I didn't like the director's cut and I surely don't like the looks of this new remaster, it checks all the boxes of a cash grab, including the Netflix-ed new looks of Nico Collard which is probably done to cater to newer Netflix-ed audiences.

And 30 € at that, which would be reasonable for an actual Broken Sword 6 new game or an actual remaster (i.e. Gabriel Knight's 1 remaster), but it's not for this AI based scaling up and reframing.

Very dangerous trend here with the quick AI cash grabs out of actual good games of the past. And I know AI is not the right term for this kind of visual algorithms but the term is in wider use for these tools, which make a subpar product but requiere no skill at all.

I would be very cautious and a bit more respectful before accusing a well-respected development studio like Revolution Software and Charles Cecil of working solely with AI. According to Charles in interviews, AI was merely used as a foundation for the remake.

It's not yet feasible to transform a heavily pixelated character into such beautifully detailed models frame by frame with this level of precision.

Furthermore, additional details were added. For example, light sources were incorporated into the scenes, allowing characters to cast dynamic shadows. Logical inconsistencies were also addressed, such as the bar in the café not being damaged in the original or the drainpipe in the backyard not reaching the roof (where George suspected the clown might have escaped over the rooftop).

There are many more details like these. I highly recommend watching this comparison video of the Original, Director's Cut, and Reforged versions:

YouTube Comparison: Original, Directors Cut vs Reforged

And then, please, tell me again that this was a “quick AI cash grab.” It’s evident that many elements have been completely redrawn (such as the Paris map, etc.). I work myself with AI generated images and i can tell you that you are over-estimating the current state of AI at this point.

In my view, Reforged is finally a careful, loving, and faithful renewal of the original game, preserving its charm and character without compromising its essence.

I didn't say "solely", but much of the remastered work I've seen was done with automatic tools any kid could download and use right now. If you want to compare it to an actual remaster, check the Gabriel Knight 1 remaster from 2013/2014, which is an actual remaster made by actual human artists and developers, instead of cheap auto reframing and scaling.

I've known enough about how things work for most people when there is money on the line to always trust my own eyes before any sweet talking by the interested party. Of course it's feasible, said Gabriel Knight remaster did it 10 years ago and not at a 30 € price tag. I'm not even sure if the original Broken Sword original release back in like 1996 was priced at the equivalent of present day 30 €.

Two other examples of graphical adventure remasters were Monkey Island 1 and 2 ones back in 2009-2010, whose development was supervised by one or several of the original creators, but the actual work was done by human artists, which create a very different kind of graphics and animations.

What I think you implied with your answer, is that "it's not yet feasible to transform a heavily pixelated character into such beautifully detailed models frame by frame with this level of precision" by pushing a magical button which does it with minimum effort and cost, which is what these kind of AI tools do and which could fool the untrained eye. Then I'm glad this has actual improved content, which required actual effort and not just churning out automatically scaled images by preset filters. This thread's title has a sincere question mark, I wasn't making a statement. I didn't buy the game nor played it but looking at the content in the store page, I totally got the feeling that minimum effort was put, specially considering the price tag (it would be OKish if it was 5-10 €).

I was asking because I wasn't sure, if I was already 100% sure it was like that, then there would have been no question mark and the phrasing would have been different. Then in case you didn't already, I recommend you to check the remasters I mentioned, I think they weren't surpassed yet as graphical adventure remasters.

Oh, would have surpassed the present day 30 € by far even without taking inflation into account.

The game was priced around 100DM back then in Germany (which can be verified for example by this scan of magazine with the review: https://www.kultboy.com/index.php?site=t&id=25721&s=6)

In 1999 with introduction of Euro it wasn't exactly 1€ = 2DM, but almost, technically it was a bit less, and 100DM would have been 51,13€.

So even by good rounding and ignoring inflation between 1996/97 when the game was released and introduction of € it would have been priced 50€.

If one would take inflation between 1999 and 2024, those 50€ from 1999 would be worth almost 80€ now.

So the price from back then at release (and not later compilations and discounts) was much much higher than your estimation. of present day 30 €.

Not sure if it is a "cash grab" but so many diff versions are confusing...

1. I see the orig game has 2 diff names, I get that the German name is different (Baphomets Fluch) but there even 2 in English. Here it is named (Circle Of Blood). I just found this Moby Games: https://www.mobygames.com/game/499/circle-of-blood/

2. Now we have 3 diff named "newer" version, reforgnd, remastered and dir cut. I guess the first 2 are the same?

3: And it is still unlear if any version is really better then the orig game. As some say dir cut (and/or reforged?) is missing content? LOL?

I played eg the 1st on 3-4 times I guess, I still have the CD version from 97 or so. But if there is any version that really does something to improve the original than it might be interesting. However with all these diverse names and unclear contents I rather do not buy it. Also seems to have prob w/ Win64 7/10. When BS1 did not need any "improvements". Reminds also on the RTW1 "remaster disaster" (I heard at least in reviews/YT vids). And one Top3 reasons for such a new version would be to make it run on newer OS and even at that it fails? As proven by all the probs reported here.

PS: I just bought here BS3 and this works ok so far and seems "decent" not as terrible as people say. But ofc the Interface etc are worse then 1-2 (no idea why someone would change the already good UI of 1 and 2?). But it also runs on W7/64

- What do you mean with quote 1 re Nico, did they also change her looks, she looked good for me in all the games so far :)

- And yes see my post above, this w/ these remasters etc sux mostly. Also proven by RTW1 and Blade Runner / both have huge probs reported by gamers and reviews (not played myself). These are also 2 games which are quite perfect in original, so did not need a "remaster" (plus RTW ofc has tons of mods). Yes NEW versions are ok, but only if they not destroy the original.

I could forgive the game if it was AI backgrounds. But the fact that they didnt try to manually animate sprites without AI just annoyed me. It would be better if they made them feel life like. Instead it made me feel like i was watching a "Go Animate" project. Felt very cheap compared to the original graphics.