Spoonman671's forum posts

#1 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

Bloodborne is pretty much a fraction of a Souls game. It's the dual-wielding, parrying, evading part. I don't know what they did with the rest of it.

#2 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

I've stuck with the Threaded Cane so far. It just seems so gentlemanly. I wish there was a greater distinction between its cane and whip form though, as the only significant difference seems to be range (and maybe poise damage, if there is some behind-the-curtain equivalent stat in Bloodborne). Both forms do the same damage and are around the same speed.

#3 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

What? No.

Unless it can be misconstrued as vaguely sexist. I don't understand why, but that seems to be the rule.

#4 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

I've never seen a Souls fan just tell somebody they suck. If there's one thing we love, it's talking tactics, and any excuse to do so is a good excuse.

These games aren't for everybody.

#5 Edited by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

None. It isn't any different than dual wielding with a parrying dagger in the Dark Souls games. I don't usually do that on the first playthrough, but since Bloodborne strips away all your options I don't really have a choice but to play that way.

#6 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

Not coming to PS4 until later? Works out fine considering Bloodborne is releasing the same day.

#7 Edited by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

Maybe if people play them side-by-side then they'll stop claiming that Arkham City is anywhere near as good as Arkham Asylum.

#8 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

It's mostly entertaining. Listening to it sometimes reminds me that these people are weird and have weird opinions.

If you're re-listening to old bombcasts while waiting for new bombcasts, may I suggest you instead spend your time on podcasts about different subjects. It might be good for you to broaden your horizons a bit. I went through a similar situation a year ago or so. I found Hardcore History to be very refreshing after years of nothing but game podcasts.

#9 Posted by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

@l4wd0g said:
@spoonman671 said:

Because mandating that we all purchase new versions of old games is complete and utter bullsh... Wait, what? We're not required to buy them? Oh, I don't get it then, either.

I think the problem is that when Sony's biggest game (of 2014) is a release of game that came out a year earlier there is a problem. I (we?) bought the new consoles with the promise of new content. I didn't buy a new console to play games that were one to five years old. If I wanted that experience I would have bought a new graphics card and bought the games again on Steam for $12 during a sale... they'd even run a 60 FPS.

I guess it's just disappointment for me. I wanted something new; while they've been releasing stopgap remakes and remasters for consoles that are already feeling old.

You could have not purchased The Last of Us: Remastered. That would simulate a scenario in which Sony simply did not put it out. The assumption that releasing remasters is done in lieu of producing new content is a fallacy. What could Naughty Dog have done in the 8 or 9 months (I think that's a generous guess) they spent on that remake? I doubt they could have taken an original game from initial concept to finished product. More likely they would have just rolled those man-hours into their next project to be released in 2018.

The hi-res assets for remastered versions of all these last-gen games already exist. It's just a matter of getting the games to run on the new hardware. Producing new art/models/animations takes a lot of time, and those are kind of the things we need new consoles for. If these hardware manufacturers were to simply release games half-baked in order to get something out, why would we need more powerful hardware than the PS3/360?

#10 Edited by Spoonman671 (4918 posts) -

Because mandating that we all purchase new versions of old games is complete and utter bullsh... Wait, what? We're not required to buy them? Oh, I don't get it then, either.