A open world bloodborne.... yay or nay.....

[zmanbuilder]

Just wondering with runeborne mod thats coming out.

[NisseDood]

No.
Open world was a bad idea.

[Key]

I really hope the next game isn't Open World. One of FromSoftware's greatest strenghts is their level design and one of their major weaknesses seems to be understanding what makes an Open World interesting.

[zero]

i mean the open world is the best part of elden ring, so yeah, why not

[Magical_JiJii]

Unless there are PVE servers I ain't gonna die so many times just to reach the boss.

[BingusDingus]

Honestly would probably ruin the experience, but hey, i'm always up for being proven wrong.

[EagleWiz]

I can barely understand why anyone would think open world is an improvement - the best souls locations are the ones with careful enemy placement, interconnected carefully designed levels, good bosses, loot that isn't a useless crafting material half the time. Open world adds MORE content, sure, but the good content is the non-open world stuff.

[zmanbuilder]

Originally posted by EagleWiz:

I can barely understand why anyone would think open world is an improvement - the best souls locations are the ones with careful enemy placement, interconnected carefully designed levels, good bosses, loot that isn't a useless crafting material half the time. Open world adds MORE content, sure, but the good content is the non-open world stuff.

I like large interconnected areas kinda like what dark souls 1 had.

[Settings]

Eh, Open world is a clear improvement. Go for it.

[Agoraphobic Meep]

I'm fine with open world, but they need to scale it down for the amount of content they actually have. At max, I think fromsoft is capable of making 1-2, maybe 3 open areas that connect to field bosses/catacombs/legacy dungeons/etc. Anymore than that and you just start getting empty plains with nothing in them, which is why the like 6 open areas you can explore in the DLC feel so empty IMO.

I don't think the idea of open world souls is flawed, but I think fromsoft's design philosophy of "oh, we don't really have enough content to fill these massive areas we've modeled, but we don't want them to go to waste so we'll just add them anyways. Put some crabs and a hippo in it, people won't care" is super flawed, and leads to a really, really boring experience. 9 times out of 10 I find myself just rushing through the open areas to get to more exciting content, which sucks when they put the essential upgrade materials for the DLC in said open world.

If they drop this design philosophy, and downscale open world to be sized for the amount of content in the game, I'm down for open world anything. ♥♥♥♥, open world BB sounds ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ amazing as long as it's scaled for the amount of content IN BB.

[Chibbix]

I like the open world in Elden Ring. I love DS(1, in particular)'s level design, but I always wanted to go and roam the spots you weren't allowed to go to (like the city part of Anor Londo).

I really don't get all the hate on the open world, tbh. Game's beautiful. Love just chilling in spots enjoying the ambiance. Everyone always says it's "empty" too, all the time, but the game is loaded with stuff all over the place(except for the "first" finger zone in the dlc, I really hated that place and it genuinely felt empty, or like, unfinished). Just because there's not a talisman at every cliffside, doesn't mean the game is "empty".

[CourtesyFlush09]

♥♥♥♥ no.

[Agoraphobic Meep]

Originally posted by Chibbix:

I really don't get all the hate on the open world, tbh. Game's beautiful. Love just chilling in spots enjoying the ambiance. Everyone always says it's "empty" too, all the time, but the game is loaded with stuff all over the place(except for the "first" finger zone in the dlc, I really hated that place and it genuinely felt empty, or like, unfinished). Just because there's not a talisman at every cliffside, doesn't mean the game is "empty".

I think the game looks amazing as well, but I don't think the open world is particularly engaging is the problem. Realistically, what is there to actually DO in the open world that you explore in-between major content?

A lot of it is repeated content is the problem, which makes you want to start ignoring it. I had fun killing the first 2 furnace golems. I did not have the motivation to fight the other 6. I thought the stone birds were neat in the first area, I stopped wanting to fight or even look at them when they were like the entire population of cerulean coast, fissure depths, gravesite plains, and enir elim.

I just think there needs to be less areas/space between the interesting content. That would allow them to focus on adding more engaging additions to the open world instead of trying to go for quantity over quality. They could add more enemy variety to hinterlands and abyssal woods, they could make scadutree fragments be locked behind puzzles or minibosses instead of just...sitting there randomly around the world, and they could just generally make exploration feel less monotonous.

[Kim]

bloodborne is almost all about closed areas with enemies waiting for you to pass through them to move on to the next closed area, or a boss.

If you open up these areas and fill them with more enemies, they will have no other purpose than to be here as scarecrows and nothing else.

it would also make the game bigger so you would have to create a much bigger story to force you to investigate these areas, there would be no point without it.

If you change the bloodborne story to fill in the areas, it will automatically not be bloodborne but something else that resembles it for better or worse.

can it be done ? probably
will it be good ? unknown
will it be bloodborne ? no.

[eggdawg]

Open world doesn't automatically mean good, nor does literally every game need to be open world. Franchise tourists basing their expectations for future games on the one From game they played is annoying.

[zab]

absolutely not
horrible idea