i gotta say- i think i have a somewhat contrarian view when it comes to the critical consensus. that's not to say i think the game is bad- no, i would not have invested an inordinate amount of time (jesus 190hrs over a few weeks) if i wasn't enjoying myself. it is a deeply satisfying and fun game, no question. however- after pouring over that map for hours upon hours and fighting what felt like at least 10 ulcerated tree spirits, 15 catacomb demon cats and roughly 55 pumpkinheads- i'm not sure an open world did anything to enhance my enjoyment of this game. for context- i've previously completed dark souls, dark souls 2, and bloodborne...and i think i much prefer the spoked hub to open world, for a few reasons.
1) speaking from a personal perspective- i feel the open world inflates the game time in a way that i don't think is wholly justified. it was neat to run around and explore in the first region- but once you realize the main spaces outside legacy dungeons are ruins (which always end in a basement), caves, catacombs (which are effectively chalice dungeons) and mines- the illusion of a bespoke world wears off pretty quick. granted it's still better than most open worlds- but to hear games media speak as if every space is unique just feels like they haven't played enough to see the modular components yet.
2) my favorite bits of FromSoft games- art direction, a sense of 'stranger in a strange land,' creature design and combat-feel- none of these feel improved by huge swaths of land with repurposed enemy types or platforming puzzles. the most compelling areas for me were Siofra/Ainsel (underground "rivers"), Lake of Rot, Raya Lucaria and Farum Azula- all of which looked INCREDIBLE. and all are considered 'legacy' areas that are structurally similar to the more tightly packaged and focused arenas of previous FromSoft games. and going a step further- i don't think the open world and interconnectedness did anything from a world-building perspective. the world feels like a series of 70s DnD illustrations you can run around in- and that's great! but it also feels utterly unlived in...and i get that might be the point (world in decline, etc). but the open world didn't feel essential to most compelling visual elements.
3) the open world ended up having some strange impacts on my playthrough that i grant you- will pretty much be limited to people who play the game in the same irrational way that i do- which is to say anytime you come to a new space, YOU HAD BETTER SEE EVERY DAMN THING IN THAT SPACE BEFORE YOU MOVE ON. the net effect of this approach being i was very over-leveled at game's end that trivialized many boss fights, and frequently i found myself out-of-alignment with where i think the game wanted me to be (i often had smithing stone 'gaps' where i'd have a ton of stones above and below my needs, so my upgrades would come in awkward fits and starts)
to be clear- i don't think this is entirely on the game's design. i'm that guy that dumped 200hrs into Breath of the Wild and thought "yeah that was pretty alright i guess." i'm not sure what it is about these AAA games that offer undirected worlds to explore- but for me it feels like they never achieve the boundless sense of discovery that comes with a game like minecraft, nor the focus of what was previously a heavily choreographed combat challenge of previous FromSoft games. Elden Ring also feels much less playful than previous entires- no goofball primordial serpents, no skeletons animated to kick you off cliffs- it's probably friendler, but it does feel like it lost a bit of character.
Log in to comment