From Software and Shadows Die Twice.

[SuchRemorse]

I love From Software games. I'm a big fan of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. Just wondering what everyone else thinks about this upcoming game. Not much to go on other than the teaser trailer. What kind of a game do you think this will be? What do you get from the trailer? I'm super excited. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by SuchRemorse

[dragon11gggg]

Hard to say because they hardly showed anything. If I had to guess base off of what was given I would say they want to focus on making there game more scary and filled with more horror elements but it will probably play exactly like demon and dark souls. But at this point its all speculation so I could be totally wrong    

[RevengeancePrime]

Apparently Shadows Die Twice is a reference to Tenchu, which is hope isn't true, since I really didn't enjoy that game. I'm hoping for a Bloodborne 2 since I am greatly fascinated with Bloodborne's lore and would love to delve deeper into it. Even so, I wouldn't mind an entirely new game in the same vein as the Soulsborne games.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

40 minutes ago, ObliviousSenpai said:

Apparently Shadows Die Twice is a reference to Tenchu, which is hope isn't true, since I really didn't enjoy that game. I'm hoping for a Bloodborne 2 since I am greatly fascinated with Bloodborne's lore and would love to delve deeper into it. Even so, I wouldn't mind an entirely new game in the same vein as the Soulsborne games.

 

My guess would be that a Bloodborne 2 would be named "Bloodborne 2" and wpuld be a Sony exclusive, which Shadows Die Twice does not seem to be.

 

Personally I tried Dark Souls 1 and 2 and Bloodborne, I liked Bloodborne the most but didn't finish it because of a save file corrupting bug. Hope to get back into it now that I'm getting the digital game through PS+.

 

As for Shadows Die Twice, if it's more Bloodborne than Dark Souls then colour me interested. At this point I'm more likely to try a new game than to give an older DS game another shot.

[MMDE]

1 hour ago, ObliviousSenpai said:

Apparently Shadows Die Twice is a reference to Tenchu, which is hope isn't true, since I really didn't enjoy that game. I'm hoping for a Bloodborne 2 since I am greatly fascinated with Bloodborne's lore and would love to delve deeper into it. Even so, I wouldn't mind an entirely new game in the same vein as the Soulsborne games.

 

Honestly, I saw Tenchu coming from miles away. In fact, that was my guess would be the next game when (if not before) Dark Souls 3 was released. Why? The creator said he wasn't going to do another Souls game, and he wanted to do something else. Can't remember all the details, but I've said it for a long time that I thought Tenchu was what they were going to do.

 

What you don't seem to get is what Tenchu is like. Go look up playthroughs of the games online, and tell me again how that isn't going to be a lot like the Souls games, just a different setting.

 

21 minutes ago, Cool Rick said:

As for Shadows Die Twice, if it's more Bloodborne than Dark Souls then colour me interested. At this point I'm more likely to try a new game than to give an older DS game another shot.

 

Why exactly? The older Souls games are in some ways better. There's only mainly one major difference, Bloodborne is more fast-paced. That's it really. In Bloodborne you're encouraged to be on the offense all the time, while in the Souls games it's often more optional. You got more methodical battles, less need for twitch reactions, you can defend yourself better, more varied playstyles etc. Does that make Bloodborne sound like the better game? Not really, and honestly, neither do I think so either. I still prefer the first of the Souls games, released 10 years ago. Yes, it's not as fluid, but that was never an issue. This is also why I place Bloodborne to be slightly more difficult (5/10) than the Souls games (3-5/10). I doubt in 10 years I will look back at any of the games and think they've aged poorly.

 

As for Tenchu, likely more like Bloodborne, because less focus on magic, defense and variety in playstyle and weapons etc, and will likely focus on being more offensive and maybe even on stealth. Stealth is an element of the Souls games not talked about all that often, but stealth is actually a greater gameplay element than most people think of it as:

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/stealth

The Thief's Ring in Demon's Souls is perhaps the most OP ring in the game.

Edited March 2, 2018 by MMDE

[mecharobot]

Tenchu should be stealth, which would be great, since it was the only ninja stealth franchise among action games like Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi. Very disappointed if it would be a Souls clone. Really could use a stealth game franchise now that Metal Gear is out of the picture.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

14 minutes ago, MMDE said:

Why exactly? The older Souls games are in some ways better. There's only mainly one major difference, Bloodborne is more fast-paced.

 

Other major difference: setting.

 

Don't know why as I'm not one to turn away from a "knights and dragons" setting but the Lovecraftian theme of Bloodborne just did more for me.

 

The faster pace and bigger emphasis on offense that you mention are also things that would help me get into the game. Might not matter a lot to you, but to me these things combined made me enjoy my first few hours of Bloodborne a lot more than my first few hours of Dark Souls.

[Paleblood]

I liked what was going on when this teaser hit Youtube.

Every Souls channel was like ''Quick, gotta do 45 Minute Review-Analysis-Theorycraft over a like 6 seconds teaser LET'S ALL GET JUMPY ON A PIECE OF BONE OH MAH GAWD FROM SOFT GENIUS''

 

Despite that, I do too thinks it's Tenchu, which I hope it's not. Not because of any particular issue with Tenchu, From Software just is at their best with new IP's.

[MMDE]

1 hour ago, Cool Rick said:

 

Other major difference: setting.

 

Don't know why as I'm not one to turn away from a "knights and dragons" setting but the Lovecraftian theme of Bloodborne just did more for me.

 

The faster pace and bigger emphasis on offense that you mention are also things that would help me get into the game. Might not matter a lot to you, but to me these things combined made me enjoy my first few hours of Bloodborne a lot more than my first few hours of Dark Souls.

 

Bloodborne has knights, though they don't wear the typical knight clothing, and at least one boss in Bloodborne can almost be considered a dragon. Sure, mostly experimented freaks, cthulhu monsters, knights/hunters and aliens etc in Bloodborne. It's also set a bit later in time, and this is probably what you refer to.

 

In case you thought Demon's Souls wasn't inspired by Lovecraft fiction, then here's something to read:

 

And speaking of world 3 (Tower of Latria), the world that is most associated with Lovecraft in that game, is you got those guards walking around, and they look like this:

 

Just like Bloodborne, Demon's Souls isn't just dark fantasy, it's horror. Dark Souls is mostly just dark fantasy.

 

Also there's a bit of a difference between the normal knights and dragon fantasy and dark fantasy, where you dip into totally different territories in terms of story, setting, characters etc. Not sure where you've got it from that the Souls games are "knight and dragon" stuff. In Demon's Souls, the only "knight and dragon" stuff is world 1, which goes way dark knight and dragon as you progress in the world.

 

While of course the difference in setting between each Dark Souls game isn't too great, I don't really see that as being the big difference between the Souls games and Bloodborne. The major difference is how fast paced Bloodborne is.

 

Also, these days there's barely any good "knight and dragon" RPGs. I personally miss that setting, as it was great in many of the early Final Fantasy games. The reason it works so well is that you got a somewhat efficient close combat without it being too efficient. It's hard to create a realistic world where you fight with today's technology in the same way.

 

King's Field was a lot more knights and dragons, but again, way dark and far from the typical.

Edited March 2, 2018 by MMDE

[Bullstomp]

It's a new From game. No need to overanalyze, just buy it!

 

Thanks for the heads up OP?

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

@MMDE I never played Demon's Souls as I didn't get a PS3 until I had a PS4, and I mostly got it for PS+ games.

 

Regardless of semantics, there's a big difference between how the Dark Souls games look and feel and how Bloodborne looks and feels, there's no denying that. It's the main reason why I had a lot more problems getting into the story of Dark Souls than getting into the story of Bloodborne.

 

I'm also not entirely sure what your intention is here, as 'Bloodborne > DS' is just how I personally feel after playing a couple of hours of both.

[Kittens Are Awesome]

23 minutes ago, Bullstomp said:

It's a new From game. No need to overanalyze, just buy it!

 

Thanks for the heads up OP

 

You changed your avatar!! Not sure how I feel about that. A little conflicted, I think.

 

I agree with you on your statement though. I haven't played their Armored Core games, but FromSoft has delivered awesome Souls games with zero bullshit attached. I'm inclined to continue supporting them when I can.

 

20 minutes ago, Cool Rick said:

@MMDE I never played Demon's Souls as I didn't get a PS3 until I had a PS4, and I mostly got it for PS+ games.

 

Regardless of semantics, there's a big difference between how the Dark Souls games look and feel and how Bloodborne looks and feels, there's no denying that. It's the main reason why I had a lot more problems getting into the story of Dark Souls than getting into the story of Bloodborne.

 

I'm also not entirely sure what your intention is here, as 'Bloodborne > DS' is just how I personally feel after playing a couple of hours of both.

 

You like what you like. Many people like Bloodborne who don't like the Souls games. Nothing wrong with that.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Stevieboy
Unnecessary comments

[MMDE]

21 minutes ago, Cool Rick said:

@MMDE I never played Demon's Souls as I didn't get a PS3 until I had a PS4, and I mostly got it for PS+ games.

 

Regardless of semantics, there's a big difference between how the Dark Souls games look and feel and how Bloodborne looks and feels, there's no denying that. It's the main reason why I had a lot more problems getting into the story of Dark Souls than getting into the story of Bloodborne.

 

I'm also not entirely sure what your intention is here, as 'Bloodborne > DS' is just how I personally feel after playing a couple of hours of both.

 

Each Souls game looks different, just like Bloodborne does too. As you say, you've played only a couple of hours of both, so you haven't gotten to many of the areas. You remember in the other thread someone complained about if the visual style was all there was to the game, and they were sure to get bored from because it couldn't hardly be enough for 40 hours? You remember what I said? The games are divided into areas, and each area is totally different. Just saying that if you think Dark Souls is like the early portion you play, then you're mislead, because it's more of an opening to what you get to as you explore the world, which gets pretty dark every way you go. Dark Souls got plenty of the stuff I showed earlier too, you just never got to it.

If the artstyle is what you want to play Bloodborne for, go for it. Maybe you like the gameplay so much you want more of it, in case you may play the older games, which are often said to be better in that regard.

 

@Phil , Rick and I are friends. We like to discuss, even if we don't always agree on everything, which is fine.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Stevieboy
Clean up for previous edit.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

11 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

Each Souls game looks different, just like Bloodborne does too. As you say, you've played only a couple of hours of both, so you haven't gotten to many of the areas. You remember in the other thread someone complained about if the visual style was all there was to the game, and they were sure to get bored from because it couldn't hardly be enough for 40 hours? You remember what I said? The games are divided into areas, and each area is totally different. Just saying that if you think Dark Souls is like the early portion you play, then you're mislead, because it's more of an opening to what you get to as you explore the world, which gets pretty dark every way you go. Dark Souls got plenty of the stuff I showed earlier too, you just never got to it.

 

First few hours are very important for an opinion though. I can't think of many games where my opinion changed radically. I thought Horizon Zero Dawn was nothing special until I got to the story twists. I think that's about it.

 

It didn't help with Dark Souls I got locked in with some boss (not the one at the end of the tutorial) before I fully 'got' the game, and then died on my way back to that boss. With Bloodborne, I 'got' it once I finally got past that first square with all the enemies. I think that bit there made Bloodborne easier to get into for beginners, as the world is still closed and you're sure you HAVE to get past this group instead of searching somewhere else.

 

That there probably helped with the feelings the games gave me.

 

11 minutes ago, MMDE said:

If the artstyle is what you want to play Bloodborne for, go for it. Maybe you like the gameplay so much you want more of it, in case you may play the older games, which are often said to be better in that regard.

 

If I enjoy Bloodborne until the end, I may very well try more of these games. Though I'd probably still go for this Shadows Die Twice game (providing it gets good reviews and it's out by the time I finish Bloodborne).

 

19 minutes ago, Phil said:

You like what you like. Many people like Bloodborne who don't like the Souls games. Nothing wrong with that.

 

11 minutes ago, MMDE said:

@Phil , Rick and I are friends. We like to discuss, even if we don't always agree on everything, which is fine.

 

Don't know about the comments that got deleted so I'll just ignore that but yeah, @MMDE and I do some verbal sparring every now and again, and we both enjoy writing essay-length posts at that when there's something we care for.

 

My comment was less a veiled "leave me alone" and more a friendly "it's nice that you have so much to say on this franchise I know you love, but my mind is made up (for now) so I might as well save you the trouble of trying to persuade me specifically".

[MMDE]

18 minutes ago, Cool Rick said:

 

First few hours are very important for an opinion though. I can't think of many games where my opinion changed radically. I thought Horizon Zero Dawn was nothing special until I got to the story twists. I think that's about it.

 

It didn't help with Dark Souls I got locked in with some boss (not the one at the end of the tutorial) before I fully 'got' the game, and then died on my way back to that boss. With Bloodborne, I 'got' it once I finally got past that first square with all the enemies. I think that bit there made Bloodborne easier to get into for beginners, as the world is still closed and you're sure you HAVE to get past this group instead of searching somewhere else.

 

That there probably helped with the feelings the games gave me.

 

 

If I enjoy Bloodborne until the end, I may very well try more of these games. Though I'd probably still go for this Shadows Die Twice game (providing it gets good reviews and it's out by the time I finish Bloodborne).

 

 

 

Don't know about the comments that got deleted so I'll just ignore that but yeah, @MMDE and I do some verbal sparring every now and again, and we both enjoy writing essay-length posts at that when there's something we care for.

 

My comment was less a veiled "leave me alone" and more a friendly "it's nice that you have so much to say on this franchise I know you love, but my mind is made up (for now) so I might as well save you the trouble of trying to persuade me specifically".

 

I think you're a bit mistaken about Bloodborne too then, because one thing Bloodborne is known for is being metroidvania-like in it's level layout, just like Dark Souls.

 

You get locked in with the boss in both games, but I guess before you felt you "got it" in Dark Souls. This is the kind of thing you'd change your opinion on as you played then I guess?  Wondering which boss you mean though. Taurus? That's a normal enemy later in the game. You're still in the starter area. Similarly Bloodborne got the Cleric Beast.

 

But yeah, as I've said before, these games throw all at you from the getgo, making you learn how to deal with various types of situations. And so the first portion is the hardest. You got past most of that in Bloodborne, you never did in Dark Souls. The starter area is the "knights and dragons" area you talk about, I'm not referring to the tutorial level. Much like in Demon's Souls, the starter area is 1-1, not the tutorial.  

Edited March 2, 2018 by MMDE

[NetEntity]

I just want to quickly pop in to remind you all that King's Field and Shadow Tower are things that exist.
True, I've played only a bit of Demon's Soul on my alt account, so I'm no expert by any means, but to me it felt like a natural, from first-person-to-third-person camera switched progression of the things FT has been doing for years. It just took the West way too long to notice.

 

I'd like to see something in the vein of Shadow Tower Abyss, but I don't think it has much chance to return at this time. What I do think, is that it's a good time to take a break from endless Soulsing. If it's a new Tenchu, then hell yes, I'm on board. 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

13 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

I think you're a bit mistaken about Bloodborne too then, because one thing Bloodborne is known for is being metroidvania-like in it's level layout, just like Dark Souls.

 

You get locked in with the boss in both games, but I guess before you felt you "got it" in Dark Souls. This is the kind of thing you'd change your opinion on as you played then I guess?  Wondering which boss you mean though. Taurus? That's a normal enemy later in the game. You're still in the starter area. Similarly Bloodborne got the Cleric Beast.

 

But yeah, as I've said before, these games throw all at you from the getgo, making you learn how to deal with various types of situations. And so the first portion is the hardest. You got past most of that in Bloodborne, you never did in Dark Souls. The starter area is the "knights and dragons" area you talk about, I'm not referring to the tutorial level. Much like in Demon's Souls, the starter area is 1-1, not the tutorial.  

 

... But the map of Bloodborne before Father Somethingsomething is not that huge. With Dark Souls, there was a short tutorial,and then "off you go then, there's something up somewhere and something down somewhere". Bloodborne gave me more of a try-out period before it truly opens up.

 

And yeah if I went and sat down for Dark Souls for a weekend I might just change my opinion, but since starting Bloodborne I really wanted to do that one first once I made some time for it, so Dark Souls will have to wait, and will probably keep waiting for a while as I'm more liable to try an unplayed game first than restart on a game I failed at.

 

A quick google and yeah, I mean Taurus,unless there's a different enemy on an open hallway on top of a castle.

[Ptirle]

As I stated in the previous topic, it's probably Kuon 2 or remake of Kuon.

 

 

[MMDE]

1 minute ago, Cool Rick said:

 

... But the map of Bloodborne before Father Somethingsomething is not that huge. With Dark Souls, there was a short tutorial,and then "off you go then, there's something up somewhere and something down somewhere". Bloodborne gave me more of a try-out period before it truly opens up.

 

And yeah if I went and sat down for Dark Souls for a weekend I might just change my opinion, but since starting Bloodborne I really wanted to do that one first once I made some time for it, so Dark Souls will have to wait, and will probably keep waiting for a while as I'm more liable to try an unplayed game first than restart on a game I failed at.

 

A quick google and yeah, I mean Taurus,unless there's a different enemy on an open hallway on top of a castle.

 

I'm not going to argue that Firelink Shrine is all that great. In fact, I argued the exact opposite with some Souls players only a week ago. I thought it was one of the weakest hubs in the series. They will argue it connects the world so well etc, and hides so much more than what meets the eye etc. And while you found it confusing, you'll quickly learn what is the wrong way by how easily the enemies kill you and where you're actually able to progress. It's also the most "obvious" path at first. In Bloodborne you're not even comparing the same area in a way. I'm also not that huge fan of the frankly strange paths you gotta take that early in the game to get to the top, seems more off-putting than it could have been. There are however a lot of paths at the start of Bloodborne too. One path you'll easily struggle with is one past the wolves on the bridge before the Cleric Beast boss.

 

Oh and the architecture of the city portion of Bloodborne is not designed after London, but rather eastern Europe. Quite a big difference tbh.

 

Anyway, Taurus is part of the starter area of Dark Souls. I think the starter area ends when you kill the Gargoyles. This is when the game has thrown all these varied challenges at you and you get to a new area. You get to the Gargoyles rather soon after the Taurus and a dragon who breathes fire on a bridge (much like in Demon's Souls).

13 minutes ago, Ptirle said:

As I stated in the previous topic, it's probably Kuon 2 or remake of Kuon.

 

 

 

Why do you think that?

[Ptirle]

56 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

I'm not going to argue that Firelink Shrine is all that great. In fact, I argued the exact opposite with some Souls players only a week ago. I thought it was one of the weakest hubs in the series. They will argue it connects the world so well etc, and hides so much more than what meets the eye etc. And while you found it confusing, you'll quickly learn what is the wrong way by how easily the enemies kill you and where you're actually able to progress. It's also the most "obvious" path at first. In Bloodborne you're not even comparing the same area in a way. I'm also not that huge fan of the frankly strange paths you gotta take that early in the game to get to the top, seems more off-putting than it could have been. There are however a lot of paths at the start of Bloodborne too. One path you'll easily struggle with is one past the wolves on the bridge before the Cleric Beast boss.

 

Oh and the architecture of the city portion of Bloodborne is not designed after London, but rather eastern Europe. Quite a big difference tbh.

 

Anyway, Taurus is part of the starter area of Dark Souls. I think the starter area ends when you kill the Gargoyles. This is when the game has thrown all these varied challenges at you and you get to a new area. You get to the Gargoyles rather soon after the Taurus and a dragon who breathes fire on a bridge (much like in Demon's Souls).

 

Why do you think that?

Sounds in the teaser are exactly the same as in the game, also game takes place during Heian period.

[SnowxSakura]

I would love a new tenchu game, it's been so long since tenchu z came out 

[starcrunch061]

I've never played a Tenchu game, though I know FROM was known for the series.

 

That being said, I hope it's a new IP altogether. After all, Miyazaki did claim that he was ready to work on new stuff. If he's just dusting off old franchises, that seems disappointing...

...

...unless that old franchise is King's Field. Then, it would be awesome.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

3 hours ago, MMDE said:

 

I'm not going to argue that Firelink Shrine is all that great. In fact, I argued the exact opposite with some Souls players only a week ago. I thought it was one of the weakest hubs in the series. They will argue it connects the world so well etc, and hides so much more than what meets the eye etc. And while you found it confusing, you'll quickly learn what is the wrong way by how easily the enemies kill you and where you're actually able to progress. It's also the most "obvious" path at first. In Bloodborne you're not even comparing the same area in a way. I'm also not that huge fan of the frankly strange paths you gotta take that early in the game to get to the top, seems more off-putting than it could have been. There are however a lot of paths at the start of Bloodborne too. One path you'll easily struggle with is one past the wolves on the bridge before the Cleric Beast boss.

 

Once I found my way to the safe zone, it all became easier. I did the wolves from inside the house; the wolves can't enter but I can swing at them will definitely do that part the same way.

 

Quote

Oh and the architecture of the city portion of Bloodborne is not designed after London, but rather eastern Europe. Quite a big difference tbh.

 

Wait, when did I claim it was London?

 

Though the Bloodborne wiki disagrees with you...

 

"Yharnam's Victorian architecture is reminiscent of late 19th Century European cities including Paris, Edinburgh, Cologne and London."

 

Quote

Anyway, Taurus is part of the starter area of Dark Souls. I think the starter area ends when you kill the Gargoyles. This is when the game has thrown all these varied challenges at you and you get to a new area. You get to the Gargoyles rather soon after the Taurus and a dragon who breathes fire on a bridge (much like in Demon's Souls).

 

But the starter area in Dark Souls is pretty clear, and ends distinctly when you fly to the open area.

 

That's the point though, for me, that Dark Souls opens up too soon for me.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Cool Rick

[DrBloodmoney]

8 hours ago, SuchRemorse said:

I love From Software games. I'm a big fan of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. Just wondering what everyone else thinks about this upcoming game. Not much to go on other than the teaser trailer. What kind of a game do you think this will be? What do you get from the trailer? I'm super excited. 

 

The only thing I think when I watch that trailer is “Where is the fucking trailer? What the hell are those people clapping at?”

 

I cannot believe that it is considered acceptable to call that a ‘trailer’.

 

It really wasn’t that long ago that people used to complain (very justifiably) that game ‘trailers’ didn’t show enough actual gameplay, and instead, were just gloified cut-scenes, but this is actually worse.

 

If you have nothing to show, don’t announce your game.

[ziggypossum]

 

OP: https://imgur.com/a/JgSS7