From Software Elden Ring - From Software's new game with writing by GRRM

[Tyranicon]

My son put hoarfrost on my weapon almost by accident :D

Now imagine your toon and the mimic, spamming stomp on both sides of a boss... And that is how I beat every boss whose arena runs at 30-something fps! :D

Just an example of how broken it is:

So I stopped really paying attention because nothing posed any sort of threat any more but then I ran into the twin crucible knights and I thought, ok, now I might actually have to focus and maybe use an ash summon.

No. I didn't even take damage.

I'm not good at this game. I died to the early single crucible knight like 30 times and won kind of by accident. With Hoarfrost I took on two level scaled ones at the same time without taking damage.

Absolutely broken.

Yeah hoarfrost is on mimic tier of broken, maybe more so with pvp.

There's things in the game you can't use because it'll trivialize everything. And it's not like they're complicated, take skill, or something to be incredibly broken. They're win buttons.

 

[Utgard-Loki]

the more i play this POS the more i actually just want to quit and play dragons dogma again.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Dragon's Dogma recycled a lot of enemies, too, but for some reason the impact of fighting them never got old in that game. I think the mechanics were just better.

 

[Matador]

Also, these things are only the natural evolution of the series because it adopted Bloodborne high speed and tempo with DS3. If it kept DS1/2 slower speed and stamina-inefficient rolls we would be seeing a different, and probably more interesting, evolution of the bosses by now. As much as I love BB and find it the best FROM game, it was the fall of Souls formula.

Bloodborne is the Resident Evil 4 of Dark Souls.

A great game that inspired bad trends.

 

[Utgard-Loki]

dragons dogma only needed one game to figure out how to balance multiple playstyles. fromsoft, after 6, is still too incompetent to even design basic controls that are suitable for anything other than simple melee classes. and i find the best spell in the game being a katana weapon art insulting.

 

[perfectslumbers]

Honestly I feel like with DS3 and Elden Ring, lots of enemies that are supposed to be different just sort of feel the same. Earlier in the thread somebody couldn't tell the difference between grafted enemies and revenants. Demihumans and beastmen feel pretty much the same (or might be entirely the same,) all the various types of knights and soldiers feel basically the same, all the zombies/blobs/tanky slow moving enemies feel the same, the assassins/notirythyll knights feel the same. And even beyond that every enemy and boss has the same tactic, avoid it's combos, hit once or twice during the opening, learn the pattern.

Compare this to DS1. Learning the pattern and avoiding/blocking attacks was still part of the formula, but many bosses were designed to be unique still. Capra demon and Nito were both ambush boss fights, but one of them encouraged quickly rolling away and picking off the adds while the other one encouraged staying still and avoiding the adds. O&S and the Gargoyles were both duo bossfights but one of them revolved around kiting to separate the enemies while the other one encouraged aggression to finish one off and reduce the fight to a single enemy. Four kings was a dps race with an arena that removed all depth perception. DS1 had it's fair share of garbage bosses but they put a lot of effort into making them unique and encouraging you to approach them in specific ways that just doesn't happen anymore. None of these are gimmick bosses, they just use the core mechanics of the games in interesting ways.

Same with the enemies in DS1, not because of their design but because of their implementation in the level. I'll never forget that moment in undead parish when you have to figure out how to deal with the aggressive armoured boar, several archers, and several infantrymen. Or the lightning casting lizardman on a bridge with several swinging axes in between us in Sens. It was a puzzle all on it's own, those enemies were massively elevated by the way they were implemented in the level. This just doesn't really exist in Elden Ring other than "bait a ranged enemy around a corner, or omg there's an imp on the wall waiting to jump at me!" After a few hours the enemy placement is already out of tricks. And while the levels themselves are awesome the enemy placement stays boring throughout the game. Again DS1 had some shit levels (and some truly nightmarish abysmal ones,) but in the good levels they used enemies in really interesting ways that just don't happen anymore.

 

[Tyranicon]

After a few hours the enemy placement is already out of tricks. And while the levels themselves are awesome the enemy placement stays boring throughout the game.

I dunno about this, I found enemy placement to be decent throughout the game's non-open world parts. Not sure if on DS1 level, but certainly on par with more recent From games. Even in the last area I cleared (Haligtree and Brace), enemies constantly presented a challenge. Assholes on bridges, assholes on roofs, assholes while I'm slow rolling through poison.

Honestly Haligtree was some bullshit.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Honestly I feel like with DS3 and Elden Ring, lots of enemies that are supposed to be different just sort of feel the same. Earlier in the thread somebody couldn't tell the difference between grafted enemies and revenants. Demihumans and beastmen feel pretty much the same (or might be entirely the same,) all the various types of knights and soldiers feel basically the same, all the zombies/blobs/tanky slow moving enemies feel the same, the assassins/notirythyll knights feel the same. And even beyond that every enemy and boss has the same tactic, avoid it's combos, hit once or twice during the opening, learn the pattern.

Compare this to DS1. Learning the pattern and avoiding/blocking attacks was still part of the formula, but many bosses were designed to be unique still. Capra demon and Nito were both ambush boss fights, but one of them encouraged quickly rolling away and picking off the adds while the other one encouraged staying still and avoiding the adds. O&S and the Gargoyles were both duo bossfights but one of them revolved around kiting to separate the enemies while the other one encouraged aggression to finish one off and reduce the fight to a single enemy. Four kings was a dps race with an arena that removed all depth perception. DS1 had it's fair share of garbage bosses but they put a lot of effort into making them unique and encouraging you to approach them in specific ways that just doesn't happen anymore. None of these are gimmick bosses, they just use the core mechanics of the games in interesting ways.

Same with the enemies in DS1, not because of their design but because of their implementation in the level. I'll never forget that moment in undead parish when you have to figure out how to deal with the aggressive armoured boar, several archers, and several infantrymen. Or the lightning casting lizardman on a bridge with several swinging axes in between us in Sens. It was a puzzle all on it's own, those enemies were massively elevated by the way they were implemented in the level. This just doesn't really exist in Elden Ring other than "bait a ranged enemy around a corner, or omg there's an imp on the wall waiting to jump at me!" After a few hours the enemy placement is already out of tricks. And while the levels themselves are awesome the enemy placement stays boring throughout the game. Again DS1 had some shit levels (and some truly nightmarish abysmal ones,) but in the good levels they used enemies in really interesting ways that just don't happen anymore.

While I agree with most of this, a lot of it has to do with the novelty factor. If some of the ambushes and encounter design of DS1 were presented in a modern From game, people would cry about how unfair they are. It is unfortunate but by this point, Souls has become extremely formulaic and Elden Ring is the ultimate expression of rote repetition with some cool moments scattered in.

There are definitive improvements to the formula though, especially guard counters IMO. But I wish they would just man up and rework/do away with the iframe rolling system altogether. Sekiro created a lot of butthurt (and I'm sorry to bring it up again in this thread) but that was the way forward.

I realize that it's possible to play ER with a tanky greatshield build, and in fact that's what I did for 80 hours, but it's not enough.

 

[perfectslumbers]

Honestly Haligtree was some bullshit.

Haligtree had a few interesting placements, definitely the most interesting enemy placement overall in the game with the trumpeteers on branches and the slugs hiding.

While I agree with most of this, a lot of it has to do with the novelty factor.

Very true

But I wish they would just man up and rework/do away with the iframe rolling system altogether.

Completely agree, it's a shame that the games have moved more and more towards using iframes when they should have moved further away from iframes. One thing I liked about Dark Souls 2 early game is you had to actually dodge out the attacks since you had so few iframes. The Pursuer in particular made great use of this.

Also i think the virgin abductors are neat enemies, one of the few ones in the game that feels new an unique. Every time I found one I'd groan with pain which is the experience I look for in these games.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Yes, if they're adamant about keeping invincible rolling frames in, they should massively increase the stamina cost, perhaps even scale it multiplicatively so that doing two rolls in sequence consumes much more stamina than two single spaced rolls.

However, this means they would have to dial back enemy spam, bullshit 360 arc attacks and overall methhead bosses. Which is fine by me, but people have gotten used to this kind of stuff, and it's more difficult to tone something down rather than amp it up.

I'd much rather have more creative mechanics (not gimmicks, though) than roll spam through infinite loops. Incentivizing posture breaks is a step in the right direction, and it's even implemented better here than in Bloodborne, so From is obviously trying to do other stuff.

 

[Curratum]

Elden Ring's biggest tragedy is that the game got straight 10/10s and every "gamer" fellated From for it and will keep doing it for months.

The game has points of merit about it, but it also has significant issues. Those issues got completely buried under an avalanche of praise and fanboy jizz and From will never correct any of it, instead producing themselves or encouraging third-party studios to copy the exact same formula for another fucking decade and it's making me depressed.

 

[Villagkouras]

Honestly I feel like with DS3 and Elden Ring, lots of enemies that are supposed to be different just sort of feel the same. Earlier in the thread somebody couldn't tell the difference between grafted enemies and revenants. Demihumans and beastmen feel pretty much the same (or might be entirely the same,) all the various types of knights and soldiers feel basically the same, all the zombies/blobs/tanky slow moving enemies feel the same, the assassins/notirythyll knights feel the same. And even beyond that every enemy and boss has the same tactic, avoid it's combos, hit once or twice during the opening, learn the pattern.

Compare this to DS1. Learning the pattern and avoiding/blocking attacks was still part of the formula, but many bosses were designed to be unique still. Capra demon and Nito were both ambush boss fights, but one of them encouraged quickly rolling away and picking off the adds while the other one encouraged staying still and avoiding the adds. O&S and the Gargoyles were both duo bossfights but one of them revolved around kiting to separate the enemies while the other one encouraged aggression to finish one off and reduce the fight to a single enemy. Four kings was a dps race with an arena that removed all depth perception. DS1 had it's fair share of garbage bosses but they put a lot of effort into making them unique and encouraging you to approach them in specific ways that just doesn't happen anymore. None of these are gimmick bosses, they just use the core mechanics of the games in interesting ways.

Same with the enemies in DS1, not because of their design but because of their implementation in the level. I'll never forget that moment in undead parish when you have to figure out how to deal with the aggressive armoured boar, several archers, and several infantrymen. Or the lightning casting lizardman on a bridge with several swinging axes in between us in Sens. It was a puzzle all on it's own, those enemies were massively elevated by the way they were implemented in the level. This just doesn't really exist in Elden Ring other than "bait a ranged enemy around a corner, or omg there's an imp on the wall waiting to jump at me!" After a few hours the enemy placement is already out of tricks. And while the levels themselves are awesome the enemy placement stays boring throughout the game. Again DS1 had some shit levels (and some truly nightmarish abysmal ones,) but in the good levels they used enemies in really interesting ways that just don't happen anymore.

Yeah, because DS1 was a project of love and passion, while ER is a professional product from an established dev. They just didn't care.

It's like expecting from Metallica to go inside the studio and record an album like their first. They can't. They are not a band anymore, they're a multi million dollar business.

The new Demon/Dark Souls will happen from a dev we don't know yet. Who are going to care only for their ideas to become a game, not to sell as much as they can.

I love Elden Ring, it's one of the best games I've played but I can see what is a work of love and what is a polished product for consumers.

 

[Silva]

Elden Ring's biggest tragedy is that the game got straight 10/10s and every "gamer" fellated From for it and will keep doing it for months.

The game has points of merit about it, but it also has significant issues. Those issues got completely buried under an avalanche of praise and fanboy jizz and From will never correct any of it, instead producing themselves or encouraging third-party studios to copy the exact same formula for another fucking decade and it's making me depressed.

I was about to disagree and give From more credit in descrying the game's problems amid the journo fuss. But then I remembered they kept a lot of cruft from DS3 (weight thresholds, spastic enemies, rolls galore, etc). So you're right, they'll probably think the game is perfect as is and regurgitate it for the next decade.

 

[Sacibengala]

They still did bloodborne and Sekiro after DS1, so I'm still hopeful that from time to time they do something original with the formula. We'll see.

 

[NJClaw]

I'm redoing the Malenia fight over and over and, to me, it's one of the most satisfying boss in the entire series. I hope down the line they introduce some sort of boss rush mode like the Gauntlets of Strength in Sekiro but, until then, I will keep this backup save to redo her whenever I feel like it. Her, Godrick, Radagon, Maliketh, the Tree Sentinel, the first Crucible Knight, the Crucible Knight duo, and the Godskin duo are the only bosses that you can't defeat by simply going in and doing whatever you want. You really need to learn them, understand their moves, and overcome their challenge to strike their names from your list. I guess Malenia is the one who caused more outrage because her gimmick is incredibly frustrating if you insist on facing her without learning her moves. Anyway, stunlocking her out of her combos with a greatsword feels great.

 

[HumanTotemPole]

Dragon's Dogma recycled a lot of enemies, too, but for some reason the impact of fighting them never got old in that game. I think the mechanics were just better.

DD doesn't overstay its welcome. Much shorter game and a much smaller game world. Limgrave and the Weeping Peninsula combined probably have more locations than DD's entire pre-Everfall gameworld but ER is already cutpasting archetypes before you've crossed the Bridge of Sacrifice.

 

[Silva]

Interesting. Seeing all the endings here (spoilers of course)...

Spoiler

...I'm getting a Shin Megami Tensei 3: Nocturne's vibe, with those roundtable tarnished cited in the intro (edit: plus Ranni) taking the role of that SMT3's Reason bearers, each with a distinct vision/agenda for the universe that come to pass if you follow their quests.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Generally speaking, everywhere you go, when people talk about open world games it's all derivative from Daggerfall and GTA. This is the first time I even hear someone talk of Fallout as open world (before the Betheshit incarnation of Fallout 3)

But what would you call Fallout and Arcanum to distinguish them from Assassin Creed, Breath of the Wild and Red Dead Redemption? I struggle to find the right term.

All of these games are non-linear, but only a subset of non-linear games are Open World. The only drawback to using the term "non-linear" is that it can refer either to non-linearity in the overall structure of a game or to non-linearity in level design; for example, Thief: The Dark Project and Thief II: The Metal Age have excellent, unsurpassed, non-linear level design but both games are completely linear in their overall structure, with the player being ushered immediately from mission to mission. Of course, both linearity in structure and linearity in level design are a spectrum rather than a binary condition.

Open World games are ones in the style of Faery Tale Adventure (1986) or Morrowind (2002), where the player-character moves directly through a seamless overworld environment that is at constant scale to the player (even though usually representing a larger area than actually depicted), with continuous movement and sufficient size that the environment qualifies as a world. This doesn't quite need to be a strict definition, such that for example Outward (2019) can be considered Open World despite its environment being divided into four discrete zones on the grounds that it otherwise fulfills the criteria and that each zone individually is quite large, but the definition shouldn't be overly loose. Arguably, non-linearity (in overall structure) should be added as a criterion, but it almost seems unnecessary since any Open World would be wasted if the game were linear.

There are a number of high-profile, high-budget Open World games that are not RPGs, which genre really has no relation to a game being Open World or not; these include Ghost of Tsushima, Red Dead Redemption, the Far Cry series, and the Just Cause series.

 

[thelegend]

 

[Jackpot]

The game is too long.
Not even mentioning the design in later levels or enemy reuse, its just too much.
I entered the forbidden lands at level 118 with a +9 weapon and got to 122 with a +10 weapon quickly.
After that what else is there to get by exploring? I've got enough flasks, I'm committed to a weapon, I have good armor, several spirit ashes at +10. Every incantation I've gotten has been a joke compared to my weapon arte.

All my desire to explore fizzled away at Leyndell.
Oh and one actual complaint about the enemies is them becoming damage sponges.
I just run by everyone I can because fighting them takes too long and I already have more than enough runes.

It really just should have been smaller/shorter.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Just killed Malenia, she was a cool boss. However, both Haligtree zones were fucking awful, some of the worst in the game.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

So I got over my rage of having my golden seeds glitched and started a new character. I'm rushing straight for the gold trees. No fuckin around.

Wait... you start out with 5 flasks (if you start with the seed) and my main character has 6. Maybe I picked them up and just forgot about it.

 

[DemonKing]

That Renalla is a bitch if you’re playing a magic character. Took all day to beat her with my mage using 8 x health flasks and a short sword with Bloody Gash equipped because magic barely scratches her.

 

[Lyric Suite]

To be honest i don't get the anger about Dark Souls clones.

The term Dark Souls like gets thrown around a lot but 90% of the time its actually meaningless. From what i've seen real Dark Souls clones are not that common and i rarely saw any actual mechanic from the Souls series seep into any other AAA games out there.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Finished the game today, the last sequence of bosses is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. Last boss was very underwhelming.

Right now I rank it as the worst out of all Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro, unfortunately. Yes, even worse than DS3. Mechanically it's a better game, but it just killed all my goodwill, I don't think I'd ever had a game do that to me before. I wanted to finish it but I didn't feel like playing it at all, if it makes any sense.

Also, I'm the farthest thing removed from a storyfag but usually these games keep me at least somewhat interested in some of the story (Bloodborne had me really hooked) tidbits I glean from items, etc. Elden Ring was dry as shit and I didn't care at all about anything that was going on.

Anyway, if the devs had dialed way back on the repetition and made it about 40 hours shorter, it probably would have ranked among one of the best. I can only imagine what the game would have been like with two or three of the main map areas, tightly focused and with no trivialization of 90% of the content through recycling.

Fav bosses were Melania, Mohg and Astral (only 1 of those isn't recycled). Main story bosses were all weak except maybe for Margit and Godwyn because the first 20 hours were great.

I don't see myself replaying this at all. Even the music sucked 90% of the time, the best song was in the credits by far.