590°

FromSoftware is the most important studio of the last decade

There is a reason why you can compare literally any TPP game to Dark Souls.

Read Full Story >>
gamepressure.com
Spurg1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

Without a doubt.
Dark souls was the game of the last generation...the rest of the from soft games that came afterward did not achieve the same the of story and design. Sekiro came close but the story was not as well interwoven and complex as Dark souls

Spurg1527d ago

Care to explain why...better story? Better level design? Better content?

SyntheticForm1527d ago

@Spurg

People like the bizarre, darker, lovecraftian world of Bloodborne - it's interesting and it oozes atmosphere. I really enjoyed it as well, and more than any of the DS games.

Bloodborne is just a special game.

ravinash1527d ago

Demon Souls still hold that special place in my heart.

Spurg1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

"Better story yes"
Not even close. The lore and depth of Dark Souls is unmatched. Dark souls does so much with its story and side quest that it leaves a lasting impression and is the reason why there are 3 games in the series. A small quest from Dark souls has a better story than Bloodborne. Bloodborne starts off intriguing but disappoints in the latter half which is old Yarnham and the nightmare, two of the shortest and most boring sections of the game.
Bloodborne doesn't even have half the lore content that dark souls has to tell a compelling story with a satisfying conclusion.

"the level design is around the same quality"

They are not even close to the same in quality. The intricate and innovative level design from Dark souls has not been emulated in the other games, only attempted but not successful.

"better content"
-Pathetic magic
-Less weapons and items which means less lore
-lesser RPG elements
-Less and inferior Bosses
-No boss weapons or armor which also means less lore
-0 giant boss
-Sidequests are not satisfying

"better atmosphere"
Tombs of the giant, ash lake, Sins fortress are each uniquely different in tone but provide jaw-dropping visual and atmosphere.

Bloodborne has does what it does well but the variety in Dark souls trumps Bloodborne. There are moments on Dark souls that are like bloodborne but there aren't any moments in bloodborne that are like Dark souls.

SPEAKxTHExTRUTH1527d ago

I 100% disagree. I think Souls is better than Bloodborne.

Spurg1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

@pwnmaster3000

"I’m pretty sure your just being Bias, because it’s a PS4 exclusive lol."
Nah, it's the other way round. Dark souls is universally adored by fromsoft fans. It only Ps4 fans that take Bloodborne to be the holy gospel by Fromsoft.

"I also agree. I love bloodbornes combat also and the level design."

With no context to back this up.

"Facing against another Hunter like lady Maria is just pure art."
Please.....Ornstein and smough was the epitome of the artform and Artorians was the icing on the cake. And facing other NPC was made by prominent by Demon souls and given depth in Dark souls.

"The last boss in bloodborne is easily in my top 5 favorite boss fight of all time.
Bad ass and beautiful at the same time."

Nothing will ever beat fighting Sif after returning from the ending of the DLC.

"Dark souls was dope and all and I did play all of them but man Bloodbornes smooth combat and just the overall look of the game sucked me in."

The combat is the same - some improved animation only.

"I will say Darksouls 3 online is a lot better.
I hope Bloodborne’s online gets better."

This bring me to another point I miss...Bloodborne's online was none existant. Played the game 3 times in a row and only got invaded once. The whole idea just did not fit in Bloodborne and was riding on the wave set by Dark souls.

Dragonscale1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

@Felix, agreed. Tbh the disagree-ers probably never even played BB.

The Wood1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

Spurg. Have you played bloodborne or demons souls? I think demons souls opened the path for those types of games on modern consoles. Took me back to the days of super ghouls and ghosts for difficulty. . Vexation

meganick1527d ago

Spurg said Dark Souls is the game of last gen. Bloodborne is current gen. Regardless, Dark Souls is the better game. But Bloodborne is also great.

xTonyMontana1527d ago

@Spurg for me, it just felt more imaginative. The art direction was top class.

Fluttershy771526d ago

Nah, you are just saying that because it is a exclusive. Dark Souls is the one that influenced the most

goldwyncq1526d ago

Bloodborne pre-DLC < Dark Souls

Bloodborne post-DLC > Dark Souls

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1526d ago
Felix_Argyle_Catbro1527d ago

Better story yes, the level design is around the same quality, better content, yes, better atmosphere

_Decadent_Descent1527d ago

I wholeheartedly disagree. The story is about the same for either but the level/world design is better in Dark Souls and being that your build variety is much greater and deeper in DS, it's also the one with better content. That said, they're both masterpieces.

1527d ago Replies(4)
TheOptimist1527d ago

As a person who played Dark Souls wayyyy after Bloodborne, I have to say, I was literally awed at Dark Souls. Dark Souls is definitely the better game. Bloodborne is great in iyts own right.

goldwyncq1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

Dark Souls' level design is still the best in the series, though Bloodborne and Sekiro beat it in combat.

Vanfernal1527d ago ShowReplies(2)
1527d ago
PurpHerbison1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

DeS/DS1/BB are the shining stars. DS1 is probably a safe pick since way more people played it and it rocks but Bloodborne is absolutely no slouch and my personal pick for game of the DECADE. The story/lore is the best, hands down.

Do yourself a favor and check out the Bloodborne subreddit with the lore filter on. Dark Souls 1 cannot match the depth. Both great games though.

Spurg1526d ago

If you knew what you were talking about you'll know that Dark Souls has Bloodborne trumped in the story department. Dark souls has more depth than Bloodborne and that is a straight-up fact.

PurpHerbison1523d ago

Not really something I like to admit but I have spent thousands of hours in both Dark Souls 1(360,PS3,PC,PS4) and Bloodborne over the years. I know what I'm talking about.

SolidGamerX1526d ago ShowReplies(1)
LMosche1526d ago

Bloodborne is superior thanks to Sony's budget. Bandai Namco destroyed the potential of Dark Souls, on top of being limited by being multiplatform. Elder Ring has potential IF it's next gen, which I doubt knowing Japanese coders. So there's nothing worth looking at until Demon Souls Remake or Bloodborne 2.

Spurg1526d ago

"Bloodborne is superior thanks to Sony's budget."

Sony's budget...WOW.....so enlightening

SolidGamerX1526d ago Show
Edito1526d ago

What are you talking about?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1523d ago
ShinRon1527d ago

if not number one then top 5 at least... there are alot of great devs tho

Fluttershy771526d ago

It's also the studio that grew the most

1526d ago
carcarias1526d ago

Stop being so reasonable, factual and fair. How are people going to get angry at each other without hyperbolic article titles such as this one? :)

Unfortunately, although gaming sites like to act superior and look down on fano-boys, they do everything they can to make provocative articles to set people on each other to get clicks and comments.

on_line_forever1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

For me FromSoftware is the great studio of the last decade , Iam very excited right now for Elden Ring and the new Dark souls 4 , demon souls 2 , bloodborne 2 in the future and i wish square enix cooperat with them to make vagrant story remake

CaptainOmega1527d ago

Besides DarkSouls 2 FromSoft has been ontop of it.

LoveSpuds1527d ago

That narrative gets old for me, Dark Souls 2 may be the weakest Souls game, but its still a fantastic game in its own right and better than many of the games that came out in 2014.

carcarias1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

Yeah, I don't know why people keep banging on about DS2. They neglect the more well-rounded perspective that, like you said, it's a fantastic game in its own right, even if most people preferred the other two more. FromSoft didn't make a mess of it or anything even close.

It's like saying the guy in 3rd place at the World's Strongest Man is the 'weakest' on the winners podium. So? They're still mightily impressive and achieved a great deal to be admired.

william_cade1526d ago

Dark Souls 2 is a place holder and a janky mess. I wouldn't say it's fantastic by any stretch.

frostypants1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

Dark Souls 2 was fine. I don't really understand the hate it gets...I think people just rank it lower because Miyazaki wasn't very involved, but I actually liked it better than Dark Souls 3. DS3 was especially disappointing to me after playing Bloodborne...it seemed like Miyazaki's heart was more in it for Bloodborne. Parts of DS3 felt very uninspired and boring, like a rushed re-hash of DS1, and even visually it got left in the dust by Bloodborne, despite being newer.

CaptainOmega1527d ago

The connection of the world made illogical sense. (Going from a giant windmill (Upwards) to a lava castle. There being more enemies on screen as to have artificial difficulty. Enemies disappearing if you kill them enough. Enemies followed you across the map meaning you can’t just run past them if you want to skip them, you also have to worry about them following you forever. Unoriginal boss fights.. Combat that feels really stiff.. It’s the weakest ’Souls-like’ game from the company and it’s not just because 1 person wasn’t involved.

1527d ago
1526d ago
goldwyncq1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

Dark Souls 2 (the updated version at least) was damn amazing and criminally underrated. The DLCs in particular are some of the best levels FromSoftware has put out.

roadkillers1527d ago

What a stupid article that accomplishes nothing. The Souls franchise is amazing and I hear their new game is just as great. I’m happy for them and enjoy the success they have had by playing their new games.

N4G has so many “argue against this” type articles. Just give me the damn news, sorry but it is News 4 Gamers. Where the fuck is the news...

Atom6661527d ago

In the top right corner, there is a drop down menu that let's you choose just "News" articles instead of all Stories.

roadkillers1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

Thank you. You know Atom666, you are extremely helpful... that’s what I appreciates about you.

carcarias1526d ago

Thanks for the tip. I was just thinking how much I hate these 'let's pit gamers against each other' articles.

This article could be just as much of an interesting conversation starter with the title, 'FromSoft is one of the most important studios last decade.', but oh no, that would be too reasonable.

Fluttershy771526d ago

Yeah now that Atom666 show you how to do it, I think we won't see you anymore in the comments of articles and opinion pieces, right?

Show all comments (99)
60°

Embracer Group Re-organizing Into 3 Separate Companies

Hopefully this gets Embracer group back on track

Read Full Story >>
gamersocialclub.ca
TheColbertinator20h ago

Embracer really destroyed itself faster than I ever expected.

Hedstrom5h ago

Yea! But thats what happens when you have 2,2 billion dollar in debt and the interest rise from 0,5% to 5% in a year

50°

Former WipEout Devs at Starlight Games Announce Futuristic Sports Title, House of Golf 2 and More

A new studio based in Liverpool called Starlight Games is developing a futuristic sports title and is headed by the co-creator of WipEout.

300°

Starfield Highlights a Major Problem With the AAA Game Industry

Video games -- particularly AAA video games -- have become too expensive to make. The intel from every fly on the wall in every investor's room is there is an increasing level of caution about spending hundreds of millions just to release a single video game. And you can't blame them. Many AAA game budgets mean that you can print hundreds of millions in revenue, and not even turn a profit. If you are an investor, quite frankly, there are many easier ways to make a buck. AAA games have always been expensive to make though, but when did we go from expensive, to too expensive? A decade ago, AAA games were still expensive to make, but fears of "sustainability" didn't keep every CEO up at night. Consumer expectations and demands no doubt play a role in this, but more and more games are also revealing obvious signs of resource mismanagement, evident by development teams and budgets spiraling out of control with sometimes nothing substantial to show for it.

Read Full Story >>
comicbook.com
franwex3d ago

It’s a question that I’ve pondered myself too. How are these developers spending this much money? Also, like the article stated, I cannot tell where it’s even going. Perfect example was used with Starfield and Spiderman 2.

They claim they have to increase prices due to development costs exploding. Okay? Well, I’m finding myself spending less and less money on games than before due to the quality actually going down. With a few recent exceptions games are getting worse.

I thought these newer consoles and game engines are easier-therefore-cheaper to make games than previous ones. What has happened? Was it over hiring after the pandemic, like other tech companies?

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Costs quite a bit to maintain a team of 700+ employees. Which is what it takes to create something with state of the art fidelity and scope. Just imagine how many 3D artists you'd need to create the plethora of 3D objects in a AAA game. There's so much stuff and each asset takes time and effort.

That's atleast one of the things that didn't get easier. Also coding all the systems and creating all the character models with animations and everything. Animations alone is a huge thing because games are expected to be so detailed.

Back in the day a God of War type game was a 12 hour adventure with small levels, now it has to be this 40+ hours of stuff. Obviously it didn't have to be this way of AAA publishers hadn't convinced themselves that it's an arms race. Games probably didn't need to be this bloated and they probably didn't need to be cutting edge in fidelity.

franwex3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Starfield’s animation and character models look like they are from Oblivion, a game that came out about 20 years ago. I cannot tell the difference between Spider-Man 2 and the first one at first glance. It’s been a joke in some YouTube channels.

Seven hundred people for 1 game? Make 7 games with 100 people instead. I think recent games have proven that it’s okay to have AA games, such as Hell Divers 2.

I guess I’m a bit jaded with the industry and where things are headed. Solutions seem obvious and easy, but maybe they aren’t.

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@franwex
I'm not talking about Starfield.

And I'm not advocating for these behemoth productions. I think shorter development time and smaller teams would lead to better and more varied games. I want that, even if that means that we have to scale things down quite a bit.

Take something like The Last of Us 2. The amount of custom content is ridiculous if you break it down. It's no wonder they have huge teams of animators and modellers. And just to make things worse, each animated detail requires coding as well.

Just to add to animation work. It can take up to a week to make detailed walking animations. A lot of these tend to vary between character types. And then you need to do every other type of animation as well which is a task that scales quickly depending on how detailed the game is. And that's just a small aspect of AAA development. Each level might require several level designers who only do blockouts. Enviroment artists that setdress and lighting artists that work solely on lighting. Level needs scripting and testing. Each of these tasks takes a long ass time if the game is striving for realism.

Personally I prefer working on games where one level designer can do all aspects. But that's almost exclusively in indie and minor productions. It gets bloated fast.

Yui_Suzumiya2d ago

Then there's Doki Doki Literature Club which took one person to make along with a character designer and background designer and it's absolutely brilliant.

Cacabunga3d ago

Simply because they want you to believe it’s so expensive to develop a game that they must turn into other practices like releasing games unfinished, micro transactions and in the long run adopt the gaas model in all games..

thorstein3d ago

I think game budgets are falsely inflated for tax purposes.

Just look at Godzilla Minus One. It cost less that 15 million.

If they include CEO salary and bonuses on every game and the CEO takes a 20 million dollar bonus every year for the 4 years of dev time, that's 80 million the company can claim went to "making" the game.

esherwood2d ago

Yep and clogged with a bunch of corporate bs that has nothing to do with making good video games. Like diversity coordinators gender specialists. Like most jobs you have 20-30% of the workforce doing 80% of the work

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

I honestly think this is where a large portion of the budget goes, a significant portion to the CEO, then another large portion to the "Consultancy" group they hire. The rest can be explained by too much ambition in scope for their game, or being too inefficient with their resources available, then you have whatever is left for meaningful development.

rippermcrip2d ago

Who is upvoting this shit? They are counting a CEOs $20 million dollars 4 times for tax purposes? You have zero comprehension of how taxes work.

-Foxtrot2d ago

Spiderman 2 is so weird because the budget is insane yet I don't see it when playing

Yeah it's decent, refined gameplay, graphics and the like from the first game but it's very short, there's apparently a lot cut from it thanks to the insight from the Insomniac leak and the story was just not that good compared to the first so where the hell did all that money go to.

Even fixes to suits, bugs to wrinkle out and a New Game Plus mode took months to come out

Put it this way, the New Game Plus took as long to come out as the first games very first story DLC

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

I don't see it either, you have a good portion of the game already made if you reuse as much as you can for the first game, and based on the developer interviews, there was a lot of stuff they didn't implement. They also hired that one, currently infamous consultancy group, despite all this, I can't see how they spent more than twice as much money making the sequel.

Profchaos2d ago

There's so much more at play now compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

Yes tools have matured they are easier than ever to use we are no longer limited and more universal however gamers demand more.

Making a game like banjo Kazooie vs GTA vi and as amazing as banjo was in its day its quite dated an unacceptable for a game released today to look and run like that.

Games now have complex weather systems that take months to program by all accounts GTA vi will feature a hurricane system unlike anything we've ever seen building that takes so much work months and months.

In addition development teams are now huge and that's where a lot of the costs stem from the manpower requirement of modern games can be in the hundreds and given the length of time they spend making these games add up to so much more to produce.

Art is also a huge are where pixel art gave way to working with polygons and varying levels of detail based on camera location we are now in the realm of HD assets where any slight imperfections stand out like a sore thing vs the PS2 era where artwork could be murky and it was fine this takes time.

Tldr the scope of modern games has gone nuts gamers demand everything be phenomenal and crafting this takes a long time by far bigger studios.

We can still rely on indies to makes smaller scope reasonably priced games like RoboCop rouge city but AAA studios seem reluctant to re scope from masterpieces to just fun games

Mulando2d ago

In case of Spiderman license costs were also a big chunk. And then there is the marketing, that exploded over time and is mostly higher than actual development costs.

blacktiger2d ago

All lies and top industries owns by elite and lying to shareholders that these are the expensive and getting expensive.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
raWfodog3d ago

I believe that it is due to this unsustainable rise in production costs that more and more companies are looking to AI tools to help ‘lower’ costs.

northpaws2d ago

The use of AI is all about greed, even for companies that are sustainable, they would use AI because it saves them money.

Nooderus2d ago

Is saving money inherently greedy behavior?

northpaws1d 23h ago

@Nooderus

It is if they don't care about the employees who made them all those money in the first place. Replace them with AI just so the higher ups can get a bigger bonus.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

I don't believe we'll get better or more complete games, the savings will just get pocketed by the wrong people, I wish it wouldn't, but I don't have a lot of faith in these bigger companies.

KyRo3d ago

I genuinely believe it's mismanagement. Why are we seeing an influx of one person or games with a team no bigger than 10 create whole games with little to no budget? Unreal Engine 5 and I'm sure many other engines have plugins that have streamlined to many things you would have had to create and code back in the day.

For instance, before the cull, there were 3000 Devs working on COD alone. I'm a COD player but let's be real, there's been no innovation since 2019s MW. What exactly are those Devs doing? Even more so when so much of the new games are using recycled content

Sciurus_vulgaris3d ago

I also think higher up leads may simply demand more based on the IP they are working on. This could explain why COD costs so much to develop.

Tody_ZA3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I've stated this in many other articles, but corporate greed, mismanagement and bloat and failing to understand the target audience and misaligned sales expectations as a result are the big reasons for these failures.

You'll see it in the way devs and publishers speak, every sequel needs to be "three times the size" of its predecessor, with hundreds of employees and over-indulgence. Wasted resources on the illusion of scale and scope. Misguided notions that if your budget balloons to three times that of the previous game you'll make three times the sales.

Compare the natural progression of games like Assassin's Creed 1 to 2 or Batman Arkham Asylum to City or Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 or God of War remake to Ragnarok and countless others. How is it that From Software continues to release successful games? Why don't we hear these excuses from Larian? These were games made by developers with a vision, passion and desire to improve their game in meaningful ways.

Then look at Suicide Squad Kill the Franchise and how it bloats well beyond its expected completion date and alienates its audience and middle fingers its purchasing power by wrapping a single player game in GAAS. Look at Starfield compared to Skyrim. Why couldn't Starfield have 5-10 carefully developed worlds with well written stories and focus? Why did it need all this bloat and excess that adds nothing to the quality of the game? How can No Man's Sky succeed where Starfield fails? Look at Mass Effect Andromeda compared to Mass Effect 3. Years of development and millions in cost to produce that mediocre fodder.

The narrative they want you to believe is that game budgets of triple A games are unsustainable, but it's typical corporate rubbish where they create the problem and then charge you more and dilute the quality of their games in favour of monetisation to solve it.

Tody_ZA3d ago

Obviously didn't mean God of War "remake", meant 2018.

Chocoburger3d ago

Indeed, here's a good example, Assassin's Creed 1 had a budget of 10 million dollars. Very reasonable. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag had a budget of 100 million dollars, within the same console generation! Even though BF was released on more systems, its still such a massive leap in production costs.

So you ask why they're making their games so big, well the reason is actually because of micro-trash-actions. Even single player games are featured with in-game stores packed with cosmetics, equipment upgrades, resources upgrades, or whatever other rubbish. The reason why games are so bloated and long, artificially extending the length of the game is because they know that the longer a person plays a game (which they refer to as "player engagement"), the more likely they are to eventually head into the micro-trash-action store and purchase something.

That is their goal, so they force the developers to make massive game maps, pack it boring filler, and then intentionally slow down your progress through experience points, skill points, and high level enemies that are over powered until you waste hours of your life grinding away to finally progress.

A person on reddit made a decent post about AC: Origins encouraging people towards spending more money.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pc...

I've lost interest in these types of games, because the publisher has intentionally gone out of their way to make their game boring in order to try and make more money out of me. NOPE!

Tody_ZA2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@Chocoburger That's exactly right, nail hit on head. But this phenomenon doesn't just apply to the gaming industry. Hollywood is just as guilty of self destructive behaviour, if you look at the massive fall of Disney in both Star Wars and Marvel.

Even their success stories are questionable. Deadpool 1 had a tiny budget of $58 million but was a massive success with a box office of $780 million. The corporate greed machine then says "more!" and the budget grows to $110 million, but what does the box office do? It doesn't suddenly double, because the audience certainly didn't double for this kind of movie. The box office is more or less the same. Is Deadpool 2 twice as good as the first? Arguably not, its just as good, or maybe a bit better. It's production values are certainly higher. I wonder what the budget of Deadpool x Wolverine will be.

Joker had a budget of $50 to $70 million, and was the greatest R rated success in history, and now its sequel has a budget of $200 million!!! Do they think the box office is going to quadruple?? Are movies unsustainable now?

My argument is that obviously we want bigger and better, but that doesn't mean an insane escalation in costs beyond what the product is reasonably expected to sell. There needs to be reasonable progression. That's the problem. Marvel took years and a number of movies to craft the success of Avengers. Compare that to what DC did from Man of Steel...

Back to games, you are exactly correct. They drown development resources and costs into building these monetisation models into the game, but you can't just tack them onto the game, you have to design reasons for them to exist and motivations for players to use them, which means bloat and excess and time wasting mechanics and in-game currencies and padding and all sorts of crap instead of a focused single player experience.

anast3d ago

Greed from everyone involved including game reviewers, which are the greedy little goblins that help the lords screw over the gaming landscape.

Show all comments (56)