5 ms·

I don't know why, this makes me a bit sad. You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. The GTA trilogy lost a lot when they did their remaste

by 4pkjai 4y ago

I don't know why, this makes me a bit sad. You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. The GTA trilogy lost a lot when they did their remastering project with a different engine. Although I'm sure it can be done well. StarCraft remastered was done really well, but I believe they built on top of their existing engine.

dragontamer 4y ago
As someone who played a few hours of the 1st Witcher Game... Good. No one seems to care about Witcher 1's engine, because it was hot garbage. Any engine (even an off-the-shelf one like Unreal5) will be grossly superior to the trash that the original game was. This remake can have slow, barely workable controls and pretty bad graphics and still be far better than the original game. They really just need the Witcher 1 remade so that people have an entry point into the story. The actual "gameplay" from the original will _NOT_ be missed. IMO anyway.
- verst 4y ago
  I played the Witcher 1 when it came out and thought it was a brilliant game. I haven't tried going back to it ever. It felt quite polished to me then. I'm curious what people feel isn't approachable for today's audiences. Is is merely that we are used to different visuals now? What are these engine issues in Witcher 1 you speak of? As a player I did not notice them back in the day.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Its not the polish that was bad. I've played many 3d action-RPG games. Zelda, Monster Hunter, Dynasty Warriors, etc. etc. Witcher1's combat is by far the worst of the series. Just... laggy, non-responsive controls. But in a bad way (ex: Monster Hunter is also laggy/non-responsive, but in a way that's "obvious" that the slowdown is purposeful and tactical. You need to be very careful about when you attack or not attack vs various monsters in that game). Witcher 1's combat in contrast, has a lot of repetition and not a lot of depth IMO. At least, from what I remember. Witcher2 onwards had much better ideas of "fun combat" experiences. -------- I can still go back to old PS2 era Dynasty Warriors, mash square and have fun. Its not about "dated graphics". I admit dynasty warriors is a mashy-heavy game with a casual mindset, but I think Witcher couldn't really decide if it wanted to be a punishing slow game (like Monster Hunter/Souls series), or a faster twitch game, and just weirdly plays in this unfun position between the two extremes. Its fine to have a slow punishing game (Monster Hunter / Souls / etc. etc.), but you need a huge variety of bosses to keep interest. Witcher 1 felt pretty stale after a short time, since there's just not as much variety. Somehow, I don't find Dynasty Warriors gameplay stale (despite being a square-mash simulator). I don't fully understand why however. I guess DW is more about positioning of the player-character (the enemy army is always winning where you are _not_ located, so Dynasty Warriors feels more like a firefighter simulator, where you're running around the battlefield trying to fix issues in the army... rather than really being a combat game?)
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      I think a big problem with Witcher 1 is that its vision for combat was relatively novel and not well presented. In the lore it's emphasized that fighting is supposed to be a sort of graceful dance and so the combat tries to mimic that. The combat is much more like a bemani (beat/music type game) game than an action RPG, even though it looks nothing like the former and everything like the latter. Once you 'get' this, everything makes way more sense, the game flows, and it becomes really quite fun. I played it when it first came out. I didn't get it, and quit before beating the first chapter. I later replayed it, got it, and ended up playing through it multiple times on max difficulty.
    - kuschku 4y ago
      > But in a bad way (ex: Monster Hunter is also laggy/non-responsive, but in a way that's "obvious" that the slowdown is purposeful and tactical. You need to be very careful about when you attack or not attack vs various monsters in that game). That's actually why I stopped playing Monster Hunter: I really hate the non-responsiveness, it feels like wading through molasses.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        You're super slow because you need to predict things like 2... 3... maybe even 5 seconds+ in advance. Monster Hunter basically forces you to memorize the way the monsters move. Its not for everyone, but its in the title. "Monster Hunter". You gotta keep practicing vs the same monster over-and-over until you memorize its patterns before you really get the joy of success in that game. When you're finally cool with one monster, you move on to learn the patterns of the next, etc. etc. Its a "take it at your own pace" kinda game. No story, just hunting.
        kuschku 4y ago
        Honestly, to me it feels more like Monster Hunter is just a rhythm game dressed up in a fighting system. It's almost like a dance with the monster. But that's not what I'm looking for in a game, I generally want the agility of e.g. Mirror's Edge ^^
  - entropicdrifter 4y ago
    Not the person you're replying to, but the original Witcher felt fine to me too, but I'm a lifelong PC gamer and the interface/controls reminded me of older PC-only CRPGs like Summoner or even Neverwinter Nights. I love those games, but in terms of their control schemes they do feel clunky compared to the more visceral controller-optimized and streamlined Action RPG controls of The Witcher 2 and 3. In other words, the first Witcher game is in more of a niche genre with significantly less mainstream appeal in terms of gameplay and UI.
    - skocznymroczny 4y ago
      It was based on the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine, so the similarities to NWN are expected. Actually, from my perspective, combat in W1 was a big improvement over the turn based click and pray combat of NWN.
      - verst 4y ago
        I liked Neverwinter Nights 2 -- so no wonder I liked playing The Witcher 1. I think I played on a very underpowered laptop back then (as a college student), so if the engine was sluggish I probably attributed that to gaming on a laptop :D
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    I loved the game and beat it twice (maybe 3 times? not sure) but the engine performs like dogshit for the level of graphical quality it delivers.
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    It was very good for the time the game was launched, but it is quite outdated. I loved the game, but it is in the category of games I would love to play again, I install it, then the graphics looks so bad it turns me down. Believe me, I started playing computer games ~ 1986, so I know what bad graphics is, but Witcher 1 is a lot more recent than that and the expectations are a lot higher.
- User23 4y ago
  The Witcher ran on a heavily modified version of the Aurora engine, which was used for the Bioware Neverwinter Nights.
- cardanome 4y ago
  My first attempt didn't go well either but I am glad I gave it a second chance. Once it starts winning you over, it is really good. The fighting system is pretty old-school but once you get used to it, it is quite fun. It is very authentic to how Geralt is fighting in the Witcher books. It is simply more about rhythm and tactics than one might be used to. Just because Witcher 1 is kind of hard to recommend for a casual gamer in 2022, does not mean it is garbage. It is just different. It has more of a niche appeal. I am absolutely glad I got to play the original and some of its charm are the things are probably going to be modernized away in the remake.
- ferrocarraiges 4y ago
  The engine was fine, it was a square peg / round hole situation. They picked an off-the-shelf engine that was designed to simulate tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons in 3D. Maybe they got a good deal on it. The bird's-eye click-to-move camera mode is what the engine was designed for, but the developers kludged in some keyboard controls because they were making an action game. The odd timing-based fighting styles sort of make sense, because the engine wanted to handle combat with dice rolls on a mostly-fixed interval. It could have turned out a lot worse, when you consider what they were working with. I hope they keep some of the weird quirks, like the rhythm swordplay.
- dartharva 4y ago
  W1 and W2 barely make any splashes in the story department when W3 is in the picture. You might as well just spend a weekend to read through Sapkowski's six novels instead, W3 takes over from the point where his last novel ends.
wilg 4y ago
The GTA remaster issues were hardly due to the engine. People over-focus on the engine. I wouldn't worry about this.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  The graphics look plastic. Is it not because of an engine? Serious question.
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    I don't know of any engines that dictate material properties. There are some where the default settings on the default materials are questionable coughUnity3Dcough. But a big studio game shouldn't/wouldn't be using the defaults on just about anything. One of the biggest things indie game developers can do to not look like an indie game is to stop using the default settings on the default materials. Not necessarily even using custom materials. Just don't use the default settings.
  - exeldapp 4y ago
    I would say yes and no. Yes, obviously the renderer is there but at the same time it's only doing what it was told to do. Taking Unity and Unreal as examples, you can make something look plastic, cartoony, realistic, a mixture, or really anything you want. Usually there will be art director(s) (or a someone with a similar title) that make sure the art/graphics stick with a certain look and feel so I would put the blame more on them than the engine.
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    It's hard to know for sure but most people believe they did a ton of either super rushed manual work and/or AI upscaling on the textures and models that would explain the "plastic" look to everything. It doesn't really matter what engine is backing it if the textures and modeling are bad. And if they didn't spend the time to sort out material properties then the engine won't treat skin any differently than cloth, or cloth differently than metal, etc. these are more examples of modelling issues but it shows how little care and QA went into the remake: they rounded out this 6-sided nut : https://old.reddit.com/r/GTA/comments/quutz7/definitive_lazy_job_edition/ https://old.reddit.com/r/GTA/comments/quutz7/definitive_lazy... hot dog fingers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQWw0hHMUoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQWw0hHMUoc
TAForObvReasons 4y ago
Starcraft Remastered was designed with the explicit goal of changing as little as possible. The target audience for the remaster is well-versed in the bugs of the original game and wanted them reproduced. Compare with Warcraft III Reforged. Modding with the original WC3 was extremely popular: DotA started as a mod for WC3, so Blizzard should have focused on compatibility. Not doing so led to the poor reception.
serf 4y ago
>don't know why, this makes me a bit sad. You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. absolutely. whenever a friend is playing anything with specific shader/specular/lighting styles I always yell "Unity!" while watching him. I'm generally dead-on accurate with those guesses. It's definetly not coincidence at this point; there is some default behavior or lighting gimmick I can generally always cue in on with regards to Unity. I think it's their style of specular lighting glow that gets painted onto way too many things by most creators. I don't use the engine myself, so I can't tell you exactly what it is I hone in on, but I can for most titles.
- redox99 4y ago
  Default post processing and anti aliasing are usually dead giveaways.
- hbn 4y ago
  There's always been something about the Source engine that felt distinctive. The lighting and physics feel weird and creepy.
- nmfisher 4y ago
  Given how poorly XCOM ran, I was convinced it was written in Unity. Eventually looked it up one day and nope, Unreal. Great game though.
superdisk 4y ago
The GTA trilogy remasters actually run on the original game engine under the hood, the only thing they changed was the renderer (Unreal Engine instead of RenderWare).
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  The modern DOOM 1/2 releases on Android/iOS/Switch/Xbox/PS does something similar: it is using the original renderer but uses Unity to handle input and output for easier portability.
Night_Thastus 4y ago
Wasn't GTA the one where the "re-make" was done using a hot garbage mobile port of the games? That would be why if so.
throw_m239339 4y ago
Why? the graphics and animation did not age very well, so they need to be entirely redone, and the combat rethinked. But the last act will look quite epic on a modern engine if done well. Unreal use will allow faster development. Witcher 1's main quest is the most interesting of the 3 games, I hope they do not commit the mistake of adding a minimap to casualize the remake, paying attention to the dialogues, environmental details and exploring the maps is very much what made the game interesting to me. It's one of these games where you can get stuck if you are not paying attention to the story, or miss certain timed events, which increases its replay value. It's much more interesting that just spamming witcher senses all the time to complete quests. To those who didn't play the game, this is very much a "detective" story and most quests are shrouded in mystery, it can works ONLY if the player has to pay attention to the dialogues, lore and story. It will not work if the player is spoon-fed every little detail about who is whom, what potion to use or the devs resorts to bringing back the "witcher senses". Just like Witcher 2, one can "side" with either of 2 camps, unlike Witcher 2, one can decide not to side with anybody, although choosing the latter option might not lead to the most positive outcome...
dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
> You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. This is nice usually, but such a curse for procedural games. Once you start internalizing the RNG you stop thinking of yourself as exploring an environment, and more in terms of rolling dice: "oh, rolled a general shop, no mimic, one fountain and the Gnomish Caves entrance". At least nethack has enough crazy shit happening that it gives the levels personality regardless. Same thing with AI enemies in strategy/4X games. Deep down it's just some form of RNG+rules based on "personality" values and current situation, but there's no real strategy. Just a simulation of it. Which makes you think, with AlphaStar defeating pro players since 2019, where's the AI 4X games deserve? While 4X games might be crazy when good humans play multiplayer, the average 4X solo player does a limited set of actions and uses much less strategy than in StarCraft.
dkersten 4y ago
I was a fan of the game, but the engines limitations did hurt it in my opinion and the combat was its weakest aspect. The story, characters, world and quests were its strong points. So I’m greatly looking forward to this remake, if it provides all the original content with less jankyness and smoother combat.

by 4pkjai 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

As someone who played a few hours of the 1st Witcher Game... Good. No one seems to care about Witcher 1's engine, because it was hot garbage. Any engine (even an off-the-shelf one like Unreal5) will be grossly superior to the trash that the original game was. This remake can have slow, barely workable controls and pretty bad graphics and still be far better than the original game. They really just need the Witcher 1 remade so that people have an entry point into the story. The actual "gameplay" from the original will _NOT_ be missed. IMO anyway.

verst 4y ago
I played the Witcher 1 when it came out and thought it was a brilliant game. I haven't tried going back to it ever. It felt quite polished to me then. I'm curious what people feel isn't approachable for today's audiences. Is is merely that we are used to different visuals now? What are these engine issues in Witcher 1 you speak of? As a player I did not notice them back in the day.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Its not the polish that was bad. I've played many 3d action-RPG games. Zelda, Monster Hunter, Dynasty Warriors, etc. etc. Witcher1's combat is by far the worst of the series. Just... laggy, non-responsive controls. But in a bad way (ex: Monster Hunter is also laggy/non-responsive, but in a way that's "obvious" that the slowdown is purposeful and tactical. You need to be very careful about when you attack or not attack vs various monsters in that game). Witcher 1's combat in contrast, has a lot of repetition and not a lot of depth IMO. At least, from what I remember. Witcher2 onwards had much better ideas of "fun combat" experiences. -------- I can still go back to old PS2 era Dynasty Warriors, mash square and have fun. Its not about "dated graphics". I admit dynasty warriors is a mashy-heavy game with a casual mindset, but I think Witcher couldn't really decide if it wanted to be a punishing slow game (like Monster Hunter/Souls series), or a faster twitch game, and just weirdly plays in this unfun position between the two extremes. Its fine to have a slow punishing game (Monster Hunter / Souls / etc. etc.), but you need a huge variety of bosses to keep interest. Witcher 1 felt pretty stale after a short time, since there's just not as much variety. Somehow, I don't find Dynasty Warriors gameplay stale (despite being a square-mash simulator). I don't fully understand why however. I guess DW is more about positioning of the player-character (the enemy army is always winning where you are _not_ located, so Dynasty Warriors feels more like a firefighter simulator, where you're running around the battlefield trying to fix issues in the army... rather than really being a combat game?)
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    I think a big problem with Witcher 1 is that its vision for combat was relatively novel and not well presented. In the lore it's emphasized that fighting is supposed to be a sort of graceful dance and so the combat tries to mimic that. The combat is much more like a bemani (beat/music type game) game than an action RPG, even though it looks nothing like the former and everything like the latter. Once you 'get' this, everything makes way more sense, the game flows, and it becomes really quite fun. I played it when it first came out. I didn't get it, and quit before beating the first chapter. I later replayed it, got it, and ended up playing through it multiple times on max difficulty.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    > But in a bad way (ex: Monster Hunter is also laggy/non-responsive, but in a way that's "obvious" that the slowdown is purposeful and tactical. You need to be very careful about when you attack or not attack vs various monsters in that game). That's actually why I stopped playing Monster Hunter: I really hate the non-responsiveness, it feels like wading through molasses.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      You're super slow because you need to predict things like 2... 3... maybe even 5 seconds+ in advance. Monster Hunter basically forces you to memorize the way the monsters move. Its not for everyone, but its in the title. "Monster Hunter". You gotta keep practicing vs the same monster over-and-over until you memorize its patterns before you really get the joy of success in that game. When you're finally cool with one monster, you move on to learn the patterns of the next, etc. etc. Its a "take it at your own pace" kinda game. No story, just hunting.
      - kuschku 4y ago
        Honestly, to me it feels more like Monster Hunter is just a rhythm game dressed up in a fighting system. It's almost like a dance with the monster. But that's not what I'm looking for in a game, I generally want the agility of e.g. Mirror's Edge ^^
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  Not the person you're replying to, but the original Witcher felt fine to me too, but I'm a lifelong PC gamer and the interface/controls reminded me of older PC-only CRPGs like Summoner or even Neverwinter Nights. I love those games, but in terms of their control schemes they do feel clunky compared to the more visceral controller-optimized and streamlined Action RPG controls of The Witcher 2 and 3. In other words, the first Witcher game is in more of a niche genre with significantly less mainstream appeal in terms of gameplay and UI.
  - skocznymroczny 4y ago
    It was based on the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine, so the similarities to NWN are expected. Actually, from my perspective, combat in W1 was a big improvement over the turn based click and pray combat of NWN.
    - verst 4y ago
      I liked Neverwinter Nights 2 -- so no wonder I liked playing The Witcher 1. I think I played on a very underpowered laptop back then (as a college student), so if the engine was sluggish I probably attributed that to gaming on a laptop :D
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I loved the game and beat it twice (maybe 3 times? not sure) but the engine performs like dogshit for the level of graphical quality it delivers.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  It was very good for the time the game was launched, but it is quite outdated. I loved the game, but it is in the category of games I would love to play again, I install it, then the graphics looks so bad it turns me down. Believe me, I started playing computer games ~ 1986, so I know what bad graphics is, but Witcher 1 is a lot more recent than that and the expectations are a lot higher.
User23 4y ago
The Witcher ran on a heavily modified version of the Aurora engine, which was used for the Bioware Neverwinter Nights.
cardanome 4y ago
My first attempt didn't go well either but I am glad I gave it a second chance. Once it starts winning you over, it is really good. The fighting system is pretty old-school but once you get used to it, it is quite fun. It is very authentic to how Geralt is fighting in the Witcher books. It is simply more about rhythm and tactics than one might be used to. Just because Witcher 1 is kind of hard to recommend for a casual gamer in 2022, does not mean it is garbage. It is just different. It has more of a niche appeal. I am absolutely glad I got to play the original and some of its charm are the things are probably going to be modernized away in the remake.
ferrocarraiges 4y ago
The engine was fine, it was a square peg / round hole situation. They picked an off-the-shelf engine that was designed to simulate tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons in 3D. Maybe they got a good deal on it. The bird's-eye click-to-move camera mode is what the engine was designed for, but the developers kludged in some keyboard controls because they were making an action game. The odd timing-based fighting styles sort of make sense, because the engine wanted to handle combat with dice rolls on a mostly-fixed interval. It could have turned out a lot worse, when you consider what they were working with. I hope they keep some of the weird quirks, like the rhythm swordplay.
dartharva 4y ago
W1 and W2 barely make any splashes in the story department when W3 is in the picture. You might as well just spend a weekend to read through Sapkowski's six novels instead, W3 takes over from the point where his last novel ends.

wilg 4y ago

The GTA remaster issues were hardly due to the engine. People over-focus on the engine. I wouldn't worry about this.

wiseowise 4y ago
The graphics look plastic. Is it not because of an engine? Serious question.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  I don't know of any engines that dictate material properties. There are some where the default settings on the default materials are questionable coughUnity3Dcough. But a big studio game shouldn't/wouldn't be using the defaults on just about anything. One of the biggest things indie game developers can do to not look like an indie game is to stop using the default settings on the default materials. Not necessarily even using custom materials. Just don't use the default settings.
- exeldapp 4y ago
  I would say yes and no. Yes, obviously the renderer is there but at the same time it's only doing what it was told to do. Taking Unity and Unreal as examples, you can make something look plastic, cartoony, realistic, a mixture, or really anything you want. Usually there will be art director(s) (or a someone with a similar title) that make sure the art/graphics stick with a certain look and feel so I would put the blame more on them than the engine.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  It's hard to know for sure but most people believe they did a ton of either super rushed manual work and/or AI upscaling on the textures and models that would explain the "plastic" look to everything. It doesn't really matter what engine is backing it if the textures and modeling are bad. And if they didn't spend the time to sort out material properties then the engine won't treat skin any differently than cloth, or cloth differently than metal, etc. these are more examples of modelling issues but it shows how little care and QA went into the remake: they rounded out this 6-sided nut : https://old.reddit.com/r/GTA/comments/quutz7/definitive_lazy_job_edition/ https://old.reddit.com/r/GTA/comments/quutz7/definitive_lazy... hot dog fingers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQWw0hHMUoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQWw0hHMUoc

TAForObvReasons 4y ago

Starcraft Remastered was designed with the explicit goal of changing as little as possible. The target audience for the remaster is well-versed in the bugs of the original game and wanted them reproduced. Compare with Warcraft III Reforged. Modding with the original WC3 was extremely popular: DotA started as a mod for WC3, so Blizzard should have focused on compatibility. Not doing so led to the poor reception.

serf 4y ago

>don't know why, this makes me a bit sad. You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. absolutely. whenever a friend is playing anything with specific shader/specular/lighting styles I always yell "Unity!" while watching him. I'm generally dead-on accurate with those guesses. It's definetly not coincidence at this point; there is some default behavior or lighting gimmick I can generally always cue in on with regards to Unity. I think it's their style of specular lighting glow that gets painted onto way too many things by most creators. I don't use the engine myself, so I can't tell you exactly what it is I hone in on, but I can for most titles.

redox99 4y ago
Default post processing and anti aliasing are usually dead giveaways.
hbn 4y ago
There's always been something about the Source engine that felt distinctive. The lighting and physics feel weird and creepy.
nmfisher 4y ago
Given how poorly XCOM ran, I was convinced it was written in Unity. Eventually looked it up one day and nope, Unreal. Great game though.

superdisk 4y ago

The GTA trilogy remasters actually run on the original game engine under the hood, the only thing they changed was the renderer (Unreal Engine instead of RenderWare).

ThatPlayer 4y ago
The modern DOOM 1/2 releases on Android/iOS/Switch/Xbox/PS does something similar: it is using the original renderer but uses Unity to handle input and output for easier portability.

Night_Thastus 4y ago

Wasn't GTA the one where the "re-make" was done using a hot garbage mobile port of the games? That would be why if so.

throw_m239339 4y ago

Why? the graphics and animation did not age very well, so they need to be entirely redone, and the combat rethinked. But the last act will look quite epic on a modern engine if done well. Unreal use will allow faster development. Witcher 1's main quest is the most interesting of the 3 games, I hope they do not commit the mistake of adding a minimap to casualize the remake, paying attention to the dialogues, environmental details and exploring the maps is very much what made the game interesting to me. It's one of these games where you can get stuck if you are not paying attention to the story, or miss certain timed events, which increases its replay value. It's much more interesting that just spamming witcher senses all the time to complete quests. To those who didn't play the game, this is very much a "detective" story and most quests are shrouded in mystery, it can works ONLY if the player has to pay attention to the dialogues, lore and story. It will not work if the player is spoon-fed every little detail about who is whom, what potion to use or the devs resorts to bringing back the "witcher senses". Just like Witcher 2, one can "side" with either of 2 camps, unlike Witcher 2, one can decide not to side with anybody, although choosing the latter option might not lead to the most positive outcome...

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago

> You can sort of feel a game engine when you're playing a game. This is nice usually, but such a curse for procedural games. Once you start internalizing the RNG you stop thinking of yourself as exploring an environment, and more in terms of rolling dice: "oh, rolled a general shop, no mimic, one fountain and the Gnomish Caves entrance". At least nethack has enough crazy shit happening that it gives the levels personality regardless. Same thing with AI enemies in strategy/4X games. Deep down it's just some form of RNG+rules based on "personality" values and current situation, but there's no real strategy. Just a simulation of it. Which makes you think, with AlphaStar defeating pro players since 2019, where's the AI 4X games deserve? While 4X games might be crazy when good humans play multiplayer, the average 4X solo player does a limited set of actions and uses much less strategy than in StarCraft.

dkersten 4y ago

I was a fan of the game, but the engines limitations did hurt it in my opinion and the combat was its weakest aspect. The story, characters, world and quests were its strong points. So I’m greatly looking forward to this remake, if it provides all the original content with less jankyness and smoother combat.