1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Why don't you hire designers who can design games instead of designers who are good at implementing every manager's ideas and c-suite business goal? There is a threshold of tolerance beyond which your business strategy priorities become incompatible with a game anyone wants to play. Nobody plays games to make you money, so if you make games to make you money, nobody will want to play them.
There's something oddly heart warming about seeing massive companies produce utter flops and lose millions.
We don't want your dross.
They know what we want. A game where any dlc is cosmetic only. A game where there are no micro transactions at all. Something that will run on a older PC without any performance problems. Something without an online requirement.
They know what we want but that is something they are unwilling to build.
I want to agree with you because that's what I want too. Unfortunately, the financial success of f2p microtransaction infested pseudo-games tells the majority of players are just fine with that bullshit.
I know. A sucker is born every minute. Paying to win is how some of them are able to win.
Children and horny nerds are fine with it.
Was Concord trying to corner the horny nerds?
Mature/elderly people don't care either. Nor do casual mobile players. Basically everyone except the former gamer populace plays these games.
IIRC, the Concord devs were pretty good about MTX. They refused to add a battle pass even, for example. That obviously isn't enough though.
I'd get their games for PC if they didn't have a compulsory PSN account login.
Yeah I really don't get why Fromsoft hitched that game so tightly to Sony. They were already on the map!
It was Sony that went to Fromsoft to have a game made, essentially. It was going to be a Sony game from the start, and if they hadn't done it, we wouldn't have Bloodborne at all.
We all know Dark Souls was a hit, but maybe From wasn't quite sure they would be able to capture lightning in bottle twice. So they played safe and signed another deal with Sony.
When you think about it, that worked well for them. DS2 wasn't as good as DS1, but Bloodborne was HUGE.
yeah makes sense. and so was DS3, which a lot of people compared to bloodborn
Sony has some deep pockets I guess
you can always pirate it if thats your issue
It's been a long time since I gave Sony money, but if they did release Bloodborne on PC I would buy it on day one. It seems like emulation will be a reality before that.
They will ask you to log in to a Sony account.
fitgirl music intensifies
Porting it to another platform, I understand.
But I can't understand the clamour for yet another remaster, in a generation full of them.
The original is locked at 30fps, and they've got an in-house studio which remade Demon's Souls. Seems like low-hanging fruit. Game is almost a decade old so it seems like a reasonable time frame.
I'm not really part of the group opposed to remakes though. I just don't buy them if I feel like they're unnecessary.
Superfluous remasters are one thing, but Bloodbourne desperately needs one. I have 2,000+ hours across all of From's games but I can't put more than 30 minutes into Bloodbourne before the FPS issues are too irritating for my eyes to keep playing (not hyperbole).
Fixing that alone would be huge, but porting to PC and giving it the full DSR treatment (QoL + GFX upgrades) on top of that is guaranteed to make enormous profit.
People don't have a desire for "remasters", they desire remasters of singular titles. Remasters existing for separate games doesn't change that, no matter how many there are.
Eh, it's because of what Bloodborne is, and the state of it. Improper frame pacing with a 30FPS cap, even if you bought a new PS5 to play it (because it's not available on PS4).
A cleaned up patch for newer gen hardware to unlock it would be enough, but a remaster is more likely to appeal to Sony.
they should fix their game for free because it is broken in the first place, instead of fixing it then slapping a remastered sticker on it so they can sell it again at full price.
100%. I'm also honestly a bit worried about any remaster they may announce. Bluepoint did a wonderful job in many areas with Demon Souls, but there were definitely some "enhancements" that didn't exactly match the authorial intent of the original.
Ideal world, I'd love both, good access to a high quality original, and a top-tier remaster of a classic.
Fortunately ShadPS4 looks to be saving the day here, by giving us the ability to emulate the original with patches to fix the glaring issues. Still sucks if you're sitting there on PlayStation though.
All that said, I don't expect anyone to touch the original officially. From Soft have moved on, and Sony holds the publishing rights. If BluePoint isn't interested, it'll continue to be the elephant in the room.
there were definitely some “enhancements” that didn’t exactly match the authorial intent of the original.
Like what? I haven't and probably never will play the remaster, but my understanding was that it was meant to be as close to the original as possible only with nicer graphics. I read that they were even trying to match the timings of combat exactly.
Mostly art things. I'm far from qualified to speak to it as an expert, I haven't played either version yet, but have friends who are very passionate about the topic.
I think the easiest way to explain it is to refer to this Miyazaki quote:
Most people don't believe me when I say this, but a certain kind of refinement, elegance, and dignity are very important to me. I'll usually tell the designers that flat-out grotesque or splatter type designs will not get past me. This has everything to do with my own personal sensibilities, and it is something that I apply to every design that I approve.
Even if you just look at the tutorial boss (I clipped a a YT side-by-side for you here), the changes they've made here to add detail are basically all... grotesque. Gross hanging flesh, some weird hanging nipple thing, it's a very different interpretation of the original than what I believe was intended.
This is obviously just one example, but it's this type of change that bothers purists. Now, mind you, I don't think this makes the remake trash or anything, but if you're interested in Demon Souls historically as the beginning of the Souls franchise, this kind of change is essentially revisionist history, and it's disappointing to me that the original game isn't also available in some way besides buying an old PS3 or emulating the game.
That's pretty tame, IMO. I feel like Souls bosses like the Leechmonger or the Gaping Dragon, are originally much more grotesque than the changes made to the Vanguard demon. Even the Asylum Demon in Dark Souls is based on the Vanguard demon and seems more unsettling than that.
I feel like this guy works out at least. It's the tutorial boss that you're expected to die to. By the time you meet him, you've been playing the game for about 10 minutes, you probably haven't really got a feel for the controls or how to fight a boss, and he shows up to scare you, and you die to him, most likely in about 5 seconds. The original stony version does the job, and so does this one IMO. You fight another one later on in the game as a slightly-stronger-than-average enemy, but by then you're equipped to handle him, and it's a pretty quick battle again.
I know I'm not someone who cares that strongly about the integrity of the original vision, but I feel like given the 15 years between the original and the remake, even if Fromsoft themselves had remade it, we would probably be seeing similar changes.
Upscaling and higher frame rate is all I really want. Sony may do it eventually but lately they have that PSN account requirement bundled in. They always gotta add something shitty to any good they do.
Not much of a gamer myself, but I can understand the appeal of getting an updated version of one’s favorite game.
I don't want either of those things
What do you want from Sony?
A Resistance game following some of the trends put forth by the Doom remakes.
A Killzone game that brings back some of the platforming mechanics from games like Titanfall 2.
Crash, Sackboy, Daxter and Clank indie-style metroidvanias and platformers.
A new Tearaway
A new Gravity Rush
A Grand Turismo 4 Remaster, or at least one that isn't shit.
Call Capcom up and talk about an exclusive Resident Evil that only works with your exclusive PS5 controller.
Call Remedy up and get a good original 3rd person shooter.
Win the game: Steam App on PlayStation, emulation layer capable of playing most indie games and lightweight offerings on Steam. TF2 on a PS5? Why not?
Like, be awesome again, Sony.
They've got Lego Horizons coming this year and Lego Horizons Remastered next year. They'll be fine!
I would give my mind to a cosmic horror to get BB in at least 60fps or higher. The biggest agony of it is it's the only one in the entire catalogue that's locked to 30.
Why not give your mind to ~~us~~ the cosmic horrors right now? We have cookies. :-D
Look up "ShadPS4 bloodborne" It's an emulator for the ps4 (obviously) and the developers are basically speedrunning to get it to run bloodborne at 60fps. Right now it requires a beefy PC and has some minorgraphical issues, but considering that a month ago it was unplayable I have high hopes
I'm not someone who stresses about frames very much, but going back to Bloodborne at 30fps feels bad.
My fear is that they will fix the chalice dungeon exploit. I'm perfectly willing to admit I am not good enough to beat it without that.
I fk why they don't like money.
Destimy has a "Plague doctor" skin on sale for the "hunter" class this episode. (or this week? no idea.)
Just saying...
How did such a thing happen?