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

[toro]

It's like negative Buddhism. Reality is illusion, only darkness is real, the illusion is cyclical, runs strong for a while but eventually the darkness starts to creep back in, your choice in the end is to renew the illusion or shatter it once and for all.

I tried Dark Souls (1) and quickly gave up for a couple of reasons. First I couldn't care less about a world that appears to be dead & dark everywhere, the "living humans" NPCs are all shallow, spent and "flat" (and with horrible voiceovers), and the existence of things like a merchant in the middle of a ruined city and surrounded by deadly demons and whatever else was just over the top illogical. Secondly, you really only ever fight (and explore) in the game, and you explore so you could fight more and more; I felt like there is no "real world" there, just an elaborate arena with enemies and bosses to kill; the fact that gigantic demons jump from around the corner was just tiring. Am I supposed to be impressed by the huge creature that is also an HP sponge? I'm sure it is a very good game for people who like to fight ceaselessly in a grim/dark world, but I just couldn't care less.

Now, if what you say of its story is true, then wow what a retarded idea.

seek medical advice

 

[Zibniyat]

the fact that gigantic demons jump from around the corner was just tiring. Am I supposed to be impressed by the huge creature that is also an HP sponge?

So you got your ass beat by Taurus, you've ragequit on the grounds of "artificial difficulty" and then you rationalized your lack of gudness by "I didn't like the story".

When it comes to tall tales of butthurt first-time Soul players, I've heard them all.

You are, obviously, mistaken.

 

[Lyric Suite]

How did you even manage to get that far and not realize the game is not for you? It's not you could be mistaken of what this game is about right from the tutorial.

 

[The_Mask]

the existence of things like a merchant in the middle of a ruined city and surrounded by deadly demons and whatever else was just over the top illogical.

Being undead simplifies the need to show a couple of basic things that make us human, namingly: food, water, security and sex. That's why that merchant can just sit there without moving, only driven by his willpower.

The whole game is about the willpower to figure it out, and beat it.

Literally the first key you pick up in the Asylum asks the question "do you have what it needs to figure things out?".

 

[Zibniyat]

How did you even manage to get that far and not realize the game is not for you? It's not you could be mistaken of what this game is about right from the tutorial.

I have high tolerance to things I dislike when I "want" to do something. Like try a new game which "everyone" praises. That's how I endured Skyrim for 70 hours, even when by 20 hours I had already realised there's nothing more to it than what I hadn't already seen, but I felt guilty spending money on it so I forced myself to proceed (the soundtrack was wonderful though). Of course, not all the time, since after a year I bought its DLCs at a discount, but ended up never even touching them to this day.

However, do note how I didn't actually dislike DS right from the start, in fact many things I did like. But soon enough things I disliked started to creep more and more, and no - it has nothing to do with "difficulty" (I normally play all games at either the highest or second highest difficulty level even at first playthrough).

Another one was Dragon's Dogma. Initially wonderful, soon I realised that enemies respawn ALL THE TIME. That killed that game for me forever, and I have not returned to it since.

You could say I have a rather idiosyncratic approach to trying new games. I have no strong preference for or against things, but depending on their implementation I may end up playing for hundreds of hours, or quitting within a few.

 

[Andnjord]

No one comments on the lore yet? Seems a copypaste from DS. Basically there was once a great power in the world that now is fading ( the flame /ER). There are beings who owe their strenght to that power ( the lords/demigods) also they have gone mad ( same in DS).
PC is a special being that exists because reasons related to the power ( undead/tarnished).
My guesses:
your choices will be to
-reforge the ER ( relight the flame) and "save" the world
-take the power for yourself ( usurpation of fire ending in ds3)
-or let the ER power disappear ( dark ending)
-bonus impossible to obtain without guide obscure ending wich will be the best or the worst ending depending on who you ask on internet

Fair enough about all your points except the last one, that would be akin to asking them to not be japanese anymore :D

Being undead simplifies the need to show a couple of basic things that make us human, namingly: food, water, security and sex.

So...are most of us hollow here on the Codex?

 

[Alphard]

How did you even manage to get that far and not realize the game is not for you? It's not you could be mistaken of what this game is about right from the tutorial.

I have high tolerance to things I dislike when I "want" to do something. Like try a new game which "everyone" praises. That's how I endured Skyrim for 70 hours, even when by 20 hours I had already realised there's nothing more to it than what I hadn't already seen, but I felt guilty spending money on it so I forced myself to proceed (the soundtrack was wonderful though). Of course, not all the time, since after a year I bought its DLCs at a discount, but ended up never even touching them to this day.

However, do note how I didn't actually dislike DS right from the start, in fact many things I did like. But soon enough things I disliked started to creep more and more, and no - it has nothing to do with "difficulty" (I normally play all games at either the highest or second highest difficulty level even at first playthrough).

Another one was Dragon's Dogma. Initially wonderful, soon I realised that enemies respawn ALL THE TIME. That killed that game for me forever, and I have not returned to it since.

You could say I have a rather idiosyncratic approach to trying new games. I have no strong preference for or against things, but depending on their implementation I may end up playing for hundreds of hours, or quitting within a few.

if you dislike DS and DD , that are among the best action rpg of all time, what do you like?

 

[user]

I'm sure it is a very good game for people who like to fight ceaselessly in a grim/dark world, but I just couldn't care less.

Go back to animal crossing boi, ds is fo real men!

 

[Hassar]

It's like negative Buddhism. Reality is illusion, only darkness is real, the illusion is cyclical, runs strong for a while but eventually the darkness starts to creep back in, your choice in the end is to renew the illusion or shatter it once and for all.

I tried Dark Souls (1) and quickly gave up for a couple of reasons. First I couldn't care less about a world that appears to be dead & dark everywhere, the "living humans" NPCs are all shallow, spent and "flat" (and with horrible voiceovers), and the existence of things like a merchant in the middle of a ruined city and surrounded by deadly demons and whatever else was just over the top illogical. Secondly, you really only ever fight (and explore) in the game, and you explore so you could fight more and more; I felt like there is no "real world" there, just an elaborate arena with enemies and bosses to kill; the fact that gigantic demons jump from around the corner was just tiring. Am I supposed to be impressed by the huge creature that is also an HP sponge? I'm sure it is a very good game for people who like to fight ceaselessly in a grim/dark world, but I just couldn't care less.

Now, if what you say of its story is true, then wow what a retarded idea.

I understand your point. There is only so many times you can visit a dead, decaying gameworld whose best days are long past and only item descriptions remain to describe more interesting events. You’re essentially fighting in a junkyard.

I think the issue is that From revisits that idea a lot. There really isn’t a living world in their games. Even Deracine was largely about an area frozen in time. This keeps From games from advancing because there really isn’t a story besides kill this and keep going.

My theory is that part of the design philosophy From taps into is from an older era of games where you are dropped in a stage and keep going forward with minimal dramatic weight or character development. Whereas there is quite a leap between Zeldas 1, 2, & 3 into making the world feel like a living, organic thing, From is still stuck at a Zelda 1 era of design for no reason.

I would really like to see them give as much weight to non-combat adventurous activities like pure exploration or social puzzles to enhance their game world.

Ironically, I think this is why so many of us keep replaying DaS1. That formula was rough, but fresh. But after two sequels and different franchises with similar gameplay and themes, it is now stale and repetitive. Booting up DaS3 and playing through the first through levels is a boring chore compared to the execution of DaS1’s interlinked opening areas.

I hope they branch out a bit and explore new design ideas more. And hire a proper writer to pull the disparate cutscenes, dialogue, and item descriptions into a single, unified game versus action-adventure with some cutscene elements.

As I study these games, storytelling, and game design, it becomes interesting how these design philosophies percolate into other areas of the game. Non-warriors like Astraea and Rhaea don’t do anything because how could they have any agency in that type of game world if all meaningful interaction is via weapons?

Keep in mind, these weaknesses don’t make a bad game. But they do impose limitations. As someone else pointed out, being undead removes the need for your character to have human traits, but it is those human traits and overcoming them that makes a hero and elevates disconnected episodes to the level of an epic adventure.

 

[user]

It's like negative Buddhism. Reality is illusion, only darkness is real, the illusion is cyclical, runs strong for a while but eventually the darkness starts to creep back in, your choice in the end is to renew the illusion or shatter it once and for all.

I tried Dark Souls (1) and quickly gave up for a couple of reasons. First I couldn't care less about a world that appears to be dead & dark everywhere, the "living humans" NPCs are all shallow, spent and "flat" (and with horrible voiceovers), and the existence of things like a merchant in the middle of a ruined city and surrounded by deadly demons and whatever else was just over the top illogical. Secondly, you really only ever fight (and explore) in the game, and you explore so you could fight more and more; I felt like there is no "real world" there, just an elaborate arena with enemies and bosses to kill; the fact that gigantic demons jump from around the corner was just tiring. Am I supposed to be impressed by the huge creature that is also an HP sponge? I'm sure it is a very good game for people who like to fight ceaselessly in a grim/dark world, but I just couldn't care less.

Now, if what you say of its story is true, then wow what a retarded idea.

I understand your point. There is only so many times you can visit a dead, decaying gameworld whose best days are long past and only item descriptions remain to describe more interesting events. You’re essentially fighting in a junkyard.

I think the issue is that From revisits that idea a lot. There really isn’t a living world in their games. Even Deracine was largely about an area frozen in time. This keeps From games from advancing because there really isn’t a story besides kill this and keep going.

My theory is that part of the design philosophy From taps into is from an older era of games where you are dropped in a stage and keep going forward with minimal dramatic weight or character development. Whereas there is quite a leap between Zeldas 1, 2, & 3 into making the world feel like a living, organic thing, From is still stuck at a Zelda 1 era of design for no reason.

I would really like to see them give as much weight to non-combat adventurous activities like pure exploration or social puzzles to enhance their game world.

Ironically, I think this is why so many of us keep replaying DaS1. That formula was rough, but fresh. But after two sequels and different franchises with similar gameplay and themes, it is now stale and repetitive. Booting up DaS3 and playing through the first through levels is a boring chore compared to the execution of DaS1’s interlinked opening areas.

I hope they branch out a bit and explore new design ideas more. And hire a proper writer to pull the disparate cutscenes, dialogue, and item descriptions into a single, unified game versus action-adventure with some cutscene elements.

You are mixing up many things here that are not necessarily mutually exclusive - theming, level design, world-building, interactivity...

Personally I would hate it if they changed their theming. I'm a huge fan of Zelda but I am sick of the lack of variety of theming in games. And can't get enough of DS' theming tbh, and I would love it if they took it up a notch in that direction.
I agree about level design - the interconnectedness of 1 was pretty intuitive and 2 (especially) and 3 leave much to be desired.
As for world building, when it comes to both narrative and some pieces of art/geometry/etc we could see in that trailer, I admit it looks almost the same. The narrative is again, about some kind of forsaken/tarnished/hollow blahblahblah seeking that shiny thing to complete the circle of life or whatever. That kind of narrative was beautiful but it does get tiring. Art is pretty similar, but some things in that trailer looked promising. Thing is you don't have to throw the theming away to innovate in that regard.
As for interactivity, you also don't have to make the world feel like a "living" place to achieve it, with myriads of npcs and lively stuff.

 

[Hassar]

It's like negative Buddhism. Reality is illusion, only darkness is real, the illusion is cyclical, runs strong for a while but eventually the darkness starts to creep back in, your choice in the end is to renew the illusion or shatter it once and for all.

I tried Dark Souls (1) and quickly gave up for a couple of reasons. First I couldn't care less about a world that appears to be dead & dark everywhere, the "living humans" NPCs are all shallow, spent and "flat" (and with horrible voiceovers), and the existence of things like a merchant in the middle of a ruined city and surrounded by deadly demons and whatever else was just over the top illogical. Secondly, you really only ever fight (and explore) in the game, and you explore so you could fight more and more; I felt like there is no "real world" there, just an elaborate arena with enemies and bosses to kill; the fact that gigantic demons jump from around the corner was just tiring. Am I supposed to be impressed by the huge creature that is also an HP sponge? I'm sure it is a very good game for people who like to fight ceaselessly in a grim/dark world, but I just couldn't care less.

Now, if what you say of its story is true, then wow what a retarded idea.

I understand your point. There is only so many times you can visit a dead, decaying gameworld whose best days are long past and only item descriptions remain to describe more interesting events. You’re essentially fighting in a junkyard.

I think the issue is that From revisits that idea a lot. There really isn’t a living world in their games. Even Deracine was largely about an area frozen in time. This keeps From games from advancing because there really isn’t a story besides kill this and keep going.

My theory is that part of the design philosophy From taps into is from an older era of games where you are dropped in a stage and keep going forward with minimal dramatic weight or character development. Whereas there is quite a leap between Zeldas 1, 2, & 3 into making the world feel like a living, organic thing, From is still stuck at a Zelda 1 era of design for no reason.

I would really like to see them give as much weight to non-combat adventurous activities like pure exploration or social puzzles to enhance their game world.

Ironically, I think this is why so many of us keep replaying DaS1. That formula was rough, but fresh. But after two sequels and different franchises with similar gameplay and themes, it is now stale and repetitive. Booting up DaS3 and playing through the first through levels is a boring chore compared to the execution of DaS1’s interlinked opening areas.

I hope they branch out a bit and explore new design ideas more. And hire a proper writer to pull the disparate cutscenes, dialogue, and item descriptions into a single, unified game versus action-adventure with some cutscene elements.

You are mixing up many things here that are not necessarily mutually exclusive -theming, level design, world-building, interactivity...

Personally I would hate it if they changed their theming. I'm a huge fan of Zelda but I am sick of the lack of variety of theming in games. And can't get enough of DS' theming tbh, and I would love it if they took it up a notch in that direction.
I agree about level design - the interconnectedness of 1 was pretty intuitive and 2 (especially) and 3 leave much to be desired.
As for world building, when it comes to both narrative and some pieces of art/geometry/etc we could see in that trailer, I admit it looks almost the same. The narrative is again, about some kind of forsaken/tarnished/hollow blahblahblah seeking that shiny thing to complete the circle of life or whatever. That kind of narrative was beautiful but it does get tiring. Art is pretty similar, but some things in that trailer looked promising. Thing is you don't have to throw the theming away to innovate in that regard.
As for interactivity, you also don't have to make the world feel like a "living" place to achieve it, with myriads of npcs and lively stuff.

That’s my point. Things such as theming, level design, world-building, interactivity... Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. But From doesn’t really do all of those things. Out of that list, I would say level design is their primary focus to the point that we overlook how part of “getting gud” involved learning/recognizing patterns because the AI wasn’t particularly good or challenging, but enemy placement made them so. Theming may be secondary. But I think there are a few good arguments that there really is no world-building and limited interactivity. Remember the golden rule of good writing: show, don’t tell. From breaks that in every one of their games. That’s why I think a good description of these game worlds is that we are basically fighting in a neverending cemetery/junkheap/decayed remnants. We have fun because of the gameplay loop and because From is just so good at delivering a tried-and-true formula, but even Miyazaki admitted that he was kind of bored of it leading to Sekiro…which was a slightly different version of the same thing. It is like he is in a neverending cycle of the same creative vision.

 

[user]

That’s my point. Things such as theming, level design, world-building, interactivity... Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. But From doesn’t really do all of those things. Out of that list, I would say level design is their primary focus to the point that we overlook how part of “getting gud” involved learning/recognizing patterns because the AI wasn’t particularly good or challenging, but enemy placement made them so. Theming may be secondary. But I think there are a few good arguments that there really is no world-building and limited interactivity. Remember the golden rule of good writing: show, don’t tell. From breaks that in every one of their games. That’s why I think a good description of these game worlds is that we are basically fighting in a neverending cemetery/junkheap/decayed remnants. We have fun because of the gameplay loop and because From is just so good at delivering a tried-and-true formula, but even Miyazaki admitted that he was kind of bored of it leading to Sekiro…which was a slightly different version of the same thing. It is like he is in a neverending cycle of the same creative vision.

I think that DS does a pretty good job when it comes to ludonarrative resonance and subtle, visual storytelling. But I agree that it could use loads of interactivity besides just combat. Loads of things they could do there, in the spirit of the setting, like a RE nemesis-style enemy, dynamic environmental dangers, puzzles (but not the zelda kind), maybe a few ethical dilemmas with "consequences" etc. I do like that "endless despair setting" but at the same time I would like to see a larger variety of scenery in the series, but in that same bleak setting. Irithill for example was pretty nice imo. On the contrary the catacombs just before you got there were totally meh.

 

[Hassar]

That’s my point. Things such as theming, level design, world-building, interactivity... Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. But From doesn’t really do all of those things. Out of that list, I would say level design is their primary focus to the point that we overlook how part of “getting gud” involved learning/recognizing patterns because the AI wasn’t particularly good or challenging, but enemy placement made them so. Theming may be secondary. But I think there are a few good arguments that there really is no world-building and limited interactivity. Remember the golden rule of good writing: show, don’t tell. From breaks that in every one of their games. That’s why I think a good description of these game worlds is that we are basically fighting in a neverending cemetery/junkheap/decayed remnants. We have fun because of the gameplay loop and because From is just so good at delivering a tried-and-true formula, but even Miyazaki admitted that he was kind of bored of it leading to Sekiro…which was a slightly different version of the same thing. It is like he is in a neverending cycle of the same creative vision.

I think that DS does a pretty good job when it comes to ludonarrative resonance and subtle, visual storytelling. But I agree that it could use loads of interactivity besides just combat. Loads of things they could do there, in the spirit of the setting, like a RE nemesis-style enemy, dynamic environmental dangers, puzzles (but not the zelda kind), maybe a few ethical dilemmas with "consequences" etc. I do like that "endless despair setting" but at the same time I would like to see a larger variety of scenery in the series, but in that same bleak setting. Irithill for example was pretty nice imo. On the contrary the catacombs just before you got there were totally meh.

I think the setting is more like endless ennui rather than despair. Things aren’t really bad. None of these places ever become hellish nightmarescapes. They kind of just wither to nothing with no living beings.

 

[Delterius]

That’s my point. Things such as theming, level design, world-building, interactivity... Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. But From doesn’t really do all of those things. Out of that list, I would say level design is their primary focus to the point that we overlook how part of “getting gud” involved learning/recognizing patterns because the AI wasn’t particularly good or challenging, but enemy placement made them so. Theming may be secondary. But I think there are a few good arguments that there really is no world-building and limited interactivity. Remember the golden rule of good writing: show, don’t tell. From breaks that in every one of their games. That’s why I think a good description of these game worlds is that we are basically fighting in a neverending cemetery/junkheap/decayed remnants. We have fun because of the gameplay loop and because From is just so good at delivering a tried-and-true formula, but even Miyazaki admitted that he was kind of bored of it leading to Sekiro…which was a slightly different version of the same thing. It is like he is in a neverending cycle of the same creative vision.

I think that DS does a pretty good job when it comes to ludonarrative resonance and subtle, visual storytelling. But I agree that it could use loads of interactivity besides just combat. Loads of things they could do there, in the spirit of the setting, like a RE nemesis-style enemy, dynamic environmental dangers, puzzles (but not the zelda kind), maybe a few ethical dilemmas with "consequences" etc. I do like that "endless despair setting" but at the same time I would like to see a larger variety of scenery in the series, but in that same bleak setting. Irithill for example was pretty nice imo. On the contrary the catacombs just before you got there were totally meh.

I think the setting is more like endless ennui rather than despair. Things aren’t really bad. None of these places ever become hellish nightmarescapes. They kind of just wither to nothing with no living beings.

that sounds kinda bad

 

[Hassar]

That’s my point. Things such as theming, level design, world-building, interactivity... Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. But From doesn’t really do all of those things. Out of that list, I would say level design is their primary focus to the point that we overlook how part of “getting gud” involved learning/recognizing patterns because the AI wasn’t particularly good or challenging, but enemy placement made them so. Theming may be secondary. But I think there are a few good arguments that there really is no world-building and limited interactivity. Remember the golden rule of good writing: show, don’t tell. From breaks that in every one of their games. That’s why I think a good description of these game worlds is that we are basically fighting in a neverending cemetery/junkheap/decayed remnants. We have fun because of the gameplay loop and because From is just so good at delivering a tried-and-true formula, but even Miyazaki admitted that he was kind of bored of it leading to Sekiro…which was a slightly different version of the same thing. It is like he is in a neverending cycle of the same creative vision.

I think that DS does a pretty good job when it comes to ludonarrative resonance and subtle, visual storytelling. But I agree that it could use loads of interactivity besides just combat. Loads of things they could do there, in the spirit of the setting, like a RE nemesis-style enemy, dynamic environmental dangers, puzzles (but not the zelda kind), maybe a few ethical dilemmas with "consequences" etc. I do like that "endless despair setting" but at the same time I would like to see a larger variety of scenery in the series, but in that same bleak setting. Irithill for example was pretty nice imo. On the contrary the catacombs just before you got there were totally meh.

I think the setting is more like endless ennui rather than despair. Things aren’t really bad. None of these places ever become hellish nightmarescapes. They kind of just wither to nothing with no living beings.

that sounds kinda bad

You kind of hit on it. It sounds bad to us, because we’re human. To the Hollowed, Tarnished, etc., it means nothing because they aren’t human. There is ultimately no investment in the outcome of the quest because rekindling the flame etc etc really only benefits humans. And even then, most of the humans in From’s worlds are dead. So we as players aren’t really fighting for anything and are just as bad as mindless Hollows since all we do is move around silently and kill things. Sekiro changed this somewhat, obv. Probably getting too poetic about this topic. We’ll see.

 

[[UCHIHA]XxDarkSasuke420xX]

hey guys i found the elden ring!

 

[user]

That's despair alright.

 

[HoboForEternity]

darksouls gothic

 

[hackncrazy]

Don't know if this was discussed already, but there is a new Miyazaki interview with more details on the world and such:

https://www.frontlinejp.net/2021/06...rview-part-2-miyazaki-discusses-the-gameplay/

Meanwhile, the “blessed guidance” mentioned before serves as the player’s basic choice, and as there are NPCs who urge the player to follow it, he thinks that there should not be cases where the player does not know what to do next. He does emphasize, however, that the guidance is not forced upon the player, and the first freedom the player has in the game is to disobey it.

Thank God there will be no quest markers and such.

Another thing that caught my eye:

The interviewer brings up the size of the world again, and asks if the game has a world map. Miyazaki says that the open field does have a world map, and that there is fun in looking at a map, deciding on a destination, exploring an unknown place, and filling out the map. The legacy dungeons, on the other hand, do not have maps, as they emphasize the fun of exploring the unknown and learning to understand the structure of the dungeons.

While I never thought that a map was neede on a soulsborne game because the game world weren't big so far, at least the "main" dungeons won't have them.


Also:

Next, Miyazaki is asked how difficult the game is compared to Bloodborne and Sekiro. Miyazaki says this is hard to answer: Purely as an action game, he thinks that Elden Ring is not as difficult. When comparing it to Sekiro, the player being able to level up or use multiplayer makes the game easier, with the difficulty closer to Dark Souls III, and even when compared to Dark Souls III, the addition of player choices, spirit summoning, stealth, new tactics, and easier ways to engage in multiplayer, he thinks that the difficult is best described as “very difficult, but it can be handled”.

Although this is hard to judge, I remember that there was a lot of talk about Sekiro being easier before the release. Now we know that not only it's at the same level of other souls, but even created a movement of game journalists and other cry babies asking for MUH DIFFICULTY SLIDER

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Has FromSoftware developed anything interesting since Kuon and Beyond Echo?

 

[Delterius]

Has FromSoftware developed anything interesting since Kuon and Beyond Echo?

no in fact from software was never good, fanboy

 

[Caim]

Next, Miyazaki is asked how difficult the game is compared to Bloodborne and Sekiro. Miyazaki says this is hard to answer: Purely as an action game, he thinks that Elden Ring is not as difficult. When comparing it to Sekiro, the player being able to level up or use multiplayer makes the game easier, with the difficulty closer to Dark Souls III, and even when compared to Dark Souls III, the addition of player choices, spirit summoning, stealth, new tactics, and easier ways to engage in multiplayer, he thinks that the difficult is best described as “very difficult, but it can be handled”.

Although this is hard to judge, I remember that there was a lot of talk about Sekiro being easier before the release. Now we know that not only it's at the same level of other souls, but even created a movement of game journalists and other cry babies asking for MUH DIFFICULTY SLIDER

Having the tools to make the base experience easier through summoning and not fighting head on has been in the series since the beginning. Pick up magic, summon some spirits and you're good to go. The sword and board approach has always been the more difficult one in this series compared to the ranged pewpew.

 

[cvv]

game journalists and other cry babies asking for MUH DIFFICULTY SLIDER

Fuck game journos.

That said difficulty options should be part of any RPG in my book. With one fixed difficulty you always piss off most players - those who want the game easier and those who'd prefer it harder.

FromSoft's way of tuning difficulty - coop for easier play, Champion Covenant or the Demon Bell for harder - is cool from a design point of view but in practice it's not ideal. For example on my 1st DS3 playthrough I bashed my head against Nameless, Friede and Gael. After 30+ tries I summoned a sunbro and we smashed them first try. So FromSoft's solution means that some parts are either super hard or utterly trivial. Nothing in between. I'd prefer to be able to jack down difficulty as the last resort in a more gradual way.

 

[Multidirectional]

DS III felt harder to me than Sekiro. In Sekiro I find enemies to be easier to read and feel a lot more in control of combat. In DS III with some bosses it felt like I was just mashing that dodge button until I finally got lucky and didn't exactly feel a sense of achievement after it either.

 

[Alphard]

game journalists and other cry babies asking for MUH DIFFICULTY SLIDER

Fuck game journos.

That said difficulty options should be part of any RPG in my book. With one fixed difficulty you always piss off most players - those who want the game easier and those who'd prefer it harder.

FromSoft's way of tuning difficulty - coop for easier play, Champion Covenant or the Demon Bell for harder - is cool from a design point of view but in practice it's not ideal. For example on my 1st DS3 playthrough I bashed my head against Nameless, Friede and Gael. After 30+ tries I summoned a sunbro and we smashed them first try. So FromSoft's solution means that some parts are either super hard or utterly trivial. Nothing in between. I'd prefer to be able to jack down difficulty as the last resort in a more gradual way.

What you are asking is just artificial difficult in form of more hp/damage taken for harder difficulty. One of the few games i have seen manage to implement the concept of different difficulties well is Furi, where enemies at higher difficulties gain new attacks and combos. This approach homever would be impossible to implement in a game as huge as elden ring , since this alone would drain a lot of dev resources. That's why one single well tuned challenging difficulty is perfect