EDIT: Please keep this discussion spoiler free! Thanks.

I've been playing Bloodborne for maybe 15 hours and I've worked through the first 5 or 6 bosses without ever getting stuck for too long, and although there's been a couple of areas where I felt a little lost, for the most part it's been fairly linear. However at this point I can't help but feel the palette is getting a little repetitive. The game looks great, and the layout of the levels themselves does a great job of putting you in unique combat situations against well designed enemies that are fun to fight and terrifying to look at. However I sometimes feel like there are big chunks of the game which, if I was shown a screenshot, I would struggle to identify because they all look completely interchangeable. The first few hours especially are a mess of identical streets with very little to distinguish one from another. Maybe I'm misremembering, but when I think back on Dark Souls 2 every area had quite a unique feel to it, to the extent that I never felt lost, and I'm confident even now that if I were dropped into a random location in the game I would very quickly know where I was and where I should be going.

Does this feel like a valid complaint? I appreciate that I'm still relatively early in the game so there's lots of potential for new designs that I haven't seen yet.

x

I've never felt lost in Bloodborne. It feels monotonous, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a big gothic city taken to the extremes of what a big gothic city looks like. Those cities are monotonous with the exceptions of maybe a few stand out buildings, but even those buildings fit in with the tone of the city.

The city flows really well in Bloodborne, it feels natural. It feels like something that grew quickly over a short period of time.

I was getting tired of the city aesthetic at first, and then the Forbidden Woods made me really miss it in comparison. More than the similar-looking areas I'm a little bummed out by the lack of armor variety. I understand they are kinda mocking shields and "armor" now, but everything I've picked up so far has almost identical stats to the Hunter outfit you find in the beginning of the game or worse. Not only that, but all the outfits look very similar - a victorian-esque long jacket with some long boots etc. I'm not counting all the stuff that you generally won't wear like the black church garb or the doll set which are fun for collecting but not practical to play in. I mean don't get me wrong I think it all looks very cool, but I wish there was a bit more variety to the useful armor sets. I just purchased the Crow-set armor after completing Eileens quest and apart from the nice feathery cape.. it's.. just another jacket..once again with somewhat similar/worse stats than the Hunter getup I found 60 levels ago.

If anything variety is my biggest complaint about the whole game. Bloodborne is incredibly creative and beautiful, and simultaneously lacks diversity in almost all areas. Combat has a very singular approach with the setting, and as mentioned above, armor all taking on a similarly drab brown color palette. Areas are really well designed with interesting paths that double back and intertwine in ways that make you not realize they're even shortcuts before you open up a side passage and see the lamp you started from. The way leading back to the clinic is especially amazing considering on how you find it. That said, I can't help but feel everywhere you go feels very linear and claustrophobic in a way.

Playing Bloodborne I can't help but feel that this was another nextgen game that needed more time in development. It's a great game on it's own, but a step to the side rather than a step forward in the Souls series overall. Lastly I just want to say that I've been enjoying the bosses less and less as I near the end of the game. A lot of them have felt cheap, mostly because of technical issues: Cleric beast has a god awful camera, Amelia has similar camera issues among other problems, Rom has those magic missiles that come at you from off-screen.. things that kinda make you heave a tired sigh of "c'mon From, why did you release it this way?"

People are describing Bloodborne as monotonous as a negative whereas I see it as a positive. I love the overall aesthetic and direction they're going for. It is one singular tone yes, but it does that tone fucking brilliantly.

Nope. Consistent and cohesive is how I've been thinking of it.

The dark souls games are like a theme park "Over here we have dragon land and right next to it we have mud land and ghost land". Majoras Mask is the most egregious since it has 5 very distinct, themed locations with different climates in close proximity. I'm not a fan of the constant need for new things especially introducing variety by, like I said, turning your game in to a park. There is a balance and I sort of expected people to get the sort of complaints Brad has when they don't pander to that variety because that's the standard.

Though I appreciate that people other than me want that variety and my autistic tendancies don't apply to everyone else.

It's the best art that has ever been in a Souls game. Horror over fantasy any day of the fucking week.

Not in the least. The art direction in Bloodborne is absolutely top notch, and for such a "grey game", it is surprisingly packed with color and visual variety. People also complaining about how "the entire game takes place on cobblestone streets!" are crazy. The game has a myriad of different environments, yet despite being different in setting, they all share a singular, cohesive artistic style. That is so rare in games today and is extremely welcome here. This is the best work FromSoftware has done to date and is a stark contrast to a game with a similar setting that felt entirely monotonous: The Order: 1886.

I agree with those saying it's consistent and cohesive. I view it as a positive because I *love* the aesthetic of Yharnam. But the back half of the game has a lot more visual variety, I will say. But I left my heart in Yharnam. I wouldn't get tired of it even if the entire game had the Central Yharnam / Old Yharnam / Cathedral Ward aesthetic.

As for armor, a lot of the cool stuff is in optional areas in late game. I agree that early on it's all a bit samey.

My only gripe is with the very grey color palette overall. Otherwise, I really enjoy the artstyle.

No, the problem is the first few areas look too similar so it's easy to get lost as a result, after that the game varies itself quite well. The visual style/atmosphere of the game are top notch.

No. From the Forest onwards it changes the way it looks in every single area.

@fredchuckdave said:

What? No they're not. I mean, aesthetically both Central Yharnam and the Cathedral Ward exist in the same wheelhouse, but they're both drastically different both in terms of tone and intent. Central Yharnam is the nitty gritty, Dickensian fairy tale take on a plague-ridden Victorian city while the Cathedral Ward is all a giant wankfest/testament to the worth, glory, and power of the Healing Church (you know, like the Vatican). While you could argue that they both exist in the same style, they're both very different areas that evoke a very different feel.

@sweep:

no, not at all. I love it. its the castlevania game ive always wanted... that turns into something more.

Not to mention the environments are about 1000x more detailed than the previous games.

I think the samey locations at the start of the game set you up to not expect the direction the game heads in later. There's actually quite a bit of variety in the locations anyway, it's just that they all have a cohesive art direction this time.

It's also got a pretty slow start, and it sounds like a lot of people hit the 15 hour mark and (fairly) decide that the whole game will be like that. My advice to people complaining about the lack of variety in Bloodborne would be to actually finish Bloodborne.

I really love how this game looks. I think it fits the tone and mood very well.

It can get repetitive, but the alternative is the typical ice, fire, earth, poison, castle levels that they pretty much beat to death in the other games.

The art is still top notch though, and they do through in some variations on levels such as the Nightmare Frontier.

I haven't found it monotonous yet... There's a lot more detail in the game than I expected.

I liked what I saw in 15 hours, but things just took a turn and I expected MORE of a turn. I should probably finish the game and see if reading spoilers will color my financial judgement because of expectations.

not really feeling the lack of variation personally. i guess it has consistency going for it. also like most games of the current gen it doesn't really feel like any sort of big leap above what came last.

seems like bloodborne fell victim to most games this gen in having limited content and technically higher fidelity graphics but lack of variety. not as bad as others though, admittedly.

Go into the damn woods and you'll miss the city real quick. Fuck those outdoor areas. I loved the city stuff.

@oldirtybearon: I don't mean look too similar as in design/aesthetic wise, just the general layout isn't the greatest.

The thing with armor is (also the best armor is the Doll Armor, this is truth) you're not really picking it for its defensive value, you're picking it for what it is resistant too. Like, you might want to put on an armor that increases poison resistance against a boss that posions, or you might want to boost frenzy resist in an area where frenzy is a problem. The black church garb is totally practical to play in, I wore that thing until I got the Cainhurst set, swapping only until I needed some elemental or status resistance. If all someone does is check to see which one has the best physical defense, they're not using their armor properly, especially since the game is just as focused on NOT taking hits as it is on defending against them. Since you can't upgrade armor, it's totally viable to play in a set that you like the look of. Like the noble dress or the doll armor. Because how do you not want to hunt in the doll armor.

@donchipotle: Well for the majority of the game you encounter enemies that deal physical damage so yeah I generally roll in a high physical resis set. I understand everything that you wrote about and have indeed switched my armor out in a few spots for specific resistance buff, but that was mainly just for boss encounters. For instance I switched to the Father G set when fighting blood starved beast to get a poison res boost and I used a mix of black church and white church set when facing Rom, although I'm not quite sure how much it helped because those magic missiles still hit like a brick wall.

They all just look a bit similar and the stats are fairly similar as well. Even the elemental resis stats are just 20-30 higher or lower for the most part. I suppose in a way I miss mixing in some light and heavy armor like I used to in previous games. Also you had widely different looking stuff, from full plate, to more leather looking stuff, to weird demonic looking armor. As many have said Bloodborne is very consistent in it's visual presentation and all the armor sets in this game reflect that consistency, I just wish it was a tad more varied, but ultimately that just not what this game is all about.

Ya know, just sayin', Darkest Dungeon also goes for a gothic horror thing, and actually manages to have a variety of colour palettes with its playable characters. From the videos and streams I've watched of this game, the player armour sets kind of blow.

@bisonhero said:

Darkest Dungeon, aesthetically, has more in common with Diablo than it does Bloodborne. Bloodborne goes for Victorian Gothic, Darkest Dungeon for medieval fantasy. At some point you're also arguing a 3D game versus a 2D cartoon. Animating flash drawings is far less intensive than all of the insane modeling and physics applied to Bloodborne's attire.

@oldirtybearon said:

Darkest Dungeon and Bloodborne have almost the exact same aesthetic. You're crazy if you think otherwise. The only difference is Darkest Dungeon has more tentacles and Cthulhu monsters, but it has those on top of pretty much all the "giant plague rats" "asshole brigands with muskets" etc. stuff that both games share.

2D vs. 3D really has nothing to do with how drab the colour palette is on many of the character designs in Bloodborne. It doesn't cost a fortune to make everything not grey.

Right, because there is only one box labeled "Gothic Horror" and there is no such thing as nuance.

It's fine if you like bright colours and psychedelic explosions, but that's not what Bloodborne is, nor is it involved in anything that Bloodborne draws influence from. You say that the world is grey grey grey, but that's not the case. The colour palette being muted only makes areas like Byrgenwerth or the Forbidden Woods pop harder while still maintaining the Victorian Gothic aesthetic it is so heavily rooted in. Darkest Dungeon looks like a gritty comic book, while Bloodborne aspires for something more cinematic in its visuals. Bloodborne doesn't need more colour because it can focus on cohesion and allow things like the skybox of a setting sun (it's seriously gorgeous) and candlelight glowing dimly around a cracked cobblestone street to build the atmosphere. Hearing the click of your heels along a rain-slick street, or hearing an enemy's weapon being dragged across stone while some poor plague ridden bugger is hacking and wheezing in a nearby window works in concert with the drab look of Yharnam. It builds an oppressive, uninviting atmosphere as well as a sense of danger. From the moment you enter Yharnam in Bloodborne, you know things have gone horribly wrong. Darkest Dungeon by comparison "looks neat".

To be clear; I'm not arguing that more colour = bad. I'm arguing that more colour isn't always necessary. There is nothing wasted in Bloodborne. From the lighting to the shadows to the character models to the cloth physics, all of it combined creates this clockwork machine that exudes atmosphere and tension. Nothing looks out of place in Bloodborne, even when things get nuts. It may sound silly to you, but can you remember the last time a video game's art style and presentation was so synchronized like this? Everything in Bloodborne looks believable. It looks real in a way that just doesn't come around very often in this medium, or many others for that matter. In light of this, I find the idea that the one thing Bloodborne needs is "more colour" to be grossly near sighted.

I don't have a problem with the style being more consistent at the cost of not being as variable. Then again I didn't understand why people said the Souls games were so good looking. This game looks good fidelity-wise and I prefer the victorian-gothic style.

I was worried about this as well and the seemingly lack of armor variation. I watched a Gamespot video of all the "armors." They didn't seem to mention that it wasn't all the armor sets in the game because I've found several that they didn't show. But I've unlocked all of the headstones it seems now and the variation of level aesthetic has changed. The area I'm in now looks really awesome and different (Nightmare area).