-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
From Software Development & Speculation - Everything we know about their current projects
- Thread starter Mifec
- Start date
Before Miyazaki took over the project that became Demon's Souls I think the game was a first-person Oblivion clone that Sony wanted.
Bethesda game worlds are very much built around and driven by the narrative focus of their game worlds and as such are usually very wide and open but also fairly "flat" with long stretches of essentially nothing of worth between the larger points of interest. On top of that they're built to be filled with large and small towns with a number of NPC's running around either in the open world or within said towns. This isn't really a design philosophy that suits Fromsoft's game design either, and as such isn't really the direction Elden Ring is designed in.
Right, I believe he clarified most "villages" in the game world were going to be decrepit ruins that would act sort of like Dungeons in an interview. I think the inspiration he took from Oblivion was it's Western Fantasy style.
As someone who generally isn't into most of the last decades open world (AAA especially) titles (BOTW included) I would say if you're in the same boat as me you don't really have anything to worry about in terms of how Fromsoft is designing their "open world" and it's the reason they're pivoting away from even really calling it Open World and moving more towards the distinction of "Open Field". To denote a greater openness than past games have provided while also staying away from popular and over used Open World trends. Which doesn't just mean "So we made Dark Souls, but now areas are big enough to ride a horse through too" either. But design elements and direction, especially in terms of an open world are one of the things I plan to talk about and go more in depth with in the future.
But BGS games, H:ZD, BOTW, Modern AC, etc this game is not.
But BGS games, H:ZD, BOTW, Modern AC, etc this game is not.
Thank God.
Just finding a dragon in the middle of a forest, Dragon's Dogma style, and a boss battle starting, though? That would be some good shit.
Just finding a dragon in the middle of a forest, Dragon's Dogma style, and a boss battle starting, though? That would be some good shit.
BOTW is one of my favourite games but I don't want Elden Ring to be like that, so I'm happy that it'll be something different that FROM likes to do.
Going to wild. I wonder how they'll expand on it now that it's open world
Coming out to the sight of the eclipse, and the crimson butterflies in DS3 is one of my favorite moments this gen.
Am I the only one who considered Dark Souls 1 open world to some degree? I mean...it's pretty open, no?
GRRM's involvement begins and ends at world building and lore. Like it says in the OP, From's stance on difficulty has not changed with Elden Ring and difficulty will be designed the same as usual. Beyond Elden Ring, I don't see their stance on difficulty being changed either. It's a design philosophy From and Miyazaki in particular heavily believe in.
As for Elden Ring being more difficult than past games. I don't really know how to quantify difficulty as things will obviously be different for everyone. Some people found Sekiro to be easy while others found it to be an insurmountable task and gave up. But I think with the way the game is designed there will be more opportunities to find yourself in precarious situations whether you knew it was coming or not which I suppose is it's own form of difficulty.
Haha I used to have the same concern with literally every new From release after Dark Souls.
Dark Souls 2 ''Oh no the series is getting recognized now, they are gonna dumb down the difficulty to appeal to new comers''
Bloodborne ''Oh no it's an 8th gen Sony exclusive there's no way Sony won't make it more accessible''
Dark Souls 3 ''The series is literally popular now, they are gonna go full mainstream with accessibility''
Sekiro ''Oh god it's a freaking Activision game here comes easy mode and microtransactions''
That's the only thing I am not concerned about.
My hope is that they make customization a little bit casual friendly. I finally made my friend fall in love with Sekiro, and I need a coop for ER.
Which would you guys prefer I finish/release first:
-World[Lore related]
-World[Gameplay related]
Reminder that this isn't some sort of massive detailing of anything getting into the nitty gritty of all design aspects and elements. It's expanding on stuff I've already talked about for the most part and if there's something specific you've heard me say and want me to kind of go into a bit more detail on let me know what it was and I'll try to get around to it provided that I can get around to it. Like I'm not going to detail the story of Elden Ring or give a complete run down of combat and online mechanics.
-World[Lore related]
-World[Gameplay related]
Fantasy and Inspirations is the other topic
Reminder that this isn't some sort of massive detailing of anything getting into the nitty gritty of all design aspects and elements. It's expanding on stuff I've already talked about for the most part and if there's something specific you've heard me say and want me to kind of go into a bit more detail on let me know what it was and I'll try to get around to it provided that I can get around to it. Like I'm not going to detail the story of Elden Ring or give a complete run down of combat and online mechanics.
Last edited:
I kinda imagine how this game will be like but i can't describe it totally. I mean, we are aware that the "open world" term will be quite far from what we've seen of this term in other games like AC, RDR 2. Guess it will not have include a mini-map, compass hud etc. it would be look pretty bad on a habitual miyazaki style. Just give me generic Fromsoft approach with simple Hp/Stamina bar on screen, boss name/hp on the bottom side, and let me roam on the world freely. I find my own path and own way.
Gameplay please.
Also, glad to know online is making a return in some form. I missed it in Sekiro.
I won't be spoiling anything as it's largely contextual information again expanding on things ive already said. I'm not going to point out who the people are in the trailer or something like that. it's more expanding on world design in terms of world building and setting.
Gameplay stuff is world design in the context of gameplay and like I said, just elaborating on stuff I've already said. So I don't want to get anyones hopes up.
I really wonder if the Souls formula can work its charm in an "open field" (if that is even what they are going for). The tight level design kinda forces you into combat while the more open areas are usually swamps that slow you down so you can't avoid too many encounters.
While I do want them to try a more open approach, I really hope it doesn't make things boring. I'm sure they'll nail it, though.
I just recently replayed DS3 and thought it was perfectly interconnected. I don't need every area to reconnect with one specific place to think the level design is great. I honestly vastly prefer DS3's level design over DS1.
World[Gameplay related] please!
Thanks Omni, -World[Gameplay related] please :)
If I ask a question, please say if you can't talk about it, or if you answer in a vague way, that's cool too :). We appreciate having someone like you here!
I'm wondering if FromSoft will bring back a system similar to black and white world tendency like we had in Demon's Souls?
Dark Souls for the most part is a cohesive "interconnected" world. Dark Souls 3 is a series of large intricate levels linked together by hallways and smaller transitional levels. It is most certainly not "interconnected." It is just "connected." That is what Miyazaki himself considered his greatest regret in regards to Dark Souls 3. It plays very much like a series of levels requiring the use of a hub, rather than having everything connect to everything else, helping you stay grounded in the world rather than moving around by warping all the time for the entire playthrough.
Now, I really like Dark Souls 3, and I think it's levels each individually were great, but it definitely did not feel as real when each was kind of it's own "level" rather than simple area of a larger whole.
Really? I could totally understand this statement with Dark Souls 1, but for the third game this amazes me.
"And the dragons were no more"Going to wild. I wonder how they'll expand on it now that it's open world
Thanks Omni
A guy can dream though :)
Yes! This is what I'd love, right here.
Last edited:
Those aren't Dragons, there Wyverns. Which have been in the series since Dark Souls 1.
Release Check Mode
Its just me or is writen Armored Core Blade something in the 2nd line?
Alright, just connected then.
That being said, I'll take DS3's connected level design over DS1's interconnected level design any day of the week.
Not saying that is the case but I feel like the need to interconnect certain parts of different areas with each other automatically limits you when it comes to level design. "I can't have that area built like that since it actually needs to loop back to somewhere else" - or something like that.
I do admit that I actually forgot that you had to warp to the next area after reaching Firelink Shrine for the first time... ^^;
Its just me or is writen Armored Core Blade something in the 2nd line?
It says Release Check Mode, which is a debug parameter
How about DS3's intricate level design meshed with DS1's interconnected world design? Best of both worlds. It's what I'm hoping they implement in Elden Ring.
I agree with the others, but I just wanted to add thanks for dealing with forum trolls in order to share your insight.
Don't make me grab pictures of every dragon boss in the series.
The one thing I miss a little in regards to the areas in Dark Souls III is having a bit more personality. For example, speaking strictly of map design, the Cathedral of the Deep is a very strong contender for best level in From's history. It's beauitfully designed, so many layers, from the outside to the rafters, some awesome secrets with tangible gameplay rewards, multiple ways to the boss (if the boss was better that would also help with making the area more memorable), it's great.
But it looks a bit too sterile, a bit too bland, and the lore is not THAT interesting. So, as a result, the only times I really think about Cathedral of the Deep when not playing the game is when I'm making this exact same argument. It doesn't stand out as much as other, much less intricate areas. Anor Londo is really simple once you get over the emotional impact of reaching it for the first time, but who can say that Anor Londo is less memorable than Cathedral of the Deep with a straight face?
The simpler and shorter Dark Souls 1 areas still end up feeling more epic, despite being a series of corridors you can run through in seconds.
I feel like this is in no small part due to it inheriting the more consistent Bloodborne lighting, instead of the very distinct look for each area that Dark Souls 1 achieved with filters, but also Dark Souls II had just by changing the lighting, without any overdone filters, so it's still possible if they just didn't want anything as drastic as Dark Souls 1.
By the way, why the hell is it so hard to me to write Dark Souls I or Dark Souls 2? I keep mixing both ways and it drives me nuts.
But it looks a bit too sterile, a bit too bland, and the lore is not THAT interesting. So, as a result, the only times I really think about Cathedral of the Deep when not playing the game is when I'm making this exact same argument. It doesn't stand out as much as other, much less intricate areas. Anor Londo is really simple once you get over the emotional impact of reaching it for the first time, but who can say that Anor Londo is less memorable than Cathedral of the Deep with a straight face?
The simpler and shorter Dark Souls 1 areas still end up feeling more epic, despite being a series of corridors you can run through in seconds.
I feel like this is in no small part due to it inheriting the more consistent Bloodborne lighting, instead of the very distinct look for each area that Dark Souls 1 achieved with filters, but also Dark Souls II had just by changing the lighting, without any overdone filters, so it's still possible if they just didn't want anything as drastic as Dark Souls 1.
By the way, why the hell is it so hard to me to write Dark Souls I or Dark Souls 2? I keep mixing both ways and it drives me nuts.
...I really cannot agree. I don't see how having cathedral of the deep connect down to the swamp by adding some extra area "limits" you. That's not...really how level design works?
Being interconnected just means you need to consider how you lay things out in general. You can still have plenty compelling level design with that. Neither need by compromised by the other. I mean, The entirety of the burg is very well designed and is just as intricate as the opening castle in DS3, if not more so. Part of the excitement for me honestly in DS1 was how it kept looking like it connected to different places. It just seemed to go on and on and have all these possibilities. I wasn't even thinking in terms of "areas" in the way I'd think of "levels," but rather "areas" in the way I would in real life, just general areas of space, not bespoke, manufactured levels. I got decidedly less of that in DS3 with every level being so nuclear and self contained. It felt like I was transitioning scene to scene rather than being in a real world.
A lot of the strength in DS1's world design is based on context. When I go down to blighttown, I have the context of everything above me, so I feel this weight of the entire kingdom above me, and I feel way way far down, with the difficulty of defeating enemies carving my way down there cementing every bit of it in my memory. Context makes blighttown so much more desolate than it otherwise would be, and it already does that pretty well on it's own. The context serves everything else. The darkroot areas feel hidden, as the ways to get to them are way down underneath other areas. The firelink shrine feels small and adjascent with the aesethetic of a graveyard tied to the grand old church above. You can make a person feel that an area is one way with just aesthetics, but you can make that feeling stronger with contextual experience.
Regardless of how effective you find this to be, I think it's kind of silly to imply it just has to be limiting. Neither need be slave of the other. Levels are not tubes. And if they are tubes, well that's probably not so good design. And with how complicated the levels are, there's no reason not to add various alternate paths, if you can get the blocking of all world parts together to work. Dark Souls 1, they mostly managed that till the last bit. Dark Souls 3 barely tries. It does do it sometimes though, and that tends to work really great. But in times where it doesn't, areas aren't areas any more, they're just elaborate hallways.
Because like, the thing is, the real world isn't a series of levels. The real world...is interconnected. It just, is. I think it's rather silly to act like you can't have good level design without it being decidedly unrealistic. All you have to do is be thinking of the entire world as one level. Plenty of Dark Souls 1's levels are really good, and don't compromise that vision. Blighttown may be annoying because of it's enemies and some of the awkward physics, but overall it's a really well designed level, that is benefited by rather than hindered by the context that surrounds it.
It's totally fair to feel Dark Souls 3's level design, level to level, is probably more interesting. This isn't always true, but you've got things like Cathedral of the Deep where like, yeah, absolutely I'll buy that. But I don't see how rotating the path to get there so many degrees, and then adding a cool hidden basement underneath to lead down to another area is some how limiting or compromising of its level design.
...and I'm not trying to convince you. This is simply my opinion and I know I'm in the minority on this.
I don't know. My feelings on this topic might come from the fact that I played DS1 after BB, DS2 and DS3 (in that order) so I knew about the interconnected world thing because everyone keeps raving about it. When I experienced that myself in DS1 it wasn't that big of a deal for me to be quite honest.
Yes, it had a surprise effect on people when it came out and it adds to the immersion but warping to Archdragon Peak in DS3 didn't take me out of the experience one bit and I was still able to appreciate the level design on its own.
Maybe part of my opinion could be explained by the fact that DS1 is an older game that came out on older hardware and they had to work around certain limitations that DS3 didn't have and that's why I prefer the DS3 experience (in the context of self contained level design).
See, Gbraga thinks the Cathedral of the Deep could be a contender for the best level design in any FROM game and I couldn't tell you why anyone would think that that area specifically is supposed to be so great and I've just replayed the game a few weeks ago. I feel much more strongly about Archdragon Peak, The Ringed City, The Undead Settlement and Irithyll of the Boreal Valley. The areas themselves just spoke to me so much more than anything in DS1.
Last edited:
From is one of the few developers out there that have my blind faith in whatever they do. For now. They could try and tackle a sports game and i'd be interested. I'm in the 'open world' fatique camp (aside from the few that do it right in my opinion), yet i'm really curious about how they tackle this. I'm willing to bet it will be interesting, fun and rewarding. Might even set a new bar in how open world RPGs should be made. These guys know how to make a fun videogame, and more importantly, don't design their content as a means to make money. Their games have vision and feel cohesive and i'm excited to see what is next.