440°
7.0

GameReactor - Bloodborne Review

Gamereactor's editor in chief has the world's worst patience. Despite this, he reviewed the world's most patience demanding games of all time

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
XB1_PS43951d ago

Someone always has to go against the grain. When there's so much positivity around a game, and a review like this comes around. I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores.

Gazondaily3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

The worst thing is, the one or two lower reviews drop the whole average down on metacritic. Silly to take metacritic seriously like that I know, but it kinda sucks for the devs.

You're bound to get hit-seeking ones or dissenting opinions. However, if a site or reviewer is going to score it very low or very high, as long as they strongly justify their scores that's fine.

In my opinion, the more divergent your review is against the grain of other reviews, the greater the duty to prove the contents of your review. Controversial view I know but I think more accountability and transparency can't be a bad thing.

XB1_PS43951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Which they definitely do not do.

By their pros and cons, I would put the score at at least an 8.5-9.

Positives
Sleek design, lots of exciting weapon of choice, content rich gaming systems, rewarding boss fights, cool weapons

Negatives
Stilted animations, a little too long load times, at times choppy graphics

donthate3951d ago

To be fair, reviews are subjective and there will always be some that don't like the game due to different culture, preferences or whatever.

Why does that even matter?

I think it is important to get a few critical reviews due to overhyping and underhyping games.

I'm looking forward to get some time with this game personally, but From Software has dissappointed me many a times.

@Septic:

How about you read the review and see if what they are saying makes sense? I guess the reviewer could post a picture of owning the game and that they played it?

I don't trust smaller sites, but gamereactor is pretty big.

breakpad3951d ago Show
Gazondaily3951d ago

@donthate

"How about you read the review and see if what they are saying makes sense?"

Mate I didn't even critique the substance of this review. I was replying to XB1 and was talking about how review scores work on aggregate site and offering my opinion on what good practice is in the case of dissenting views.

oasdada3951d ago

i wudve agreed with the review IF gfx had so much influence these days let alone in a souls game... cuz if gfx and animation mattered this much the Order shudve gotten atleast a 7 over all score basing solely on gfx alone.. and imo an opinion is subjective when its not tied with a prominent score.. a critic should observe things beyond their personal bias or taste.. and should judge solely on the content presented within that genre or category.. its like giving samosa a 5 only cuz u dnt like indian food..

Hedstrom3951d ago

Gamereactor have stopped their cooperation with metacritic and there reviews wont be added there. They dont think metacritic is a healthy system for gamers, developers or publisher.

kurruptor3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Your first comment doesn't make sense. What do you expect them to just ignore the low scores?

Should they ignore the high scores? 5 sites gave the game a perfect score. Is any game really perfect?

And to be clear, just reading this review... I don't see why they gave it a 7. But, my point still stands.

If they want to ban a site's reviews because they have a history of being bad... so be it. But, you can't pick and choose which reviews to ignore.

Gazondaily3951d ago

@kurroptor

Someone on GAF suggested taking the first couple of high scoring reviews and the few bottom scoring ones out of the equation or attributing less value to them when calculating the overall score. I don't really know how that works.

I'm not asking any site to be banned mate. Well apart from Quarter to Three. They are cack.

StarLord_Who3951d ago

THIS is the highest heated review? Of course it is because it's a bad one.

Why do people always favour the bad news? Gametrailers gave it a 96/100, that's incredibly high so everyone shoud be talking about that.

mikeslemonade3951d ago

Just using logic, how is this game a 7 in their view? Compare it to games that are 7, 8, and 9 on their reviews.

Sure you may give it a 7 if you rarely give out 8s, but it's not doing this game justice if you think their are many games better than Bloodborne.

This score is invalid and should not count!

vickers5003951d ago

"THIS is the highest heated review? Of course it is because it's a bad one."

7 out of 10 is NOT a bad score you pathetic CRYBABY WHINERS.

"Someone always has to go against the grain."

Just because someone gives a game a score a LITTLE bit outside of the average doesn't mean the reviewer just wants attention and wants to "go against the grain".

People complain about reviews being too generous and high and devs giving out high review scores like candy, yet when the game they personally like and are looking forward to gets a score less than a 8 or a 9, they flip out and call the reviewer biased or crappy.

What, so it should be necessary for reviewers to be "truthful and critical" of games you have no interest in or think look stupid, but if it's something you're super interested in and already like (many times, before having even played it) then a review less than 8/9 is unfair and the reviewer sucks? Hypocrites, YOU are the reason reviews are the way they are, you deserve crappy reviews. Unfreaking believable.

madmonkey013951d ago

as a reviewer your self septic, do you know if the metacritic scores are simply a mean of all the reviews they collate, or do they remove outliers for example if a game is getting 8s and 9s across the board and one site comes a long and gives it a two, is this then included in the score or is it ignored as an outlier in the data set?

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3951d ago
Ron_Danger3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Not to be that guy... But you wrote this "I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores." and you were the one who submitted the review.

There's a lot of reading between the lines that can be made from that...

@xb1_ps4

It's because you're being hypocritical. You're saying you don't pay attention to them because of their review but then you post the review for all to see.

It's like you just told a group of people that a certain restaurant is bad but they should still totally eat there.

And if you honestly posted it to show other people how bad the review itself was, then you're the first user in the history of n4g to do that.

XB1_PS43951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Is there?

What does posting their review do?

It shows other people how bad they are at reviewing.

You're painting your own picture on how you want to view me. It's all in your head bud.

EDIT: @Ron
If I didn't post it someone else would've. If I wouldn't have posted it, and just saw it. I would've made the exact same comment I did above.

I'm surprised that you all are making this about me, instead of the article. It makes no sense.

Bobby Kotex3951d ago Show
Ron_Danger3951d ago

@xb1

Relax. I agreed with your comment. I'm just pointing out the flawed logic. You said you are ignoring them but then you posted it. If you honestly were ignoring them, you would've. And if someone else posted it, you would've seen the website and ignored that article link here.

And (by the looks of the comments under my original post) I'm not the only one who noticed this.

carlingtat3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

"I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores."

Says the guy who submitted and then commented on the review. Seems like you're paying plenty of attention to them.

Palitera3951d ago

And boosting the temperature meter.

Metacritic is still very high.

MasterCornholio3951d ago

"I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores"

Yet you did pay attention and submitted the review.

:I

spacedelete3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

if you can't handle an opinion gtfo of the internet.

ABeastNamedTariq3951d ago

You seem upset. Everything is going to be okay. Shhh

GribbleGrunger3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Whilst this is out of kilter with the general consensus of opinion, a 7/10 is a very good score. I would only suspect 'foul play' if they'd given it something ridiculous like 5/10, but I'm fine with this.

One thing I will say though is, as Sony gamers, we really need to stop feeding heat to reviews that are 'controversial'. Once AGAIN, we have a game that's reviewed incredibly well but the only review that has actually reached the top of the page is one of the lower scoring reviews.

Our anger at low scores is actually promoting those lower scores and skewing the perception of a game for anyone just viewing N4Gs and not participating.

Stapleface3951d ago

It's a 7. Your reacting like that's a bad score. It's impossible for everyone to have the same opinion about a game. Even if they were not the biggest fan of the game, they still have it a 7. That says nothing but good things to me. All these reviews and the lowest is a 7. Can't wait to get my copy in.

UltraNova3951d ago

"It's impossible for everyone to have the same opinion about a game"

Hate to break it to you but you should look up The Last Of us...

Anyhow, a 7 is, generally speaking, not a bad score..but it sticks out like a sore thumb when 99% of people score the game a 9 and above, don't you think?

Stapleface3951d ago

@ultra...might want to check my comment history. I was one of the few that didn't see that game as anything special. Want to try again?

UltraNova3951d ago

I won't go through your comments I only have a few mins to go online before going back to Bloodborne which is totally mind bendingly addicting and enjoyable.

Oh btw when 1 person out of a 100 (a rough example but an appropriate one at that)doesn't like something when all 99 others agree its great we call that 'a statistically insignificant exception'. You belong in that category.

But you can pat yourself on the back if you like ;-)

Cuzzo633951d ago

So everybody has to have the same view on one game. If they don't. They are being negative? I go through life Where people don't like me. But most do. Does that mean I'm a bad person or something... Too much fannie politics on this site. Too much bigotry... Debates here are not even debatable when one side always has to be the right and the other my so much

joab7773951d ago

I didn't click on the article but again, guess whose article got hot? The first guy to give a shocking review. I wanna read ot too, just to see if any of it is legit, but I know I'll be disappointed.

garrettbobbyferguson3951d ago

IT'S A 7/10!!!!

Maybe if it was a 5/10 or lower you could argue that they're going against the gran, but it's still a good score. What the hell is wrong with you people!?

DonMingos3951d ago

This is not gamereactor, it's gamereactor sweden. Gamereactor gave it a 9/10

nitus103951d ago

The reviewer talks about 400,000 deaths on a frequent basis which to me is kind of silly. Sure in games by From Software you do die allot but after a while you learn or just give up. As an example a player with a reasonable amount of skill will most likely die 40 to 300 times over the course of the game although PvP can usually increase the death-rate although not really that much.

To me the reviewer appear to go out of his way to nit-pick at things most people would not consider an issue. He did mention long loading times of up to 40 seconds on death which to many in the "twitch group" and those with short attention spans would find this annoying, conveniently forgetting that in FPS death-matches respawns can take quite a few seconds as well.

TrollsBringer3951d ago

Or maybe this "average" review is being honest and not following the hype like the rest?

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3951d ago
nucky643951d ago

to say you give a 7 because of the difficulty and that the game "is not for everyone" seems ridiculous. it's impossible to make a game that "everyone" will enjoy.

i don't agree with gamereactor reviewers standards.

Gamer19823951d ago

To be fair that reasoning there is the exact reason I wont buy the game. I mean why do we review? To give people the facts about a game and tell them if they will enjoy it. I don't buy the demons games because of the difficulty. I destroyed enough controllers in my time. It wasn't so bad back in ps1/ps2 days when they were £25 each now they £50 each it's not worth it lol. It's not that I don't like difficult games it's just sometimes I get gamer rage haha.

Elda3951d ago

I totally agree with you,that's why I avoided all the Soul games but I decided I'm going to take the plunge & go for it.I love the creepiness & I love hack & slash games.I'm going to really take my time with this game knowing I'm playing other games as well.I'm going to just level up for hours on end before a boss fight I probably won't finish this game till the fall...lol.

TimeSkipLuffy3951d ago

The difficulty does not say anything about the quality of the game. Even if the game is hard and it is not the kind of game the reviewer usually is capable of playing, just review the things you can and get a second opinion from someone who actually like such games.

3951d ago
uptownsoul3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

@Gamer1982 & @elda

I completely DISAGREE…Reviews should mention the difficulty & that the game isn't for everybody in the sidebar (or footnote). You DO NOT dock a game review points just because that particular game doesn't appeal to certain gamers

Example: Because I'm horrible at (or don't like) racing games should every review site go back and dock DriveClub & Forza review points for the people like me? No…At most, they put that info in a sidebar or footnote but go ahead with the review for all the other gamers

OB1Biker3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

that exactly what a review should say and take into account that everyone is different and has different taste..
nevertheless the review should focus on the quality of the game as what it intends to offer and as the genre it belongs to and assess how well it does in that particular genre

TKCMuzzer3951d ago

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your comment. Reviews are not to tell you whether you would like a game, their supposed to give an accurate account of the game and not be swayed by what others may and may not like. That is supposed to be made by the gamer, games are made to be played and the judgment made by the gamer, that's why devs make games. You may not like the soles games but might love bloodborne but by your reasoning you will never know.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3951d ago
360ICE3951d ago

Where did he say that?

The minuses were:
- Stilted animation
- Long loading times
- Aliasing (or so I interpreted it)

The other reviewer they had gave it a 9, though. From what I gather, Gamereactor are generally very strict. You'll often find them around the bottom on Metacritic.

claudionmc3951d ago

so they gave a game of 40 hours minimum, with single player and multiplayer action, bosses, long history plus challenging gameplay, a 30% of lower score due to aliasing and loading times?... pretty bad variables management tbh

360ICE3951d ago

@claudiomnc
Hehe, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way – with them subtracting each minus from a base score of a perfect 10.

Those sort of sum up their quarrels. There are other things too, not that I read perfect Swedish.

Fireseed3951d ago

"it's impossible to make a game that "everyone" will enjoy"

And yet isn't them not enjoying and reviewing it poorer than others the thing that's annoying you? Seems a little hypocritical.

nucky643951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

nooooooooo...... it's the reviewer knocking his score down because this game isn't for everyone or only for seasoned gamers (or however else he puts it) - if the game is only for vetern souls players and not newbies, it shouldn't matter in his final score - his final score should reflect how WELL the game is made. and when you factor in how many other sites are giving it glowing reviews, then this site and stevior (another 7 score) come across as crybabies trying to get hits on their sites - maybe these guys should just review Mario games.

and that isn't hypocritical at all - it's just some people don't do a very good job at reviewing games.

joab7773951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

He doesn't care if anyone agrees. He got his clicks, so he got exactly what he wanted

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3951d ago
Mr_GoolyPunch3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Pure clickbait - they know the 7 will get people clicking, but not low enough for them to look like an utter silly billy.

Gamer19823951d ago

There a magazine publication so hits probably won't be a big thing tbh. Though don't know if that website has a magazine I know the UK site does (who havn't released there review yet).

360ICE3951d ago

Yeah, or it's just the reviewer's opinion. Someone is bound to not like it as much as everyone else. Gamereactor Norway, for instance, went in the opposite direction and gave The Order 9/10.

Spotie3951d ago (Edited 3950d ago )

Opinion is NOT an excuse. I wish people would stop using that.

A review is not about the reviewer's personal opinion, because the review isn't for the reviewer's sake, but for others. And others don't have THEIR opinion. Readers don't want to know if YOU like a game; they want to know if THEY will like it.

Somehow, both reviewers and gamers have forgotten this.

Edit: No. Just... no.

It doesn't have to be purely objective. That, as you say, would be nothing more than an analysis. But it SHOULD remove the reviewer's personal tastes from the equation. Again, the review isn't for the reviewer's sake, so why in the hell would it be written like it?

Let's say I'm not a fan of Mario Kart. It would be stupid for me to slam the game for BEING Mario Kart. What sense would it make for me to down it for being bright and colorful, easily accessible, having kart physics? Those are intentional design elements of the game; if they're done well, they should be scored accordingly.

But you have people who don't do that. Indeed, far too many reviews grade a game on what a person wanted it to be, rather than what it is. More to the point, you have people who will use one set of criteria for a certain game or franchise, and then use none of those- or explain away issues- for other franchises with similar formulas. A game that never makes an attempt to revolutionize its genre shouldn't be penalized for that, especially if other games aren't being treated that way; such judgments are often made based on personal preferences.

But there's a marked difference between personal and professional opinion. When you read the best or most popular reviewers of any other medium, they're able to separate their personal views from their professional ones: they address the movie or album or book from the standpoint of its target audience, place it among its peers in the genre, and evaluate how coherent it is as an overall standalone product.

None of that goes on in gaming anymore, though maybe it was never that widespread to begin with. In either case, it's a problem with gaming reviews that needs to be addressed, but won't be.

"Cuz it's just one person's opinion."

360ICE3951d ago

@Spotie

Hahaha! Somehow both reviewers and gamers have forgotten that reviews are not opinions? Reviewers always were opinions. I hate to break it to you, but look up the definition.

There's no objective measure of what makes Bloodborne good or not. It's perfectly possible to account for what you think others might think, but when someone says things like "not a game for everybody" people tend to get upset, so why bother.

An objective assessment of a game would be an analysis.

Mr_GoolyPunch3950d ago

Giving an review which differs from the general vein of what other titles saw as merits or problems with a game definitely gains more clicks, it's as simple as that. Perhaps this was their real opinion, maybe I'm just being pessimistic? They're businesses and businesses need to succeed. Same reasons other sites bump up their scores for games so that the advertising agencies who work for the games companies pay for more advertising on their site.

mafiahajeri3951d ago (Edited 3951d ago )

Das is bad review. Der click bait! Har har har

MilkMan3951d ago

I'm gonna leave my comment and im ready for my bubbles to burst.

When a game is highly loved, hyped, liked, celebrated, cos-played, painted or otherwise tattooed on your privates. I click on the reviewers that give it the worst reviews, because I want to know what is wrong with the game (or product)
Or perceived to be wrong in any case.

To me the Soul games are just that games, not a way of life. If they never existed I wouldn't care, for that matter. No game or system or movie would make or change my perspective in life.

So if something like exceedingly long load times is a factor that diminishes fun, BECAUSE you die often, in a game that embellishes your deaths. This is a problem. You want to get back into the action as soon as possible. Not look at a load screen.

I cant say whether this is indeed a fact, cause although I bought it, and its loaded on my PS4. I have to wait to play. I have to work and sleep is more important than being first out the gate with "How to beat the first boss with my bare first videos" LOL

So, I would argue that in a sea of love, you look for the ones that giving constructive criticism.

XB1_PS43951d ago

I would agree if they made valid points to mark their score that low. They don't though.

Neixus3951d ago Show
carlingtat3951d ago

"When a game is highly loved, hyped, liked, celebrated, cos-played, painted or otherwise tattooed on your privates. I click on the reviewers that give it the worst reviews, because I want to know what is wrong with the game (or product)Or perceived to be wrong in any case."

I agree and actually do this. For a game getting 9s and 10s I look at the reviews for 7s and 8s. And games that get 6s and 7s I look at the ones getting 9s and 10s(if they do). Seems like the best way to get the best views of the game.

Aloy-Boyfriend3951d ago

I've counted between 20 to 30 secs of lead time. It's not as big deal as it seems. What will happened when the next patch addresses it? Seems just like something to bitch about because the loads times have slightly improved since the day 1 patch, and I know because I always counted load times when watching Twitch streams, and now the loads take less time

MilkMan3951d ago

This is actually good news. By the time I get to play this might not even be an issue.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3951d ago
Show all comments (102)
80°

Sony Remade Demon’s Souls, So Why Won’t It Touch Bloodborne?

The Outerhaven writes: Bloodborne is still one of PlayStation’s most beloved exclusives, but it remains trapped on PS4. Meanwhile Demon’s Souls got a full PS5 remake. But why?

Read Full Story >>
theouterhaven.net
thorstein17h ago

Demon's Souls was a PS3 game.

Bloodborne is PS4 and can be played on a PS5.

There's no need for a remaster.

Relientk7714h ago

I completely agree with you on this. If you want remasters or remakes give us games from the PS1 or PS2 era like Legend of Dragoon.

Eonjay8h ago

I would say thats a personal oponion trying to be passed off as a law. Truth is thre are many people who would love a remaster.upgrade so they can play Bloodborne at 60 FPS. People would literally love that.

shadowhaxor10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

I mentioned that in my article, did you read it? I literally pointed out this is exactly why the game is still doing well, and why Sony has zero reason to remake/remaster it.

And there are plenty of PS4 to PS5 remaster/remakes, to counterpoint that.

Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered
GTA V Expanded & Enhanced
Ghost of Tsushima Director’s Cut
Control: Ultimate Edition
Death Stranding Director’s Cut
Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade
Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection
The Last of Us Part II Remastered

Eonjay8h ago

Either because they technically can't because From Soft wont allow them too, or because From Soft is sorking on the sequal, remaster themselves. Therre is a third option of course and that would be that they are working on it

MinnesotaFatts6h ago

Some part of me wonders if there's some sort of corporate war going on at Sony.

Daver9h ago

I want a new one not a remaster

victorMaje8h ago

TLoU got the remaster & then the remake treatment.
Where is the next bloodborne, or remaster, or remake?

Goodguy017h ago

What it needs is a ps5+pc release. The game absolutely needs a 4k60 update. Lots of money sony is sleeping on while the souls genre is still hot.

MinnesotaFatts6h ago

Tell me you don't know what a remaster is without telling me.

Bloodborne is infamously capped at 30fps on either system--a bizarre design choice given that speed and reaction time is central to the gameplay systems. This capped performance was never patched out officially, unless you jailbreak and mod your console. A remaster for modern hardware, not the infamously finicky PS4 devkits, would be a great way to both hyper-optimize the game *and* drive sales for the PS5, which still doesn't have a system seller title.

spoonard1h ago

I don't want a remaster, I want a ground-up remake, like Demon's Souls. 60+FPS, higher res textures, and higher poly models. Why wouldn't anyone want those things for Bloodborne???

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
RaiderNation11h ago

There might be some licensing red tape they cant get around?

shadowhaxor10h ago

That'd be interesting, but Sony owns the IP 100%. So, I can't see how that is part of the issue, if there is even one.

RaiderNation7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

Maybe Sony isnt interested in doing it without the assistance of Miyazaki and he's not interested? (Just spit-balling).

BeHunted1h ago

Sony doesn't own the studio that created the game

MinnesotaFatts6h ago

That's the issue according to FROMSOFT. They'd *love* to do a remaster, but Sony won't even return their calls.

Inverno10h ago

Because they're saving that for the PS6 to lure in all the suckers that will think they're making a sequel, but the whole gen will pass by and From won't ever touch it because Song doesn't care for either Demon or Blood outside of remakes.

Furesis8h ago

Because they made them do something else, then they canceled it and who knows what they are doing these days. They dont understand what they have and honestly i dont think they know what they are doing either.

blacktiger7h ago

How bout forget remade and start making new game pls?

Show all comments (28)
180°

Bloodborne Reaches 4K and 60 FPS on PC Through Emulation, Compared Against PS5 BC Mode

ShadPS4 version 12.0.6 brings major performance gains to Bloodborne emulation on PC, enabling 4K and 60 FPS gameplay while surpassing the PS5's backward compatibility limits.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
InUrFoxHole49d ago

Id take 10yrs later over 10yrs + later and being charged again for it.

PrinceOfAnger49d ago

Oh.. when did PS5 get Horizon 5 ?

How many years ? 5 years !
but they got no problem here right ?

Halo CE is 2001 game

What about if PS5 get Sunset over drive
How many years ?

Dexterio49d ago (Edited 49d ago )

And PC gamers wallets always lose :) Gotta upgrade that graphics card constantly because you want to experience all those hyper realistic graphics with solid frame rate LMAO!🤣

Gridknac49d ago

LOL, you upgrade your console every 5-7 yrs. When you do get that shiny new console it has 3yr old pc tech in it. Not to mention 1/2 of your purchased games may or may not work and oftem show very little improvement. If you were to get this type of a remaster from sony, it would cost you another $70. PC can run pretty much any game ever made and will give you the option to remaster it as little or as much as you like for FREE. PC sets the bar and your console attempts the bar 3yrs later.

DustMan49d ago

LOL. I updated my 1080ti to a 3080 for $300 in a part swap. that was in late 2020. I'm still crushing games at higher frame rates lol. Bought the PC in late 2017 with an i7-8700 cpu. Still. Going. Strong. Maybe upgrade next year or around the decade mark.

In the meantime I'll play every game imaginable via emulation, and new releases as they come.

50d ago Replies(1)
Good-Smurf50d ago

The only reason Sony won't budge with this is that they probably want it to be more than remaster which is how ShadPS4 is doing to Bloodborne right now provided that you have strong enough hardware.

Arslan10049d ago

This article shows how Bloodborne can now run at 4 K and 60 FPS on PC via emulation — a big leap compared with the PS5 backward-compatibility version. and for translation help try: https://www.translationserv...

andy8549d ago

I really dont know why theyre holding on to this so much when its been asked for so much. Unless there'd a plan of a demons souls style remake

Miraak82 49d ago

Probably because their expectations of how much a game should sell is too high now a days, it only hit above 9 mil in sales in the coarse of 10 years. When they have franchises that sell x2 or x3 that number in half the time it's probably hard for them to justify the cost since they've gone the coarse of appealing to the widest audiences ... and Bloodborne isn't exactly that type of game . Even looking at trophies only a small percentage beat it let alone got half way through it sadly .

andy8549d ago

That's because of difficulty and not really much cost in remastering games. Look at what the PC community do for free. Its guaranteed profit for Sony.

Miraak82 49d ago

It's also a Fromsoft game and uses it's own propriety engine so unless they go to FS themselves or remake it like Demons Souls remake it's probably not worth the hassle from them .

Show all comments (25)
40°

Interview: Yuka Kitamura, legendary composer of Elden Ring, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3 and Sekiro

For more than a decade, Yuka Kitamura’s compositions have thrilled gamers around the world. From Dark Souls III to Bloodborne, Sekiro and Elden Ring, her music has left its mark on the history of video games, transforming every battle into a memorable experience and every moment of silence into a dramatic pause.

Read Full Story >>
playstationinside.fr