this one honestly sounds like a pretty solid entry in the soulslike games. people really seem to enjoy it and i’ve read multiple comparisons of this to DS1
Yeah I am really enjoying it. Had a great year for soulslikes with lies of P and now this. I am playing on ps5 and performance is pretty good but framerate drops do happen and some areas are pretty rough. I don’t really have any problem with the enemy placement except where I am currently stuck fighting 3 mini bosses and a bunch of dogs/ranged attackers in a row which is a bit much. I recently recently replayed all the souls games and think the comparison to ds1 is probably correct but its parry combat is closer to sekiro though not quite as snappy.
The devs have honestly done a great job following up with updates and hotfixes. They say the next patch will address the enemy density which is one of the biggest issues. They’ll reduce enemies overall and will move the current enemy placement to NG+.
I read this post (without knowing the game yet but having it on a wishlist to get in a few months) and can’t stop thinking how lucky we were with the quality of Dark Souls, Elden Ring, BB and Sekiro.
It really does look like they’re putting in the work and I’m excited to check it out. I’m just waiting to hear that the performance has been ironed out to pick it up.
Fuck redemptions anyway. It’s time to make some examples out of some games. I’m sick and tired of games launching as broken and empty pieces of shit, only for them to finally become somewhat playable months or even years later and have the internet call it a “Redemption Arc”. It’s becoming a standard.
Gave the game another try after the update and I’m actually enjoying it now. Gotten to the 2nd map and there are a ton of enemies fighting everywhere now. They really did increase the amount of NPCs you see around the map.
Wanted something moody/dark to play during October and this has scratched that itch.
Only played solo but I’d rate it as a 6.5/10 now. The original version would be like a 5/10 to me.
It doesn’t matter if a game with microtransactions makes them easier to get or even free. If a game was designed with microtransactions in mind, the game has to be made tedious, grindy, and/or or frustrating completely on purpose to incentivize buying things.
To me, updates and DLC serve different purposes. Updates are for bugfixes, new features, feature enhancements, etc. DLC is new game stuff, like additional characters and levels and so on.
I agree with your interpretation, but I really wish publishers would go back to calling additional levels or story content an "expansion" instead of DLC. It's a lot more clear and differentiates from other types of content like a character costume or a soundtrack.
In a statement posted to Steam, developer Shiny Shoe said […]
What a sloppy and lazy article. They don’t even bother linking to the statement from the devs. Seriously, that would have taken less then 1 minute to add.
Microtransactions in general are the reason I avoid the majority of games like the plague, if you have to purchase the title and it’s on PC. The only exceptions I accept is the one RPG series I play and the spin-off auto chess card game. They have it figured out, at least, that shoving the paid features down your throat is bad for the player.
The badness this game had at launch really can't be overstated, though. At launch, this was a paid early access always online mostly-singleplayer-with-coop game with a premium currency shop and a battle pass. And it was one of those games where the shop was the most fleshed out part.
They've added offline mode and are now reworking the microtransactions to Steam DLC, but I'm still very skeptical of them. That launch was so blatantly over the top bad.
I ignored all the mtx stuff, which was pretty easy, and have had a blast with co-op. I can’t think of anything else that comes close to this in terms of meaningful synergies with friends. And Shiny Shoe has proven they know how to use EA to turn out a good product with Monster Train so I wouldn’t give up on them quite yet.
They did not make that claim. The article is just wrong. The devs said they’re removing in-game monitization and only having DLC on the store page. It’s functionally identical I assume, but there’s less pressure on players playing the game.
But… Like… Did we ask for that? If you cant afford to keep developing a game after shipping it… Dont?
Just make the game, wrap it up finished, and let me buy it. It doesnt need to be a subscription, I dont need to play it for 6 years, you can move on with your life and design a different game.
Ill pay cash, just give me the whole game for crying out loud
Most of the gaming community did, yes. Players want servers that last forever and updates that never stop, and they’ll throw a hissy fit if it costs them a cent more up front than it did 30 years ago. I’m not a fan of it either, but it’s where the industry is right now.
More importantly people don’t want to buy into closed game environments. They promise of ongoing development attracts players that want that type of scale, and also allows devs to continue to eat. It’s a win/win.
This is the right choice by devs. I haven’t played it and honestly I probably never will, but I respect the decision.
Do you not remember when a title would get released and stay in a buggy state forever rendering the game useless?
Have you never enjoyed a game so much that you wanted more content for it
I don’t want a product that’s going to go stale the second I buy it, I want a game I can play for 10 years with new content being added to keep it fresh.
Let me guess, you think movies should just be perma running live streams?
Calling a game “stale” for not having an unending stream of spectacle creep is a wild opinion. Its a game, not a lifestyle. Not ending is why so many games are shit now. Because they dont stop when theyre good, they stop when its become too bad to play, and everyone leaves.
Enjoying a game so much you want more content was, and still is, filled just fine from dlc and sequels. The best part? They dont require permanently altering what you thought was good, so if theyre trash you still have the original.
Well games used to not have Servers and be peer to peer they did not have season where New content got Put in or if they got New content they Split the Player Base Because they Sold the New maps, classes etc. So selling cosmetics and giving away the New classes maps etc is actually great. So that way the person not spending much gets New content and the person that love the game can Support them more. At the Same time Yes time is spend on Those skins etc and not New stuff but What would you like. A game being shut down and not being play able like battleborn? Or a game that gets New stuff but also New cosmetics?
Yeah, the headline is just awful. The Inkbound Dev notes that they’re removing all in-game microtransactions. The goal is to move away from pressuring you to spend money on microtransactions as you play, and keep them where they belong: on the store page.
The devs are doing exactly what they said. The headline is either click-bait, or a result of awful reading comprehension.
I don’t think you’ll regret it. Shiny Shoe knows what they’re doing in terms of design and Inkbound is phenomenal. They’ve been making solid improvements throughout EA.
eurogamer.net
Gorące