Blade Runner Enhanced Edition – Graphical Comparison



In this video I check out Nightdive Studios latest release, Blade Runner: Enhanced Edition and compare it to the orignial 1997 version of Blade Runner. Blade Runner: Enhanced Edition has been will release June 23rd digitally across PC via Steam, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and the Nintendo Switch.

The new game boasts the following:

*Reconstruction and upressing of original Westwood VQA Videos
*Cinematic Video frame rates updated from 15fps to 60fps
*Modern HD Display
*Enhanced “Knowledge Integration Assistant” (KIA) and clue user interface
*Enhanced Subtitle support
*Modern gamepad support
*SMAA Anti Aliasing
*Anisotropic texture filtering

source

45 thoughts on “Blade Runner Enhanced Edition – Graphical Comparison”

  1. "Major improvement"

    All of the detail is lost in environment, not sure how you're calling any of this an "improvement". This is a pretty shitty port done cheap, instead of remaking the whole thing they decided to shit on a legacy game that was good already.

    While we're at it, funny enough, this is one of the few video games where 60 FPS looks like shit and 30 FPS looks "cinematic". This isn't a shooter, nobody asked for 60 FPS (unless you remake it).

    Reply
  2. There's hardly any difference. People are losing their shirt and review bombing because their nostalgia is ruined. Like a child complaining they didn't get the flavour of ice cream they wanted.

    Reply
  3. It reminds me of when blu ray first came out and they used noise reduction of gladiator removing detail even objects, I think they should have left this one alone.

    Reply
  4. Text and menus are part of the graphics. Why would you say people don't care about that? When modding morrowind, first I made it support 16:9 then I made the text more readable. Anything after that was icing.

    Reply
  5. You could play the original on a smart tv with motion smoothing and noise reduction and call it 'BLADE RUNNER ENHANCED'
    Has to be one of the most laziest 'enhancement editions' I've come across in a while.

    You can just tell they've run through through an automated program to smooth and reduce noise on everything.

    Reply
  6. My only complaint was with the maze, where your pistol doesn't fire sometimes and the collision detection / hitbox on some of the targets isn't accurate, but I haven't played that far into it, yet.

    Reply
  7. Dunno if it’s how they did do it but interpolation is a thing re adding extra frames.
    Tbh, if you’re gonna ‘remaster’ a game worth remastering then they should actually put the effort in to the degree of redrawing what is essentially less than 100 frames of backgrounds, definitely that over ‘just Gaussian Blur tf out of that.’
    Same for the cutscenes, sure they ARE cutscenes but it wouldn’t take THAT much to redo them with better models/way more polygons et al; just REPLICATE it, if you will.

    Reply
  8. Jesus christ the new menus and ui look terrible, looks like something a college student would shit out in unity, terrible, where's the personality of the original, why does everything have to look so sterile and clean?

    Reply
  9. Original version looks better across the board. Everything has so much more detail, and the characters blend in with their surroundings instead of looking like they've been pasted on top.

    Reply
  10. Kinda sucks that there are a lot of dislikes on this video. I too don't think that this version is an improvement over the original, but I appreciate your video.

    Reply
  11. 2:10 Genuinely baffled at how you switch from a crisp-but-pixellated original to a blurry-as-fuck mess and then praise it as being "sharper and nicer". eg. What was originally identifiable as "Red Alert" is now nothing but an indistinguishable blur.

    Reply
  12. Very strange considering how much love and care goes into their other ports of older games like Doom 64. I don't think they had Doom 64's source code and they made that work so I dont know what they did with this one.

    Reply

Leave a Comment