abija
Prophet
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,362
Clearly, which is why you don't produce arguments, yet you use them as such. As someone already mentioned, another case of building a fantasy construct and arguing ER isn't that.No I don't.
1. Does ER feel like playing a 20x bigger dark souls or like 5 dark souls with large different areas in between?Except that I can and have. Elden Ring's world is an advancement of the open-ended design of Dark Souls and DS2, not some radical new concept. Comparisons are more than fair.
2. Even if it were similar you would still have to at least demonstrate why a huge increase in volume wouldn't necesitate additional features.
Yet they considered those maps necessary and implemented them. In which way does that imply that ER would have benefited in not having a map?Yes, Beth games and New Vegas have maps. The reason I pointed these games out was that despite use of maps, they can be easily navigated without and make better use of points of interest or, in some cases, quite literal signposting.
And how is this relevant to anything unless you are implying removal of the map would be such an improvement. Which means you use the thing you try to prove as an argument for itself.Furthermore, why shouldn't From's open world design improve upon those games? ER came out years later and had lots of successes and failures to learn from.
Imagine this: Company A is doing circular manhole covers. They want to do a square one and implement a safety system so it doesn't fall through. You argue that they're both manhole not some radical new concept so it's better without dumbing it down with extra safety systems. You give as example better designed square covers that also have the safety feature (just design it even better). This is the type of insanity that is generated by skipping logic.
The 2 skips are:
- if A works, slightly different A still works. That's not an implication but something that needs to be proven.
- if better A and B works, then better better A without B works. Again, not an implication (this is not even a skip/fail, just borderline absurdity) and it needs to be proven.
Last edited: