Elden Ring is finally real

[MetManMas]

Thank you hype culture.

Yeah, no doubt it's another quality FromSoftware game, but I know better than to wholly put my faith into a pile of glowing reviews at launch. I've seen enough Citizen Kanes of vidyagames to be wary when a game is put on a pedestal like this.

Far more interested in what people will say about it in a few years from now.

 

[Patrick]

As I said, review scores don't really matter. It's just a number. Still, it's at least notable that the game is getting universal praise.

 

[Paul le Fou]

Heaps of good reviews don't guarantee that it's a good game, but they coincide more often than not.

Honestly, "new From/Miyazaki game" is enough to say that yeah this is probably going to be pretty awesome. Early impressions from the network test and now good reviews notwithstanding.

 

[estragon]

I don't care about review scores, but the content of the reviews I've read makes it sound like the answer is a resounding Yes to all of the questions along the lines of, "The network test was great, but will they actually be able to make a full game like this?"

 

[estragon]

I found this review to be one of the most informative for me in particular because (1) it's by a Dark Souls 2 liker and (2) she seems more aware than most of what can kind of suck about playing open world games but still found a lot to like.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496561912548630529

Elden Ring borrows—grafts, really—elements from all of these games together. But it’s Bloodborne that’s really the reason for this game being the open world that it is. In Chalice Dungeons we saw a purity of form that the Soulsborne micro genre was poised to capitalize on, but couldn’t quite deliver. Procedural dungeons accessed from a menu. A place where minibosses and remixes of bosses would flourish, where the skill of dungeon-delving players could be tested and rewarded repeatedly. Not necessarily a haven for more lore, but for the most stalwart of players there would be deep thematic resonance at the end. But really, sick dungeons for the sake of sick dungeons.

Elden Ring says “what if we took the lessons we learned from Chalice Dungeons…and that was the game.” An open world, after all, is only as good as the dark holes that perforate its beautiful surface, the land is only as interesting as its scars.

And these dungeons, especially the big ones, are compelling like no other.

The first step was to throw out the procedural dungeons. They were fine, perfectly serviceable in Bloodborne. And no doubt developing that system and studying the output only deepened their understanding and resolve. But this is the moment where Brick Road becomes Dungeon Man. This is the apotheosis in this work—the exaltation of the dungeon designer.

Switchbacks that lead to dead ends that beget traps that culminate in pitfalls back to the beginning (or your doom, who can say?). Impossible ambushes that even on the 9th death still steal your breath. Forcing the player to choose between a shield, a second weapon, and the absolutely crucial torch—except, what if the torch gives you away? Can you navigate a maze in the dark? And verticality, oh, the verticality!

For as much as I can take or leave the open world of Elden Ring, the dungeons, dear reader, have given me more life than a million Dark Souls.

 

[Lokii]

The first step was to throw out the procedural dungeons. They were fine, perfectly serviceable in Bloodborne. And no doubt developing that system and studying the output only deepened their understanding and resolve. But this is the moment where Brick Road becomes Dungeon Man. This is the apotheosis in this work—the exaltation of the dungeon designer.

This is the apotheosis of games writing.

 

[Patrick]

After reading/watching a few reviews, it sounds like it's a very good Souls game with way more content than usual. There's just a wild amount of equipment and builds, and the game is dense with interesting stuff. And, people are less likely to get frustrated with difficult parts because they can always wander off and do something else until they're stronger.

 

[Juno]

Seeing a review say it took them 87 hours to finish is doing a lot to push me away from this.

 

[estragon]

I think it will be a while before there's a consensus answer to the "how long does this takes to beat" question, in part because (like most open world games) I suspect the answer to that question is going to vary a lot based on how you approach it.

For me, if it really does feel like a big world full of thoughtfully designed Fromsoft dungeons, I'm happy for it to be pretty long. But also, I wonder if there's a Dark Souls 3 sized game in there if you beeline the critical path (and, crucially, if you are not a reviewer who has a professional obligation to comment on the quality of non-critical path elements of the game).

 

[Adrenaline]

I think reviewers trying to reach the ending of a game before a review embargo (even in this case where very few seem to have succeeded) are actually more likely to critical-path a game than the average player.

 

[Lokii]

With a game like this a lot will depend on skill. Some players will naturally make it through faster than others. Eventually HowLongToBeat.com will have an average, but even then that's all it will be.

 

[YangusKhan]

Seeing a review say it took them 87 hours to finish is doing a lot to push me away from this.

Before review embargos were open, I heard it was ranging from 30-40 hours.

 

[estragon]

I think reviewers trying to reach the ending of a game before a review embargo (even in this case where very few seem to have succeeded) are actually more likely to critical-path a game than the average player.

Is there a review yet that has critical path'd it?

Not trying to say that none exists, only that I haven't seen one yet, and that might help to answer the question.

The 87 hour review in question (by Mitch Saltzman of IGN), for example, definitely talked a lot about exploring all the nooks and crannies.

 

[Paul le Fou]

Seeing a review say it took them 87 hours to finish is doing a lot to push me away from this.

Dark Souls 1 took me 50 hours to beat the first time, then less than 30, and the last couple times were ~20 or less (and I definitely am not particularly fast, either, so those are all on the long end). I bet that is way longer than the average will actually be; more like a full-clear, every-dungeon, 100%-er, first-playthrough run time.

Or like, I spent 100-120 hours beating BotW or Xenoblade Chronicles, but I wouldn't necessarily call them 120-hour games, y'know?

The 87 hour review in question (by Mitch Saltzman of IGN), for example, definitely talked a lot about exploring all the nooks and crannies.

Yeah, like that!

 

[estragon]

To be transparent, he also talks about things he skipped or realized later that he missed and heard about through colleagues, so I think this is definitely going to be in the 100+ hours range if you go full completionist. If you don't want a game that can potentially be extremely long if you explore everything, it sounds like this will definitely be a bad match. I don't want to given anyone the wrong idea.

But other than that my only real thought is that I don't think anyone has a clear idea about how long this will take, and also it will depend a lot on how much you click with this kind of combat, whether or not you're able to find the right equipment/spells/whatever to make your build idea work, and whether you meander or follow the critical path.

 

[Becksworth]

I watched part of Giant Bomb's quick look on it. One point of criticism is arguably From Software's brand of obtuseness combined with an open world structure can lead to some core game mechanics like crafting and leveling up easily getting missed for HOURS.

 

[Oathbreaker]

There's just a wild amount of equipment and builds

In my heart there is only the Chikage (or Chaos Blade, or other curved sword that deals self-damage because it was the only way to balance the ridiculous power they wanted it to have).

I'm just glad I get to start with a build a lot closer to how I finish these games. I still miss Wanderer's sick outfit though.

 

[Adrenaline]

Is there a review yet that has critical path'd it?

Not trying to say that none exists, only that I haven't seen one yet, and that might help to answer the question.

The 87 hour review in question (by Mitch Saltzman of IGN), for example, definitely talked a lot about exploring all the nooks and crannies.

I don't know of anyone who did literally only what was required. But I suspect that the obligation to finish a game in a scored review is stronger than the obligation to explore secondary content.

 

[estragon]

I don't know of anyone who did literally only what was required. But I suspect that the obligation to finish a game in a scored review is stronger than the obligation to explore secondary content.

I think that luckily the obligation to finish a game of this size by embargo drop is not as widespread anymore. Part of the conversation around Mitch Saltzman's IGN review and playtime in the first place (not here) was that he and Daniel Tack at Game Informer were exceptions in that they did finish the game, but almost no one did. So, at least for this game, there does not seem to have been a widespread obligation to reach the credits. In contrast, everyone seems to have felt an obligation to spend a lot of time exploring the open world and evaluating that aspect of the game. This seems like the correct decision to me because basically no one but beats games, although if the endgame is considerably worse than the rest I guess we'll get a round of capital G Gamer backlash to these extremely positive reviews.

 

[estragon]

Oh, wait, looking at Daniel Tack's twitter feed, it turns out that he is the exception to the rule reviewer I was hoping to find who focused on finishing it and did less exploring than Saltzman!

He says 45 hours to credits.

Spoiler: how long it took Daniel Tack to beat the game

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496517722032775169

edit: Spoilered it in case someone doesn't want to know the length.

 

[Adrenaline]

I saw a lot of conversation yesterday about how rushing to finish a game in a narrow time span does not really benefit anyone, and I'm hoping this indicates a shift beginning where the expectation around huge game reviews is not that an opinion is only valid if they reached the credits. Because the average player is not finishing every game they play.

 

[Patrick]

For sure. I’m be completely fine with reviews of the first half of games, as long as the reviewer was clear about what they’re reviewing. The end of a game is an arbitrary point where credits roll, and very few players play that exact amount of content.

The other conversation that I saw yesterday came up because a reviewer said that people might want to keep notes for quests. It started a vicious argument where one side demanded that a questlog be added to the game and the other argued just as forcefully that a questlog would ruin the game (neither side having tried the game out yet). I think people were just ready to argue about this game and that happened to be the easiest argument to jump in to.

 

[Issun]

Given Martin's high-profile involvement I'm surprised I haven't seen any jokey speculation about whether the game actually has an ending.

 

[MetManMas]

Given Martin's high-profile involvement I'm surprised I haven't seen any jokey speculation about whether the game actually has an ending.

It certainly did inspire my DDL photo for the game.

Not often do I have a good excuse to bring out the Room Sketch wall & flooring.

 

[Peklo]

The customary jabs at Martin don't exist for this game because his relationship to the text isn't the same or monarchical as in his personal writing career. Miyazaki and From asked him to create the history and major figures of the setting, bouncing ideas back and forth between the parties as they did, and once something concrete emerged Miyazaki and other From writers took that material and consciously distorted and let it "age" as if the fictional history created whole-cloth had continued to organically evolve and become unidentifiable over time, resulting in what's to be found in the game. It's a creative process and dynamic that attempts to make the best of what's always been at the heart of these games in a collaborative context--particularly Miyazaki's own sensibilities in being enamored with parsing fragmented, language barrier-obstructed media in his own past experience which informs his work now and what it's trying to convey. "Where does the Martin end and the Miyazaki begin" is probably not a realistically answerable question because of the nature of their writing partnership in this way and both of their individual voices being compatible to begin with.

 

[Paul le Fou]

12 hours and I'm going to be driven to distraction all day today, fuck

 

[Behemoth]

Gah, I've been hesitating to pay scalper prices for a PS5, but the FOMO is real on this one. I've bounced off of three of the four soulsbourne games that I've played, but the remaining one is a top five game for me. And the comparisons that this one is getting to another of my top five games isn't helping either. It's a high risk/high reward proposition.

 

[YangusKhan]

Gah, I've been hesitating to pay scalper prices for a PS5, but the FOMO is real on this one. I've bounced off of three of the four soulsbourne games that I've played, but the remaining one is a top five game for me. And the comparisons that this one is getting to another of my top five games isn't helping either. It's a high risk/high reward proposition.

You don't need a PS5 to play it, and also if you buy it digitally you should get both a PS4 and PS5 compatible version. (You might even be able to do a free PS5 upgrade if you get the PS4 disc? I don't know if that's a thing)

 

[Patrick]

The PS4 disk will let you play the PS5 digital version.

 

[Issun]

Is anyone else playing this on PC?