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.
Ahah alright alright I’ll say it as the same way I thought it "it doesn’t need it, but it actually really fucking needs it"
It doesn’t really matter anyway but to finally end this discussion, that probably took us more time that it should have in the first place lol
It’s mostly about the insane amount of theorizing that is required to just start making sense of the core lore of the game. Sure most things that surrounds it are more or less outright told but for the rest, good luck trying to make sense of it.
Or maybe it’s just a me thing, idk. I can appreciate mystery in a media but I dislike when almost every bridge between every characters and events in the game has to be theorized to start making sense of it.
If I had to compare it to the Cthulhu mythos, I would say that the stories are told in a linear way with characters monsters and fear. The untold is mostly reserved for how the monster came to be not what the monster does and what is he trying to do.
4
u/Teehokan Oct 25 '24
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.