Some people believe that tho.
Koji Igarashi Kickstarts Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night (2.5D, backdash, 2018)
- Thread starter PranooY
- Start date
Some people believe that tho.
charlequin
Banned
Broken Age delivered on their campaign promises -- people got the P&C adventure game (DRM-free on PC and released on a number of other platforms), the documentary, the physical rewards, and the private backer community. If you're trying to actually judge the outcome of the project instead of concern troll, the quality of the product is the thing you've actually got available to complain about.
Actually, yes, that's about right in this case.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Well it's also because the PS360 have a combined install base of nearly 200 million consoles, compared to about 35 million of PS4/Bone. Cross-gens will continue for awhile longer, probably at least into 2016, simply because you don't just ignore 200 million consoles from last gen while the current gen install base is still ramping up.
Alex_Mexico
Member
You and me both, buddy.
If you look close you can see the top of the text for the $3 mil goal, and it appears to be the Wii U logo.
charlequin
Banned
To get people who will play it if it's on Wii U to give them money? I mean, seems pretty clear to me.
Which is a good lead-in to another point: we don't need to fight it out on whether or not the Wii U is a failure here. Talk about how a Wii U port might work, features it might have, or even just being in favor or against it? Fine. Off-topic arguments about how much Nintendo makes on each system sold blah blah blah? Take it elsewhere.
A Wii U stretch goal just means more overall money for development which means the game becomes better on everyone's systems. I trust IGA and crew know how much additional money they need to get this game out on a third system and do all versions justice.
Plus lets not act surprised, this was teased in the FAQ from Day 1.
Unless someone can prove that (they can't) then its just people talking out of their butt. That's why so much additional money is being asked for before a Wii U port was considered - so that an issue of the sort could be avoided!
Plus lets not act surprised, this was teased in the FAQ from Day 1.
Unless someone can prove that (they can't) then its just people talking out of their butt. That's why so much additional money is being asked for before a Wii U port was considered - so that an issue of the sort could be avoided!
Was it actually cut? The impression IGA put me under in an interview is that they added the content for the Saturn version and that he had nothing to do with it and was unhappy with it.
yeah, its two of the concept art images on the kickstarter page. I know its still very early, but there's something about that not-quite vanillaware (who I love) style which does not really hit the mark for me.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Whaaaaat
It's the best one
DaSorcerer7
Member
Happy for a Wii u version, just relegate the castle map and inventory to the gamepad screen and I'm good 
They said she wasn't able to work on the project due to other obligations. I can't imagine any level of funding would change that, unfortunately.
In all fairness I'm happy with the art we're getting, despite preferring Kojima's.
Well yes at a basic level I understand that, but presumably the same people who care about a WiiU version would be buying the next Nintendo device where this game would probably find a better home, than on a console that will be replaced in the same timeframe as this game's release. Not sure committing to a version that will undoubtedly take more work, is worth a few extra WiiU only owners pledging. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I've never been fond of the buttrock version of bloody tears. It's ok, but I like several other versions of the track better.
Didn't they mention it before hand that they didn't have the needed funds to give a full experience for buth versions? But what if they did now?
Yeah, I don't get it either. Its as if people really don't want it to appear on Nintendo's console or something... Wouldn't having WiiU's audience also be a great fit considering those who grew up with Classicvanias too?
ShockingAlberto
Member
I genuinely can not imagine this game being so crazy looking that the Wii U would bottleneck it
The "We can't create a different version" thing probably has far more to do with Wii U not supporting Unreal engine than the game being a 2D version of The Order.
The "We can't create a different version" thing probably has far more to do with Wii U not supporting Unreal engine than the game being a 2D version of The Order.
It's a new and successful platform. Not really sure why you're incapable of understanding why people would want it on it.
Wii U! There you are! Hopefully, the next 9 social achievements are reached soon enough.
I suppose it'll use Unreal Engine 3 instead of 4.
P.S. NX should the next handheld, given the timing (or better, the next handheld...form factor, linked to the brand new concept of having consoles like brothers), and it's probably 2016 too (or Q1 2017 as latest): there's a good chanche release and announcement are in the same year, considering how Nintendo probably doesn't want to repeat the errors from 3DS and (especially) Wii U's announcement-to-release periods.
I suppose it'll use Unreal Engine 3 instead of 4.
P.S. NX should the next handheld, given the timing (or better, the next handheld...form factor, linked to the brand new concept of having consoles like brothers), and it's probably 2016 too (or Q1 2017 as latest): there's a good chanche release and announcement are in the same year, considering how Nintendo probably doesn't want to repeat the errors from 3DS and (especially) Wii U's announcement-to-release periods.
I think the majority have them.
But yeah, Virt AND Yamane? Soundtrack of eternal harmony.
clay_ghost
Member
A 3DS port will definitely be nice ;D
Seriously I believe a 360 and ps3 port is more likely than a Vita and 3DS port.
Why would anyone give them money now to someday maybe have the privilege to play the game on a platform that nobody owns because it doesn't exist yet?
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
A Wii U port would be a waste of time and money for everybody involved. Nintendo has to have a new console releasing by 2017, it is ludicrous to think that it would not be the case. On top of that, even if it's a 2D game, the downport to Wii U will not perform or look the same as the PC/PS4/X1 versions. Making it the worst version of the game by default. A better way to get Nintendo fans on board would be for IGA to promise a port for the first Nintendo platform that supports UE4, be it a console, handheld of whatever.
People are questioning the viability of bringing it to the console because it's sales have been low and no one knows exactly what Nintendo's upcoming plan is.
It doesn't seem like that's irrational hatred, it looks like he's questioning if it's going to still be supported. Like it or not the WiiU hasn't done very well so far and now that the big titles Nintendo had lined up are mostly out the numbers haven't changed that despite the quality of those titles.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
No way in hell with the NX be out in 2016. It's not even going to be revealed until E3 2016 at the earliest. It'll be out late 2017 or later. Assuming Bloodstained keeps its March 2017 date, it'll still be out at least 8 months before the NX, and the NX will be backwards compatible anyway (and odds are it'll be extremely easy to port the Wii U version to NX, with X1/PS4 fidelity, so pretty much two platforms for the price of one).
But yeah, people really need to stop thinking NX is coming soon. The only reason we even know the project name at this point is so Nintendo would have something to calm down the "NINTENDO IS ABANDONING CONSOLES" crowd just after the mobile development announcement. Nintendo consoles typically come a year-and-a-half after they're revealed, and the NX is still a minimum of a year away from even that point. As for the people saying Nintendo will buck the trend this time around due to the Wii U's lack of success, they're profitable again so there's no real need to prematurely push another console to market. They can and should wait to get all their ducks in a row rather than scrambling to replace the Wii U.
If the option is not play the game at all or play a slightly worse version (nobody here can even venture to guess how the versions may be different between consoles - it might be negligible overall) I feel most people would choose the later. Also:
&
Add to the fact that making development promises about a system you don't know ANYTHING about is dangerous and well I feel the choice is clear. Remember, products weaker than the WiiU (mobile) can use Unreal 4. It's doesn't strike me as an issue of the WiiU is "too weak" but rather Epic didn't feel worth their time to write the code so it could work on WiiU (low install base). There is no reason to assume a cripple game.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
From an end-user standpoint the big difference between the PC/PS4/X1 version and the Wii U version will be a lower resolution (probably 720p) and probably less AA. MAYBE slightly lower texture resolutions, but that'll probably be less noticeable with the lower output resolution. It'll still be perfectly acceptable.
Well, Mighty Nr 9 graphic is really bad compared to that from the kickstarter. My opinion is that developing it for so many platform dont help
I dont see the issue with it and Im cool with there being a Wii U version. The thing is that there will be people (as seen earlier) complaining that the quality of the game visuals might be affected by having to make versions for the lower spec system.
The game being 2.5D it simply makes things easier to port and optimize since there are multiple tricks that can be used to keep a good performance without affecting visuals much or nothing at all.
The only real concerns I have are that the game is on an engine that isn't supported, the fact the consoles sales are low and might not be worth it on thier end and the possibility that Nintendo might bring out a new console by 2017.
As long as the main game isn't delayed or compromised it won't affect me (I have a WiiU but I'm playing this on PS4) which seems unlikely anyway I have 0 issue and I'm glad more people will have access to it.
I have the PS4 version of Xrd but I'm under the impression it runs well on PS3 with few compromises. Assuming they use a suitable engine and have people who know what they are doing porting it I think it will be fine.
Lee Chaolan
Member
Not to mention those that may have just played the DS castlevanias. Loved them all.
Portrait just slightly less ;o
Bots are better than you
Banned
They did run in problems with the handheld version, and i think they had to start over development for those.
Although IntiCreates might be the ones who are the core of the problem, wrong technical choices, whatever ... i don't know. From the initial artworks, i have the impression that art direction for M.N.9 was alright.
As of now, i have my doubts that Bloodstained will be AAA in the graphical direction. Although i have no problems with the game not being the greatest looker, i play IGAvanias because i love the gameplay/genre.
Looking back, i think Harmoy of Dissonance was a real stinker, graphically, and that was a 2D game! ^^
Btw.: Where do you see the Wii U strecht goal? I can only barely see the "Biggest castle" goal.
But i have to say, 2 rows of identical "bonus" strecht goals is really disappointing, as much as i like Yamane's music in the Castlevania games, i don't think that 8-Bit versions really will do her input justice ... rather have the dungeon goals earlier ... or at least just one row of 8-Bit music.
Don't forget that Virtual Console now has all of the GBA IGAvanias, just finished replaying Aria of Sorrow and Harmony of Dissonance, Circle comes next! Gosh, i hope we get the DS games too at some point, although i'm playing Order of Ecclesia on the 3DS with my DS cart.
Charles Brandon
Member
I don't have a PS4 but I expect to have one soon, just as soon as a good deal comes along at time I've got cash in my pocket. I do have a Wii U though.
I knida like the idea of having this on Wii U.
TBH, I'm on the $100 tier, I'm probably going to keep the physical copy sealed and just buy a download as well, So I wonder which format I should get the physical copy for.
I knida like the idea of having this on Wii U.
TBH, I'm on the $100 tier, I'm probably going to keep the physical copy sealed and just buy a download as well, So I wonder which format I should get the physical copy for.
I will reduce my pledge to the minimum if a Wii U version is reached. Not because I hate the Wii U (that's ridiculous, it's the only "next-gen" console I own), or because I'm concerned about the financial return of such a move (why would I care?) but because promising a port to any platform not officially supported by the engine they are going to use makes me question their focus on providing the best possible game -- rather than getting funding out of the most possible people and worrying about "details" like technical viability later.
The reason I was confident in the technical quality of this project -- despite considering the developers far from technical Wizards -- was that they were using a great engine (UE4) on platforms which are officially supported by it and offer enough headroom to forgive some mistakes. With Wii U (or any other port to something lower-end) that goes out of the window.
The reason I was confident in the technical quality of this project -- despite considering the developers far from technical Wizards -- was that they were using a great engine (UE4) on platforms which are officially supported by it and offer enough headroom to forgive some mistakes. With Wii U (or any other port to something lower-end) that goes out of the window.
There is no reason to assume they would stop using Unreal 4 for the PC/PS4/XBone versions though so.........? I would understand the concern if they were working with their $5million minimum but since they are asking for extra money to do this it seems fine to me. I'm of course assuming they are asking for the appropriate amount but they would better understand those costs than me and I don't have the frame of reference to know if that specific stretch goal actually represents needed funds or is a fundraiser incentive.
It's ridiculous to think that the Wii U version will in any way prevent the developers from achieving the best possible visual result on PS4, Xbox One and PC.
We know for a fact that the Wii U was on the cards from the very beginning of the Kickstarter campaign. They teased the Wii U being an expensive basement stretch goal from the very second the campaign started. They didn't include the Wii U in the target platforms from the beginning, since they want to use UE4 for the "main versions" - and they didn't want to make compromises in that regard. That's why the Wii U goal is hidden behind the 3 million stretchgoal - they know that the Wii U version will be a seperate version on its own and thus relatively expensive. It'll be a downport. It'll likely look worse, but the basic gameplay will be unchanged - after all, it's a damn 2D sidescroller we're talking about here. What exactly are the developers supposed to do that wouldn't work on Wii U? The Wii U will likely miss those sexy shaders they are going for, but - well, if you don't like that, there are still three different versions for you to consider!
I'm going to buy either the PS4 or PC version (would prefer PS4, but beta access is appealing too), but all of this moaning is ridiculous and annoying. If downgrading the PS4, Xbox One and PC versions was in the cards, then they wouldn't use UE4 to begin with, but UE3 instead. Would be a lot easier, after all. But they don't. Also, the game is several hundred percent over its funding goal - and you are seriously complaining that they don't put the money into, well, what exactly? You can't increase the scope of a game indefinitely if you actually want to finish the damn thing on time. Heck, if it wasn't for the GBA and DS we likely would have never gotten the last 6 "Metroidvania" Castlevania games in the first place. Just grant Nintendo fans that bone.
We know for a fact that the Wii U was on the cards from the very beginning of the Kickstarter campaign. They teased the Wii U being an expensive basement stretch goal from the very second the campaign started. They didn't include the Wii U in the target platforms from the beginning, since they want to use UE4 for the "main versions" - and they didn't want to make compromises in that regard. That's why the Wii U goal is hidden behind the 3 million stretchgoal - they know that the Wii U version will be a seperate version on its own and thus relatively expensive. It'll be a downport. It'll likely look worse, but the basic gameplay will be unchanged - after all, it's a damn 2D sidescroller we're talking about here. What exactly are the developers supposed to do that wouldn't work on Wii U? The Wii U will likely miss those sexy shaders they are going for, but - well, if you don't like that, there are still three different versions for you to consider!
I'm going to buy either the PS4 or PC version (would prefer PS4, but beta access is appealing too), but all of this moaning is ridiculous and annoying. If downgrading the PS4, Xbox One and PC versions was in the cards, then they wouldn't use UE4 to begin with, but UE3 instead. Would be a lot easier, after all. But they don't. Also, the game is several hundred percent over its funding goal - and you are seriously complaining that they don't put the money into, well, what exactly? You can't increase the scope of a game indefinitely if you actually want to finish the damn thing on time. Heck, if it wasn't for the GBA and DS we likely would have never gotten the last 6 "Metroidvania" Castlevania games in the first place. Just grant Nintendo fans that bone.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Seriously?
Think bro. They literally said the reason they weren't doing a Wii U version to begin with was because they didn't want to compromise. Do you really think they're going to take extra money to specifically do just that? The reason they're making the Wii U version a stretch goal is so it won't compromise the core version - they can take the extra money to put effort into an extra version for the lower-spec console - not to spend more money to make a lesser game.
Bots are better than you
Banned
After some "Zoom & Enhance", which would make Horatio and the whole CSI-team proud, i was able to read the 3 million strecht goal, do you guys have better eyes or what?
I don't know about compatibility between the UE-engine versions, but could they use UE3 (like used for M.N.9) for a possible Wii U version? So, question at those with UE experience, is it possible to reuse some assets from the "main" version on UE4 in the older UE3?
I don't know about compatibility between the UE-engine versions, but could they use UE3 (like used for M.N.9) for a possible Wii U version? So, question at those with UE experience, is it possible to reuse some assets from the "main" version on UE4 in the older UE3?
Hopefully they detail this later on. Its one thing to go "yay we can do Wii u now", its another to do "yay we can pay another developer to downport now".
And if they get Wii U they may as well hit PS3/360 if they're actually viable when it hits because well fuck it.
I don't think you support this argument well.
I only see three possible scenarios (please do tell me if I'm missing something):
- They'll somehow try to shoehorn UE4 on Wii U. I hope I don't have to explain to everyone why that is a bad idea - you seem to agree.
- They'll create a direct downport of the game in a separate engine. This is a huge productions overhead: all their assets will need to work with multiple engines. Their code base either doubles or increases greatly in complexity. It will also limit them in what they can do -- for every UE4 feature they want to use they need to consider if there is a way to replicate it on the other platform.
- They'll create an entirely separate version of the game (not a port). This would be the least bad outcome, since it would at least free the real game from any port considerations, but it still means that they need to split their team across two games rather than working on a single one. I don't really see how that could achieve the "best possible result" -- it's simple math really.
I did. I often do. Look above. What scenario did I fail to consider?
Charles Brandon
Member
They'll just pay someone to do the port
YianGaruga
Banned
There is no 1:1 relationship between money taken from stretch goals and the money and time needed to realize those goals. Asking for 250k for a Wii U port doesn't mean that that's some isolated project and that's that.
Adding ports to consoles unsupported by the engine could potentially (but not necessarily) lead to compromises to make it work.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Or they use the money to outsource to a team with a "You do this, we don't really care how" attitude.
Which, well, people who own Nintendo consoles should be fairly used to by now.
Which, well, people who own Nintendo consoles should be fairly used to by now.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Isn't UE4 is a scalable engine?, it's supported by weaker platforms like Ouya and mobile devices. Why should there be issues using it with the Wii u? Maybe someone more familiar with development can explain?
ShockingAlberto
Member
It supports 3. When asked about 4 on Wii U, Epic just kind of laughed. Like, literally laughed.
Graphics Horse
Member
You seem very certain that NX is simply a home console successor.
They are doing the same thing with Mighty No. 9 already. The game is using UE3, which obviously isn't supported by 3DS. In order to port that game to 3DS and Vita, they've contracted a different studio (Abstraction Games) to do the porting job. The game will obviously be downgraded on those platforms as a result, but the essence of the game will remain the same.
The Wii U stretchgoal for Bloodstained is not something the developers just added because of "popular demand" or anything like that. They had a Wii U port in mind from the very beginning, but it wasn't part of the initial target platforms, since a Wii U version is more expensive to produce. If they were ever willing to downgrade the "main versions" of Bloodstained, they would have chosen UE3 as the main engine to begin with - after all, that would have been a lot less trouble. That they are nevertheless using UE4 and that they made the decision hide the Wii U stretch goal behind the 3 million paywall all but proves that they are not willing to make compromises on that regard.
But you don't have to agree, of course. Feel free to reduce your pledge.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Yeah ok, but that still doesn't explain why less capable support it and Wii u supposedly can't.
ShockingAlberto
Member
It's less about capability and more about architecture and desire.
They made it work on the PS3 despite the weird architecture because the PS3 sold well and it still took a hell of a long time for PS3 UE games to be in the same ballpark as 360 ones.
Don't think of the Ouya as a less capable machine, think of it as an extremely standard machine that is running the same thing phones are already running, and it's on phones because those games sell well.
They have no interest in porting it to the Wii U because it's a big hardware headache while not having much of any payoff in the end.
Theonik
Member
There is more to it than processing power per se. WiiU is lacking some modern features. Not to mention that just because you can export a PS4 project to the Ouya doesn't mean it is guaranteed to run well enough to ship.
Effort would have to go into making weaker systems run the game. The weaker the more effort it takes. And if Epic doesn't support a platform in the engine, that means they have to port it themselves which makes the process even harder.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Agree. I am really excited they are using UE:4. Time is money.
I think people with this mindset are missing the point. The Wii:U port is not free no matter what. Simply, the resources that would be used on a Wii:U port, could have been used on making a better expansive more detailed game, and perhaps on even more staff.