Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Also, not every metroidvania game needs to be a Soulslike, even if we were to admit Soul Reaver has a "very metroidvania fashion". In fact, people have been developing more and more "pure" metroidvanias, because there's definitely still a market for those, and a lot of people are getting really tired of every metroidvania having to be a Soulslike. In fact, when I read a description for a game being sold as a metroidvania, the first thing I look for is if it has "tough combat", or any variation of that term, because then I know instantly not to buy it, since it's yet another freaking Soulslike. It's like roguelikes/-lites: I actually loved those when they first became a thing, but eventually I grew tired of it, and now I avoid them like the plague; and even though I never liked or understood the appeal of Soulslikes, the same phenomenon is obviously taking place: it makes money, so let's make more of them, even if they're just mediocre imitations of the originals.
Regarding Blood Omen, well, the story is pretty much well-explained if you start with Soul Reaver. There's really no need to play through Blood Omen to understand anything. Still, if they were to reboot it, I see nothing wrong with it being a top down ARPG. I mean, it worked for Darksiders Genesis. It works for Grim Dawn. Not everything needs to be a Soulslike, my guy. Especially when they originally weren't.
We haven't had a proper action-adventure since Beyond Good & Evil, and even that game had way too many stealth sections to be considered a pure action-adventure title. Just let them remake/reboot games in the genre they were originally made, that's what made people love them in the first place.
Don´t speak for others if you don´t have the numbers to back it up, right now its *you* who don´t want it not "a bunch of others".
I wouldn´t mind a reboot, worked with the RE franchsie and Souls Like games are still selling.
Played the originals back in the day when they released (still own the PS1 and PS2 copies and boot them up a few times for Nosgoth Marathons) so a new experience with the distand promise to continue the story is something i would like to see.
Darksiders fans clearly didn't want a Souslike, now, did they? Considering how quickly people forgot about Darksiders III, and feared that would be the last entry in the franchise, after THQNordic pushed Gunfire Games to make it into a Soulslike. Souslikes are fine, not my cup of tea, but fine. I do notice people around me getting really tired of everything needing to be a Soulslike, even people who do love the original Souls games. Can I "back these numbers up"? Not really, but I do notice this in forums I go to, social media and real life friends I speak to about many things, including video games and culture. To be fair, as far as I'm concerned, the whole "Soulslike/git gud" fad has nothing to do with the games themselves, but it's more of a cultural phenomenon. Again, no numbers to back this up, sorry. Where's your data to backup the OP's claim that "everyone" wants a Soulslike reboot of the Legacy of Kain series, though? Two, three people in this forum? I can just as easily name two or three people, including myself, in this forum, who argued against it.
Just to be clear: I wouldn't mind a reboot, either. But your comparison to the Resident Evil series makes absolutely no sense, since they weren't remade as Soulslikes. They were reimagined as 3rd person survival horror games, pretty much like the originals, they basically just reworked the camera and the controls, all the while modernizing the graphics. If that's how they're going to potentially reboot the LoK games, that is, by doing modern action-adventure titles like the originals, I'm fine with it. I just don't think the Soulslike formula would work for the Legacy of Kain games. I don't particularly want a reboot, but I wouldn't be opposed to it, either. I did want a remaster and now I'm getting it, so... more power to you if you do eventually get a reboot, I already got what I wanted out of this.
RE switched from Survival Horror with Tank controls to a third person shooter with horror elements. If you think just a perspective change doesn´t change the genre go and argue with FPS players that 3rd person shooter are the same, they will mostly disagree with you.
By your comparison it would be more fitting if RE switched to a ismometric point of view like Diablo games, that would be more closer to the source.
And before you put words in my mouth again, i have nothing to proof for you as i have nothing claimed. I said i wouldn´t mind if this would be made, not that we need it or that there is a lot of demand of it.
I can see people liking it and how it would fit in the Soul Reaver franchise (we already have the "i come back" mechanics and the metrovania level desing).
And how about Resident Evil VII and Village? Are those just FPSes with horror elements? Because you have guns, as well, you get to shoot things. Or are they just survival horror, except with a different camera perspective? Is The Evil Within, a game Shinji Mikami specifically designed in order to be a "true" survival horror experience a 3rd person shooter with horror elements, just because of the camera angle and the fact you have guns? Is Sanitarium a CRPG, just because it was made in an isometric style, like the extremely popular Infinity Engine CRPGs of its time? No, it's a point&click adventure made with an isometric camera and faux-3D movement. While, yes, genres and subgenres are many times connected to a specific camera perspective, that's far from being the only deciding factor regarding a game's genre or subgenre. A few times it doesn't really mean... well, anything, genre-wise.
If you want to simplify it, sure. That's disingenuous, though, because we all know that's not what truly defines a Soulslike. It's the argument people who like those kinds of games have been using ever since there was a pushback to the whole "git gud" mentality, which is arguably the better known part of what makes a Soulslike. I can play ARPGs and metroidvanias that are NOT Soulslikes, why is that? Because they don't have grindy combat, with enemies telegraphing attacks, pulling Hail Mary moves, or our character being "strategically" limited by a stamina bar. So, yeah, "Soulslikes are just ARPGs with metroidvania mechanics", like Zelda, that great Soulslike. Again: there are lots of ARPGs with metroidvania mechanics and metroidvanias with ARPG mechanics, that doesn't make them a Soulslike, so what does? What do the Souls games have, other than this, that makes them unique? The "tough-as-nails" combat. That's all there is to it. And while I wouldn't mind a rework of the Soul Reaver trilogy's combat (in fact, I'd like it a lot, it's safe to assume the combat in those games sucked, other than maybe Defiance, which tried to have a more Devil May Cry approach to combo combat), I'd really hate it if that revamped combat was just yet another rehash of the "git gud" crap of the Soulslike games.
I already answered the question and i repeat it again for you: I don´t mind if they do.
And no, RE to isn´t a survial Horror anymore with the reboots. You have enough ammo and health to clear the stages, there is no managment aside from "how much space i have in my pockets" (and that alone doesn´t make it Survival, see MMOs and RPGs with limited inventory spaces/weight limits).
If you want to bring RE7 and Village in, fine. RE7 was closer to survival Horror and Village got back to the shooting gallery. But don´t Ignore RE4-6 where enemies drop health and ammo like candy. The franchise as a whole changed the genre since part 4.
Right now you look for straws unrleated to the question if Soul Reaver would be a good souls like or not and i am not engading with this. A change in a genre can be a good think like the RE series did (RE became more popular when they switched from isometric to third person with RE4, letting enemies drop loot and get rid of the mangement of ammo and items = deleting the survival aspekt).
But if you want to get more of the rails have fun with it, i am done talking to you as you clearly biased about your opinion alone and i have no time to waste for toxic people :)
Fine. I understand you not wanting to engage in this conversation anymore, so let me just say this: I agree with you that I would be perfectly fine -- heck, I'd be HAPPY -- with proper reboots/remakes of the LoK series. We agree on that one, I'm not trying to say a reboot of the series is bad or unwelcome. I just don't think a soulslike would be a good fit for the style of the reboots. Proper reboots are one thing, but keep them what they were: action-adventure games. Soul Reaver fans don't want to "git gud", we just want to enjoy a great story, connect with well-written characters and take in the awe-inspiring world building, we/I don't really want to engage any battle with a lowly Melchahim as if it was the hardest thing ever, having to consider whether we/I should attack or dodge or parry or whatever just to beat a single enemy. Make it a metroidvania, for all I care, those could be still considered action-adventure, to a degree, but stop turning everything into a freaking soulslike, is all I'm saying. Let FromSoftware keep riding their one-trick pony, but let other devs do other kinds of games, too.
As for Resident Evil, you were the one who brought it up, not me. For the record, I do acknowledge RE 4-6, and I do agree with you that they did become basically "action horror", instead of survival horror. Still, I got the GCN version of Resident Evil 4 back when it was first released, in 2005, and let me tell you that when I did my first playthrough of it, it felt like a survival horror title through and through. Now, yes, if you throw in New Game+ and all upgrades and unlockables, for sure, I'd call it action horror. Resident Evil 5-6, though, yes, action games from the get-go, even without considering New Game+. That's why they changed it back to survival horror, starting with Revelations, and moving on to RE7, Village and the reboots. Yes, you can eventually play Village as if it was action horror, sure, but from the get-go? Not really, no. As for the reboots, the only one I actually own and played was RE2, and it did feel like survival horror, to me. Maybe that's not the case with 3 and 4, I don't know.
That's it. Apologies if I was in any way toxic towards you and the OP, it wasn't my intention. This just gets me going, since it's a series I really, really, really care about, and I don't want to see it mistreated, like they did with Darksiders (another series I absolutely adore), by making the third entry into a soulslike.
If anything, I think Blood Omen is the only one that actually needs a remake of sorts, because I recall it's gameplay being annoying, mostly due combat and it's weird hitboxes.
The game is not even souls-like in the slightest.
Souls combat system is as clunky as Monster Hunter, press the attack button and wait forever until the animation is finished! It's almost as if the combat were turn based as you choose your move and wait.
You're saying these games are bad because they're old (when the Batman Arkham games are from the same console generation as the first Souls installments), and that their mechanics are dated or lack "weight and movement". That's not true. They're fast-paced, that's all there is to it, whereas the Souls games are slow. It's a design choice. Most people can definitely feel the weight and the movement when they're slicing monsters up as Dante in the very first DMC, or cracking skulls and breaking arms, legs and ribs as Batman in the Arkham games. Plus, unlike the Souls combat mechanics, which are pretty much the exact same as they were in Demon's Souls and the first Dark Souls, both Devil May Cry and even the Batman Arkham titles went through minor to major tweaks and overhauls to their combat. If you play Arkham Knight before playing Arkham Asylum, you're definitely going to notice a huge difference between how the game plays, something that's maybe not overly apparent to anyone who played the games in order, because we kept up with the slight tweaks to the gameplay in a more natural, organic way. The same could be said about Devil May Cry; though its basic mechanics remain largely the same (because they WORK, that's what DMC fans want from a DMC game), you can't really compare Devil May Cry 5 to the original title back on the PS2, when it comes to combat mechanics.
All of this just to say it's OK for people to enjoy the Souls games. I don't, a couple of other people don't, as well, but that's our personal choice. We shouldn't tell you to dislike those kinds of games, but you shouldn't crap on other game franchises just because you think the Souls games are in any way superior to them. Because they're not. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. To me, having such a boring, slow combat in a series like Legacy of Kain would make me just drop it and go do something else. I want to enjoy the story, the writing, the acting, I don't really want to engage every single minor mob as if it was a slow, strategic boss fight, paying attention to a freaking stamina bar. We're supposed to be playing as creatures who are as next to gods as they get, in that universe, the Souls combat doesn't seem to fit at all with that, imho. Sure, the combat in Soul Reaver 1&2 is overly simplistic, but it... just works. I want to see a more fluid movement control, because the original games (especially the first one) don't control particularly smoothly, but that's about it. Bring it up to speed with how a character would control in a contemporary game and I'm fine with it. They don't need to do anything with the combat mechanics, their simplicity is part of what made the games what they are.