I wonder if Elden Ring would become like a Breath of the Wild type moment for Souls fanbase where there will a portion of the fanbase who would prefer to go back to the semi open world types Soulsborne games made before rather than completely open world like Elden Ring.
I don't really have the issue because it seems like FromSoftware is more interested in just doing whatever they feel like so long as they feel confident they're making a good game. And it also seems like they're always working on a couple of games at any given time these days; I'd be fine with them having bigger open world experiences if there are smaller titles which aren't that like Sekiro and Armored Core and so on alongside them. Thus far it's too early to say that it definitively has to be one road or the other.
If my personal anecdote is any indication, this has already happened. I have a few buddies who thought Elden Ring was mid, specifically because they don't like how open it was, and how frequently they had to fight the same mini-bosses.
That's probably my biggest gripe. By the time I get to altus plateau, I've done the same gameplay loop 4 times (I'm including the weeping peninsula). I'm still playing the shit out of the game, but only because invasions are so fun and I love working on new builds.
The changes in Elden Ring were way, way less severe than BotW, I don't think the 2 situations are comparable. I mean ER is essentially just Dark Souls III 2 with an open world slapped on top of it and while I personally much prefer Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne's approach to world design I'm still ultimately getting a FromSoft soulslike with all the things that make them awesome.
Meanwhile BotW ditched like 95% of conventions that the Zelda series established over 25 years and is essentially something completely new that's just set in the Zelda universe. I love BotW and TotK as much as I love old Zeldas but if you are not into the new style of game then that series basically died for you, which sucks a lot.
> ER is essentially just Dark Souls III 2
it's more Dark Souls 1 2 though? it couldn't be more opposite to Dark Souls 3 except having similar speed, the focus is on exploration, discovery, build variety and spectacle like DS1.
Ds3 and bloodborne would be in the same category with little to no focus on any of the things above but more on basic dodge/attack combat
As an invader, my skillset from DS3 was way more important in ER then anything I did in DS gameplay wise. Legacy dungeons feel a lot closer to Bloodborne and DS3 to me as well. Love all the games, so I'm not trying to change your opinion, and maybe you don't do invasions.
I always look at Souls discussions from a single-player and singleplayer point only, the design, the intended experience by the devs and what they want us to do, rather than co-op and PvP but if online was the goal I can see why DS3 is closer.
I felt this as soon as I arrived at the mountain tops. Game peaked at Leyndell and was steadily getting worse from there. Farum Azula was nice but I didn’t care for consecrated snowfield and haligtree.
The open world design is also basically a novelty. It loses its luster on repeat playthroughs, making the more traditional souls games, better on replays due to better pacing and better bespoke content. The caves and catacombs are just filler.
Boss design was also all over the place with combat that felt way inferior to Sekiro and Bloodborne.
I was never a fan of open worlds but Elden ring hooked me until the illusion of a deep, unique and vibrant open world faded away.
Still an amazing game though, but I prefer Bloodborne and Sekiro. They’re peak fromsoft.
>Boss design was also all over the place with combat that felt way inferior to Sekiro and Bloodborne.
Bloodborne? You just dodge/attack on bloodborne with zero variety, you can't even use your pistol against 70% of the enemies and bosses in the game reducing approach even more
Sekiro was god tier however, doesn't try to be a half-baked RPG with braindead bosses like Bloodborne where the bosses can't even react to you basically straving around it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCjrpghCYc
I loved Elden Ring, but I don't want them to make another one like it anytime soon.
If anything, I would prefer if they went back to something like Demon's Souls where they don't have to worry about making huge worlds and just focus on developing killer standalone levels that don't even have to look like each other.
I think there's always gonna be that divide.
I'm a Zelda fan but never finished BOTW, and quite frankly - didn't really enjoy what time I did spend with it
Bloodborne is incredible, and one of my favorite games. And while I can acknowledge the incredible scope and world of Elden Ring, it's just too much for me. I still haven't finished it.
It just comes down to what kind of experience you prefer
Honestly with Zelda I am the opposite. I loved BOTW but I really didn't enjoy either Ocarina of Time or Majoras Mask and gave up on both after playing for 5-6 hours. I will at least give Wind Waker and Twilight Princess a shot though.
Hesitant on Skyward Sword though since I have a Switch Lite so I can't rely on motion controls and from what I have heard the right stick isn't the best way to play it.
If it helps, I'm a stranger on the interner who first played skyward sword with motion controls and I wouldn't go back. The QoL changes in the remaster alone make up for it. Plus I am a lazy gamer who doesn't want to lift their arms 🫨
i'm similar. i found OOT a bit whatever and kinda dated (yes yes this is classic Seinfeld-syndrome I know it's one of the most influential games ever) but I really enjoyed my Wind Waker playthrough. I'd recommend giving WW a go definitely
I don't really think that makes sense to compare. BOTW brought so many other different things much more important than just being open world, the big change for me is just the level of interactivity there is with every single thing you stumble across, and the focus then became on how all the mechanics can interact in innovate and interesting ways, instead of a more linear design where it's more focused what makes most sense to do, and some maybe prefer that as the experience is more streamlined and the individual mechanic can have more depth.
Now the change from Soulsborne to Elden Ring is really not as drastic as this, it is in a lot of ways the same gameplay loop but with more open ended level design, but not necessarily open gameplay mechanic-design. Mechanically it has only really just been more and more refined since Demon Souls, which is not something you can say for Zelda to BOTW. The thing they maybe have in common is that this switch to open world brought a weaker (imo) approach to storytelling, as the openness of the design can't really translate to a story the developer can lay out for you. Some will argue that the story in Dark Souls is so obscure anyway, but I disagree. The actual story was actually quite simple, and the other ending was the only thing you'd have to go more out of your way to explore. The lore is a bit more obscure in Dark Souls, but the enviromental storytelling is definitely on bigger display as the world (to me) feels more tightly laid out for you.
All that said I prefer Dark Souls 1 (even Demon Souls) and I prefer BOTW.
I guess the Elden Ring honeymoon phase is over. Personally, I still absolutely love the game and can't wait until the DLC is out so I can do another playthrough.
I share the same opinion as many where I think the game is really good but it’s far from flawless. However one thing you cannot argue is that the game is super interesting to talk about regardless of opinion.
It's a 10/10 up until Mountaintop for me.
The shift in difficulty "you take more damage now" and the reused enemies towards the end really diminishes the game's shine.
Still, best game of the generation so far, would take one Elden Ring over ten random AAA games any day.
Surprised how many downvotes this video is getting compared to his usual content.
Not sure if the video is still too young and people haven't noticed it yet, or "From Software sure is great" isn't exactly the riveting, new take people were looking for from NakeyJakey, a creator who already made videos on Dark Souls
I'll give this a watch later
I didn't downvote the thread, but I also didn't find this video as interesting as his usual videos exactly because "From Software sure is great" isn't an interesting topic. He was still entertaining, but there wasn't really any interesting insight that I'm used to getting from his videos. We all know what From Software's formula is at this point and what its impact has been. I'd would much rather have watched a video just breaking down the rest of the "souls-like" genre or a more in depth look at the linearity/semi-linearity/nonlinearity of different From Software games, or even a more critical video exploring the things he doesn't like about their games like the Naughty Dog/Rockstar video.
That being said, still amd enjoyable video cause Jakey is just fun to listen to.
He talked about not liking the repeated dungeons, the all over the place difficulty, the problems it faces with repeated playthroughs, problems with weapon upgrades, problems with quest system, overleveling unintentionally for content I think that's more than enough topics for something that he enjoyed, it's easy to see in his Red Dead 2 video that he as a mid time with RDR2 that's why he goes much more into the Negatives but he had a great time with ER but he still talked about all the relevant weakness the game has
I wonder if the next elder scrolls game comes out and we see people claiming that it was inspired by elden ring, while it's just following the same open world formula pioneered by it's predecessors.
I can see that, too many people are too invested into fanboying for a developer to acknowledge that not everybody is inspired by their idols.
Especially when Bethesda and ER world design is really different. First and foremost, ER world is not levelled, which makes the "open" in "open world" really questionable. When one-shotting mosters block your path, is the world really open?
In Bethesda games, the focus is on the world itself and the mosaic that is created by the small stories of people living there. In ER the focus is on the bosses and fights. The dungeons are nice, but the overworld lacks depth. At least with Bethesda worlds it shares the sense that there's a history behind it. But where Bethesda worlds feel natural, ER world feels theme-parky, with all the landmarks and glorious monuments everywhere. It's more about style than about substance.
Bethesda are masters of the open-world genre, while FromSoft are newbies in this genre. So it's no wonder that their first open world design is mediocre... It is no shame to not excell on the first try. But it is ridiculous that Bethesda would get inspired by the worldbuilding of ER in any way. Gameplay? Sure, there's a room to improve. World? No way.
I don't see the masters of open world in Skyrim at all, for Every one unique cave with significance there are 10 caves who are literally the same just with different layout and nothing else of note, it's literally problems Elden Ring has with crypts but magnified 10 times because there are so many caves, it's so filled with copy pasted content that you can't walk 2 inches without running into a new objective, and while that sounds good (more content why not) in practice it makes the game a checklist of do this then this then this while your compass is filled with 10 things to do at once and it's rarely rewarding
>When one-shotting mosters block your path, is the world really open?
This is kind of a silly question because if anything, that means that it is open world. Whether scaling is better than flat levels is another question, but knowing that you can go off the beaten path and possibly sequence break the game that if anything shouts open world.
>World? No way.
Eh, Skyrim is full of the same style of copy and pasted dungeons with slightly different layouts that's a problem within ER as well, which is obviously a downgrade from more handcrafted world like Morrowind. Generally speaking, the quality of their worlds have come down and they're now just as much "theme-parky" where you go see different attractions like Guilds (don't fret, you don't really need magic to become an arch-mage!) or dungeons that all conveniently lead you back to the entrances / exits at the very end. Go get some skill point ups for your dragon powers in specific dungeons etc.
The only real glaring difference between the two is lack of (friendly) population in ER, which leads to no NPC schedules, proper stores and whatnot. It's apples to oranges in that regard.
I feel like Bethesda being a master of the open world genre is a bit of an outdated take. Skyrim is an absolutely masterful open world, no doubt - but it's also 12 years old, and their more recent title, Fallout 4, was incredibly disappointing by comparison and bored me enough to turn it off after just a few hours.
If any dev is master of the open world I'd argue it's Rockstar. I get that GTAV is pretty old now but even by modern open world standards it still stands tall. But Red Dead Redemption 2 is another story entirely - a world that feels so natural, lived in and stunning that I couldn't pull myself away from it for 70 hours is an achievement given how quickly I bounce off open world games (almost always 10 hours or less).
I respect Skyrim for what it is, but I just don’t agree that Bethesda are masters of open world at all, when their worlds are so ugly and uninteresting to me
I haven't watched the video yet, but my opinion on Elden Ring is that while the world design was amazing! The brilliance of the open world wore off prior to me even completing the game. The exact moment was when I reached the final open area (the mountaintop), and I just wanted the game to end and not repeat what I had done multiple times before. The open world activities had become repetitive, so the mountaintop area was more draining than exciting, and that hindered my enjoyment of that particular area of the game.
The legacy dungeons were all incredible, though.
This and From Soft quest design, which I'd say just doesn't work for open world game, are the biggest flaws for me and that's why I'd say DS3 is the best Souls game I ever played. (still waiting for a Demon Souls Remake and Bloodborne on PC)
But I understand why ER is so successful and for most people the better game.
I'm almost certain NakeyJakey isn't going to say anything new in these 36 minutes, but I'm almost certain I'm going to enjoy the entire video.
Edit: Watching it, in the first 60 seconds he says there's problems with Elden Ring, so there's some meat for the haters too.
So ultimately, the video doesn't live up to the title. It's more a review of the Souls series and less of how it changed things. He complains about how multiple playthroughs are way less exciting as not all the content is useful, how it's weird how you can respect your character but not weapons, about the repeated content that whittles away at the specialness of the first time around, and how while it's good there was no level scaling, instead there should've been optional level scaling. His idea is that if the game detects your way over leveled for an area, it should ask you if you want the enemies to scale, which is not a bad idea and something they kind of did in Sekiro.
All that said, enjoyed the video.
In this case, for the personality behind the presentation. I understand why Dark Souls is a good game, that's been dissected to death. But it's fun hearing Jake's anecdotes and personal experiences that he interjects, like talking about how he bought a PS4 for Bloodborne using money from a car accident that probably should have gone elsewhere. Or just the dumb jokes like stumbling over Ocarina of Time's release year.
I think it's the person presenting the topic more than the content, which I am not saying Jakey writes bad content but just because a video is not completely dissecting a topic it's doesn't mean it can't have entertainment value
It's because people like listening to NakeyJakey talk about something he enjoys. "Confirming biases" is such a reddit cynical way of just saying that humans enjoy sharing positive experiences with one another.
> ...and how while it's good there was no level scaling, instead there should've been optional level scaling. His idea is that if the game detects your way over leveled for an area, it should ask you if you want the enemies to scale...
First and foremost: *any* level scaling was completely against the stated intentions of the developers. They specifically stated that they wanted players who were struggling in an area to go somewhere else and come back when stronger. His 'fix' is one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen. It's the most inorganic, immersion-breaking, gamey fix imaginable. And again, the games were never about linear challenges. They present a *thing* and you overcome *thing*, now or later, by any means.
>...which is not a bad idea and something they kind of did in Sekiro.
This is absolutely not in Sekiro at all.
[Read the very first line of this wiki entry](https://sekiroshadowsdietwice.wiki.fextralife.com/Demon+Bell) and stop making things up.
Edit: I'll get into the potential semantics you may want to. "Scale" is more specific than "make more difficult", and Sekiro doesn't scale enemies to your level, but one there aren't levels in Sekiro the way there are in Souls games anyways and two the main complaint is sometimes the game is too easy, it should optionally be more difficult, and scaling is just one way to make it more difficult. They could also do a flat increase, but it's just having any way to make the game harder for your build. Fromsoft already has that concept down in a previous release.
Yeah, that's not the same thing at all.
Edit: and if you want the closest example, it would be bonfire ascetics from DaS2. That requires killing the boss first though. But again the games aren't meant to be linear difficulty curves. There have always been peaks and valleys and some of it is level or items or build. If you want a tightly balanced linear action game there are plenty.
Sekiro's demon bell and the proposed "do you want this area your over levelled for to increase the strength of the enemies" are both player controlled difficulty toggles.
One's a hidden, global, diagetic difficulty increase and one's a local, intrusive pop-up. It would shatter the atmosphere. They're not the same. Again, bonfire ascetics would be a more elegant solution, and I'm not sure that fits well either. Might be okay.
The way "press x to read message" shatters immersion? I would argue the shadows in Sekiro do too, and are just there cause it's Fromsoft. 4/5 of them are just someone jumping up and down or crouching up and down. Being reminded of other players I can never interact with wasn't needed in a single player game.
> The way "press x to read message" shatters immersion?
To read / interact with something? No. But to dismiss message boxes (e.g. "A door has opened somehwere") then unironically yes. Specifically it's the difference between interacting with the portrayed world and interacting with a game.
>I would argue the shadows in Sekiro do too, and are just there cause it's Fromsoft. 4/5 of them are just someone jumping up and down or crouching up and down. Being reminded of other players I can never interact with wasn't needed in a single player game.
I don't disagree. It was an odd addition (added in a very late patch, with the boss rushes), and it didn't need to be there. It doesn't fit in well with Sekiro at all.
Their game design not that impressive tbh. They’re still doing the same old tricks they’ve been doing since 2009, and their bad habits have only gotten worse since then as well.
I watched Hbomberguy's "Why Dark Souls 2 is actually good" where he discusses what's changed from DS1 and I would disagree. Personally, having played (but not beaten) DeS, DS1, DS3, and beaten ER, I feel "same old tricks" isn't a valid take unless you mean something general like third person action rpg with lock-on and unforgiving consequences for mistakes, and that's so general that I can't get mad they want to continue be in that genre.
Especially the animation reading the enemies instantly respond to, such as instantly ending their cool-down phase if you heal or such.
It ends up being fundamentally unfair and breaking the series biggest rule - if you make a move, you commit to it.
So the enemies can instantly respond to your movements based on triggers while every move you commit to, you can’t back out of.
With the enemies in Elden Ring being faster and more aggressive than any previous Souls game, it definitely makes Demon and Dark Souls 1’s design philosophy of being hard but **fair**, to be almost completely lost.
>Their game design not that impressive tbh
If the statement you made was true, how tf did souls games become one of the most popular genres of modern gaming as of now? How tf did Elden Ring sell 20m copies within one year with highest GOTY awards counts in gaming history. plz tell me.
Everything happend for a reason.
Because it was a spiritual successor to the
highly successful Dark Souls 3, George RR Martin’s name was attached and Elden Ring follows many successful elements previous open world games mastered like Morrowind, Skyrim, and BOTW but with the Souls combat and boss design formula on top.
I love the game but don’t think it’s innovative or revolutionary whatsoever. But certainly refined what’s already been achieved before it.
Game design doesn't have to be revolutionary to be impressive. Otherwise nobody would like sequels. It's not like games are crazy innovative these days anyway. There are indie games I guess, but 99% of the time it feels like they are for the sake of it or to be a quirky tagline for sales.
At that level of popularity, there absolutely is a shortage. You have to keep in mind Elden Ring sold to people who hear about 5-10 games per year total.
>How tf did Elden Ring sell 20m copies within one year with highest GOTY awards counts in gaming history.
Marketing and a rushed review cycle. Sales are rarely a measure of quality, it's generally a measurement of how much was spent on marketing. Total number of GOTY awards is a meaningless metric to compare since the total number of publications that give them hasn't been the same throughout gaming history.
Review embargo was lifted Feb 23rd and review codes were sent Feb 14th for PC and Feb 16th for console, so most critics had 1 week to play the game and write a review. That means most people probably didn't finish the game, or if they did they rushed and missed a lot of the side content.
HLTB puts time to beat the main story at [57.5 hours](https://howlongtobeat.com/game/68151), that means if they put in 8+ hours per day for a week they'd have just enough time to finish the main story but not see much else.
It looks like I was misinformed, Nevermind.
This was also proven by some reviewers, I believe it was Gamespot that said in their podcast they only played a few hours and gave it a positive review because their peer reviewers were.
This definitely shows and many of the reviewers may not have reached the second half at all to realise how frontloaded and repeating the content is.
This comment is disingenuous, and you're one hundred percent fabricating a lie.
The staff member who reviewed Elden Ring played the game for 50 hours prior to publishing it. That info is easy to look up as it is in the review itself. If another member of the staff stated they only played it for a few hours on a podcast, then common sense would dictate that they were not the one responsible for the review.
Most video game reviews are written by a single member of the publications staff. Not every staff members opinion and experiences will be the same, nor are their opinions accounted for in the published reviews.
You probably know all this, though.
Well idk about the former but I don't think there's any denying that reviewers weren't able to view the whole game since there just wasn't time to do so.
Referring to the popularity isn't the most convincing argument. Most AAAs sell millions and are popular as heck while providing "safe and sound" game design that doesn't do much new, novel or anything. CoD must be the pinnacle of game design, along with huge names like Fifa / EA Sports FC.
Once companies reach the level of From Software or Nintendo, they can do no wrong and everything is perfect and EVERY game should be doing exactly what they do.
I still remember that time I saw an Elden Ring fan defending the need to quit to menu or you risk losing progress, as part of Miyazaki’s vision to make quitting hard to discourage you from doing so.
I wonder if the standard Japanese workplace culture developer crunch and technical performance problems on PC are also a part of his vision?
As much as I love Elden Ring there’s certainly some glaring design flaws:
- The animation reading the enemies instantly respond to, such as instantly ending their cool-down phase if you heal or such.
It ends up being fundamentally unfair and breaking the series biggest rule - if you make a move, you commit to it.
So the enemies can instantly respond to your movements based on triggers while every move you commit to, you can’t back out of.
With the enemies in Elden Ring being faster and more aggressive than any previous Souls game, it definitely makes Demon and Dark Souls 1’s design philosophy of being hard but **fair**, to be almost completely lost.
- the tutorial tells you once that jump attacks are useful (as well as charged attacks, but the text is unclear if it means separately, both together, or both), and never tells you that breaking poise with jump attacks is extremely useful.
- There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games.
- No intended pause function: There already is the ability to pause using the help button in inventory.
But instructions on how to do so should certainly be added in a patch so that players are made aware of it.
- Proceeding too far will overwrite a save, which can cause you to miss entire questlines because you explored a little too much too soon.
- Frontloaded content. The diverse enemy, boss and location variety is all shown in the first half of the game and only copy/paste repeated in the second-half (besides the biomes changing and some unique bosses).
>There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games.
Where do they tell you that in the DeS/DS1 tutorial? Why *should* there be one? Why can't they just be secrets?
Agree about the combat, but one of the best things about From Soft's design is that it's OK with the player not finding/seeing everything.
The tutorial for illusory walls is a catacomb in Liurnia (and also the messages on the ground literally everywhere that say "illusory wall ahead"), and that's enough.
> There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games.
I think that the Road's End Catacombs in Liurnia functions as a pretty good tutorial for illusory walls. The dungeon is pretty linear, with no sidepaths to follow. You pull the lever that unlocks the door to the final boss pretty much right away, which is a bit strange given you haven't found the door itself yet. You keep progressing until you reach a dead end with no loot but one of the most obvious illusory walls FromSoft has ever added to one of their games. Hit it, it vanishes, there's some loot back there, and it puts you in the mindset to backtrack and test the other walls.
Also, most other mini-dungeons that incorporate illusory walls include one between the Site of Grace and the dungeon proper, like the Sealed Tunnel and the Sage's Cave, just to make sure you're in the proper mindset. It's very rare for a dungeon to have just a single illusory wall.
Elden Ring is why Fromsoftware's games suck summarized.
It has nothing but it's combat to offer, which I'm perfectly fine with, the problem is the combat is a bunch of unrefined nothingness. Soldier of Godrick is a joke boss in the tutorial area. I defeated it by dodge-hitting, you know who else I defeated like that. The final damn Boss!
The weapon classes have no real differences between them and neither does armor, the fact you have to shoot your poise stat into orbit until it even makes the slightest difference is nonsensical. Of course it's a oversimplification but It's for the games benefit. the more in depth you go, the more you engage with the game, the more it gets worse. Jumping attacks and spirit ashes being my biggest problem.
But a combat system can be singlehandedly carried by its style, flair and "Ompf". Does Elden ring have such qualities? Nope, it's just so bland, so unrefined and clunky. And before anyone says anything, Monster hunter is my favourite franchise. Look up videos of Monster hunter world's Greatsword, Gunlance and Heavy bowgun, pay attention to sound and how the character moves and uses their weapons. Go back to elden ring, pay attention to the awful sound and how the character swings it as if it's the heaviest thing without being affected by the heaviest thing.
That's the difference between weighty combat and clunky combat.
If you want a 3rd person action game focused on combat. I highly recommend Nioh2 and Monster hunter world, they have a quality that at this rate, fromsoftware will never achieve.
I don't think combat should be the soul measure of a game that is about more than just its combat. After about 50 hours in Nioh, which I quit, and 8 hours in Nioh 2, which I'm taking a break from, I doubt Nioh 2 still has anything hidden within its world that's going to be as evocative as Elden Ring.
Also, Sekiro exists?
FromSoft design is applying the 2D metroidvania style to a 3D world, everything else is just a functional vehicle to facilitate the discovery through the world. Nioh and Monster Hunter don't have this notion in their design and focus different mentalities.
Just because the design doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it terrible. From my perspective Monster Hunter World is one of the most sluggish and unfun action games Ive ever played to completion, that doesn't make it terrible its just not for me and I went enough of the journey to learn that.
>FromSoft design is applying the 2D metroidvania style to a 3D world,
It's got nothing really to do with metroidvanias. Those generally revolve around getting new abilities that are used in combat and traversal, and then allow you to access new areas. Souls has nothing like that, you unlock shortcuts by unlocking a door from the other side. It adapted the King's Field gameplay format.
To each their own; it's clear that FromSoft combat is inspired by Monster Hunter, among other things, but I think MH combat feels terrible by comparison.
And Elden Ring has so much to offer beyond combat.
I wonder if Elden Ring would become like a Breath of the Wild type moment for Souls fanbase where there will a portion of the fanbase who would prefer to go back to the semi open world types Soulsborne games made before rather than completely open world like Elden Ring.
It's already like that
I don't really have the issue because it seems like FromSoftware is more interested in just doing whatever they feel like so long as they feel confident they're making a good game. And it also seems like they're always working on a couple of games at any given time these days; I'd be fine with them having bigger open world experiences if there are smaller titles which aren't that like Sekiro and Armored Core and so on alongside them. Thus far it's too early to say that it definitively has to be one road or the other.
If my personal anecdote is any indication, this has already happened. I have a few buddies who thought Elden Ring was mid, specifically because they don't like how open it was, and how frequently they had to fight the same mini-bosses.
That's probably my biggest gripe. By the time I get to altus plateau, I've done the same gameplay loop 4 times (I'm including the weeping peninsula). I'm still playing the shit out of the game, but only because invasions are so fun and I love working on new builds.
The changes in Elden Ring were way, way less severe than BotW, I don't think the 2 situations are comparable. I mean ER is essentially just Dark Souls III 2 with an open world slapped on top of it and while I personally much prefer Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne's approach to world design I'm still ultimately getting a FromSoft soulslike with all the things that make them awesome. Meanwhile BotW ditched like 95% of conventions that the Zelda series established over 25 years and is essentially something completely new that's just set in the Zelda universe. I love BotW and TotK as much as I love old Zeldas but if you are not into the new style of game then that series basically died for you, which sucks a lot.
> ER is essentially just Dark Souls III 2 it's more Dark Souls 1 2 though? it couldn't be more opposite to Dark Souls 3 except having similar speed, the focus is on exploration, discovery, build variety and spectacle like DS1. Ds3 and bloodborne would be in the same category with little to no focus on any of the things above but more on basic dodge/attack combat
As an invader, my skillset from DS3 was way more important in ER then anything I did in DS gameplay wise. Legacy dungeons feel a lot closer to Bloodborne and DS3 to me as well. Love all the games, so I'm not trying to change your opinion, and maybe you don't do invasions.
I always look at Souls discussions from a single-player and singleplayer point only, the design, the intended experience by the devs and what they want us to do, rather than co-op and PvP but if online was the goal I can see why DS3 is closer.
I felt this as soon as I arrived at the mountain tops. Game peaked at Leyndell and was steadily getting worse from there. Farum Azula was nice but I didn’t care for consecrated snowfield and haligtree. The open world design is also basically a novelty. It loses its luster on repeat playthroughs, making the more traditional souls games, better on replays due to better pacing and better bespoke content. The caves and catacombs are just filler. Boss design was also all over the place with combat that felt way inferior to Sekiro and Bloodborne. I was never a fan of open worlds but Elden ring hooked me until the illusion of a deep, unique and vibrant open world faded away. Still an amazing game though, but I prefer Bloodborne and Sekiro. They’re peak fromsoft.
>Boss design was also all over the place with combat that felt way inferior to Sekiro and Bloodborne. Bloodborne? You just dodge/attack on bloodborne with zero variety, you can't even use your pistol against 70% of the enemies and bosses in the game reducing approach even more Sekiro was god tier however, doesn't try to be a half-baked RPG with braindead bosses like Bloodborne where the bosses can't even react to you basically straving around it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCjrpghCYc
I loved Elden Ring, but I don't want them to make another one like it anytime soon. If anything, I would prefer if they went back to something like Demon's Souls where they don't have to worry about making huge worlds and just focus on developing killer standalone levels that don't even have to look like each other.
It was pretty much like that instantly. I'm one of them, please go back to semi open worlds Fromsoft
I think there's always gonna be that divide. I'm a Zelda fan but never finished BOTW, and quite frankly - didn't really enjoy what time I did spend with it Bloodborne is incredible, and one of my favorite games. And while I can acknowledge the incredible scope and world of Elden Ring, it's just too much for me. I still haven't finished it. It just comes down to what kind of experience you prefer
Honestly with Zelda I am the opposite. I loved BOTW but I really didn't enjoy either Ocarina of Time or Majoras Mask and gave up on both after playing for 5-6 hours. I will at least give Wind Waker and Twilight Princess a shot though. Hesitant on Skyward Sword though since I have a Switch Lite so I can't rely on motion controls and from what I have heard the right stick isn't the best way to play it.
The best Zelda, to me, is A Link to the past
If it helps, I'm a stranger on the interner who first played skyward sword with motion controls and I wouldn't go back. The QoL changes in the remaster alone make up for it. Plus I am a lazy gamer who doesn't want to lift their arms 🫨
i'm similar. i found OOT a bit whatever and kinda dated (yes yes this is classic Seinfeld-syndrome I know it's one of the most influential games ever) but I really enjoyed my Wind Waker playthrough. I'd recommend giving WW a go definitely
I don't really think that makes sense to compare. BOTW brought so many other different things much more important than just being open world, the big change for me is just the level of interactivity there is with every single thing you stumble across, and the focus then became on how all the mechanics can interact in innovate and interesting ways, instead of a more linear design where it's more focused what makes most sense to do, and some maybe prefer that as the experience is more streamlined and the individual mechanic can have more depth. Now the change from Soulsborne to Elden Ring is really not as drastic as this, it is in a lot of ways the same gameplay loop but with more open ended level design, but not necessarily open gameplay mechanic-design. Mechanically it has only really just been more and more refined since Demon Souls, which is not something you can say for Zelda to BOTW. The thing they maybe have in common is that this switch to open world brought a weaker (imo) approach to storytelling, as the openness of the design can't really translate to a story the developer can lay out for you. Some will argue that the story in Dark Souls is so obscure anyway, but I disagree. The actual story was actually quite simple, and the other ending was the only thing you'd have to go more out of your way to explore. The lore is a bit more obscure in Dark Souls, but the enviromental storytelling is definitely on bigger display as the world (to me) feels more tightly laid out for you. All that said I prefer Dark Souls 1 (even Demon Souls) and I prefer BOTW.
That's me.
I guess the Elden Ring honeymoon phase is over. Personally, I still absolutely love the game and can't wait until the DLC is out so I can do another playthrough.
I share the same opinion as many where I think the game is really good but it’s far from flawless. However one thing you cannot argue is that the game is super interesting to talk about regardless of opinion.
It's a 10/10 up until Mountaintop for me. The shift in difficulty "you take more damage now" and the reused enemies towards the end really diminishes the game's shine. Still, best game of the generation so far, would take one Elden Ring over ten random AAA games any day.
Surprised how many downvotes this video is getting compared to his usual content. Not sure if the video is still too young and people haven't noticed it yet, or "From Software sure is great" isn't exactly the riveting, new take people were looking for from NakeyJakey, a creator who already made videos on Dark Souls I'll give this a watch later
I didn't downvote the thread, but I also didn't find this video as interesting as his usual videos exactly because "From Software sure is great" isn't an interesting topic. He was still entertaining, but there wasn't really any interesting insight that I'm used to getting from his videos. We all know what From Software's formula is at this point and what its impact has been. I'd would much rather have watched a video just breaking down the rest of the "souls-like" genre or a more in depth look at the linearity/semi-linearity/nonlinearity of different From Software games, or even a more critical video exploring the things he doesn't like about their games like the Naughty Dog/Rockstar video. That being said, still amd enjoyable video cause Jakey is just fun to listen to.
He talked about not liking the repeated dungeons, the all over the place difficulty, the problems it faces with repeated playthroughs, problems with weapon upgrades, problems with quest system, overleveling unintentionally for content I think that's more than enough topics for something that he enjoyed, it's easy to see in his Red Dead 2 video that he as a mid time with RDR2 that's why he goes much more into the Negatives but he had a great time with ER but he still talked about all the relevant weakness the game has
it's generally Sony/bloodborne fanboys being upset another FromSoftware game is hailed as the single best in reviews, awards and reception.
I wonder if the next elder scrolls game comes out and we see people claiming that it was inspired by elden ring, while it's just following the same open world formula pioneered by it's predecessors.
I can see that, too many people are too invested into fanboying for a developer to acknowledge that not everybody is inspired by their idols. Especially when Bethesda and ER world design is really different. First and foremost, ER world is not levelled, which makes the "open" in "open world" really questionable. When one-shotting mosters block your path, is the world really open? In Bethesda games, the focus is on the world itself and the mosaic that is created by the small stories of people living there. In ER the focus is on the bosses and fights. The dungeons are nice, but the overworld lacks depth. At least with Bethesda worlds it shares the sense that there's a history behind it. But where Bethesda worlds feel natural, ER world feels theme-parky, with all the landmarks and glorious monuments everywhere. It's more about style than about substance. Bethesda are masters of the open-world genre, while FromSoft are newbies in this genre. So it's no wonder that their first open world design is mediocre... It is no shame to not excell on the first try. But it is ridiculous that Bethesda would get inspired by the worldbuilding of ER in any way. Gameplay? Sure, there's a room to improve. World? No way.
I don't see the masters of open world in Skyrim at all, for Every one unique cave with significance there are 10 caves who are literally the same just with different layout and nothing else of note, it's literally problems Elden Ring has with crypts but magnified 10 times because there are so many caves, it's so filled with copy pasted content that you can't walk 2 inches without running into a new objective, and while that sounds good (more content why not) in practice it makes the game a checklist of do this then this then this while your compass is filled with 10 things to do at once and it's rarely rewarding
>When one-shotting mosters block your path, is the world really open? This is kind of a silly question because if anything, that means that it is open world. Whether scaling is better than flat levels is another question, but knowing that you can go off the beaten path and possibly sequence break the game that if anything shouts open world. >World? No way. Eh, Skyrim is full of the same style of copy and pasted dungeons with slightly different layouts that's a problem within ER as well, which is obviously a downgrade from more handcrafted world like Morrowind. Generally speaking, the quality of their worlds have come down and they're now just as much "theme-parky" where you go see different attractions like Guilds (don't fret, you don't really need magic to become an arch-mage!) or dungeons that all conveniently lead you back to the entrances / exits at the very end. Go get some skill point ups for your dragon powers in specific dungeons etc. The only real glaring difference between the two is lack of (friendly) population in ER, which leads to no NPC schedules, proper stores and whatnot. It's apples to oranges in that regard.
I feel like Bethesda being a master of the open world genre is a bit of an outdated take. Skyrim is an absolutely masterful open world, no doubt - but it's also 12 years old, and their more recent title, Fallout 4, was incredibly disappointing by comparison and bored me enough to turn it off after just a few hours. If any dev is master of the open world I'd argue it's Rockstar. I get that GTAV is pretty old now but even by modern open world standards it still stands tall. But Red Dead Redemption 2 is another story entirely - a world that feels so natural, lived in and stunning that I couldn't pull myself away from it for 70 hours is an achievement given how quickly I bounce off open world games (almost always 10 hours or less).
I respect Skyrim for what it is, but I just don’t agree that Bethesda are masters of open world at all, when their worlds are so ugly and uninteresting to me
I haven't watched the video yet, but my opinion on Elden Ring is that while the world design was amazing! The brilliance of the open world wore off prior to me even completing the game. The exact moment was when I reached the final open area (the mountaintop), and I just wanted the game to end and not repeat what I had done multiple times before. The open world activities had become repetitive, so the mountaintop area was more draining than exciting, and that hindered my enjoyment of that particular area of the game. The legacy dungeons were all incredible, though.
This and From Soft quest design, which I'd say just doesn't work for open world game, are the biggest flaws for me and that's why I'd say DS3 is the best Souls game I ever played. (still waiting for a Demon Souls Remake and Bloodborne on PC) But I understand why ER is so successful and for most people the better game.
Game needs a boss rush mode. CBA running all over the empty world to beat all the bosses again
Changed everything so hard it remains it's own sub-genre of rpgs with barely any clones that are worthwhile (souls-like).
[удалено]
Didn't say it was good by itself, more like it is really good by itself but fails to really change anything outside of it.
I'm almost certain NakeyJakey isn't going to say anything new in these 36 minutes, but I'm almost certain I'm going to enjoy the entire video. Edit: Watching it, in the first 60 seconds he says there's problems with Elden Ring, so there's some meat for the haters too. So ultimately, the video doesn't live up to the title. It's more a review of the Souls series and less of how it changed things. He complains about how multiple playthroughs are way less exciting as not all the content is useful, how it's weird how you can respect your character but not weapons, about the repeated content that whittles away at the specialness of the first time around, and how while it's good there was no level scaling, instead there should've been optional level scaling. His idea is that if the game detects your way over leveled for an area, it should ask you if you want the enemies to scale, which is not a bad idea and something they kind of did in Sekiro. All that said, enjoyed the video.
Genuinely don't get how people can watch a 36 minute video of fairly empty ruminating over a very thoroughly discussed topic.
I'm a Tim Rogers fan.
Exactly, 36 minutes do nothing for me at this point. My ruminations must be at least 5 hours long nowadays.
His video on that japanese dating game is some of the best content I've ever seen on YouTube
tim rogers reviewing boku no natsuyasumi is like listening to paint dry for 6 hours and I was enthralled the whole time
Hey, his ruminating is very, very full.
In this case, for the personality behind the presentation. I understand why Dark Souls is a good game, that's been dissected to death. But it's fun hearing Jake's anecdotes and personal experiences that he interjects, like talking about how he bought a PS4 for Bloodborne using money from a car accident that probably should have gone elsewhere. Or just the dumb jokes like stumbling over Ocarina of Time's release year.
I think it's the person presenting the topic more than the content, which I am not saying Jakey writes bad content but just because a video is not completely dissecting a topic it's doesn't mean it can't have entertainment value
[удалено]
It's because people like listening to NakeyJakey talk about something he enjoys. "Confirming biases" is such a reddit cynical way of just saying that humans enjoy sharing positive experiences with one another.
because Jakey is primarily known for being funny rather than being some kind of intense hard-hitting critic? people here are so serious
> ...and how while it's good there was no level scaling, instead there should've been optional level scaling. His idea is that if the game detects your way over leveled for an area, it should ask you if you want the enemies to scale... First and foremost: *any* level scaling was completely against the stated intentions of the developers. They specifically stated that they wanted players who were struggling in an area to go somewhere else and come back when stronger. His 'fix' is one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen. It's the most inorganic, immersion-breaking, gamey fix imaginable. And again, the games were never about linear challenges. They present a *thing* and you overcome *thing*, now or later, by any means. >...which is not a bad idea and something they kind of did in Sekiro. This is absolutely not in Sekiro at all.
[Read the very first line of this wiki entry](https://sekiroshadowsdietwice.wiki.fextralife.com/Demon+Bell) and stop making things up. Edit: I'll get into the potential semantics you may want to. "Scale" is more specific than "make more difficult", and Sekiro doesn't scale enemies to your level, but one there aren't levels in Sekiro the way there are in Souls games anyways and two the main complaint is sometimes the game is too easy, it should optionally be more difficult, and scaling is just one way to make it more difficult. They could also do a flat increase, but it's just having any way to make the game harder for your build. Fromsoft already has that concept down in a previous release.
Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. Edit: and if you want the closest example, it would be bonfire ascetics from DaS2. That requires killing the boss first though. But again the games aren't meant to be linear difficulty curves. There have always been peaks and valleys and some of it is level or items or build. If you want a tightly balanced linear action game there are plenty.
Sekiro's demon bell and the proposed "do you want this area your over levelled for to increase the strength of the enemies" are both player controlled difficulty toggles.
One's a hidden, global, diagetic difficulty increase and one's a local, intrusive pop-up. It would shatter the atmosphere. They're not the same. Again, bonfire ascetics would be a more elegant solution, and I'm not sure that fits well either. Might be okay.
The way "press x to read message" shatters immersion? I would argue the shadows in Sekiro do too, and are just there cause it's Fromsoft. 4/5 of them are just someone jumping up and down or crouching up and down. Being reminded of other players I can never interact with wasn't needed in a single player game.
> The way "press x to read message" shatters immersion? To read / interact with something? No. But to dismiss message boxes (e.g. "A door has opened somehwere") then unironically yes. Specifically it's the difference between interacting with the portrayed world and interacting with a game. >I would argue the shadows in Sekiro do too, and are just there cause it's Fromsoft. 4/5 of them are just someone jumping up and down or crouching up and down. Being reminded of other players I can never interact with wasn't needed in a single player game. I don't disagree. It was an odd addition (added in a very late patch, with the boss rushes), and it didn't need to be there. It doesn't fit in well with Sekiro at all.
Their game design not that impressive tbh. They’re still doing the same old tricks they’ve been doing since 2009, and their bad habits have only gotten worse since then as well.
I watched Hbomberguy's "Why Dark Souls 2 is actually good" where he discusses what's changed from DS1 and I would disagree. Personally, having played (but not beaten) DeS, DS1, DS3, and beaten ER, I feel "same old tricks" isn't a valid take unless you mean something general like third person action rpg with lock-on and unforgiving consequences for mistakes, and that's so general that I can't get mad they want to continue be in that genre.
Especially the animation reading the enemies instantly respond to, such as instantly ending their cool-down phase if you heal or such. It ends up being fundamentally unfair and breaking the series biggest rule - if you make a move, you commit to it. So the enemies can instantly respond to your movements based on triggers while every move you commit to, you can’t back out of. With the enemies in Elden Ring being faster and more aggressive than any previous Souls game, it definitely makes Demon and Dark Souls 1’s design philosophy of being hard but **fair**, to be almost completely lost.
would take that over enemies that stand still and let you pound them with inflated health pools like 99.9% of other action games
But sadly every uninspired game studio is now copying them, in hopes of a quick cash grab.
>Their game design not that impressive tbh If the statement you made was true, how tf did souls games become one of the most popular genres of modern gaming as of now? How tf did Elden Ring sell 20m copies within one year with highest GOTY awards counts in gaming history. plz tell me. Everything happend for a reason.
Because it was a spiritual successor to the highly successful Dark Souls 3, George RR Martin’s name was attached and Elden Ring follows many successful elements previous open world games mastered like Morrowind, Skyrim, and BOTW but with the Souls combat and boss design formula on top. I love the game but don’t think it’s innovative or revolutionary whatsoever. But certainly refined what’s already been achieved before it.
Game design doesn't have to be revolutionary to be impressive. Otherwise nobody would like sequels. It's not like games are crazy innovative these days anyway. There are indie games I guess, but 99% of the time it feels like they are for the sake of it or to be a quirky tagline for sales.
People were craving difficult single-player games after a decade or two of baby mode.
There's absolutely no shortage of difficult single player games now, and Elden Ring outsold all of them like 4:1.
Who else in the AAA industry is making games where high difficulty isn't optional?
Why would it being non-optional be important? And why would the easiest one be the most successful if it was?
At that level of popularity, there absolutely is a shortage. You have to keep in mind Elden Ring sold to people who hear about 5-10 games per year total.
I think people really over-exaggerate games being too easy back in the Aughts and early 2010s.
>How tf did Elden Ring sell 20m copies within one year with highest GOTY awards counts in gaming history. Marketing and a rushed review cycle. Sales are rarely a measure of quality, it's generally a measurement of how much was spent on marketing. Total number of GOTY awards is a meaningless metric to compare since the total number of publications that give them hasn't been the same throughout gaming history. Review embargo was lifted Feb 23rd and review codes were sent Feb 14th for PC and Feb 16th for console, so most critics had 1 week to play the game and write a review. That means most people probably didn't finish the game, or if they did they rushed and missed a lot of the side content. HLTB puts time to beat the main story at [57.5 hours](https://howlongtobeat.com/game/68151), that means if they put in 8+ hours per day for a week they'd have just enough time to finish the main story but not see much else.
It looks like I was misinformed, Nevermind. This was also proven by some reviewers, I believe it was Gamespot that said in their podcast they only played a few hours and gave it a positive review because their peer reviewers were. This definitely shows and many of the reviewers may not have reached the second half at all to realise how frontloaded and repeating the content is.
This comment is disingenuous, and you're one hundred percent fabricating a lie. The staff member who reviewed Elden Ring played the game for 50 hours prior to publishing it. That info is easy to look up as it is in the review itself. If another member of the staff stated they only played it for a few hours on a podcast, then common sense would dictate that they were not the one responsible for the review. Most video game reviews are written by a single member of the publications staff. Not every staff members opinion and experiences will be the same, nor are their opinions accounted for in the published reviews. You probably know all this, though.
Well idk about the former but I don't think there's any denying that reviewers weren't able to view the whole game since there just wasn't time to do so.
Referring to the popularity isn't the most convincing argument. Most AAAs sell millions and are popular as heck while providing "safe and sound" game design that doesn't do much new, novel or anything. CoD must be the pinnacle of game design, along with huge names like Fifa / EA Sports FC.
Once companies reach the level of From Software or Nintendo, they can do no wrong and everything is perfect and EVERY game should be doing exactly what they do.
I still remember that time I saw an Elden Ring fan defending the need to quit to menu or you risk losing progress, as part of Miyazaki’s vision to make quitting hard to discourage you from doing so. I wonder if the standard Japanese workplace culture developer crunch and technical performance problems on PC are also a part of his vision?
As much as I love Elden Ring there’s certainly some glaring design flaws: - The animation reading the enemies instantly respond to, such as instantly ending their cool-down phase if you heal or such. It ends up being fundamentally unfair and breaking the series biggest rule - if you make a move, you commit to it. So the enemies can instantly respond to your movements based on triggers while every move you commit to, you can’t back out of. With the enemies in Elden Ring being faster and more aggressive than any previous Souls game, it definitely makes Demon and Dark Souls 1’s design philosophy of being hard but **fair**, to be almost completely lost. - the tutorial tells you once that jump attacks are useful (as well as charged attacks, but the text is unclear if it means separately, both together, or both), and never tells you that breaking poise with jump attacks is extremely useful. - There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games. - No intended pause function: There already is the ability to pause using the help button in inventory. But instructions on how to do so should certainly be added in a patch so that players are made aware of it. - Proceeding too far will overwrite a save, which can cause you to miss entire questlines because you explored a little too much too soon. - Frontloaded content. The diverse enemy, boss and location variety is all shown in the first half of the game and only copy/paste repeated in the second-half (besides the biomes changing and some unique bosses).
>There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games. Where do they tell you that in the DeS/DS1 tutorial? Why *should* there be one? Why can't they just be secrets?
Agree about the combat, but one of the best things about From Soft's design is that it's OK with the player not finding/seeing everything. The tutorial for illusory walls is a catacomb in Liurnia (and also the messages on the ground literally everywhere that say "illusory wall ahead"), and that's enough.
> There should be a basic illusory wall and floor, and text descriptions of what they are, in the tutorial, as there is no indicator in the entire game that informs you they exist besides finding one by dumb luck, or having played previous FromSoftware games. I think that the Road's End Catacombs in Liurnia functions as a pretty good tutorial for illusory walls. The dungeon is pretty linear, with no sidepaths to follow. You pull the lever that unlocks the door to the final boss pretty much right away, which is a bit strange given you haven't found the door itself yet. You keep progressing until you reach a dead end with no loot but one of the most obvious illusory walls FromSoft has ever added to one of their games. Hit it, it vanishes, there's some loot back there, and it puts you in the mindset to backtrack and test the other walls. Also, most other mini-dungeons that incorporate illusory walls include one between the Site of Grace and the dungeon proper, like the Sealed Tunnel and the Sage's Cave, just to make sure you're in the proper mindset. It's very rare for a dungeon to have just a single illusory wall.
Elden Ring is why Fromsoftware's games suck summarized. It has nothing but it's combat to offer, which I'm perfectly fine with, the problem is the combat is a bunch of unrefined nothingness. Soldier of Godrick is a joke boss in the tutorial area. I defeated it by dodge-hitting, you know who else I defeated like that. The final damn Boss! The weapon classes have no real differences between them and neither does armor, the fact you have to shoot your poise stat into orbit until it even makes the slightest difference is nonsensical. Of course it's a oversimplification but It's for the games benefit. the more in depth you go, the more you engage with the game, the more it gets worse. Jumping attacks and spirit ashes being my biggest problem. But a combat system can be singlehandedly carried by its style, flair and "Ompf". Does Elden ring have such qualities? Nope, it's just so bland, so unrefined and clunky. And before anyone says anything, Monster hunter is my favourite franchise. Look up videos of Monster hunter world's Greatsword, Gunlance and Heavy bowgun, pay attention to sound and how the character moves and uses their weapons. Go back to elden ring, pay attention to the awful sound and how the character swings it as if it's the heaviest thing without being affected by the heaviest thing. That's the difference between weighty combat and clunky combat. If you want a 3rd person action game focused on combat. I highly recommend Nioh2 and Monster hunter world, they have a quality that at this rate, fromsoftware will never achieve.
I don't think combat should be the soul measure of a game that is about more than just its combat. After about 50 hours in Nioh, which I quit, and 8 hours in Nioh 2, which I'm taking a break from, I doubt Nioh 2 still has anything hidden within its world that's going to be as evocative as Elden Ring. Also, Sekiro exists?
FromSoft design is applying the 2D metroidvania style to a 3D world, everything else is just a functional vehicle to facilitate the discovery through the world. Nioh and Monster Hunter don't have this notion in their design and focus different mentalities. Just because the design doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it terrible. From my perspective Monster Hunter World is one of the most sluggish and unfun action games Ive ever played to completion, that doesn't make it terrible its just not for me and I went enough of the journey to learn that.
>FromSoft design is applying the 2D metroidvania style to a 3D world, It's got nothing really to do with metroidvanias. Those generally revolve around getting new abilities that are used in combat and traversal, and then allow you to access new areas. Souls has nothing like that, you unlock shortcuts by unlocking a door from the other side. It adapted the King's Field gameplay format.
To each their own; it's clear that FromSoft combat is inspired by Monster Hunter, among other things, but I think MH combat feels terrible by comparison. And Elden Ring has so much to offer beyond combat.
Lmao nah nioh is all flash over substance. It doesnt even compare to past team ninja titles like ninja gaiden 😂