Silverfish
Liturgist
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,965
You're making very broad and superficial comparisons that miss the point of why ubisoft games are so horrible and formulaic and why Elden Ring isn't.
No I'm not.
You're making very broad and superficial comparisons that miss the point of why ubisoft games are so horrible and formulaic and why Elden Ring isn't.
You explore one you already know what to expect in the others.
Wow, every single cave, catacomb, hero's grave and mining tunnel doesn't have a unique set of enemies that is only ever found there and nowhere else in the game? COPY-PASTED UBISOFT TRASH! Actually, the mining tunnels do have a set of enemies that are only ever found there. BUT THEY ARE REUSED FROM ONE MINING TUNNEL TO THE OTHER! GARBAGE!They still follow the same pattern: closed door->traverse some shuffled corridors, avoid traps, fight copypasted enemies, pull a lever-> fight copypasted boss. Every single time.
You should give DD2 a try, it will blow your mindBest open-world game in the last 20 years (haven't played kingdom come, can't compare).
I hope their next action RPG will be a lot smaller in scale and will utilize everything they did in Elden Ring and previous games in order to provide a lot of variety to enemy encounters, equipment, etc. on top of new stuff.Keep in mind that this was sometimes a problem in their past games as well, and those were much smaller in scale than Elden Ring is, and to be honest, i don't even see what the solution would be, besides nothing making such large open world enviorments and return to smaller, more curated content like their past games.
Elden Ring is a great game but also a great example of how the first bite of a filet mignon may be wonderful, while the 500th just makes you puke on your shoes.I hope their next action RPG will be a lot smaller in scale and will utilize everything they did in Elden Ring and previous games in order to provide a lot of variety to enemy encounters, equipment, etc. on top of new stuff.Keep in mind that this was sometimes a problem in their past games as well, and those were much smaller in scale than Elden Ring is, and to be honest, i don't even see what the solution would be, besides nothing making such large open world enviorments and return to smaller, more curated content like their past games.
It's an arcade game there's nothing out of place about it.
Haha. How far we've come into the mcdonaldisation of Fromsoft that you would think like that, when one of their strongest point is how they always paid attention to detail and cared to craft a world that made sense within the confines of its gameplay mechanics. Sure, the souls like any other game have some gamey elements, as games will always need concessions to be good games and pure realism isn't a good thing. But how many games even bother making sense of the player's ability to respawn in it/reload a save the way the souls games did? The immortality of the undead, the bonfires, the firekeepers etc all feature lore just to explain this very question. It's a core part of the setting and it was entirely crafted because they wanted to answer just that question. Hollowisation exists to explain why those immortals became mindless (or crazy) enough to become foes that must be slain when they cross your path. The setting, at the core, exists to make sense of why the game is a game.
In most video games when you fight against a supposedly intelligent (not bestial style) dragon they will always let you smack them in melee on the ground for.. reasons? why even bother trying to explain why the Dragon's IQ dropped and thought today was a good day to die instead of just flying in circles around you and breathing fire on you or pelting you with rocks.
Dark Souls 1 thought this was something that needed an answer.
So there you enlist the help of a giant to shoot an arrow that's more like a goddamn missile into the dragon's wing to hurt it enough that it can't indefinitely stay in the air. DS1's designers had people who gave a shit.
It is attention to the world like this that made Souls games great. Not just the level design, or the well balanced combat.
Don't try to find anything about those jumping pad, pardon, spiritspring in ER: there's nothing about them, not a single line of text, nothing, they only exist in tutorial windows telling you there is this gamey element in there that helps you traverse the terrain. Because they don't really give a fuck these days.
Fromsoft makes arcade game? you've not played a real arcade game since forever, have you?
They have some elements of arcade philosophy in gameplay design (like repeating some of the content being the punishment for failure, not giving you user controlled quicksave/quickload mechanism etc) but they're no arcade games. Arcade games don't let you gear up your way into turning challenges into easy mode. They're still RPGs at the core, despite the action mechanics. Levelling the right stats completely changes your approach to the game, as will your choice of weapons or spells, or the choice of going soul level 1 to omit some the benefits of the RPGness of those games and make them behave more like highly punishing action games.
It's an arcade game there's nothing out of place about it.
Haha. How far we've come into the mcdonaldisation of Fromsoft that you would think like that, when one of their strongest point is how they always paid attention to detail and cared to craft a world that made sense within the confines of its gameplay mechanics. Sure, the souls like any other game have some gamey elements, as games will always need concessions to be good games and pure realism isn't a good thing. But how many games even bother making sense of the player's ability to respawn in it/reload a save the way the souls games did? The immortality of the undead, the bonfires, the firekeepers etc all feature lore just to explain this very question. It's a core part of the setting and it was entirely crafted because they wanted to answer just that question. Hollowisation exists to explain why those immortals became mindless (or crazy) enough to become foes that must be slain when they cross your path. The setting, at the core, exists to make sense of why the game is a game.
In most video games when you fight against a supposedly intelligent (not bestial style) dragon they will always let you smack them in melee on the ground for.. reasons? why even bother trying to explain why the Dragon's IQ dropped and thought today was a good day to die instead of just flying in circles around you and breathing fire on you or pelting you with rocks.
Dark Souls 1 thought this was something that needed an answer.
So there you enlist the help of a giant to shoot an arrow that's more like a goddamn missile into the dragon's wing to hurt it enough that it can't indefinitely stay in the air. DS1's designers had people who gave a shit.
It is attention to the world like this that made Souls games great. Not just the level design, or the well balanced combat.
Don't try to find anything about those jumping pad, pardon, spiritspring in ER: there's nothing about them, not a single line of text, nothing, they only exist in tutorial windows telling you there is this gamey element in there that helps you traverse the terrain. Because they don't really give a fuck these days.
Fromsoft makes arcade game? you've not played a real arcade game since forever, have you?
They have some elements of arcade philosophy in gameplay design (like repeating some of the content being the punishment for failure, not giving you user controlled quicksave/quickload mechanism etc) but they're no arcade games. Arcade games don't let you gear up your way into turning challenges into easy mode. They're still RPGs at the core, despite the action mechanics. Levelling the right stats completely changes your approach to the game, as will your choice of weapons or spells, or the choice of going soul level 1 to omit some the benefits of the RPGness of those games and make them behave more like highly punishing action games.
What a random detail to get stuck on regarding the spirit spring. Elden Ring is also full of details like that and classic From design. I could aswell say that "Elden ring is full of great details like your eyes turning into dragon eyes if you eat too much dragon hearts, while in Dark Souls a random crow appears and takes you from the asylum to the firelink shrine with no explanation. This is why ER is so much better!!"". And it would be just as retarded and meaningless as your post.
It's better than a compromise, it's a perfectly valid design pattern. It's very satisfying to encounter a new dungeon which is similar to many previous dungeons in general aspects, but has a unique flavor and theme that makes it stand out. A delightful combination of the new and the familiar.All the caves, catacombs, graves, all the open areas, the towers with their puzzles, the ruins, none of that is a problem. The fact they are all variations on the same basic framework is a perfectly valid compromise
Not to say that ER doesn't suffer from enemy reuse, but these examples are actually good reuses. The first Mohg encounter is like a time-convoluted battle with him when he was still locked in the Leindell Sewers, before attempting to create his own dynasty. Godfrey's first battle is the battle of his spirit, of idea of Godfrey's as an Elden Lord from the past. Loretta's first fight is also from the past, when she served Caria, where you fight her spirit version. IIRC both later fights also introduce more attacks to the enemies, keeping them fresh.Also no need to have copies of Mohg, Godfrey, and Loretta. Margitt/Morgott is ok though, they actually put some work into making those boss fights distinct, and also spaced out very far from each other.
If you're looking for a laid-back enjoyable experience, you won't find it. Souls games are mostly a mixture of frustration, tension, progression and exploration that eventually may bring you enjoyment. Also, don't expect any fluidity in combat like there is in action games like God of war or DMC. Fighting is about managing your resources (stamina) managing your spacing from enemies and delivering a few well-timed blows.So, I just picked this up. I've not actually played anything From have designed previously, the level of hype from my friends about their games had put me off but after years of their nagging I finally caved and bought this. I've played for about an hour so far. Combat feels clunky and lacks fluidity (that might change as I learn the system, but I might get put off before that happens). Character movement feels sharp and the camera is very responsive but I really don't like the way manual aim without using lock on doesn't seem reliable for me (that's probably a skill issue though). Rolling on the ground while fighting in full armour looks goofy. Graphics are decent but overall I'm not sure what all the fuss is about and why playing this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience.
This was never true for me. From the very first soulsgame I've ever played, I've been fully immersed in the game and the combat always delighted me with its strict demand to pay close attention to enemy movements and positioning, instead of just spazzing out and mashing buttons until everything dies.Souls games are mostly a mixture of frustration, tension, progression and exploration that eventually may bring you enjoyment.