Anyone Looking Forward To Bloodborne

[-Mr.Meeseeks-]

 They are not lazy. The only times they were lazy was the DkS port and the controls U.I. for DkS2. Other than that, they are not lazy. 

 

And several things breaking when you run the game at 60fps on consoles. Like parrying and weapon durability, which was a complete nightmare I may add when going through the game for the first time. Even as an experienced player it can be a real bother and can even destroy certain builds.

 

For example, I tried to make a dex build focusing on using the old whip, but with it breaking in anywhere from 3-5 swings and even faster if you hit the opponent with the "wrong" part of the whip or if you hit a wall even slightly, that build went completely down the toilet. All of this stems from them not accounting for the increase in framerate the pc version has.

 

Oh and don't let me forget the amazing lighting system they simply left out of the game. Remember that time where they showed you going through a dark castle with the only light source being your torch and fighting a turtle knight? It would have been a great experience with the torch being an integral part of the game like they had planned, but instead you can go through the entire game without needing a torch (perhaps with the exception of the Gutter).

 

I have seen mods that people have made that looks very similar to that lighting system or even better. Mods that are made by random people sitting at their own computer. When some random dude can one-up or match a fairly large Dev team like From, something is wrong.

[TheErebus.]

And several things breaking when you run the game at 60fps on consoles. Like parrying and weapon durability, which was a complete nightmare I may add when going through the game for the first time. Even as an experienced player it can be a real bother and can even destroy certain builds.

 

For example, I tried to make a dex build focusing on using the old whip, but with it breaking in anywhere from 3-5 swings and even faster if you hit the opponent with the "wrong" part of the whip or if you hit a wall even slightly, that build went completely down the toilet. All of this stems from them not accounting for the increase in framerate the pc version has.

 

Oh and don't let me forget the amazing lighting system they simply left out of the game. Remember that time where they showed you going through a dark castle with the only light source being your torch and fighting a turtle knight? It would have been a great experience with the torch being an integral part of the game like they had planned, but instead you can go through the entire game without needing a torch (perhaps with the exception of the Gutter).

 

I have seen mods that people have made that looks very similar to that lighting system or even better. Mods that are made by random people sitting at their own computer. When some random dude can one-up or match a fairly large Dev team like From, something is wrong.

Skyrim. I've found mods that put Bethesda to shame. Is Bethesda lazy then?

 

As for the Lighting...yeah no you're right on that. I have a mod in place that makes the Lost Sinner fight incredibly difficult without the torches. I don't know why they got rid of that lighting.

 

I've played both on the PS3 and the PC. Again, I cannot tell the difference between the two. To me it's the same. So I guess it's either I simply cannot tell the difference, or I don't pay attention to these things.

Edited February 3, 2015 by ScrublordPrime

[izzatuw]

I've played both BL2 on PC and PS3, PC being locked 60FPS and PS3 with 30FPS and I HARDLY notice a significant difference when actually playing the game and enjoying it. Sure you'll notice the huge difference when configuring your game and testing it out but when you're enjoying it, it's hard to actually bother with FPS unless it's lower than 20 and I was playing couch co-op which significantly drops the FPS.

[DiabolusUrsus]

But you see, that there is my problem. He is implying (or even outright saying) that From is lazy for not going for 60 FPS (when it is clearly said that technical limitations are the reason for this, not because they are lazy.) when it is clearly not true. They put heart and soul into their games even if it doesn't run at 60 FPS. 

 

And no, I never imply that you judge things superficially. I even said it was in parenthesis that to me it is superficial, you can judge it however you want I don't care. But you when you imply that they are lazy because of one thing, then there I have an issue with it.

 

Copping out with "technical limitations" does not equate to innocence of laziness. That excuse is so vague it could easily be referring to an assortment of simple-to-fix issues that they can't be bothered to address. People will still play the game at 30fps, so why bother trying for 60? He's saying they're lazy. I'm saying they're lazy. Outright. Not implying. 

 

The game won't run at 60fps because the hardware can't keep up? Why the hell are they releasing it on PS4 instead of PS3, then, if not marketing? I thought the whole appeal of the next-gen consoles was the higher performance capacity? Most users aren't going to nitpick the difference between 2048 and 4096 textures... or even 2048 and 1024 textures when presented with smooth and engaging gameplay.

 

The game needs to run at 30fps because things start to break at higher framerates? Stop hard-coding game mechanics to be entirely dependent on framerates. If DE can do that for burst-fire weapons, From Software can do that for item durability. They still haven't seen fit to throw out a hotfix for that on PC, or even mentioned a potential control-scheme calibration. 

 

"Technical limitations" is PR talking. It doesn't translate into "impossible," so don't try to use that as a golden answer for why 60fps is completely unfeasible. That said, even setting aside the issue of framerates, I still feel as though From is dropping the ball on the quality front. 

 

The graphical fidelity we initially advertised for Dark Souls II? A fleshed out storyline rather than one riddled with relics of cut content disguised by the ambiguous narration we're known for? New enemies to break up some of the monotony of the same mobs being thrown at you between different areas? Refinements to the multiplayer matchmaking system players have been asking for practically since Day 1? Pick up all the value you thought you were getting the first time around for the absolute steal of a repeat full price in Scholar of the First Sin!

 

Bethesda is also what I would qualify as "lazy." That said, Skyrim is far from the most appropriate comparison. The game is over three years old now, and it was developed with modding in mind. The ability to mod the game may not have been listed on the box wrapping, but customers knew to expect it, and many of them knew what they could expect to get out of it. There's a difference between knowing better than to try to compete with a community you know is going to one-up you and relying on the community to compensate for your shortcomings. Modded Skyrim is better than Vanilla Skyrim, period. There's no contesting that. However, Vanilla Skyrim was still a solid purchase in its own right, much like Dark Souls II was. What Bethesda didn't do was try to re-sell the same game at full price to existing customers the following year.

 

I'll acknowledge that publishers are also partially at fault for these sorts of things, but with From's track record of an understandably hacked-up PC port of a console game followed by a partially-finished PC game, a supposedly more-finished version of that same PC game, and now a similar console-only game, it's easy to see that they tried developing for PC, decided that it was too much work to develop for PC, and went back to developing for consoles. That may be understandable laziness, but it's still laziness. The nail in the coffin is them trying to choke a few more coins out of their existing PC fanbase on their way out. 

 

Nobody's suggesting that From isn't passionate about their games, but their most recent practices do come off as somewhat lazy. Perhaps "sloppy" would be a better adjective. 

[satsujinki01]

It is kinda....disappointed because the developers didn't gave their promise for PC release. Last time I heard Sony have their own rights for PS exclusive, like, Infamous series or Demons Souls. 

[TheErebus.]

-snip because bleh-

Is this choppy: 

 

Watch the whole thing, the only choppy areas are when you transition to a new area with the camera. Other than, it looks as smooth as 60 fps

[DiabolusUrsus]

*snip without the negative connotation*

 

And now we have the definitive proof that while you're saying "that's just you, this is just me," you're still insistent on believing that I'm just being unreasonable and superficial, which is why I called your parenthetical disclaimers meaningless. Your mindset is clear. 

 

First, I never said that the game running at 30fps would make it "choppy." Just that 60fps would be smoother, which is objectively true. 

 

Edit: Okay, I found some wording in my very first reply that might lead you to believe I thought 30fps would feature substantial lag. That isn't what I meant, though. When I say 30fps plays choppily, I mean that the visual sluggishness that is apparently invisible to you makes the game feel like a constant battle with the controls. Even if the control scheme is great, or very simple, the game feels less responsive at 30fps than it does at 60. This results in the gameplay feeling choppy rather than fluid and smooth. It makes it difficult to sync up hand-eye coordination. Maybe not for everybody, but the people who can tell are almost always irritated by it. 

 

Second, you need to actually knuckle under and acknowledge that 30fps vs. 60fps is a serious consideration for some people. Taking that as true, From is effectively narrowing their potential audience, which is at its root because they are too lazy to accommodate the needs of a wider audience. It's obviously a carefully considered decision rather than an arbitrary one, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision can be translated to "we can't be bothered to work towards the needs of a wider audience, because it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort." Laziness may be a loaded term, but it's still appropriate. 

 

I refuse to watch that entire nineteen minute video. It may look as smooth as 60fps to you, but I can see the difference. I'm not talking about the new-area transitions either; those would likely appear at 60fps as well. Why? Because the game is loading a new area. To see the difference you have to look at specific parts of the animations - some of the attack swings, the rate at which the camera pans, the gates opening, the rate at which the character moves forward, etc. Not necessarily things that are integral to gameplay, but they're visually irritating to people who can see the difference. For some people, that's bad enough to be a deal-breaker, which is anything but petty. 

 

Yes, the "need I say more" had a bit of an elitist tone to it, and there are some people that feel 60fps is better simply because it's a higher number. For people like me, though, there's a serious difference between 60 and 30. Okay, so you can't see that difference between 60 and 30. Great! Good for you. You don't have to worry about that. It's kind of asinine to write people off as "petty" or "superficial" simply because they can see something that you can't. For the last time, I'm not bashing the game. I'm not even bashing the devs. I'm just saying that there's more to the 60fps/30fps issue than you're willing to admit. 

 

As for the game being completely different based on your godly powers of personal interpretation from the beta, I have only this to say:

Oh, look! It's Manus with his attacks toned down because he's an early-game boss this time! :D Totally different game. Then you've got Sinh as a practically copy-pasted Kalameet, Aava as a reincarnated Sanctuary Guardian, and Alonne as a re-styled Artorias. I think it's safe to say we can expect more than a few repeats from Bloodborne until that's proven otherwise. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by DiabolusUrsus

[SquirmyBurrito]

I was interested until I heard that it was going to be a PS4 exclusive. No way in hell am I shelling out that kind of money just so I can play one game. I'll wait twenty years and play it on an emulator.

 

 

So what? Is this you saying no console should attempt to break it's low graphical boundaries? That is not a good thing at all (and again, they never stated it was ideal. They said they have no choice). They are not lazy. The only times they were lazy was the DkS port and the controls U.I. for DkS2. Other than that, they are not lazy. 

 

 

It's not. I've played the beta, it is not similar. It's quite different when you actually play it. It was a bit choppy, but nothing that would break the game. 

You all judge it on previews, I judge it on my own personal experience. 

 

They did have a choice, they could have not made it an exclusive and released it on PC where that technical limitation wouldn't exist. And I do believe that consoles shouldn't attempt to push their graphical boundary if it means sacrificing the frame rate. Bloodborne being targetted at 30 fps does not guarantee that it will STAY at 30 fps. If the game was fully capable of running at 60 fps for the majority of the game, but they choose to lock it at 30 so that players would NEVER experience framerate dips, I could understand.

 

I judge it on previews because that is the only option I have available to me that wouldn't require me to spend money on a potential piece of garbage.

 

Skyrim. I've found mods that put Bethesda to shame. Is Bethesda lazy then?

 

As for the Lighting...yeah no you're right on that. I have a mod in place that makes the Lost Sinner fight incredibly difficult without the torches. I don't know why they got rid of that lighting.

 

I've played both on the PS3 and the PC. Again, I cannot tell the difference between the two. To me it's the same. So I guess it's either I simply cannot tell the difference, or I don't pay attention to these things.

 

 

Bethesda is known for being notoriously lazy with their games. They're always releasing broken, half-(if that)-finished messes and then letting the community finish the game for them.

 

I'm also pretty sure that you CAN tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps but choose to ignore it. Otherwise you may just need to go see an optician. 

Edited February 3, 2015 by SquirmyBurrito

[(PSN)LK-GriM]

It's like Souls series but a PS4 exclusive

Don't think you got it, but that's ok.

[izzatuw]

I was interested until I heard that it was going to be a PS4 exclusive. No way in hell am I shelling out that kind of money just so I can play one game. I'll wait twenty years and play it on an emulator.

 

 

 

They did have a choice, they could have not made it an exclusive and released it on PC where that technical limitation wouldn't exist. And I do believe that consoles shouldn't attempt to push their graphical boundary if it means sacrificing the frame rate. Bloodborne being targetted at 30 fps does not guarantee that it will STAY at 30 fps. If the game was fully capable of running at 60 fps for the majority of the game, but they choose to lock it at 30 so that players would NEVER experience framerate dips, I could understand.

 

I judge it on previews because that is the only option I have available to me that wouldn't require me to spend money on a potential piece of garbage.

 

 

Bethesda is known for being notoriously lazy with their games. They're always releasing broken, half-(if that)-finished messes and then letting the community finish the game for them.

 

I'm also pretty sure that you CAN tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps but choose to ignore it. Otherwise you may just need to go see an optician.

I thought Vanilla Fallout 3 was fine, mods just add icing on the cake.

[SquirmyBurrito]

I thought Vanilla Fallout 3 was fine, mods just add icing on the cake.

 

Fallout 3 was a buggy mess. No amount of nostalgia will ever blind me to that.

[Jeetza]

And now we have the definitive proof that while you're saying "that's just you, this is just me," you're still insistent on believing that I'm just being unreasonable and superficial, which is why I called your parenthetical disclaimers meaningless. Your mindset is clear. 

 

First, I never said that the game running at 30fps would make it "choppy." Just that 60fps would be smoother, which is objectively true. 

 

Second, you need to actually knuckle under and acknowledge that 30fps vs. 60fps is a serious consideration for some people. Taking that as true, From is effectively narrowing their potential audience, which is at its root because they are too lazy to accommodate the needs of a wider audience. It's obviously a carefully considered decision rather than an arbitrary one, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision can be translated to "we can't be bothered to work towards the needs of a wider audience, because it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort." Laziness may be a loaded term, but it's still appropriate. 

 

I refuse to watch that entire nineteen minute video. It may look as smooth as 60fps to you, but I can see the difference. I'm not talking about the new-area transitions either; those would likely appear at 60fps as well. Why? Because the game is loading a new area. To see the difference you have to look at specific parts of the animations - some of the attack swings, the rate at which the camera pans, the gates opening, the rate at which the character moves forward, etc. Not necessarily things that are integral to gameplay, but they're visually irritating to people who can see the difference. For some people, that's bad enough to be a deal-breaker, which is anything but petty. 

 

Yes, the "need I say more" had a bit of an elitist tone to it, and there are some people that feel 60fps is better simply because it's a higher number. For people like me, though, there's a serious difference between 60 and 30. Okay, so you can't see that difference between 60 and 30. Great! Good for you. You don't have to worry about that. It's kind of asinine to write people off as "petty" or "superficial" simply because they can see something that you can't. For the last time, I'm not bashing the game. I'm not even bashing the devs. I'm just saying that there's more to the 60fps/30fps issue than you're willing to admit. 

 

As for the game being completely different based on your godly powers of personal interpretation from the beta, I have only this to say:

Oh, look! It's Manus with his attacks toned down because he's an early-game boss this time! :D Totally different game. Then you've got Sinh as a practically copy-pasted Kalameet, Aava as a reincarnated Sanctuary Guardian, and Alonne as a re-styled Artorias. I think it's safe to say we can expect more than a few repeats from Bloodborne until that's proven otherwise. 

I know for one I get serious headaches when playing around/below 35 FPS. I started gaming with a 360, and would get bad headaches if I spent anything over an hour on it. When I switched to PC I realized I never get headaches when playing and can play for much longer.

[(PSN)Legolegend144]

I for one am exited for Bloodborne.