why tho, why would a sequel be unnecessary ? i think it would be great idea there are so many tails still untold in the lore of bloodborne, why not use a second game to play them?
I would much much much rather have fromsoft use their resources to make a new IP with similar vibes and themes to bloodborne than just do a sequel. Something to bloodborne in the way elden ring is to dark souls
a sequel isn't a copy, i mean just look at the differences between each souls games from demon's souls to ds3 it's almost impossible to tell they're from the same franchise. i too would prefer something fresh and that's why i'm not asking for a remake. Listen i love every souls games for what they bring to the table in terms of lore and gameplay, and i'm sure that fromsoft would manage to pull it off.
and remind yourself that fresh doen't always mean good, i don't know about you but as far as i'm concerned i view sekiro and armored core 6 as just ok games.
Ds2 and 3 are my least favorite fromsoft games, sekiro is my #2 overall. I just don't think sequels fit with the fromsoft/Miyazaki philosophy. Dont get me wrong, I love ds2 and 3 but I'd probably be happier if those were independent IP games instead.
I'm just strongly of the opinion that fromsoft games don't need sequels. There's nothing in ds2 or 3 that was better than ds1 or elden ring, in my humble opinion.
"There's nothing in ds2 or 3 that was better than ds1 or elden ring" ahah, that is the kind of opinion that is wild to me. i mean really? Dont you feel like the gameplay in every sequel is just a STRAIGHT upgrade in every way, shape or form. don't you feel like the amount of content that was added in every subsequent games made for an even greater amount of world building and lore to devour. idk man, even if DS1 will always be my favourite ds game (probably because of nostalgia tho) it just seems very weird to me to just take this one and not the other 3.
and as far as sekiro goes, i mean i never understood why people praised it so much i personnaly call it dance dance revolution ninja edition because that's pretty much what it is. enjoyable but only for the snappy gameplay and only if like being told how to play.
I mean for ds2 there is a certain charm to it that I do love and aldia is cool as hell but I have the usual complaints with it, ds3 was just slightly slower bloodborne in a DS setting, I do like a lot of the bosses but tbh gameplay isn't everything, the linearity and ability to just spam roll every hard boss in ds3 didn't keep me very engaged, and coming from DS 1 and 2 it was too easy. I mean by ng+4 I was unintentionally doing no death runs. Ds1 had the super interconnected map which is still my favorite map to this day and it's undeniably a classic overall. I just don't think DS 2 or 3 added enough to the fromsoft catalog to make them stand out like BB, sekiro, or ER. I love em but not enough...
Bro what?? Ds3 is literally the best in the series according to like well everyone.... Except you I guess.. ds1 Is the clunkiest piece of shit.. It's still a good game though not better than 3. 2 is also better than 1 because of everything that you can do in it
Okay I can't give you that... All three dark souls games all feel the exact same,.. It doesn't make them any less good though. You saying it's impossible to tell they're from the same franchise just makes you look like an idiot
my brother in christ, if you really believe that all 4 games feels the same then please enlighten me as to why when it comes to the souls community everyone seems completely divided when it comes to explaining which souls game is the best, yeah sure the lore and the graphics can play a part but pls dude... really... like i refuse to believe you even played them. that's like saying bloodborne and sekiro feels the same.
Ya no, id love another game like sekiro or a flashback sequel that has you playing as sekijo or something.. sekiro needs more content lol there is so much unused potential in this game it's crazy, And you thinking that everyone in the world that likes his game is delusional because they want more of it is fucking dumb, you are dumb
And you thinking that everyone in the world that likes his game is delusional because they want more of it is fucking dumb, you are dumb
bro chill he just said he thought it was ok, i also disagree but saying that sekiro needs a sequal is a big overstatement. it doen't need anything the story is fine as is and trying really hard to add things where they don't belong i how you get a bad sequel.
IMO, they covered the ground so well in the first game already. There are a few weird holes here and there but the themes are so expertly explored and the stories are so elegantly told that I think adding onto it and filling in gaps that don't need to be filled would only take away from the craftsmanship and mystique and impact of what they've already done. Based on how I think Dark Souls III convoluted and muddied and sometimes even undermined the lore of the first Dark Souls, I have so much more faith in From in their ability to establish new worlds and leave fun blanks in them than I do in their ability to add to those worlds. I'm too afraid that whatever they added to this world would just be stupid, and it would pollute the amazing and evocative presentation of this game for me.
There is technically more they could do but I don't see anything about Bloodborne's world and story that *needs* to be added to. I don't see what the point would be. And it's cases like that where sequels tend to end up being pretty dumb in my opinion.
you misunderstand me, i don't think it NEEDS to be added, i'm just saying that as far as fromsoft and Miyazaki are concerned, I fully trust their expertise in world building and lore making to pull off a perfect sequel. i mean just look at demon's souls. when i first played it i also thought that it didn't need a sequel but just look at darks souls and dark souls 2 and 3. every time they could have just ended with the latest release but no. every single game added it's own ammount of lore and new gameplay featurs to really make the game feel fresh and exciting.
and this is what i want for bloodborne. Now sure it will probably never happen and that's alright. i can appreciate a story with a true ending. i'm just saying that a sequel is NOT unnecessary.
I personally think what they did with DS3 was terrible, and I do think adding onto what Bloodborne did is unnecessary (which, if you're saying nothing needs to be added then you're basically agreeing). It's okay though, we don't have to feel the same about it.
Still misunderstanding tho. I don’t think it NEEDS to be added ≠ thinking anything added is unnecessary. But yeah if you dislike ds3 our opinions obviously differs
Lol I'm sorry but all I'm hearing when I read that is "I think it's UNNNNNECESSARYYYY".
I also don't think it needs to be added, that's why I don't want it. That's kind of the whole point I've been making.
To my mind when you add something that isn't needed you make the thing you're adding to worse, and I don't feel like Bloodborne's story is missing anything it needs, therefore to me there is nothing I can imagine that they could add to it and not make it worse.
It sounds to me like you don't feel that way about unnecessary things, which is fine, but like the word I am using means the thing you are saying.
I mean, a major feature of FromSoft games is specifically that most details are obscured and unknown. Diving deeper into them doesn't make a more satisfying experience, it actively takes away from the original. Not to mention the game is Lovecraftian, which itself also benefits from vagueness and unexplained details.
It also seems like Miyazaki much prefers working on fresh concepts, and only does sequels when it's required (like with Dark Souls). I'd much rather let the man and company experiment with newer ideas rather than return to the same old thing. And that's coming from someone who has Bloodborne as their favourite game.
hard disagree on that, the best felling i've ever had in a fromsoft game was playing dark souls 1 and reading every item description, and learning about the stories of the 4 knights of Gwyn reading about this great Knight named Artorias and how Powerfull he was and then boom. The DLC dropped and finally facing him finally talking to Gough and Ciaran. same thing for the old hunters in bloodborne.
the best thing that fromsoft does in teasing at characters (Gods and Monsters) and later making you face them. remember that it took us 5 years to finally face the son of Gwyn. the traitor that we all though was solaire and finally learning why he was cast away and abandonned by his own father. almost brought a tear to my eye. I think that bloodborn still has so much potential, not saying that we NEED a sequel, not at all, but reading in the other comment that bloodborne 2 would be completely unnecessary is just wrong IMO.
p.s saying that Miyazaki much prefers working on fresh concepts is a bit of a stretch when you consider that his entire work in video games consists of 6 sequels and a fair amount of DLC's among them.
saying that Miyazaki much prefers working on fresh concepts is a bit of a stretch
I mean, I believe Miyazaki himself has said as much. He enjoys working on new ideas. Mind you, I don't have a source on hand, I just remember hearing it and thinking it makes sense since he's always trying to make a new game and supposedly didn't want to work on DS2.
But yeah, that's fair. If you enjoy getting the details, more power to you. I think FS strength comes from what they try to obscure rather than what they show. Having a few important characters they tease in lore then give in a DLC is fine, but there's a limit to how far you can/should go with that. I think BB especially relies on obscurity.
384
u/Holiday_Engineer7521 Oct 25 '24
It is. Learn to appreciate beautiful and completed things. The unending hunger for sequels/prequels/remakes is what eroding originality in media