CODE VEIN: God eater Developers take on the souls like genre

In a surprising turn of events the game got delayed to 2019 for quality reasons.

Welp that sucks. Guess I'll be playing DS 3 until this is out then.

Ouch...But then again, I think it's at best to take them some time I guess

I'm actually happy about that...too many great games are getting released this September anyway. My wallet's going to take a beating.

Yeah, release it in Jan 2919 tempt fate guys. -.-

Havian gong through some of the gameplay systems.

More info on Jack and Eva as well as a new desert area.

Gameplay in the snow area alongside Io. Jump to 19:35 for gameplay.

Do we have a new release date for this yet? Last I heard was just sometime in 2019, but I still can't find anything.

Nothing yet.

How hard are we expecting this to be? I've never played a Dark Souls game but from what I know those are super hard. Are we expecting this to actually be that hard or do you think that's unlikely?

^Have you ever played Nioh? To be fair souls is partly hard due to how committed your attack animations are and I remember finding Nioh easier(though still challenging no doubt) due to the movement and combat in that game having far more leeway in that respect. If code vein goes for a more action-game appraoch in its action commitment then I can see it being easier to get into than souls, at least for people who play action games.

I recall they are making a more comparatively easier Souls game.

Which is the point of the heavier usage of companions, having some backup in hand.

Dark Souls isn't super hard. The Soulsborne games are usually hard but fair, though each game has areas and bosses who might be particularly frustrating for some people.

...Fuck Blighttown though.

As far as I've seen, a lot of the difficulty of Dark Souls comes from punishing slip-ups ridiculously hard, with bosses taking off huge chunks of health if they land hits, and with limited healing options.

That's not so much the case in the first or second game, though Bloodborne and Dark Souls III upped the punishment. The developers at that time didn't want players to play passively anymore by hiding behind shields and relying too much on heavy armor. They at least made it easier to dodge attacks.

Edited by M84 on Jan 3rd 2019 at 12:58:42 AM

The only thing we have really heard about this lately was the recent Happy New Years greeting and that's about it. Though hopefully we will see more soon.

The greeting in question English version

Souls is pretty hard if you're playing solo whole way through. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying through their teeth.

Now on repeated playthroughs okay they aren't that bad. But first playthrough, blind, solo, yeah it's a difficult game. It doesn't always explain its mechanics well(hello crafting system), is obtuse in direction and storytelling(there will be times where you won't know where to go), enemies while mostly stupid are always a threat for the most part, bosses deal a lot of damage, fatigue management which can be limiting in terms of what you want to do, and times where the game is contrary to popular belief sometimes pretty unfair. I actually find bloodborne less punishing than souls due to the rally mechanic but some of BB's bosses can OHKO you mid roll which does really suck. Thing about souls games is that you get better every time you beat one so they'll get progressively easier. Well TBH I think BB is easier than all 3 souls games(though the dlc is harder than souls 1 dlc), but it could be because I played it last. I found DS 3 hardest though which is weird because most people swear it's easier than BB or DS 1. Feels like in DS 3 you're made of paper no matter what and the dlc has some of the hardest fights in any souls game.

My biggest problem with the first two Souls games (never played three) was that there was too much Guide Dang It!. I should not need to look up on a wiki just to figure out basics like what stats do and how spells work. Plus I didn't like the controls, but that might have been because I play on PC and the games were blatantly not designed for keyboards.

Not being able to remap controls is one of souls' biggest crimes. Oh and the lack of pause lol.

But you can remap the controls in DS games. At least you can do that in DS 3.

The real problem with DS games is the complete lack of a jump button. Which wouldn't be a serious problem if the series didn't also force you to do some platforming bullshit.

One particular issue with DS 2 was that the default jump is done by hitting the roll button twice. Except you dash in that game by holding the roll button. In other words, unless you tweak the controls, you cannot roll while running. Which makes dodging attacks a bit harder.

Related to that, I actually found myself altering the control scheme to copy DS 2's jump every time I needed to jump in DS 3, since the way DS 3 handles jumping was even worse IMHO. Namely, they made it so that you had to click the left control stick while running. I just couldn't get the hang of that.

Edited by M84 on Jan 7th 2019 at 3:02:03 AM

On consoles? I clearly remember not being to do so in at least DS 2 and DS 1, the original ones mind you. Not sure about PC.

DS 2 made jumping a bit better but then DS 3 regressed back to Ds 1's terrible jumping scheme. I joke that souls is at its worst when it becomes a platformer.

I definitely could and did alter the button mapping in DS 3 on the PC.

One advantage the PC has over the console versions for sure, but T Bh that makes perfect sense since it seems kinda required these days, no? Trust me I would've loved to be able to assign attack to X and Y instead of the right buttons.

Edited by Vertigo_High on Jan 6th 2019 at 11:06:52 AM

I mean, I could do that even when I was using a controller for playing the PC version. Meaning I could and did remap the jump "button" from the left trigger stick to the "B" button.

Edited by M84 on Jan 8th 2019 at 4:27:41 AM