Bloodborne is everything a modern Zelda game should be

The question of how to evolve Zelda has been brought up multiple times, and multiple points of reference have been raised in the past- The Elder Scrolls and Dark Souls, of course, remain the most popular points of comparison. I am here to say that more than even those, Bloodborne represents what a modern Zelda game should be like.

Silly char, Bloodborne and Dark Souls are practically the same!

Well... yes and no. Bloodborne is a much denser game overall, leaning far more on interconnected, sprawling level design, rewarding (optional) player backtracking and exploration. It does this more than even Dark Souls. For reasons that I will now outline in this thread, this is important.

Okay, fine. So why? You want Zelda to be this dark adult fantasy thing?

No, I do not. I am very fine with Zelda retaining its colorful vibe (and in my opinion, every time Zelda tries the mature fantasy look, it loses some of its personality- Twilight Princess, I am looking at you). Similarly, I would be rather sad if Zelda decided to include gratuitous violence or gore like Bloodborne either. I'm not talking about those things.

Then what are you talking about?

Glad we can finally get to this part.

You see, all of those things that we just talked about? They are superficial similarities. I am talking about far more fundamental and pervasive things that permeate Bloodborne's game design that epitomize, to me, what Zelda should be like.

Put simply, Zelda, at its best, should encourage and evoke the following:

• World exploration
• Memorable combat
• Rewarding player curiosity and exploration
• An actual challenge to the player
• Player co-operation

All of these are things that were achieved by the original Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time. Zelda games since then have achieved some (or none) of those, but none, except for maybe arguably A Link Between Worlds, has achieved all of them.

This is something that Bloodborne achieves, and it achieves it in style. Bloodborne presents the player with a dense world, one that is packed and teeming with secrets, and one that it invites the player to explore. There are so many layers to Bloodborne's world, and it is a joy to unravel slowly all the secrets that it hides. It is a game where the player is invited (albeit never forced- more on that in a minute) to go through areas previously visited, see how they all link up to each other, form a mental map of the world in their head, and find new secrets they could not have before, defeat enemies that they would have found incredibly tough on the first go.

Bloodborne also respects player agency and intelligence- it has tutorials, but it relies on player initiative to actually display them. It has so much going on, but again, it relies on the player to figure it all out. This harkens back to Zelda NES, Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time- they were games filled with secrets, but they relied on player initiative before they yielded those secrets. That made the feeling of discovery and accomplishment that much sweeter- nothing undermines the feeling of discovery as much as the game actually telling you what to discover, and exactly how to discover it.

That sort of thing also posits a challenge to the player- you get as much from the game as you are willing to put into it. At some point, you need to put in effort, or you can't progress. Again, that plays into a feeling of accomplishment, that Zelda used to be all too adept at, but has slowly lost over the last few years. It also encourages player co-operation- they share secrets and strategies, they collaborate together, they try to beat the game collectively as a community.

All of this is stuff that Bloodborne does, that Zelda used to do, but no longer does. Simply put, Bloodborne is almost like a love letter to Zelda, a design document for the Zelda team to follow.

But what about the difficulty?

Once again, stop fixating on the superficial. I am not saying Zelda should be Souls levels of hard. Nintendo has its own audience to cater to, and those demographical needs must be kept in mind with each game it develops. I am just asking for the game to not as braindead easy as Spirit Tracks or Skyward Sword. And really, I'm not even asking for it to be difficult at all, I am asking for it to challenge me. There is a difference between those two concepts.

And one more thing...

Storytelling. I find that Bloodborne's storytelling is very underrated. The core story's quality may be up for discussion, but I am not talking about that. I am talking instead about the beautiful and elegant way Bloodborne tells the story. Rarely is your gameplay ever interrupted for story. Actual cutscenes and info dumps are rare. Storytelling is organic and part of the actual gameplay experience itself. The game world tells the story. The enemies you fight tell the story. Mechanics like Insight tell the story. And if you go off the beaten path and explore, you are rewarded with snippets of telling exposition that you can piece together to get a story.

That is the kind of storytelling Zelda should aim for, it is in fact the kind of storytelling that Nintendo popularized itself in the first place, but has bafflingly moved away from in recent years.

So yes, Bloodborne. It's a Zelda design document, or at least it should be. From Software has often expressed enthusiasm and reverence for the Zelda series, and it shows in their games. If only Nintendo themselves managed to respect what Zelda was about as much as From does, things might be different. As it stands right now, Bloodborne is a better Zelda than Zelda.

Every point you mentioned Dark Souls 1 did better.

No.

What a well thought response.

I'm totally agree with this:

• World exploration
• Memorable combat
• Rewarding player curiosity and exploration

About the Lore is fine as it is, personally i think that style of Lore is much more fitting for Metroid like the Prime games did it.

I don't see how making it open world makes it like Bloodborne. The combat in the Souls game is awful with Bloodborne barely bein ok. Honestly everything you said can be said about any open world game. So yes I agree with some stuff said but I wouldn't call that "like Bloodborne " not without the difficulty art tone and atmosphere. All of which I don't want in Zelda

Say what?

Granted, The Witcher 3 hasn't released yet, but its formula I think would be far more befitting to what compromises Zelda than Bloodborne would. Vast world, exploration, dynamic random events, cities, villages, a great inventory and customization. They only thing would be the addition of puzzles. Not to say there's some aspects that would fit from BB, but the overall structure? Eh....don't see it. It's a bit too linear even though there is exploration.

I agree with your point on difficulty mostly, but ever since the Wii, Nintendo's made it blatantly clear what audience they are targeting and how they're willing to compromise their games to accommodate them. On consoles at least, I know ALBW was more challenging, but that it was based on a game produced in a time before Nintendo underwent a change in philosophy which speaks more on it more than their current mindset. They've yet to put out a main console iteration that isn't extremely patronizing and insultingly easy in quite a while. Yes, Aonuma has spoken on this, that he "now realizes" how it's not satisfying when our hands are held and a game is too easy....(*sigh*)....but it remains to be seen when Zelda U releases if he puts his money where his mouth is.

Zelda with Souls combat wouldn't be fitting. Link's supposed to attack super fast, which is at odds with the slow and methodical pace of Souls combat. Having to manage stamina and commit to a slow attack animation would be such a drastic change from past Zelda games, and would probably piss off fans of the series and casuals and alike. And from what we've seen Zelda U is just gonna be Twilight Princess-style combat anyway.

lol

@princeofshapeir: Well, I didn't say that Zelda should have Souls combat- actually I now realize I completely neglected to elaborate on the combat part in the OP altogether, but to be clear, all I mean is that the combat in Zelda should have some weight (literal or otherwise). As it stands right now, it is insultingly easy, and also very button mashy. Again, I understand demographical differences, but Ocarina of Time's combat was cutting edge for its time. The problem is, that same combat system has been used in every single game since then.

It may be time to move on.

Dat hyperbole.

@Kaze_no_Mirai: No it's not.

@charizard1605: @princeofshapeir: Its garbage. Of course, in my opinion. Which is why I dont usually go to Souls circle jerk threads. Other people like it, cool. I find it clunky as ****. Not saying Zelda is better but yeah...

@Kaze_no_Mirai: How exactly is it garbage? What action RPG would you say has better combat?

Eh, the Zelda series already does some things better than Bloodborne.

While Bloodborne has better interconnected levels (although I feel that Dark Souls is even better than Bloodborne in that regard), the Zelda series' individual dungeons are much better designed than anything in Bloodborne. Bloodborne's 'dungeon' design is little more than "survive until you unlock the next shortcut or checkpoint", over and over again, with little variation. Zelda intersperses combat with creative puzzles, has a variety of dungeons with different themes, mechanics and tones, and generally featured absolutely stellar level design (even in their weaker games, like Skyward Sword).

Both encourage exploration in different ways. Bloodborne allows you to explore through its level design, but only at your own peril - walking off the main track could easily land you in fights that are beyond your capabilities, but which might land you with a few bonus runes. Zelda encourages you to explore through its mechanics - rewarding you for clever use of your abilities by granting you access to new treasures. I actually prefer Zelda's design in this regard.

Zelda's gameplay gets increasingly complex and interesting at it goes along - introducing you to new movement types, new tools, and new puzzle solutions that fundamentally change the way you approach the world. Bloodborne, on the other hand, never really advances beyond the fight with Gascoigne - once you've mastered fighting him, there aren't really any other mechanics to learn, and you're basically doing the same thing against harder enemies for the next 25 hours. Sure, you occasionally find different ways to kill enemies, and you need to learn different tactics for some fights...but it's not like you suddenly have to consider each environment in multiple dimensions or look out for grapple points or whatever.

As for interesting and difficult combat...isn't that what Skyward Sword's Hero Mode was for?

Also, I'd say Zelda has the slight edge in boss battles. Too many bosses in Bloodborne (and Dark Souls, for that matter) could be defeated using the same tactics, and too many felt same-y (there are way too many 'giant beast' variants, whose attacks barely vary). Zelda battles are distinct, memorable and fun without feeling artificially difficult, and each take their dungeon's new mechanics to their logical conclusions.

So...I don't know. Bloodborne is a pretty great action game, but I don't think it's the ideal model for the Zelda series.

Little too late to read all of it and respond, but goddamn, if the rest of Zelda games' combat are like the first three 3D games' combat it just needs an overhaul.

Wind Waker's combat's difficulty all came from the huge amount of i-frames on every enemy, so some weight would help.

I would like to point out that Zelda is not an RPG. Just in case.

Not accusing anyone.

It doesn't have to be one, though, none of the things I mentioned require it to be an RPG.

That's why I said I wasn't accusing anyone. It's just that there's always some fucker that thinks otherwise and believes Zelda should "get with the times" and mimic Skyrim's mechanics.

@charizard1605: Honestly can't really think of any right now. Not at least in the style of Souls. I did enjoy stuff like Muramasa even though that's a sidescrolling ARPG. Diablo is good. I'm not necessarily saying that others do it better but I dont like it personally. Its too clunky in my opinion. If others like it thats great, but I don't think I'd like that in a Zelda game even though I do think that would be a step up from the current Zelda battles. I don't hate the Souls games at all but I love the atmosphere they create especially what they did with Bloodborne. But yeah.. the combat not a fan. Its just a matter of opinion. I guess garbage was an exaggeration though, haha.

It doesn't have to mimic anything. It has to be itself. The trouble is right now, other games out-Zelda Zelda. It's kind of sad.

Alright, I can respect your opinion.

@charizard1605: I was cherry picking on the fools that believe that; I'm not making any statements on how Zelda should be.

Man, I can already see you giving the next Zelda the SS treatment. :P

I wouldn't have to, if it didn't suck :P

I do think Bloodborne should be a model for future Resident Evil games.

Think about it: most of BB felt like a tribute to RE4. BB's setting, set pieces, enemy design, level design, hidden secrets and customisation systems all feel like they have their roots in RE4's Spanish hell hole (although the fighting mechanics are obviously more from the Souls games).

So it would be cool if a future RE game took these design improvements and ran with them - obviously accounting for no levelling up and gunplay rather than melee combat.

It all started just like this!

IIrc. :P

Absolutely. I never liked Zelda but you can see FROMSOFT took some inspiration from it. Now, why can't a proper Castlevania be like Bloodborne? Devs should learn from FROMSOFT how to build a cool world!

Modern Zelda is whatever Aonuma comes up with. It can be good or bad. But Bloodborne is Bloodborne. No need to set the route "yeah, totally, this is where it should definitely go."

How were Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword more braindead or easier compared to other Zelda games? In terms of level design I recall having to put as much thought, maybe even moreso sometimes, into the dungeons and puzzles of Skyward Sword as I did any other Zelda, even despite Fi. Spirit Tracks I cannot really speak on as much in this regard as that game and its dungeons are forgettable as hell to me.

in terms of combat I certainly disagree. I probably got more challenge and got closer to game overs in both those games than I have in any other Zelda game that aren't the NES titles, and maybe ALttP back when I played the game for the first time as a kid (don't really think that game is terribly hard nowadays, except for Ganon's Tower).

Skyward Sword had its shortcomings but I wouldn't say "easiness" was one of them.

This is system wars not games discussion.

@Planeforger: The forest levels and the snakeman HAS to be an homage to RE4.

Resident Evil 4 is what destroyed Resident Evil... Or at least started the downward spiral into action and completely random and unrelated events that veered off into a tangent that had nothing to do with the other games...

P.S. This thread is just another reason to try and keep Bloodborne in the spotlight and relevant... Sad..

lol TC is truly a major cow.

The Witcher 3 looks to resemble that old adventure feel Zelda games liek OoT and LttP had, which is for me the best part of Zelda series.

@nyadc: Man, I get the feeling this game came to your house and killed your puppy.

I know it's not a bad game, I get that, I know it's actually a good game (for the few that enjoy this kind of thing)... However I just think it's being entirely overblown, dragged on far too long past its relevance and people are acting like it's some super mainstream game now that dragged the Souls series out of the niche.... I haven't seen any sales threads in a while, hmm I wonder why that is? Oh, maybe because it peaked, it's no longer relevant and sales declined like the drop of a cliff...

Why aren't posters bashing this thread for comparing two different games?

@nyadc: Define how long a game should remain relevant. WoW is old as hell by game standards and is still pretty much relevant.

Also, sales threads will come whenever we get new numbers about it. I guess.

Longer than a month and a half I'd hope, especially a 93/100 game... This game is relevant to the five people who still talk about it around here and make threads like this to try and keep it relevant in the limelight or normal day to day conversations that take place.

I wouldn't expect much out of that my friend, the hype and lack of other exclusives to play sold this game in a spike, spikes drop off hard.

Loss of a director is what killed Resident Evil. A team struggling to emulate RE4 without understanding what made it tick due to a loss of brilliant leadership is what killed it. Old RE was already dead. RE4 took the series to heights that nobody could have imagined, only for Capcom to screw the pooch and send it back to hell.

.

Now for the Bloodborne talk son.

Why do you let a game bother you so much? In life you're going to come across all kinds of people who like things that you don't like. That's just how it goes and it's one of those things you're going to have to accept as you move on into adulthood. You're going to have to learn to deal with it.

Let me ask, do you honestly believe that Char created this thread in an attempt to carry the torch and keep Bloodborne discussion rolling? Do you not understand how ridiculous and paranoid that sounds?

Here are the facts bud. The game was a hit with the critics. The game sold fairly well, especially considering the kind of game it is, it sold great. Among many gaming communities it's not only considered a great game, it's considered the greatest game of the gen thus far.

Did you ever stop to think that people talk about it because it is *gasp* in the spotlight and still very relevant? Maybe instead of it being some world wide conspiracy, people are actually talking about something they enjoy?

PEOPLE LIKE IT. So get over it. The quicker you move on, the better you'll feel.

@SolidGame_basic: Because that 1,300 word long OP that you ignored to post yet another drive by trolling comment is describing exactly how the two games aren't different but are actually alike. Some day when you read and actually contribute to a topic pertinently, you will understand.

I like variety and identity, zelda should stay being the zelda we grew loving, of course it can evolve but not lose of what it made it special and certainly not copying other games.

@Wiimotefan: Yeah, fanboyism aside, Bloodborne is a really good game - easily one of the best current-gen exclusives.

I think people are exaggerating how great it is (I don't think it'd make my top 50 games of all time), but it's easy to see why the critics raved about it and fans are still talking about it.

Man, I like where this thread is going lol.

Anyways. I haven't played Bloodborne yet (yes, shoot me), but I had the same feeling while playing Dark Souls. Getting away from the superficial elements, there are a lot of core design ideas that Zelda could benefit from.

Over the years I've seen so much "Zelda needs to be like X and X franchise!", but in these games I can actually see the relation and the potential.

But I'm going to say **** all that and add my own random tangent. Retro studios needs to make the next Zelda. I know it's not an original idea by any means, but I just want it to happen.

@Krelian-co said:

****, I know right? It was just bad timing. I was slammed with multiple contracts when it came out... then I bought into Pillars of Eternity and that was a time sink. Good thing is I'll be able to play the game post patch! So I'll never know the full dread of the load times haha.

I'll be starting on it next week though, finally.

Sill haven't played Bayonetta 2 either lol. It's like I'm actively avoiding games that will obviously be my favorites.

@ConanTheStoner said:

@Krelian-co said:

****, I know right? It was just bad timing. I was slammed with multiple contracts when it came out... then I bought into Pillars of Eternity and that was a time sink. Good thing is I'll be able to play the game post patch! So I'll never know the full dread of the load times haha.

I'll be starting on it next week though, finally.

Sill haven't played Bayonetta 2 either lol. It's like I'm actively avoiding games that will obviously be my favorites.

yeah you are missing out some great games, well look at the bright sidem when you have time there won't be shortage of worthy games to play.

I agree. It's an exclusive so yeah it gets a bit too much praise as per usual. It's not a top 50 for me either, though it is one of the main highlights of the gen. I'd even say it outright justified my PS4 purchase.

I didn't mean to take it too far, but every time I lurk the board I see the same guy with the same old mantra. As if the gaming world is artificially praising the game for some sinister reason. It doesn't even make sense, what would these alleged Bloodborne cult members gain from talking about the game?

It's a fairly new game. People like it. Simple as that.

Exactly! Or at least that's what I keep telling myself lol

All I know is I need to chop through some of this backlog in the coming months. Bloodborne, Bayo 2 and Persona 4 are at the top of my list. Then I need to finish up Axiom Verge and Divinity:OS.

Come September, when MGSV drops, my life will be consumed.

This isn't System Wars related. Mods please lock! Oh wait......