Open world doesn't belong in Souls games. It does nothing but hinder the player in the long run. Yes...

Open world doesn't belong in Souls games. It does nothing but hinder the player in the long run. Yes, ER made a lot of sales. Yes, it's a good game. But replaying it feels like a chore due to the open world. This should not become the norm for the series.

Attached: header.jpg (460x215, 32.5K)

I hope it becomes an MMO faggot

Channel that hate and do something useful with it.

I used to go hard on all Fromsoft games, multiple playthroughs in a year. Now I play through them every few years. The first playthrough of each game is always amazing but there are just a lot more games out there today with far more replay value. They're adventure games that lose most of their novelty once you know every nook and cranny.

Elden Ring especially is least suitable for a replay because it's so damn long and big.

Honestly, I don't think the open world itself is inherently the issue as a gameplay concept. I think that, even as executed by Fromsoft in the final product, it COULD have worked really well. The problem is that the open world game design is such a millstone around the neck of Fromsoft who everyone knows (and presumably they know) have issues with actually completing development on their games, so increasing the scope so massively basically made it a certainty that the end product would have to be rushed, half-finished, and majorly lacking in nuance no matter how much money From threw at it.

Obviously if they had used their budget on a smaller game, they would have accomplished way more. But with Elden Ring, I think if all of the content they ended up cutting from the game (the storylines where you have factions that you engage with and put rulers/allies in place at the head of the different zones, among other things) was actually completed, AND if they managed to make the open world dungeons and locations serve some real purpose (either with unique fights that are challenging and fun, or with unique rewards that a player has a reason to go after on subsequent playthroughs) then it would have been a much better game overall.

But I guess it's kind of useless to say "If the game was actually finished, it would have been better" since that's obvious. I just mean I don't think it would have been as unappatizing to replay.

Yep, the best part are still the self contained levels, theres nothing to do in the open world like pretty much ever open world game
All you do is go to the zelda shrines to fight a boss and get an item or find a little camp that you clear out to get an item

replaying isn't a chore due to the open world
it's a chore because there's a lack of substantial changes between game cycles and a lack of effort put into the endings
>wowie zowie the sky is a different color in a slideshow now

How on earth does anyone replay a game so soon after it releases? The game took me 120 hours to complete, at a decent pace of exploration.

How do you not get bored with it? Do you not have other games to play?

I don't really think it's the size specifically, but rather that going through it the first time you most likely go through every corner, searching every dungeon because you have no idea what is in them and that's interesting. But the second time, you know that it's just a weapon or spell you're not going to use, meaning that the only content you have any real reason to do in a new game is the weapon or spells you want, and then the main quest because nothing else really matters.

You people have it backwards.
You hate the Open World because so much of it is just a waste of time, copypasted shitty dungeons and enemy encounters do not reward anything meaningful.
But i think they should have gone opposite direction with it.

I want a fucking game that is FULL of giant empty fields but every big construction/object you see in the distance is an absolute guaranteed quality.

I would be perfectly content (even prefer and like it) if for example Mountaintops of Giants was an almost completely empty area with no enemies and the true hazard was traversal of difficult, abandoned terrain, using Torrent as your trusted steed. But no. "LE HARD XD GOT HIT IN THE MAIN MENU UPREDDITS TO THE RIGHT XD" game has to spam shitty boring low quality enemies because clips of streamer raging because he got YOU DIED screen are so funneh.

No one takes risks anymore.

Attached: 234524354325.jfif.jpg (1024x552, 105.17K)

best one since demon's souls and the only one that comes close to it in terms of how easy it is to get a build going.

This is a cool take and all.
But was it really necessary to make another fucking thread about discussing it’s flaws. Like you critics don’t even talk about what you’re doing in the game to make it any fun, you’re just rehashing these dead talking points over and over again.
At this point they should just make a containment board for you reviewers.

why does a game have to replayable?

you could squeeze a good 100 hours out of an initial elden ring playthrough. Why do you need to play a game for more than 100 hours?

Attached: 1596755993834.jpg (801x762, 85.94K)

>I want a fucking game that is FULL of giant empty fields but every big construction/object you see in the distance is an absolute guaranteed quality.
While personally I don't really think that Elden Ring benefitted from any of the dungeons scattered around the outdoors, I think the problem with what you're suggesting is that it begs the question of why have any of that open space at all?

If the concept is that the "levels" are just lots and lots of traversal puzzles or require careful movement or you fall off and die, then the question is how is that actually fun to go to and from anywhere? What if I don't WANT to have to navigate annoying, time-consuming, hazardous terrain just to go back and forth between here and there? It may be fun once, but is it fun a second time?

And if the solution then is to just not make players have to backtrack through it, then your game is just a linear path of "big castle level > annoying terrain > next big castle > more annoying terrain" in a straight line from start to finish. Why not just cut that down so it's only the good stuff and leave out the tedium?

The fact that you're even asking such a question shows how far the world has deteriorated.

I'm of two minds.
On one hand, you have to go on a treasure hunt when you want to try a new weapon or build in a new playthrough of the game, which is a bit annoying and can take you all the way to the Altus Plateau just for one key ingredient to what you hope to achieve.
On the other hand, without it being open world, you'd have to ride out being railroaded all the way to Altus Plateau just to get the key ingredient to your build, which means you have to endure using either a suboptimal or entirely different weapon/build than you want.

what do you mean?

Games were never meant to be a "play them once then dispose of them" type of thing.

Should have made a smaller, labyrinthine world, just the original cranked up to 11 as a sprawling, cramped, multitiered world rather than open.

That's because in the early days of video games they were designed around getting you to keep putting coins into the machine. Once you get out of the arcade era there have been plenty of games built around a single playthrough.
Someone asking why you need more than 100 hours out of a video game isn't a sign of the world deteriorating you drama queen.

Open world could have been good if they had actually done something creative with it instead of littering the world with copy/paste mini dungeons.

Arcades haven't been relevant for decades. You don't make much sense. But anyone who sincerely wants things to go in such a direction of play once disposable video games, they are cancer to the industry.

I make perfect sense, and the fact that arcades aren't relevant was exactly my point. Arcades (and F2P) are the last time that there was a widespread design ethos of infinite replayability. Some games are designed for multiple runs, some are designed to be one and done. There are good games of both types, and trying to force all games to conform to one or the other would be the real cancer.
Left 4 Dead is far more replayable than Half Life 2 because they have different design sensibilities, for example. You sound like you either haven't thought about this very much or don't play many different games.

I've most likely played more games in this past week alone than you've played in your entire life. Anyway, I'm done talking about this.

If that's true, I'm impressed how little you manage to understand about different games.

You cited nothing but western shit. Westerners have always been in second place when it came to video games. They are the main reason video games almost ceased to exist until Japan saved the industry.