I got to thinking about this last night and remembered what Jeff spoke of in regards to COD several podcasts ago. Basically he was talking about his enjoyment of Advanced Warfare and the new mechanics, but his worry how the other studios may not use those mechanics and it would seem like a step backward, in his eyes when they release a new game.

I'm wondering if the same could happen with future titles made by From. At this point I have to imagine there will definitely be a Bloodborne II, but I also have to imagine that we will see more "Souls" games (whether that's Dark Souls III or "x" Souls). If we get Bloodborne II there isn't an issue, but for the inevitable future Souls games I find it will probably be hard to go back to that style of combat. It's not that it's bad, since I've quite enjoyed it but going from the super fast and frenetic action of Bloodborne back to the more methodical, plodding combat of the Souls games might seem like a step back to a lot of people. Especially since most seem to agree the combat is the best it's ever been. I suppose they could just take the Bloodborne combat and incorporate it into Souls, but for the people that like that style, they will probably be disappointed in that.

So what do you think?

Bloodborne forces a more active play style. While the souls games cater to a wider range of play styles. I don't see From having an issue here as their style of game is still rather niche and the market isn't over saturated like the FPS genre.

There will always be people for either style. I think it will be fine.

I personally wouldn't mind another slow-playing Souls games, provided they can build on the existing mechanics. But I imagine if there will be another one, it will feature similar gameplay mechanics to Bloodborne. It's fine with me either way.

They make advancements for more complex methodical play. They do what they did for offense in Bloodborne to the methodical pace of Souls. How they do that? I dunno. I'm not Miyazaki.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think it will be a COD type of deal in where the game play from this one surpasses the game play from the previous one. The way I see it, the game play (dodging, combat, items ect.) in BB is just different, not really better and not really worse. Some people may like it better but chances are that those people, assuming they played the previous Souls games, played as that type of light weight, fast dodging character. I think its just From trying out new concepts in their types of games. I will say that you are invincible for a noticible longer period of time when you are dodging in BB than you are in DS, but its nothing revolutionary like the new type of movement in Advanced Warfare from previous COD games.

That's the way I see it

I hate going back to the Dark Souls 1 jumping style... little annoyances like that are likely to pop up as different teams tackle different games.

Considering that I vastly prefer the "methodical, plodding combat," as you put it, of the Souls games, I don't think they'll have a problem with it. There's a place for both styles of gameplay.

I wouldn't be so sure there will be another "Souls" game. If anything it will be as you say a Bloodborne sequel (although, you have to remember that this is yet another Demon's to Dark situation), and by the time they're done with that the Souls train has sorta left the station. That's not to say they can't go back on some design desicions etc, but you gotta remember that we're now four (would be five) games into a series that has stayed pretty much the same all the way through. There's already plenty of re-hashing going on in Bloodborne, and even though some of the changes might seem drastic to the fanbase they are far from enough to really keep things from going stale eventually.

Also, who's to say From/Miyazaki wants to keep making the same kinda game over and over.

This. Even with CoD, there seem to be people who preferred the "fast-paced" gameplay of Advanced Warfare, and then a recent groundswell of those like me that missed the more realistic Modern Warfare days.

You can still play the older games with a more active play style. The biggest difference in Bloodborne is just how hyper aggressive the enemies are. For example try a 2 hand no shield dexterity build.

Dark Souls is by far their most profitable IP, of course they're going to make another one. If King's Field can go 4 games then Dark Souls sure as hell can too.

It's hard to deny that Bloodborne is the fastest game of the four, but it reaaaaaaally isn't that much faster than Dark Souls. It's just people being used to playing slow by choice, but you can totally play fast if you want. I've been playing Dark Souls how I play Bloodborne. It felt instantly familiar, not that different.

If there will be a Dark Souls III, I would be totally fine if it was the usual Souls gameplay. Because truth be told, Bloodborne has the usual Souls gameplay. It just doesn't allow the slow paced style some people choose. If DSIII offered that as a choice once again, I don't see the problem with that.

It's more of a step laterally than it is backwards.

Worrying about this seems juuuuuuuuust a bit premature

@fredchuckdave: So if we see Dark Souls 3 coming out from their B team again next year (as I'm pretty sure Miyazaki won't return to it) you don't think that'll just drive the franchise into the ground ? They've done the cash-out on that IP once already, and there isn't really much more creatively left to be done there. It just seems to me that it's much more likely they'll do the Bloodborne sequel and then either cash out on that or re-think again.

There is plenty left to be done. Another Souls game would be great. DSII was.

Why not have both? Blood Souls; Shield-mounted guns, fancy Victorian style hats, and big-ass swords.

Honestly I'll play anything with this brand of gameplay, Souls style, Bloodborne style, whatever, it's all good.

I wouldn't mind seeing a return to first person with a new King's Field or Shadow Tower though.

I think there are fundamental differences for why people play Souls games as opposed to why people play COD. Maybe I'm alone, but the combat for me is maybe 30-40% of the draw of the Souls games or Bloodbourne. The combat in Dark Souls II was fantastic, and, in my opinion, an improvement, but many people felt let down by the game as a whole. With COD, the main draw is the gameplay, the combat, that loop. I'm not actively trying to learn COD lore or discover what's happening in the world. I think you have a good point though, and I think FROM should be actively engaging finding new ways to expand combat, not just make it faster.

Ive thought about this a little bit myself. Mostly because there are nice things about each individual game.

I like shields. Shields are a real thing and they should be an optional tool in these games. I think From should design some new enemy AI to compensate for them, not just remove shields entirely. Why not have big enemies try to grab your shield and pull you closer. Or throw oil and if you block it your shield is now flammable and will catch fire for some time so you have to put it away. Unique animations like that where constant shielding can have flaws. Why not just place enemy attacks in Light, Medium, or Heavy categories? A heavy can never be blocked so you need to be able to identify that move and evade it otherwise it'll break your guard.

Not that I have any real issue with Bloodborne but I just like Knight/Paladin type character designs. Weapon, shield, and chain or plate mail. Remember that first teaser for "Deep Down" with the guy blocking the fire? Awesome.

I'd be more worried about a COD style over saturation of the games tbh. From made 15 Armored Core games in 16 years between 1997 and 2013. I'm scared they're gonna make Souls games until they kill it completely.

I imagine the goal for them is to probably get this franchise on a two year cycle, with the 'B-team' putting out a new Dark Souls every four years, and Miyazaki's team putting out a new Bloodborne every 4 years. I don't really think this is going to be an issue, as long as they maybe branch out the dynamic a bit more. Keep Dark Souls at the same speed as it is now, but maybe go even faster with Bloodborne. It certainly is a faster paced game, but I think they could take it further, thus making the two series' feel a tad bit more different.

Seeing as how they each have very different atmosphere and tone, I could easily see this becoming a thing for this entire generation.

I am playing Bloodborne 100% different than I have ANY Souls game to date, and I think that's awesome.

And to answer you question:

No.

From know very well that the entire world like their style and they aren't going to leave it. Bloodborne is a lot more linear, streamlined and telling you where to go and what to do than any of the other games (yes, including Demons's Souls), yet (western) games journalists still spend 12+ hours struggling, not unlocking or even finding shortcuts that would have helped them take out the very first boss, they are unable to learn, and many more of them don't know where to go when the only need to talk with NPCs and listen to them or at least read their subtitles.

The games do not need to change and should not.

The goddamn people should.

And if they could make a sci-fi future Souls game that's like a third person Advanced Warfare-borne I would want them to.

@seikenfreak: I don't think they need to punish using shields much more than they already have. Dark Souls was more efficient to play without a shield, DSII even moreso. If someone still prefers to use a shield, then let them? I don't see why they should need to be punished even more. Although some of the criticism DSII received was partly because shields were less viable. You can tell from the shield description in Bloodborne that Miyazaki was having fun with people who glorify them. I understand why he wanted to keep them out of Bloodborne. Not so much to take a playstyle away, but to get rid of the idea that shields need to be the plan A option and otherwise your game sucks.

I hope the styles diverge into their own separate thing and both series manage to retain some of the shared DNA that brings people to these games in the first place.

@kishinfoulux: It isn't a potential issue, Bloodborne is the COD formula for souls games now. They basically took almost everything out that made the souls games fun, and took it in a direction that can appeal to more players. The review ratings are justified in the idea that by itself, Bloodborne is a well made game, but not a Souls game. Which is fine because it can stand on it's own, but being looked at as a successor to the Souls series is just so wrong.

Even sadder is that even though it went in a more generalized direction, they still couldn't even nail that. So they are left in the middle of something that is trying so hard to be something, but can't seem to figure it out.

This was bound to happen eventually though, with increased popularity comes a bigger and more diverse fanbase. I have friends who never even heard of Demon or Dark Souls that are buying this game, just to be a part of the internet buzz.