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

[Lyric Suite]

"From bosses should be boring puzzles with spastic animations because it's bad if the player can read what a boss is doing and react to it naturally."

"Only the kind of complexity i like should be allowed".

This entire argument in a nutshell.

Notice how you don't see me go on the other forums to try to dictate my preferences there. When i played Nioh i didn't go on any screeds at how much it sucks compared to Dark Souls. I just reported my impressions of the game and posted a few videos to show where i was at. Seems i'm the one who is a bit more open minded here.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Oh lyric. You are the greatest kind of retard. You think you're the smartest guy on the room when everyone else has to put padding on the door handles so you don't run head first into them as hard as you can.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

You say you don't understand the criticism of From's combat

Pointing out the jank is not a criticism of the combat system.

1. it is, if said jank is directly related to the combat system and actively undermines it
2. if you're going to strawman my arguments (be it either intentional or not), then please do us both a favor and don't reply - spare yourself of the embarrassment and me having to deal with this bullshit
3. own up to what you say:

Personally, i don't see what the issue is with the combat system up to and including Elden Ring. Never understood any of the criticisms, never had a problem adjusting to those so called "problems".

>inb4, "problems" here obviously refers to jank
No it did not
No one even implied jank before this post of yours

Hold on a second criminal scum, because i'm smelling some sleight of hand here.

Yes
Yours:

It's not that there has been any actual shift in combat sensibilities, it's that you WANT such a shift

Disingenuous prick

Just because you repeat the same lies over and over and over again, does not make them true

And now we come to the actual crux of the issue (again).

You still don't seem to understand this question of "choices" is your own unique fixiation

The crux of the issue is that you don't seem to fundamentally understand that "choice" is the bedrock of game design
Correction half, the other half is "challenge" - great game design being the harmonious interplay between these 2 essences

I personally do not care about "choices".

And there it is ladies and gentlemen

Since you're not very good at perceiving irony, I'll explain it for you:
- you are currently advocating for the radical removal of meaningful gameplay choices, in a website dedicated to a game genre whose ultimate obsession is meaningful gameplay choices...

What are you even doing here?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Anonona, why did you delete your previous post?
It was cool and I tried to brofist it...

 

[Lyric Suite]

No one even implied jank before this post of yours

Dude, you brought it up, not me.

We were discussing the combat system and you suddenly pulled a list detailing glitches and other shit that have nothing to do with the system as such.

Disingenuous prick

Just because you repeat the same lies over and over and over again, does not make them true

Yeah but they are true aren't they.

The crux of the issue is that you don't seem to fundamentally understand that "choice" is the bedrock of game design

Not really no, not under the terms you are presenting.

Sekiro from your point has to be the WORST game ever made for instance.

you are currently advocating for the radical removal of meaningful gameplay choices, in a website dedicated to a game genre whose ultimate obsession is meaningful gameplay choices...

More like you are currently advocating that the only thing that matters is the kind of "choices" you deem to be interesting, according to your own preferences.

Choices aren't always good in and of themselves, it's all a matter of context. Choices can be redudant, or they can only add flavour at best. I wouldn't claim that Dark Souls is better than Sekiro on account of it's greater range of choices alone.

Choices are also something the player can decide to add out of their own volition. Ongbal does it all the time, using multiple weapons and abilities within a single fight. It's nice spectacle and show of skill, but to me it's mostly gratuitous and i wouldn't find it particularly interesting to do even if i was on his level. Many of the "top" players don't bother either.

BTW, since i brought up vertical shooters earlier, i would like to ask you something. Most of those games are very basic in terms of what the player can do. You shoot and you throw bombs, with some games only offering a marginal extra number of options. Now, do you suppose a game like DoDonPachi would become better if you had to juggle through dozen different attacks? Or conversely, do you think those games are simplistic and boring because all you can do is shoot lasers and throw bombs?

Because form my point of view, that's the argument we are having here.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Souls games are great because you have all these options and choices.
Souls games shouldn't have choices the player wants. That's wrong and not how I want the game.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Elden Ring has a greater amount of choices than Dark Souls, including in terms of where you can go and the amount of areas you can go through. Does that means Elden Ring is better than Dark Souls?

Consider weapon arts. Does the inclusion of this mechanic make the game better compared to Dark Souls, which didn't have them?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

"Only the kind of complexity i like should be allowed" ... When i played Nioh i didn't go on any screeds at how much it sucks compared to Dark Souls ... Seems i'm the one who is a bit more open minded here.

Oh yes...
I guess those hundreds of rants of yours about how "X game/movie/music/book is actually the most vile, banal, boring shit ever and people who like it are stupid plebs - me on the other hand, my taste is patrician because I like Y game/movie/music/book instead, whose profound genius can only be understood by the few like me ", never took place, they don't exist, totally fictional...

Dude, you brought it up, not me.

I brought that list of issues only after that post of yours idiot

We were discussing the combat system and you suddenly pulled a list detailing glitches and other shit that have nothing to do with the system as such.

Are you pretending to be retarded just to be annoying as possible?
Technical gameplay issues aren't glitches, specially when they've persisted unchanged for 15 years across multiple games and different engines
And they very much have everything to do with said system because they directly stem from the mechanics of that system and directly sabotage the player's engagement with that system

And everytime you refuse to acknowledge deficiencies as objective as these, you give me reason when I call you a fanboy

Yeah but they are true aren't they.

No, they aren't

Not really no, not under the terms you are presenting.

And what terms would those be?
Engaging gameplay design?
Guilty as charged

Sekiro from your point has to be the WORST game ever made for instance.

And contrary to your delusions, I've said it a hundred time that Sekiro isn't a bad game and even praised its merits (one of those I recall was even in your own Sekiro Let's Play thread)
But it has fundamental gameplay faults - combat being a particularly sore thumb, because of the emphasis on it

More like you are currently advocating that the only thing that matters is the kind of "choices" you deem to be interesting, according to your own preferences.

And as previously explained, the choices I deem "interesting" in this particular area of game design, happen to be based on the observations and contributions of hundreds of other enthusiasts before me
Universal game design principles which are tried, tested and true - and from which were spawned all the greastest fighting games

While the "choices" you advocate are exclusively based on your painfully obvious ignorance of these concepts and whatever arbitrary aspects tickles your autism

Choices aren't always good in and of themselves, it's all a matter of context. Choices can be redudant, or they can only add flavour at best.

You don't say?
This sounds exactly just like that thing I've been saying all these years
It even reminds of all those fun times when I tried explain to you that is even one of the biggest faults with DS3, ER and specially Sekiro - and then you, as expected, just buried your head in the sand

Choices are also something the player can decide to add out of their own volition.

Except when the game is terrible at providing meaningful choices and the player is continuously faced with situations where there's really only 1/2 sensible choices, despite the game's best efforts to pretend otherwise by conjuring up pretty illusions

Now, do you suppose a game like DoDonPachi would become better if you had to juggle through dozen different attacks?

It would if those choices where suitable, yet distinct, responses to the accompanying upgrade in intricacy of the game's challenges

Or conversely, do you think those games are simplistic and boring because all you can do is shoot lasers and throw bombs?

If the complexity of choices is properly matched to the intensity of the challenges, then no

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Anyway
I'm tired of your subterfuge and pig-headedness
I've explained my stance both here and in other threads, more than enough and well enough
So as it stands, there is no reason for me to continue this circular pantomime
Good night

 

[Lyric Suite]

And they very much have everything to do with said system because they directly stem from the mechanics of that system and directly sabotage the player's engagement with that system

No, no they don't.

I'll demonstrate it to you. Say someone new to the series were to ask you to describe the kind of combat Dark Souls has, and how it is different from that of other games like DMC etc. If you were to begin with something like "well, in Dark Souls you often can't get a critical hit if the terrain happens to be on a slant, while in DMC sometimes you can't see an incoming attack because the camera is facing the wrong way" you'd be rightly called a fucking lunatic.

Yes, technical issues, errors in design etc can be considered part of the experience of the combat system, but they aren't part of the system as such, and it was the system itself that you described as "mediocre".

And contrary to your delusions, I've said it a hundred time that Sekiro isn't a bad game and even praised its merits (one of those I recall was even in your own Sekiro Let's Play thread)
But it has fundamental gameplay faults - combat being a particularly sore thumb, because of the emphasis on it

I'm just taking your perspective to it's logical conclusion.

You seem to be putting a great deal of emphasis in what the player can do, while ignoring or downplaying what the game is pitting against the player. If that's the metric you are relying upon, Sekiro has to be seen as the worst FromSoft game and the worst melee action game in general, since you basically get one weapon which only has a select number of swipes, with an handful of tools you can use which don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Just going by the above it's clear you don't have a lot of admiration for the combat system of the game, which is logically consistent given your perspective.

All i've been saying is that i do not accept that perspective as an absolute truth. I even kind of like that FromSoft is a kind of anti-matter to something like DMC. Instead of putting all the emphasis on what the player can do, all the focus is in what the enemy can do to the player, which to me is a perfectly valid premise for a combat system.

And as previously explained, the choices I deem "interesting" in this particular area of game design, happen to be based on the observations and contributions of hundreds of other enthusiasts before me
Universal game design principles which are tried, tested and true - and from which were spawned all the greastest fighting games

Except Dark Souls is not a fighting game. It's an RPG with roots in a first person dungeon crawler (King's Field). The combat eschews many of the characteristics of the games you are talking about essentially by design.

It would if those choices where suitable, yet distinct, responses to the accompanying upgrade in intricacy of the game's challenges

I think you are missing the point. A game like DoDonPachi cannot give the player anything more than the most basic attacks because all the focus and attention is on what's happening on the top side of the screen. Imagine trying to fumble around with the vertical-shooter equivalent of DMC style combos (however one can envision that) while dealing with this shit:

 

[Lyric Suite]

Anyway
I'm tired of your subterfuge and pig-headedness
I've explained my stance both here and in other threads, more than enough and well enough
So as it stands, there is no reason for me to continue this circular pantomime
Good night

I told you not to bother with endless multi-quote replies. That shit is exhausting and doesn't go anywhere. Easier to just pick your battles on the points that matter.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Instead of putting all the emphasis on what the player can do, all the focus is in what the enemy can do to the player, which to me is a perfectly valid premise for a combat system.

Sure, and Divekick is a perfectly valid premise for a fighting game. Honestly, From is giving the player too much freedom. Really, there should just be one button you need to hit with precise timing, none of this movement crap or stamina. Giving the player any relevant feedback as to when that time is would make it too easy, so it should be a random pattern for each boss they can figure out through trial and error. Peak gameplay. It'll be like playing an instrument with only a single tone, as all the best music is made.

 

[Anonona]

@Anonona, why did you delete your previous post?
It was cool and I tried to brofist it...

Sorry, when I was rereading my post I realized the point I was making wasn't quite right and didn't want to post something I didn't believe to be truth, but I had to go to bed early so I thought best to erase it and fix it when I had time. After discussing it with the pillow there was also some points I wanted to expand upon.

Sorry in advance if this reads out of place now, the conversation has continue and pretty much ended without me.

It's not that there has been any actual shift in combat sensibilities... It's not that they "failed" to follow up from Blodborne, it's that they didn't want to. FromSoft doesn't seem to share your belief in the inevitability of the direction their games were meant to take after Bloodborne. In many ways, Elden Ring was actually an attempt to return to form after Dark Souls 3, which came out a bit compromised from sharing so much code with Bloodborne (for instance, the completely fucked poise system).

I disagree. Bloodborne main design tenets not only are very much alive, but they went to influence every single From Software game released after it.

Bloodborne's main goal with its changes to Souls combat was to promote and reward aggression. The Rally system is often cited as the main reason for this, but Bloodborne also had the first iteration of what would become the posture system. In Bloodborne, big enemies will stagger after you have hit their limbs or head enough times, making them stagger and in some ocassions opening them up for Visceral attacks (critical attacks). This system would be reused in DS3, perfected on Sekiro, and extended to regular enemies and would then be adapted to ER and AC6. And, is obvious by now that all of these games share the same thing; all reward aggression, just as Bloodborne did (with, ironically enough, the one that does so less being DS3, the one that "ripped it off").

This isn't even something exclusive to From's games, it actually looks like a market wide tendency for Japanese ARPGs and Action games. Square Enix for example, actually predates From with its Stagger system in FF XIII, an ATB combat system. While it has some differences to From's posture system, it is very similar and have the same goals of promoting aggression with damage being the reward. The Stagger system would be used in the FFXIII's sequels and most of the mainline single player FFs (FF 7 remake/rebirth and FF XVI, and ARPG and action game respectively). Tales of Arise also had a similar stagger system for bosses, which no previous Tales of had. Nioh's stamina system doubles as their "posture" system. And I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting more examples.

Now, about ER being a "course correction" from DS3 and Bloodborne, I don't find that to be true. Actually, is quite the opposite, DS3 is the foundation upon which ER's combat system is build.

First, if you look at the iframe data of Bloodborne, you will be surprised to see that Bloodborne dodges have less iframes times than ER, and if we count AoWs, the iframes ER are ridiculously high compared to Bloodborne's. Even taking into account the Old Hunter Bones (the "equivalent" of Bloodhound Step in Bloodborne)

Bloodborne iframes -> Regular dash/roll = 11iframes, recovery at 18 frames for foward dash (7 frame of recovery), 20 to other dashes (9 frame of recovery). Old hunter Bone= 8 iframes, recovery at frame 16 (so 8 recovery frames), lower iframes but much lower recovery time, consumes bullets when used (similar to Sekiro's emblems).

Elden Ring iframes -> Light Roll = 13 iframes, 8 frames of recovery (While the animation is longer than OHB, you are invincible for longer too and take the same time to recover, and ER's roll is free). Medium 13 iframes, 8 of recovery (but lower distance). Heavy= 12 iframes, 16 of recovery (yes, heavy roll still has more iframes than regular Bloodborne dodge but the recovery is too long and distance is bad). The equivalent of Old Hunter Bone in ER is Bloodhound Step (they use even a similar animation), Bloodhound Step -> 16 iframes, 5 frames of recovery (which go up to 11 without FP)

But what about DS3? Well, as it turns out, DS3 and ER have the exact same iframe data. The data is in the Bloodborne wiki, in the link down there.

Sources:
https://www.bloodborne-wiki.com/2015/10/movement.html

https://eldenring.wiki.fextralife.com/Dodging

This means that ER and DS3's combat rolls, despite having only slightly longer animations, actually offer you much better iframe data, and that is without entering in AoW territory. And the longer length is easily explained by the dodges covering more distance, making them even better at avoiding damage. You can also roll in bloodborne and is actually weaker than ER, because while it has the same lenght of animation and distance, it has less iframes.

The bosses in Bloodborne look slow when put side by side to ER's bosses and even some of DS3's. ER's bosses are faster, with longer combos and more fake outs. But also they follow a more similar design philosophy as Bloodborne, specially the DLC of The Old Hunter in the kind of moves and attacks they can use (gap closer, extreme jump attacks, long reaching attacks, etc). Is hilarious to call ER a course correction when, if anything, Bloodborne lost its "fast Dark Souls" title long ago. If anything, ER's bosses are the logical conclusion you get when you want to make Bloodborne bosses harder.

All of this, together with the fact that many of the movesets of DS3 where reused for ER with improvements actually indicates that ER's combat is build upon DS3's and improves it, which in turn is a continuation of the design tenets stablised by Bloodborne. ER is, a the end of the day, an amalgamation of all of From's games up from DS1 up to that point. DS3 is the foundation, the RPG system instead is based on DS2, with bits of DS1 and DS3, offering good poise system that combines DS1's with DS2/3s, build variety and the AoW system, and has sprinkles of Sekiro and Bloodborne both in fundamental mechanics and some niche ones. This is probably the reason Myazaki said in an interview that the game was almost his perfect fantasy game, but not quite (Source: TechRadar's interview). ER is kind of a "culmination" of all of From's works in the past years, and that very much includes Bloodborne and DS3.



tl:dr: ER's iframe data and weapon movesets indicates that is actually build upon the foundations of DS3. ER is an amalgamation of all of From's past games since DS1, including DS2, DS3, Bloodborne and Sekiro. Bloodborne's main design tenets (promoting and rewarding aggression) are pretty much alive and influences all of From's games, including AC6, and even had an early incarnation of the posture system with the "break limb system".

Now i'm sure you gonna tell me i played the game wrong by failing to take advantage to all the "choices" offered by the combat system

This is an interesting statement because I'll argue that no, the way you played Nioh is fine. When I played, I did so closer to something like DMC (combo heavy). You may be surprised to know that almost any action games worth their salt, DMC, Bayonetta, God Hand, Dragon's Dogma, Ninja Gaiden, etc... are actually very flexible on how it allows you to play. Want to keep it simple and practical? You can. Pop DMC in, pick Rebellion, never change your style from Trickster (maybe to Royal Guard and back from parrying) and you can beat the whole game by using only stinger and avoiding damage. You want to squeeze every drop of the combat system? Go ahead, combo to your hearth content. It is usually a virtue of a combat system to be able to be as simple or deep as the player wants to while still being challenging.

It is important to understand that those "combos" you see are little more than the player using the tools given by the developer in a creative manner, not so different as when you use the tools provided by ER to tackle bosses. DD in reality doesn't really play like those videos for the average player, but in hands of a skilled one willing to do so it is possible. Even in Souls you can do "combos" of a sort if you chain moves in a smart way, specially if you keep mental note of when the enemy will stagger to extend the combo. There are also numerous moves and spells in ER that actually are meant to be used as combos, many having in the description that can be chained after any other attack. Combos are just the result of player ingenuity and tools provided by the developer. Ongway is living proof of this, with its amount of creativity he injects in his videos, despite how limited the combat can be, creating combos using different AoW and weapons. Yet despite this, you can still play it how you want and it works perfectly. More depth or options won't take this away from the games.

edit: correction on some of the numbers

 

[Lyric Suite]

I disagree. Bloodborne main design tenets not only are very much alive, but they went to influence every single From Software game released after it.

They incorporated design elements this is not the same as saying every game after was intended to follow up from Bloodborne into DMC territory. Elden Ring has elements from Sekiro too for instance. It's not so much that those older games are determining the direction their new titles are taking, it's more that FromSoft is trying to create a synthesis of everything they did before.

Now the details in your longer post are interesting and obviously correct, but when i said ER was a return to form i meant in the sense they tried to make it closer philosophically to what an RPG ought to be. Sure, bosses are now even faster and wayward than they were in DS3 but my point is that there is no active desire on their part to make Dark Souls into a pure action game. Elden Ring gives you many tools to deal with the increased difficutly of the bosses and enemies that have nothing to do with the kind of toolset you get in a pure action game like DMC or Bayonetta and so forth. The fact you can trivalize Consort Radahn with a shield may have been a bit much but the fact the option is there shows that Elden Ring is still an RPG at heart and RPGs are often about tactics and strategies.

BTW, there is one aspect of the Souls combat that wasn't mentioned but which likely influenced some of their design decisions, and that is that Dark Souls is also a multiplayer game. As far as i understand, not many of those other actions games have PVP (i think there's a PVP mod in DMC but the game itself wasn't made for it). Nioh has PVP but it only came because players requested it, and from what i've seen wasn't particularly popular.

PVP balance is often screwed in Souls but the fact the mode is there and is fairly popular implies FromSoft has to account for it when they design the combat which invariably likely also influences the shape of their PVE combat as well. Sekiro, which had no multiplayer, could afford to be something quite different.

This is an interesting statement because I'll argue that no, the way you played Nioh is fine. When I played, I did so closer to something like DMC (combo heavy). You may be surprised to know that almost any action games worth their salt, DMC, Bayonetta, God Hand, Dragon's Dogma, Ninja Gaiden, etc... are actually very flexible on how it allows you to play. Want to keep it simple and practical? You can. Pop DMC in, pick Rebellion, never change your style from Trickster (maybe to Royal Guard and back from parrying) and you can beat the whole game by using only stinger and avoiding damage. You want to squeeze every drop of the combat system? Go ahead, combo to your hearth content. It is usually a virtue of a combat system to be able to be as simple or deep as the player wants to while still being challenging.

But a setup like that means the game cannot be as challenging as it could be (say, like Elden Ring or Sekiro) in terms of its baseline. The fact so much of the emphasis is on the skill expression of the player, the complexity of the enemies has to be streamlined on some level, right?

And in a way, this kind of action style is like at the opposite of Elden Ring. In DMC, you make the game harder by increasing the complexity of the actions you perform. In Elden Ring, you make the game harder by ignoring tools and options at your disposal. They are almost the inverse of one another. *

I mean maybe i didn't play DMC but Nioh for instance was no where near as hard as Sekiro for me and i did default to a simpler play style there (mostly by accident by picking up the wrong weapon for it, but also out of habit).

* Actually, Ongbal disproves this but hey it was a neat argument.

 

[Anonona]

They incorporated design elements this is not the same as saying every game after was intended to follow up from Bloodborne into DMC territory

Ok, what is your obssession with DMC? I wasn't even criticizing the game man, DJOgamer never implied that following Bloodborne's "path" was making Souls into DMC, nor he wants to. We don't want souls to be DMC, if we want DMC, we play DMC. Having more options and combat that flows better != DMC, Using more of what From's themselves introduced in some of their past games is not making them DMC.

Elden Ring has elements from Sekiro too for instance. It's not so much that those older games are determining the direction their new titles are taking, it's more that FromSoft is trying to create a synthesis of everything they did before.

...ER is, a the end of the day, an amalgamation of all of From's games up from DS1 up to that point. DS3 is the foundation, the RPG system instead is based on DS2, with bits of DS1 and DS3, offering good poise system that combines DS1's with DS2/3s, build variety and the AoW system, and has sprinkles of Sekiro and Bloodborne both in fundamental mechanics and some niche ones. This is probably the reason Myazaki said in an interview that the game was almost his perfect fantasy game, but not quite (Source: TechRadar's interview). ER is kind of a "culmination" of all of From's works in the past years, and that very much includes Bloodborne and DS3.

Not beating the "not reading" allegations there. I even left a nice tl:dr!

tl:dr: ER's iframe data and weapon movesets indicates that is actually build upon the foundations of DS3. ER is an amalgamation of all of From's past games since DS1, including DS2, DS3, Bloodborne and Sekiro. Bloodborne's main design tenets (promoting and rewarding aggression) are pretty much alive and influences all of From's games, including AC6, and even had an early incarnation of the posture system with the "break limb system".

And still you cannot denied that DS3 is the foundation of the combat, strongly inspired by Bloodborne, same with boss design (just compare DS1 and 2 with Bloodborne, and see which games bosses remind you more of ER) and that the fundamental idea of "aggression = reward" was introduced by Bloodborne and has been a mainstay in ALL of From's games, even AC6. Same with the "limb break" system being perfected into the "posture system".

Elden Ring gives you many tools to deal with the increased difficutly of the bosses and enemies that have nothing to do with the kind of toolset you get in a pure action game like DMC or Bayonetta and so forth. The fact you can trivalize Consort Radahn with a shield may have been a bit much but the fact the option is there shows that Elden Ring is still an RPG at heart and RPGs are often about tactics and strategies.

You would be surprised on how many of ER's tools aren't that different from DMCs

BTW, there is one aspect of the Souls combat that wasn't mentioned but which likely influenced some of their design decisions, and that is that Dark Souls is also a multiplayer game. As far as i understand, not many of those other actions games have PVP (i think there's a PVP mod in DMC but the game itself wasn't made for it). Nioh has PVP but it only came because players requested it, and from what i've seen wasn't particularly popular.

PVP balance is often screwed in Souls but the fact the mode is there and is fairly popular implies FromSoft has to account for it when they design the combat which invariably likely also influences the shape of their PVE combat as well. Sekiro, which had no multiplayer, could afford to be something quite different.

Ironically enough, there are actually true combos in ER's PVP.

But a setup like that means the game cannot be as challenging as it could be (say, like Elden Ring or Sekiro) in terms of its baseline. The fact so much of the emphasis is on the skill expression of the player, the complexity of the enemies has to be streamlined on some level, right?

No, why would it? The opposite is the true. Because when you design a boss, 99% of times they are designed in a way a player should be able to defeat them with their baseline tools that they will always have at their disposal, regardless of how difficult it is. This is the reason why things like Radahn slash -> slash -> cross and Maelnia's Waterfold dance are so infamous, they are designed in a way where it seems you cannot deal with them without optional tools in a consistent matter, breaking fundamentals of Souls games in particular and action games in general.

The more moves a player has as a baseline, the more the developers can go crazy with enemy complexity. The simplicity of the combat system isn't fomenting complexity of bosses. If anything, it holds it back, as they always design bosses taking into account that the base moveset should be able to defeat them, with the only exception being gimmick tools like the Serpent Hunter greatspear. If you want to see an example of simple combat holding a game back, look at FF XIV, an MMORPG with some of the simplest combat, trying instead of making bosses in the hardest difficulties have the most complex patterns possible, to the point players study and memorize them before fighting, but now is reaching a point of stagnation because there are just so much you can do for fight complexity when the player's toolset is so simple, and the spaghetti code doesn't allow for reactive play.

Ninja Gaiden 1, 2 and 3 in Master Ninja (specially 2 and 3), DMC 1 and 3 on DMD and God Hand in hard are pretty much proof of this. They are harder than any souls games, no need to abstent from using tools to make them hard, both allow to play it simple or stylish (God Hand has even customizable movesets ranging from simple boxing moves to crazy martial art stuff). And Bosses in these games have shit like randomness you have to react to, being able to change combos, react to what you are doing, rage mode mid fight granting them new properties and learning to hit-confirm like they were in a fighting game Even shit like Kingdom Hearts in Critical Mode has some of the craziest fucking secret bosses because the amount of options the player has is stagerring and they allow the bosses to be very creative and difficult.

And in a way, this kind of action style is like at the opposite of Elden Ring. In DMC, you make the game harder by increasing the complexity of the actions you perform. In Elden Ring, you make the game harder by ignoring tools and options at your disposal. They are almost the inverse of one another. *

No. Playing DMC in a simpler manner would make fights in harder difficulties and take longer, specially on old games where thing like jump cancelling is really powerful. But they are doable. Same with Souls. Using more tools = easier, less tools = harder but doable. You are talking out of your ass here and using weird double standars. Somehow assuming that the same logic doesn't apply to other games.

I mean maybe i didn't play DMC but Nioh for instance was no where near as hard as Sekiro for me and i did default to a simpler play style there (mostly by accident by picking up the wrong weapon for it, but also out of habit).

Ignoring that Nioh's difficulty is structured in a different ways that require you to beat the game multiple times to actually get to the harder challenges, the game being easier doesn't disprove anything because the aferomentioned examples pretty much prove the opposite, it is completely possible to have a complex game be harder than a simple one. Also all weapons have different degrees of complexity, so even with a versatil katana you can still keep it simple.

If we took ER and say, we add a lot of the functionallity of talismans and Wondrous mix into the players base moveset (deflection, backstep invencibility) and allowed for things like seamlessly stance/weapon change and less animation lock, would the game's enemies be less complex? Do they suddenly become retarded? No. Sure the game would be easier, but only because the bosses themsleves are designed for the limited framework of the base combat system. Those changes would allow them to go even beyond that. And just to make sure, no, those changes wouldn't turn the game into DMC, it would pretty much remain the same game.


Like honestly, you act as if having more options at the same time is bad when if anything you have always champion that ER's combat design rewarded experimenting and finding tools that counter bosses and so forth, a.k.a, having more options. You do it even here

Elden Ring gives you many tools to deal with the increased difficutly of the bosses and enemies that have nothing to do with the kind of toolset you get in a pure action game like DMC or Bayonetta

Why then it is so bad if the player can use more of those tools at the same time or there are more interesting tools? They can even tied them to exploration Metroid style and give you new skills similar to how you get new spells.

edit: sorry, edited because I wanted to add more

 

[Lyric Suite]

I'm not obsessing with DMC it's just an example.

Like honestly, you act as if having more options is bad when if anything you have always champion that ER's combat design rewarded experimenting and finding tools that counter bosses. Why then it is so bad if the player can use more of those tools at the same time or there are more interesting tools?

I don't have an issue with choice in itself, i take issue with the idea the game is "less" because of the lack of choices on the player side, which is the main argument i'm being presented with here. I remind you that i didn't make the case that DMC or Nioh or what have you are inferior to Souls, i'm responding to those who are making the case for the opposite, that Souls is inferior to those games and would be better if it moved in their direction and took cues from their combat style.

And again, Sekiro presents the perfect counterpoint to this idea that "less" options on the player side somehow makes the combat system less complex or difficult or interesting. Is Sekiro dumbed down garbage compared to Dark Souls?

 

[Lyric Suite]

Ignoring that Nioh's difficulty is structured in a different ways that require you to beat the game multiple times to actually get to the harder challenges

Well i'm not so fond of that idea. That seems to be a trap the game fell into just because it decided to adopt the Diablo style progression.

If a game cannot show it's brilliance on NG i would consider that to be a bit of a problem. It's also counter productive to the game's success because you are now presenting people with a simplified version of the game while expecting their interest to hold firm beyond the first playthrough that's quite an expectation to be honest.

 

[Odoryuk]

I started with Samurai class for the first time and rushed to get Wakizashi and, despite it being a dagger, it power stances with a starting Uchigatana (katana weapon type), which makes sense, as Wakizashi is a paired weapon that was used with a Katana (well, I guess not actually used, but ritually worn together, but it got into Japanese pop culture pretty deep). Are there any other secret power stancing with different weapon types? Was it like this in Dark Souls 2 as well?

 

[Damned Registrations]

If a game cannot show it's brilliance on NG i would consider that to be a bit of a problem. It's also counter productive to the game's success because you are now presenting people with a simplified version of the game while expecting their interest to hold firm beyond the first playthrough that's quite an expectation to be honest.

The point of this arrangement is to give the player enough to to learn the various mechanics they'll need to survive in higher difficulties. If you just jumped directly into the endgame and tried to beat it by just being really good at parrying and ignored the rest of the systems, you'd get your ass handed to you without understanding why.

Having full difficulty from the start works for Souls games because they're so simple you've learned everything you'll ever need to know after a 3 minute tutorial. Anything else is just enemy/weapons specific memorization of frame data. Nioh is so complex I frankly hadn't even learned half the weapons by the end of NG.

 

[Lyric Suite]

But you are not going to learn the mechanics if you aren't compelled to use them.

Why not just have an option to just jump to the good part and skip the 50 hours tutorial.

It's like my last playthrough of Path of Exile. Ten whole acts which were basically a cakewalk and literally waded through them on autopilot. Just... why.

 

[Anonona]

i take issue with the idea the game is "less" because of the lack of choices on the player side, which is the main argument i'm being presented with here.

I think here is just a point we may never reach agreement. As long as the number of options presented have value to offer, having more is rarely worse. In fact, ER's actually has a very surprising high amount of options, but they are either given to AoWs, too weak or tied to weapons to niche to really be worth using compared to other more generic options.

For example, there is actually Guard Point in ER, but is sadly tied to the Glinstone Sword and the Caria Longsword, which are weapons that are kind of mid and tied to specific builds. If certain type of weapons had Guard Points by default it would be similar to Hyperamor, it would open up new avenues of play, and is using tools that ER itself provides but sadly doesn't really make worth using.

Is Sekiro dumbed down garbage compared to Dark Souls?

Don't take wrong what I'm going to say. The combat system is indeed dumbed down. BUT, it isn't necessarily bad and sure as hell doesn't make the game garbage. Sekiro is a great game. Objectively speaking, the combat system is worse, but is because Sekiro really doesn't care for modern action games. Sekiro is what you get when you take old game goodness like Castlevania and OG Ninja Gaiden and give them modern polish and evolve them. If Souls is like 3D Igavania, Sekiro is like 3D Castlevania. Is fun as hell, it just doesn't really compete with other action games because it doesn't care to. I think comparing it to actions games makes it a disservice, like comparing Alien Soldier to God of War. Sure, Alien Soldier is gonna lose in the combat system department due to simplicity, but it didn't even care to compete, it was just simple, challenging action fun. Most would say Alien Soldier is a better game than GoW despite this, because they aren't even in the same lane, don't care much for each other, and Alien Soldier reaches is design goals better than GoW does its on each respective genres.

Funny enough, you could make a case for Souls with the same argument, but it would need to concede that the combat system (not combat itself) is inherently worse because it wasn't ever its intention to be an action game, but to capture the essence of old hardcore gaming: simple and deadly, particularly Igavanias. Then we would go back to something you said. Souls is an aRPG, with lowercase "a", meaning that it shouldn't be judge by the same standard you judge other action games, but more as an RPG (which would mean that yes, DS3 and maybe even Bloodborne would lose if this is the case). And that people are stupid and should play them as RPGs instead of imposing restriction on themselves on regular plays or playing them as pure skill based games unless is a challenge run of some kind.

But I don't really like to support this view completely, because I think Souls combat is deep enough that it is worth to compare to other action games, but also that it has a considerable amount of untapped potential to be really great.

Well i'm not so fond of that idea. That seems to be a trap the game fell into just because it decided to adopt the Diablo style progression.

If a game cannot show it's brilliance on NG i would consider that to be a bit of a problem. It's also counter productive to the game's success because you are now presenting people with a simplified version of the game while expecting their interest to hold firm beyond the first playthrough that's quite an expectation to be honest.

Yes you are completely correct that this hurt their success. Most of these games were misunderstood for locking difficulties in later playthroughs. Even to this day you have people and journos calling many of those games "button smashers" because they only played them on normal or easy. There are usually a good reason why it was like that ("the games were short and meant to be replayed, low difficulty and a gradual acquisition of skill allowed for players to organically discover the depth of the combat system if they were inclined to do so and experiment while still having fun.) Many players refused to go beyond the base difficulty or explore combat options.

Nioh is a bit of a particular case that the harder difficulties were added later as DLC/Updates, so if you bought the game and beat it, it gave you a reason to play again, but it does lacked foresight for new players. Other games like FF XVI shoot themselves in the foot because the same formula doesn't really work that well if the game is like 40+ hours instead of 8+ like classic action games.

Also some games need it. The difference from Acolyte to Master Ninja in Ninja Gaiden or from Devil Hunter to DMD in DMC3 is really high. Even if you stick to basic tools, you want the practice that lower difficulties offer, you don't want to start those at that difficulty. Is like fighting Malenia in Limegrave, a new player would be fucking erased.

 

[Anonona]

Are there any other secret power stancing with different weapon types? Was it like this in Dark Souls 2 as well?

Can't remember anything like that in DS2, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, DS2 had a lot of secret stuff like that. But it did came to mind DS1, where the DLC introduced Gold Tracer, a curved sword with an unique offhand moveset that was meant to be paired with Dark Silver Tracer.

 

[Damned Registrations]

But you are not going to learn the mechanics if you aren't compelled to use them.

You will if you're a naturally curious person that wants to see how various weapons and mechanics in the game work. Your argument is akin to asking why ER has all these bosses and items when you only need to fight like a dozen of them to beat the game and aren't compelled to do any more since you can just summon other players to win for you.

Why not just have an option to just jump to the good part and skip the 50 hours tutorial.

Why not make Malenia the very first enemy in ER and skip the 50 hours of poking zombies that don't fight back?

 

[Lyric Suite]

The combat system is indeed dumbed down.

See, this is where i need to interject, because in my opinion this isn't the case at all.

A lot of the thrust of my argument has been to point out there are other elements at play here besides the "quantity" of options. I understand why there's so much emphasis on quantiy given that quantity, by definition, is easy to quantify, while things like "clevernes" are harder to demonstrate, but has far as i'm concerned Sekiro wasn't much different from Dark Souls, i mean in terms of the sophistication of its combat.

Now language is too limited to really define what i'm trying to get across let's just say that i think Sekiro is simple on paper but not so simple in execution, does that make sense?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Are there any other secret power stancing with different weapon types? Was it like this in Dark Souls 2 as well?

Can't remember anything like that in DS2, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, DS2 had a lot of secret stuff like that. But it did came to mind DS1, where the DLC introduced Gold Tracer, a curved sword with an unique offhand moveset that was meant to be paired with Dark Silver Tracer.

I think there might have been something like this for twinblades in DS2? Some particular ones you could power stance that didn't act like halberds when you did or something?