Verylittlefishes
Sacro Bosco
Insider details sounds good. The Elder Souls!
It's not in regards of action games in general, but it surely is something in context of From's games.Horrible performance indeed, but "overly streamlined slasher" seems like action games just aren't your cup of tea.
Action games are my cup of tea and Bloodborne is nothing special in that regard.
You see, I'm of the mind that Fromsoft is at its best when they don't make sequels. Demon's Souls have overwhelmingly positive reception as far as I could see from the masses of interest (including Codex), and I still hold Dark Souls 1 as their overall best in the trilogy. Onward, Bloodborne has 0 dragons or anything of an equivalent, and while Sekiro has Divine Dragon it was strongly tied to the narrative in the way Kalameet, Sinh, Midir, and even Ancient Dragon weren't. DD wasn't a mere convenient plot delivery, the whole thing revolve around it, from the Dragon's Heritage, the Dragonrot (sadly, a half-assed mechanic), Immortal Severance and the Mortal Blade, etc etc. How they've executed the (gimmick) bossfight with DD, that one's for another discussion, but IMO they've done it excellently mostly in regards to audiovisual (breathtakingly stunning look and feels, complete with probably one of the only memorable boss OST, on par with Sword Saint's) and non-obtrusive gameplay (wasn't much a chore like Bed of Chaos or Ancient Wyvern, that is).but i must admit, seeing a dragon land and breathe fire is just disappointing at this stage. kalameet, sinh, ancient dragon, midir + a dozen or so of various wyverns is enough to last me a lifetime
I'm just going to comment on this briefly; what happens in Oolacile are not indicative of what the Age of Dark has in store. Because going by that logic, then Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith would've been the fate of the world if we keep the Age of Fire (unnaturally) going.If the Chasm of the Abyss taught us something is that the absence of light, does not necessarily make a completely dark screen.Not true, they could make the next Souls game be set in the age of dark. This would help save on the budget, too, as all they would need to render is a black screen.
I know you personally not a person who feels strongly about anything, toro, so I'm just going to put this out there for everyone else reading the thread.That's why we got 3 derivative rehashes in the forms of Bloodborne, DaS3 and Sekiro. The DaS formula was not improved one bit by either one of these games (Martial Arts!?) but they were great money makers for FromSoftware.
....
Bloodborne - rehashed (start of stagnation)
Sekiro - rehashed (end of stagnation)
Oolacile
we all know "the story" is just a something they put in during the last month of development.
The vast open world is worrying. I just hope it won't end up with another empty open world.
The vast open world is worrying. I just hope it won't end up with another empty open world.
It's From. They know how to design worlds.
It's not in regards of action games in general, but it surely is something in context of From's games.
Now, I'm kinda confused with the Bloodborne detractors at this point, because on one hand we have people calling it 'overly streamlined slasher' which certainly means it distinguish itself from Dark Souls even if not in their desired way, but on the other hand we also have people calling it 'Dark Souls but with Victorian Lovecraft'. Truly, a clear, tangible examples of 'can't please everyone, I guess'.
do dark souls storyfags actually believe shit they hear from a vaatividya video?
How? Bloodborne's combat is just Souls, but with faster dodging and fewer overall options. It's not even bad, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing unique or innovative. Even the rally mechanic, which you pointed out earlier, is derivative of DS weapons like the butcher knife or the server. Those criticisms aren't mutually exclusive. Bloodborne is H.P. Soulscraft, while mercilessly simultaneously streamlining the series' mechanics to a degree that would make Bioware or Bethesda blush.
do dark souls storyfags actually believe shit they hear from a vaatividya video?
It's From. They know how to design worlds.
IT plays differently than DS. DS is focused on defense. BB is focused on attack.
While the two games look almost identical, even simple tweaks in their mechanics fundamentally change how they play out. I guess rally is somewhat reminiscent of life-recovering mechanics of previous games, but it still impacts the gameplay radically. Rally, faster healing animation, greater stagger potential against enemies all move the gameplay in the same direction: instead of waiting for the enemy to finish his attacks in order to exploit his opening, in BB you go full aggro on everyone. And there are similar changes in Sekiro thanks to the removal of the stamina bar and the addition of posture ("similar" meaning that they move the gameplay in a different direction, not that that direction is the same of BB).It's not in regards of action games in general, but it surely is something in context of From's games.
How? Bloodborne's combat is just Souls, but with faster dodging and fewer overall options. It's not even bad, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing unique or innovative. Even the rally mechanic, which you pointed out earlier, is derivative of DS weapons like the butcher knife or the server.
What do you mean by that?IT plays differently than DS. DS is focused on defense. BB is focused on attack.
Fair enough. Why does Bloodborne offer fewer methods of attack, then?
it doesn't make the combat any deeper. As far as the amount of moves and the general complexity go, Bloodborne is still much weaker than any other dedicated action game.While the two games look almost identical, even simple tweaks in their mechanics fundamentally change how they play out. I guess rally is somewhat reminiscent of life-recovering mechanics of previous games, but it still impacts the gameplay radically. Rally, faster healing animation, greater stagger potential against enemies all move the gameplay in the same direction: instead of waiting for the enemy to finish his attacks in order to exploit his opening, in BB you go full aggro on everyone.How? Bloodborne's combat is just Souls, but with faster dodging and fewer overall options. It's not even bad, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing unique or innovative. Even the rally mechanic, which you pointed out earlier, is derivative of DS weapons like the butcher knife or the server.It's not in regards of action games in general, but it surely is something in context of From's games.
it doesn't make the combat any deeper. As far as the amount of moves and the general complexity go, Bloodborne is still much weaker than any other dedicated action game.
that's why they shouldn't have stripped their games from RPG elements.Yeah but if they would go full action then i wouldn't play it nor most in codex.it doesn't make the combat any deeper. As far as the amount of moves and the general complexity go, Bloodborne is still much weaker than any other dedicated action game.
greater stagger potential against enemies
What do you mean by that?
And yet I generally don't like dedicated action games, while I'm still playing Bloodborne after 6 years and I will probably be still playing it 6 years from now. I think the complexity and depth of combat is just fine, considering everything else the game has going on for it.it doesn't make the combat any deeper. As far as the amount of moves and the general complexity go, Bloodborne is still much weaker than any other dedicated action game.
But combat in BB is still fun and satisfying despite the low amount of "moves". The enemy design is there, that difficulty sweet spot that manages to be rewarding but not unfair is there, the atmosphere is there, the adrenaline is there. You have weapons with very different movesets that allow for different approaches (sure, there are no "builds", but playing with the Holy Moonlight Sword is not the same things as playing with the Blade of Mercy or the Burial Blade). I don't get what you feel is missing to consider it a good action game. I mean, I don't think juggling enemies in the air with dozens of different combos would improve it in any way.Either make an action rpg with OK action and OK rpg part, or make a full action game with good action part. Don't give us watered down BS with simplified stats.
Sure, BB has fewer weapons, but (with just two exceptions) every weapon is unique and has a unique moveset. DS3 has 17 straight swords with an almost identical moveset (I guess you can exclude the Ringed Knight Straight Sword, Valorheart, and the Gotthard Twinswords), 16 greatswords with an almost identical moveset, and the same can be said for any weapon type really. I can see why the BB approach can be seen as a downgrade, but I prefer a more restricted array of weapons where everything feels unique to dozens of weapons that play out in undistinguishable ways. As a result BB has less "crazy" stuff as you pointed out, but each weapon offers a unique trick.That, compared to DS, BB has fewer weapons and far fewer spells. There's also nothing offbeat, like shield bashing or really, really offbeat like,
Verylittlefishes fuck off.
They do, but we're yet to see how they design a proper open-world. I've been spoiled by Gothic and Kingdom Come: Deliverance, though, so that was a realistically high standard. Still, if what Wunderbar said is true (about Sony wanting Fromsoft to develop their own Oblivion) I'm very, very worried.The vast open world is worrying. I just hope it won't end up with another empty open world.
It's From. They know how to design worlds.
It's precisely the lack of other options such as shields and tank archetype (and to an extent, a conventional magic/spellcaster builds, although the game has pseudo-spells and a stat to accommodate for it) that the game's formula and moment-to-moment gameplay dynamic has been changed. I can get the complains if they somehow half-assed it, but that's not the case.How? Bloodborne's combat is just Souls, but with faster dodging and fewer overall options. It's not even bad, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing unique or innovative. Even the rally mechanic, which you pointed out earlier, is derivative of DS weapons like the butcher knife or the server.
"mercilessly simultaneously streamlining the series' mechanics to a degree that would make Bioware or Bethesda blush."Those criticisms aren't mutually exclusive. Bloodborne is H.P. Soulscraft, while mercilessly simultaneously streamlining the series' mechanics to a degree that would make Bioware or Bethesda blush.
If by fewer methods of attack you mean there's only the trick weapons, guns and its variants, and hunter tools (pseudo-spell items like the Augur of Ebrietas), minus pyromancy, magic, miracles, uhhhh should we argue whether or not pyromancy, magic, and miracles fits the setting?Fair enough. Why does Bloodborne offer fewer methods of attack, then?
What other dedicated action games has anything remotely similar to the trick weapons?it doesn't make the combat any deeper. As far as the amount of moves and the general complexity go, Bloodborne is still much weaker than any other dedicated action game.
I know this is exactly what toro said before, "the intertwined oppressive world of Dark Souls (in this case, Bloodborne) doesn't work without the enemies hence combat gameplay." You have your own preference, hence the whole package just didn't work for you. Still, even comparing Bloodborne's own formula with 'any other dedicated action game', I personally still see Bloodborne possessing enough fun factors and satisfying gameplay. But once again I remind you that I didn't really come for Fromsoft's game for the RPG mechanics, and that's where I'm coming from. There's something I crave from Fromsoft, and only Fromsoft can give that. Perhaps I'm more forgiving because so long as it's not sequel I didn't put much expectation on their new game based on their previous work, other than those good stuff I crave from them. And combat, it just so happen I preferred the way they do things in Dark Souls 1 in regards to action gameplay, and why I didn't mind how Bloodborne and Sekiro turned out.that's why they shouldn't have stripped their games from RPG elements.
Either make an action rpg with OK action and OK rpg part, or make a full action game with good action part. Don't give us watered down BS with simplified stats.
Poise literally doesn't exist in Bloodborne, hence you can easily stagger enemies even with seemingly weak weapons, but what NJClaw forgot to mention is that in Bloodborne, it has more involved limb system i.e damaging certain parts of a boss can lead to them stagger and, in most case, open to a visceral attack (Bloodborne's riposte). Some bosses in Dark Souls 1 like Quelaag can take extra damage when her human head gets attacked, and iirc even staggered, but as far as I could remember this thing isn't as common as in Bloodborne.
That, compared to DS, BB has fewer weapons and far fewer spells. There's also nothing offbeat, like shield bashing or really, really offbeat like,
those were old news. I doubt Sony want to make an Oblivion clone right now. Not to mention that ER is published by Bamco.Still, if what Wunderbar said is true (about Sony wanting Fromsoft to develop their own Oblivion) I'm very, very worried.
Hopefully. But I don't trust Scamco, and the success of Bethshit's open-world games are, unfortunately, undeniable, regardless of their actual quality. I'm not sure what's the chance of Fromsoft hearing how the actually good open-world games are something like Gothicthose were old news. I doubt Sony want to make an Oblivion clone right now. Not to mention that ER is published by Bamco.Still, if what Wunderbar said is true (about Sony wanting Fromsoft to develop their own Oblivion) I'm very, very worried.