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.
Spoonman671's forum 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.
Unless it can be misconstrued as vaguely sexist. I don't understand why, but that seems to be the rule.
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.
Not coming to PS4 until later? Works out fine considering Bloodborne is releasing the same day.
Maybe if people play them side-by-side then they'll stop claiming that Arkham City is anywhere near as good as Arkham Asylum.
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.
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?