJ-po6up no, even with all the problems the pc version runs waay better than emulator
I like the art direction of the original much better
the art direction on the original is so so so much much better. Sure you can have better illumination on modern engines, but the entire game, characters and scenario are so much more expressive in the original. Having better texture sometimes is good but changing the art style is not. The characters are literally different people.
I hope skilled people can bring the original textures and assets to this game and use it's lighting and such. Meanwhile, in my head this "remake" doesn't exist. The original is the only TLOU.
Ikr. I wish I could play it on rpcs3 properly, but my cpu sucks :/.
I honestly disagree on issue. I look carefully at Joel while playing PC version and I think the issue is they used same art style or even some sort of original high quality assets for remake and its simply shadows and shading making Joel look old at least. Tess has resting bitch face i think it could be animations rather than face because in scenes where she talks and is expressive she looks like PS3 Tess.
I was waiting for this comparison :) great job!
Glad you liked it!
4:13 The difference there is insane. The 2013 version looks like some assets from the store thrown in there, the remake looks like a scene of a movie.
@@Ritfix a filter won't improve the lighting, models and volumetric. 10 years of tech improvement vs a filter.
@@airixxxx Yeah this is not just a filter lol. It's basically a decade of technological improvements.
@@Ritfix Stop talking clown xd
Wow. I've never played PS version. It looks so good. It would be nice if they released both versions for PC: original and remake.
The RPCS3 emulator looks 1000x times better than the game on my PC.
And of course they had to kill color saturation in the remake. I don't understand this modern aversion to color. The unique thing about the original is that it's a zombie apocalypse setting in a world with vibrant colors and flora. That's gone now.
So the textures on ps3 thats run with only 256mb ram is looking better than the low textures in the remake that uses 5gb lol
The gpu load from low to ultra is about a 20% increase, but the vram requirement makes it not even an option for so many pc gamers.
Dude the optimization is terrible, they should have ported the ps3 version of the game lol
@@mantiwa they should port the rematered version in ps4
Seems that you played the unoptimized PC port instead of the PS5 version. It looks fantastic in my succulent 1440p monitor.
All of the characters look 20 years older in the remake.
I played the remastered only a few weeks after release and just seeing it here... man the quality of the original is just unbeatable, even though it looks dull due to age and isn't as beautiful, it just feels like it was made to convey the true tlou experience, not made to put more cash in their pockets. Or maybe its just my nostalgia speaking...
Still remake will get you what you need (and better graphics) if ur a newcomer, just at a premium price.
Ahh i still remember the first version have a very good graphics ahead of its time and its very mind blowing when its first came out
While the graphics are, indeed, objectively better.....I gotta admit there are scenes where I VERY much prefer the original. The texture work and all may not be as good but the lighting, colour and everything just gives the original a mood and personality that many times is missing in the new one. The part which I feel is definitely better-looking in the new one is the Boston QZ, what with the fog effects and more elaborate backdrops, but many others end up feeling duller than the original, which looks vibrant and oozes ambience. Definitely would NOT say that they "ruined" the game or anything; it's something of a 50-50 where it's gained much in terms of quality, but also some less technical, more artistic aspects were lost in translation. It's still very much TLOU, and even with some DEFINITE technical issues on PC, it still plays phenomenally well and the experience feels just as great.
yea dude a lot of times in the pc remake it just strays too far away from the original, like the pc remake doesnt look bad per se its just like way more bland and generic and looks a lot more just like the average AAA ray tracing fancy graphics game
Gotta say that the original looks better somehow.
She doesn't even blink in the remake 2:12
such a great and admirable work put in RPCS3
I'm surprised how flat the lighting is on the original, one of those cases where the remake looks like what my brain remembers the original looking like.
That's what I say when I look at well done remakes: They look like your exaggerated, amplified memories of your favorite. See: Dead Space, FFVII Remake, Resident Evil 4, etc...
Well it is a PS3 game so that much isn't surprising
Thank you, was looking for this exact thing!
Young Joel looks younger in the original game. And overall I like the 2013 character design better.
Yes, It felt suprisingly similar to the PS3 version.
What we need in new games is better ideas, better gameplay, better characters. The graphics have gone far enough.
Character models from the RPCS3 versions look great still but the environments are not good - Night and day difference there! Thanks for putting this together.
To each their own but I can’t fathom how anyone believes the original looks better. The lighting alone is a significant improvement, let alone the textures. The broken gray contrast in the original was terrible. I’ve played every version of this game and I can’t recommend the remake enough. The improvements to ai transforms many encounters in the game
shows that how The last of us in 2013 was ahead of his time.
Yes and no. There were early PS4 games that looed better than TLOU
I have to say they both look great...😉👍
The color scripting and character faces are completely different in the remake. Not a fan.
For example, the dark, haunting feel in the Pittsburg basement sequence is gone, thanks to revamped colors.
And the Ellie face model is just not right man...
I honestly miss the less realistic graphics of old. Everything looks so homogenized now. Back then games would come out and have a unique look to them. And once raytracing becomes the standard in 10 years or so everything will look the same.
Uhh, raytracing has been the thing in CG movies for decades and CG movies look wildly different from one another. Your fears are completely unfounded.
That's not true at all. Using ray tracing has nothing to do with how realistic a game has to look. Ray tracing benefits both stylized and realism as it's just more accurate in the way it calculates light. Nothing is preventing you from doing ray tracing and cel shading in a game. You're taking issue with visual trends which every generation has. 6th generation for instance was all about stylization until the end where it transitioned into that piss filter that was common in many games from the mid 2000s up until the early 2010s. Don't talk about stuff you don't clearly understand
@@crestofhonor2349 Case in point: Fortnite UE 5.1 and Cyberpunk are both games with extensive raytracing. They look nothing alike, and Fortnite does not look more realistic because of it. In fact, it actually makes it look moreso like the CG animated movies it is strongly mimicking.
@@RicochetForce Yup. You could site any number of TV shows as well like anything done by Studio Orange
Great video!
Would u mine making a video comparing between TLOU remake low settings and the emulated PS3 version ?
Best regards.
2013 and it's aged like fine wine.
Would be interesting to see a comparison between RPCS3 and PS4 version
I don't own a PS4
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer Ithen buy one !!!!
@@retrogamer847 or PS5
@@retrogamer847 On that Price for a 2013 Console is too expensive.
they definitely put in the work. the remake looks stunning. now we need part 2. and hopefully the new horizon and god of war games
I think the new horizon game will run even worst on mid range pc than this game
If iron galaxy ports the game it will
Gimme Ghosts of Tsushima first.
Horizon Zero Dawn is apparently being remade for PS5.
Once again, art direction over “new and improved graphics”. I think the 2013 looks way way better than the remake. It has more heart and soul to it.
Part 1 so so much better...Light...Textures....Hairs...Faces...Animations.........All is Next Level....
i really like the facial animations on Part I
Faces in the remake are so uncanny.
Love the new details, but miss the color of the oiginal
Exactly. The greenish tint sucks! Luckily PS4 remastered version retains original colors (but it has higher resolution and fps).
Interesting comparison - thanks
thanks to you for the settings , new sub😁
The ps3 version still looks pretty good. Did the game really need a remaster?
Money is the answer
Yes it did need a remaster. The PS3 version looks horrible on a PS3 and no one wants to buy an old console to play it at a locked 30fps
No, it didn't but Uncharted needed it though at least the first 2 games for sure, heck even Jack And Daxter need a remake nowadays, any of their games except TLoU which was literally their latest game before TLoU2, that as you can see still holds up pretty well 10yrs later.
@@llJeezusll you do know tlou had a remaster on the ps4 too right? this is the second remake
@@videogamesruinedmylife3769
Yes and it was barely a remaster. Just a slight resolution upscale and 60fps. The PS4 "remaster" was basically a money grab.
At least with this remake they rebuilt it from the ground up and improved the visuals.
I watched this in 240p because the concept amused me.
Thank you very much, this an amazing comparation.
As always, do you you can share the original video with out compression from youtube?
Have a great one!
Emulator has more soul.
Agreed, the remake, something is up with their eyes...
@@KyleRuggles Yeah that something is more emotion in their facial features. The original has a bug eyed look almost as if they are staring off into space.
@@CaptToilet I just hate that Joel looks way older, he looks like a completely different character.
is it me or does last of us on ps3 upscaled still looks awesome???
I have a PS3 nowadays because my condition is not the best
And seeing people say that this game's graphics are bad on the PlayStation 3 just broke my mind, the game is beautiful, regardless of the platform
The art direction of this game is perfect, I could see the rays of sunlight passing through the foliage on the PlayStation 3
Everything is better in the new one aside from Joel's face. And im not talking about the animations which new one shows more emotion in animation rigging, but I mean the actual model of old Joel's face looks better. More iconic and tougher looking.
This game was ahead of it time , they still don't make a better game like this in 2023 , this game is beast 😊
They should have put Bella Ramsey's face in the PC version, as an ultimate trolling!
The difference is even more noticable when you compare gameplay footage rather than stills. The post fx, particle fx, depth of field, motion blur etc are much better looking in the Remake. Also the animations look life like in the remake. Still though, the 2013 version had no business looking that good 10 years later.
TLOU and GTA V were the sh*t back in 2013.
"had no business looking that good 10 years later."
It's the PS3 dude, an anomaly of a console, way too fast for it's own good by the weird multicore IBM CELL chip.
@@saricubra2867 the weird CELL chip shines in first party titles like The Last Of Us but it's also the reason why the Xbox 360 was better in every multi-platform game. Having all that power meant nothing when 3rd party developers couldn't take full advantage of it.
@@ninjafrozr8809GTA V runs better on PS3 than XBOX 360 because it's a very CPU limited game (where the CELL shines), correct me if i'm wrong.
The original still looks absolutely insane for a seventh gen title. Like, goddamn, realistic style games that old are NOT supposed to hold up this well. Bravo to Naughty Dog, the undisputed kings of squeezing every drop of power out of the ps3's weird cell architecture lol
Artwork and colors on the original just look more " alive "
the Remake is just grey and dark .
I've never played this game so I don't have any rose-tinted glasses while looking at comparisons but I will say that the PS3 original upscaled looks a lot better in many instances compared to the remake. The faces look better on PS3 to me, overall, as well.
the remastered version is still preety much playable. if you want to save money and want to experince the story I would say go for the remastered version.
2:16 looks better in the original game. Also, what's wrong with Sarah's face at 3:11? She looks like an 40 years old woman instead of a kid now.
It's obviously clear, that the remake is in any thing superior (irrespective of the personal taste), but damn for the PS3 era it was a realy beautifull game and still holds up today, with it's own charm and the remake looks, what the original looks in the menetal cinema from it's old time.
Why this game needs a remake is unclear, the remaster looks delightful even in 2023.
PS3 is giving me that teenage days vibes and I prefer it somehow.
Holy shit joey looks old in the new version.
i really like the smooth camera shots/pans in the original. the shaky cam in the remake is a little nauseating
have the exact same complaint. Also wtf did they do to my boy Joel's face lol
Part 1 truly shines in the dark scenes ray tracing shows off quite a bit. Other than that. Both look great
The remake doesn’t have ray tracing
@@RatedRLoquender damn well it sure does look like it
@@chloescoolcreations9719 They do a good job of using crepuscular rays, volumetrics, bounced lighting, reflection captures, directional ambient occlusion, and planar reflections. I agree. It looks better than ray tracing does in some games, and it’s all rasterized. If only it were a little better optimized.
@@Bunta1987qwerty Imagine the performance if it was ray traced💀
@@Bunta1987qwerty Well the lighting was baked out so they did use ray tracing to make the light maps used to give the world it's look
Nice comparison, thnx
People are seriously saying the original holds up??
Lighting, shadowing and shading are INFINITELY better. Like holy s**t you dont realize the difference until they are put side by side. Truly 9 years apart.
The left side version looks sharper, brighter, and more clear to me.
this is proof that better graphics don't always make games look better
The part 1 version looks closer to the second installment of TLOUS-2.
I think the more realistic graphics get the less we really care about them, there is something beautiful about graphics that don't need to mimic real world looks.
This is why modern games doesn't feel better on experience when played. The old ones gives us the 'playing a game' feeling, being nostalgic, in control, fun, while new triple A games give us the 'watching a cinematic cutscenes, just go with the flow' type of feeling. I never thought I will dislike better graphics games because back in the day, I always dream of CGI and Cutscenes quality on my actual real time gaming. now that we all have it, I barely get immersed on these games anymore and they feel like a more of a chore for me to do now, and I even prefer playing old games now with lower graphics because I feel like I'm actually playing games and not just watching presentations.
Something is really up with the eyes on the remake, a tad big... Sorta Alita Battle Angel like.. Also I find they don't really have the eyes moving around when stationary, put a bit of life in there, ya know?
Now the PC system requirements feel even more insulting!
Yes, side by side the TLoUP1 has a bit more detail, but in full-screen scenes I had to keep checking the corners to tell which version is which! In fact, some PS3 areas look downright better and moodier, and the game has a much cleaner art direction overall.
Oh, and PS3 did reflections the old-fashioned way - with clever visual tricks, but on PC you only get reflections with RTX on! Freaking pathetic!
Same thing happened with Skyrim Special Edition. If you look up "Original Skyrim vs. Special Edition," SE looks worse in almost every scene when compared side-by-side.
@@rhysm.5915 The only good thing about Skyrim SE is the mod support and the 64Bit executable that allows more memory allocation and less crashes. As always modders do a better job than bugthesda. And now SE with mods looks better than the OG modded.
The game has no Ray tracing. The cube maps look the same as ps5.
great showcase Bang 🤌
Thanks
Orginal game is more grey, cold pallete of colors and i love it in games, we got to much cozy games with warm colors. But orginal in some ways look old but overall remake is decent
Noob question , how did you manage to pass the shader boss fight ? great content as always
Still remember watching PewDiePie's playthrough of the original.
Why does the lighting of the original looks much more interesting?
I didn't think TLOU needed a remake personally It was a near perfect game.