Back in February I wrote about the design of the game Salt & Sanctuary, specifically calling out its adherence to the design template presented in the inspirational Dark Souls. The conclusion I came to is that I’m far more interested in games that glean some lessons from the franchise, but otherwise put their own spin on the Soulsborne genre.

Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that I like it when a game knows how to blend certain design elements together in order to generate something fresh. I enjoy Darksiders 3 as much as I do because the elements it chooses to blend happen to fit snugly together, like LEGO bricks stacked into a colorful tower. It’s not enough to mix and match genres. You must take into account the goals of each individual game and which mechanics are used to achieve their vision. Some of those mechanics may not be compatible with those of another game, no matter how similar.

While the prevailing label to Death’s Door is that it is a Zelda-like rather than a Souls-like, that Dark Souls inspiration is still present. However, most acknowledgment seems to be in the game’s combat and leveling mechanics. Yes, you collect “souls” of enemies when you defeat them, and then use those souls to level up and improve your combat prowess. However, the most significant inspiration from Dark Souls has little to do with its combat, and instead fits snugly into the philosophies found in the Zelda franchise.

Death’s Door deftly combines the Dark Souls approach to map design with that of The Legend of Zelda.

When Nintendo developed A Link Between Worlds, they chose to experiment with player freedom by granting the player the option to pick and hold onto any tool at any time. If the player could afford it, they could “rent” every tool available in the game, granting them true freedom. However, in execution this only meant the player could choose any order in which to tackle the dungeons. Those dungeons still contained a critical path the player must follow, and puzzles throughout each dungeon were limited to just a couple or few of Link’s possible toolset at a time.

The order in which you complete dungeons in Death’s Door is just as sequential as most prior Zelda games. The freedom is instead found in the dungeons themselves, allowing the player to choose from one of many pathways rather than following a single critical path. As with most games, the freedom is limited and illusory since the player must still complete a whole circuit of each map before unlocking the passage forward. Nonetheless, by including multiple branching paths, the player is led to choose where to go first, and as a result it feels more like the discovery of exploration once you see how it all comes together.

It is in this manner that Death’s Door blends the sensibilities of the Zelda franchise and Soulsborne genre together in a way that feels natural. The design of the Zelda dungeons are focused less on creating shortcuts and more on unlocking doors that reveal keys to other locks, guiding the player throughout the dungeon while painting that illusion of puzzling your way out of a maze. The Soulsborne environments and dungeons, on the other hand, are less interested in the illusion of a maze and more interested in diverting the player through alleys and side-roads, slowly revealing shortcuts that a player can use to bypass the hazardous passages on a second playthrough. These shortcuts are a necessity for a game that prides itself on a challenge, preventing players from having to conquer hazardous environments and skirmishes that they’ve already proven capable of defeating. It’s a far lesser concern in the Zelda games, which take greater care to help less skillful players remain alive.

Death’s Door is far more interested in challenge and difficulty, and therefore designs its dungeons with those shortcuts in mind for the same reason as the Soulsborne games do. Should a player die, they can jump right back to where they fell in battle. This concept of shortcuts happens to work well with the Zelda design, which emphasizes the discovery of keys so that one can unlock doors. Within these side passages are also an assortment of puzzle chambers, perhaps the greatest influence from the Zelda franchise in how the game is stitched together. Despite such obvious inspirations, however, they are blended in a manner that allows the game to feel unique from either influential title.

Of course, Death’s Door has a formula of its own, not unlike the Zelda franchise. Each corner of the world is itself broken up into three separate “dungeons”, with the first introducing the player to a new environmental obstacle. The entirety of this first dungeon teaches the player the myriad ways in which to solve said puzzles. There will typically be unique environmental hazards or transportation in each of these zones as well. Once the player enters the “dungeon” proper, they’ll have multiple paths that will lead them towards four “keys” with which to unlock a larger door. This doorway leads them to that area’s key ability: the fireball, the bomb, or the hookshot. Once obtained, the player is then able to unlock the path forward to the villains’ lair, the third of these “dungeons” and a primarily combat-focused “siege” map that leads to the boss.

Despite relying on such an obvious formula, it becomes less of a problem through each zone’s previously mentioned unique hazards or traversal mechanics. Be it floating platforms whose bull-shaped busts must be struck to speed across long distances, ice that the player will skid, slip, and slide along, or vines that must be struck to lift the player to higher platforms, each territory has a variety of flora or constructs that no other zone possesses. Each territory is thus differentiated aesthetically and mechanically, with their own unique combat arenas and puzzles found in no other area.

Which leads to what I believe is the real meat of this game: the combat. There have been some criticisms regarding its “lack of depth”, a claim that I have mixed feelings about. While the game has a low “skill floor” in that you could simply swing the basic sword the entire time, dodging enemies when need be and doing little more, one could throw a similar accusation towards Hollow Knight. It is a game where the player is not required to learn the best use of spells, or to master techniques such as bouncing off the top of foes, or blocking the enemy’s blade with your own.

At the same time, I’d be lying if I claimed Death’s Door had the same variety of mechanics available as Hollow Knight and its charms and their myriad combinations, even if in secret. It really is a more combat oriented Zelda-like in that regard, for good or ill. Personally, I did not feel the need for the game to be any more than it was, and that’s largely due to the design of each individual enemy and the manner in which they are grouped together.

One could split each foe off into three classes: the mooks, the ranged, and the bruisers. The mooks are generally weaker in terms of how much damage they can take, focusing instead on heading right for the player to strike close range. They are unable to close the distance and are easily outrun, but too many and the player can become overwhelmed. The ranged units tend to hang further back, with some slinging spells that the player can bounce back at other opponents, others tossing poison bombs that can hurt friend and foe alike, and others guiding piercing arrows that cannot be deflected, only avoided. Finally are the bruisers, larger enemies with deep pools of health and the uncanny ability to close the distance. Many of their attacks have far thinner windows and tells, giving the player fewer opportunities to strike and fewer strikes to make before having to dodge.

Aside from each species of enemy within these classes possessing unique behaviors, and therefore driving the player to carefully engage with each one differently, the game also takes care when grouping these foes together. There will rarely be more than two bruisers on the field, and never more than three at a time. The more bruisers present, the fewer mooks or ranged foes available. While many games simply throw larger and larger forces against the player in order to be more “difficult”, Death’s Door makes sure each encounter is challenging but not overwhelming. It instead becomes a matter of how the player chooses to prioritize each foe species or class.

For example, do you take out ranged opponents first? Or do you use their projectiles to your advantage, deflecting each spell back at another opponent? Or perhaps you wish to lure that crowd of mooks into the range of a green wizard’s poison gas bomb? This is also where some of the game’s tools can come in handy, allowing the player to escape both mob and poison by hookshotting onto an opponent just as the bomb is about to land and burst. The fire spell, particularly when powered up, can torch multiple foes in a single crowd.

Yet the inability of the bomb to deal much damage to a mob is indicative of the surprising limitations of the combat. I cannot argue with some of the criticisms in regards to depth of options, as there are very few reasons to use any of the spells but the fireball during these intense and fast-paced skirmishes. It has the greatest advantage above all others by striking at multiple foes and being capable of lighting them on fire. Simultaneously, while there are multiple melee weapons available, they all behave roughly the same. The only differentiating traits are how swiftly they swing and how many consecutive strikes you can afford in a combo. I found the twin daggers most effective in being able to dish out the most damage in as short a window as possible, and therefore stuck with them throughout the majority of the game.

While this is certainly a detriment to Death’s Door in terms of customization and options for replayability, it does not change the manner in which the game’s enemies and opponents are cleverly designed and carefully grouped together. The game’s combat becomes a highlight regardless of its faults or limitations once combined with the many environmental hazards and traits in the more difficult “siege” segments of each territory.

It is unfortunate, then, that the endgame content is perhaps the greatest letdown. Not wholly, as it is also where the game is the most free. You are provided one item – a single hint – as to where to go next. Afterwards, the player must explore the world to solve mysterious puzzles and find new secrets on their own. There also happen to be fewer opponents scattered about the world, allowing the player this final task to feel more calm and relaxing to complete. However, the pay-off is not only very… minimal, there’s no climactic gauntlet of combat to push through, one which tests all of the player’s skills and forces them to earn that completionism. Just a handful of additional encounters no more or less difficult than what is in the primary campaign.

Nevertheless, the game is still stronger for its endgame content than without. If I were a more snarky games writer, I’d write a hot-take, click-baity headline exclaiming Death’s Door is the best Zelda game released in July. Instead, I feel like it helps pave the way for other games inspired by Zelda to do their own thing rather than adhering to Nintendo’s own formula. It still captures much of that same magic, but it stands as its own creation rather than a bootleg imitation or failed clone.

For that reason, I will undoubtedly come back and play Death’s Door again.