E-mpire writes: Sony came out swinging today, but let one slip at the same time that redefines what PlayStation has always stood for when it comes to online gaming.
Lam is among the 120 characters available for recruitment in Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes. While she is one of the many straightforward recruits, a known bug may prevent players from recruiting her if certain conditions are met. Despite developers’ assurances of fixing the bug, some early access players still encounter issues with recruiting Lam despite attempting the standard method.
Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered players are ticked off by the game’s most recent patch, which censors in-game pin-up posters of Lara Croft.
This is why gaming is screwed. When people change things to fit someone’s agenda, it’s a slippery slope downhill.
Even if that agenda is of the developer? Way to remove developer rights.
***One player called it a “huge problem with modern games,” saying they can now be “ruined AFTER people buy them”.***
The level of drama. Yes, I recall sitting there for more hours than I did anything else in the game. These two pinups are the core of the game, after all!
rlow1's cringe catastrophizing aside, I do think developers *ought* to strive to maintain an original work to the best of their ability. The language of a "remaster" tacitly implies that - for good or ill - what's being resold is what fans remember but better.
Games can be ruined after purchasing them yeah we know this not from this but from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal.
This pin up poster is a bit of nonsense but the whole argument of modern games can be ruined post launch is Absol true.
It's not their work to censor. They are incharge of restoration & remastering the work, not overwriting it.
It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score.
Way to support censorship...
It’s not the end of the world for sure, but I understand the hate towards this kind of change. I believe it’s also a matter of principle.
Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people.
Have all original devs signed off on this change? Even if it’s the case, are we saying older gamers are better mentally equipped to process what was there than current gamers, hence the change?
Enough time ago the case was made that games are an art form. We’re supposed to have won that case.
So which is it? Are games art or not?
And what of the rights of the buyer? The ones that purchased this game with hard earned money? They bought a product that is now being changed into a different product. Surely you would stand up for them since you are about "rights"?
***It's not their work to censor. ***
They own the IP. It's theirs too do with as they wish.
***It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score. ***
You got proof of this? And even if this were true, isn't it the developer right to want whatever an ESG score is?
***from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal. ***
Licensed music is always going to get changed unless they can afford to keep paying those fees sadly.
***Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people. ***
You do know in the original that the artwork is extremely pixelated so you can't even tell what it is, right? Shouldn't we then be arguing that they increased the detail of this artwork at all then? Why the remaster? Picasso got it right already with the original.
Hasn't this been happened for over a decade since remasters? I can't see that it's any worse now. Maybe if Sweet Baby starts getting their hands on remasters we will definitely have a problem.
tbh I dont see something like this as censorship. Does anyone else not find it strange for someone to stick pin ups of themsleves in a locker room?
Now of it was a pin up of some half naked firefighters it might make sense as Lara might like that, and if they removed that I would cry censorship. But removing pin ups of the main character, yeah I get it.
It's a game, and they were placed there for the audience. It's not real life. If it was, she wouldn't have fought a T-Rex now would she?
Yes, it's censorship but it's a bit less in your face. If they were in the original game, then they should have been in the remasters. It's bad enough that they have that ridiculous unnecessary warning at the start, but then they start removing things post launch. I don't care how small the change, they shouldn't be doing it. It's nothing but ESG pandering but in a subtle way.
Look bro, if you have pictures of yourself naked on a bear skin rug up in your house let me tell you, its not normal.
And Lara Croft is also a mass murderer everywhere she goes. Why didn't they patch that out as well? See, anyone can spew pedantic BS.
How is it not censorship? They are removing suggestive content due to not wanting to offend SJWs and woke people. They literally removed something already in the game that nobody even thought twice about just like a movie on cable television is edited for content… y’know, like literally removing scenes because of not wanting to offend a public audience? How is this different?
By the year 2030, this remaster collection will totally be changed and censored. Probably will remove Lara as a playable character. It's ridiculous. Glad that my family didn't buy this.
I still have Tomb Raider 2 PS1 as a memory.
It’s mentioned in the article, and it’s a point i 100% agree with, it’s the fact that they can censor a game after you buy it. That’s total bullshit.
Whilst it's an overreaction to say this has "ruined" the game, it's still problematic that this has happened post launch and for many, post-purchase.
I don't want someone to change a product for the worse after I've bought it. The same goes for implementing micro transactions after reviews.
I wonder why they did this? Nobody was kicking up a fuss as far as I'm aware.
Gary Green said: In a time where an enhanced, 3D remake of Final Fantasy III already exists, it’s hard to argue that Final Fantasy III Pixel Remaster is the definitive version we were expecting. With Final Fantasy III already being the last in the series to be translated and make its way west, this is something of a slap in the face for the fans. Still, let’s not be disheartened. There may be many shortfalls in this edition of Final Fantasy III, however there’s no denying that this classic JRPG still holds some nostalgic value, even if it struggles to break away from its original hardware limitations.
It’s funny I’m seeing these articles about pixel remaster, and I just platinumed 1-4 within 8 days lol. I’ve been on FF5 for about a week now. Let’s just say 5 was the start of FF having content like crazy. I should have the plat within 2-3 days.
The game being an accurate represantation of the original was not a slap in the face to the fans. The 3D remasters looked like ass (visually) tbh.
Yep ps+ is required for online miltiplayer
it´s not just pay for MP, it´s pay for PS+ which is kinda different. i would gladly pay for PS+ if that means free goodies
I already pay for PS+ so I don't really mind and I also don't play too much multiplayer so it's not that big of a deal for me at least :)
"One Giant Leap Backwards".....
So does that mean Microsoft has been backwards for the last 7 years cause they charged for online.
I said it before, what Sony has shown & done for the gamer is unprecedented. What they are asking is a very VERY small price to pay for the services they are offering.
No DRM, yes to used games, all the cloud & Gaikai stuff, a system for the gamer. Yes it is a very small price to pay & i will gladly take it.
*edit* I still believe F2P games will stay free to play & that the charge is for enhanced services like the Gaikai.
I don't think they needed to paywall multiplayer, they already had a compelling service, no need to do this. Disappointed that they did this, but there is debate on what they meant, if it's like special online features or all online is blocked.