I liked the original, though I did not like the way the game handled death and saving.

If I get Silksong:
* I will get the edition with the OST
* I will likely back up my save file regularly while playing it

And, the Silk Song page is broken.

Works fine for me...

In general i do not enjoy "rogue-like mechanics" because it is just a way in order to unnecessary stretch the game by forcing a gamer to repeat the same stuff over and over. Instead they should offer a New Game+ mode and offering new challenges on those modes. I am always someone who is enjoying full freedom on how to save a games progress. There are other ways in order to make a game challenging.

No matter the individual taste: Hollow Knight got a quality which is at the top of its genre, there is no doubt.

I've heard that other game developers have moved the release dates of their games to avoid competing with Silksong.

Therefore, don't expect many new non-Silksong indie games to be released around the time of this game's release.
(post based on the original Hollow Knight)

It's not the repetition that's the problem for me; it's the way the game punishes you for death and doesn't let you just go back to the last point you saved instead.

The fact that you can end up losing all your currency permanently (and the biggest currency sources are non-responding) if you can't make it back to your previous place of death while under a handicap is what I have a problem with. In particular, this means that if a player is having trouble, the game compounds the issue by making it harder for them. It is this reason that I don't like death penalties that are more severe than just reloading your last save.

I'd much prefer a system like Super Metroid, where you just go back to the title screen and can reload your last save, or at least give the player the option of doing so instead of accepting the consequences of death.

I can totally understand you, i do as well prefer a "static character loadout" which is not able to become wiped or removed upon death including its resources. It is usually the case on RPGs, my main genre, and i am totally used to it.

This method of causing a strong punishment upon death is not actually that old, not that i can remember, and has mainly been made a new standard during the area of the "modern rogue-likes". Looking at "Soulslike" they may as well punish the player upon death, but death is not an option there, it is kinda "the standard"; so the punishment can not be to hard.

On rogue-like it should not be the standard and they had in mind, if it is still happening "the punishment should be hard". In the most extreme cases even permadeath. It is not something i enjoy but has actually been around since the good old Castlevania or even more back in time, at least in some rudimentary forms.

Players simply had to get the hang on it else they will constantly become wiped back to the start, actually some "arcade mechanics". However... the old arcades has been made in a way so the death is never ultimate as long as someone is putting enough of coins into it, which is on purpose of course. Indeed, there was always some sort of punishment such as losing credits or life... which is a Arcade but as well some Rogue-like (such as Castlevania) mechanics. As i said i do not enjoy it as i find it to repetitive. If so, a player should not lose resources which makes it even harder to win any fight but thats how it happens on games that got a "auto-save" with rogue like mechanics. As i said, it is usually just unnecessary "stretching the game time" and a way on how to make a not to big game even bigger. As well, i already told... my approach would be simply to offer a New Game+ mode and offering improved challenges there. However, such a mode is more demanding than just offering some basic rogue-like mechanics with its challenging death-penalties. So, i hope they may find the resources in manpower in order to increase and extend the game "in some more refined ways"... i already told how it would look like.

Gamestop listed the game at $20 and then deleted the page, so it's probably real lol

At Gamestop it says 19.99 so it will prob be around 20-25 us dollars.

Which considering the expected quality based on first game and the thousands of hours worth of replay like with the first game, is very cheap.

Fortunately they don't know most of us are in "price does not matter" and "shut up and take my money" status for the last few years ;) I wanted to pay for this game long time ago as an pre-order, just to help them somehow to finish the development phase...

The devs are a team of 3 and it does not look like they are planning to "upgrade" their team as they seems fine with having this size. So it simply means having a very long development time and money could at that point change nothing.

As the first Hollow Knight was very successful they certainly can eat and drink whatever they want every day, including being able to afford a warm and crocodile-free home... so there is no need to worry: It just takes a lot of time but now there is the time for something new arriving.

Well, 4 people to be more precise because the composer of the music is not working directly on the game but one of its most important assets, the music: https://composerlarkin.com/

Main website: https://hollowknightsilksong.com/

If game is to difficult... they said William Pellen is the one to be blamed, as he seems to have the biggest influence on its difficulty.

I'd rather wait years to play a finished masterpiece, than to kill my time with a rushed, bland and bugged game.

Regardless of how hard Hollow Knight may be (and whatever game for that matter), it is balanced and just: the more you practice, the better you get. And that's the important thing in my view.

Oh they definitely know people would pay 40 or 50 bucks for the game, but when you're set for life and don't have to meet arbitrary sales goals to satisfy any investors... any price is fine really

Plus the expectations are so high that lowering the price can actually help a bit there

Sure! Me too. But at some point I was afraid if my estimated lifespan will be enough to play the game ;)

I hope you are sufficiently well with a solid lifespan left, else it may sound sad. Nonetheless, on this game even if the lifespan could be in trouble GOG should almost certainly "get it on time".

Another thing i am almost certain: This game was not rushed, i mean the release is 8 years after the release of the first title and they was not working on any other game in between. Of course there was no need because they had a strong income from the first title, so they was able to "take their sweet time".

3 days left...

For playing the game most of us should be lucky enough to be alive on Thursday. But not so sure for the time needed to complete the game ;)