this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
688 points (97.8% liked)
memes
10301 readers
1978 users here now
Community rules
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 [email protected]
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.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Not much of a gamer myself, but I can understand the appeal of getting an updated version of one’s favorite game.
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.
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:
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.