So your entire premise for why Fromsoft is so fucking great... is that their attack patterns are unreadable and require immense trial and error to figure out.
I think you just hit the nail in the head with this line.
After some thinking about why myself can enjoy these games despite recognizing my reservations with them, I concluded the issue with this debate, and why is such impossibility to reach an accord, and the reason Lyric will probably not really like that much any other action game he plays, regardless of how good they may be, is that perhaps Lyric doesn't really care about or even like combat in modern 3D action games (from PS1/N64 era onwards), but the brand of "combat" that From's offers. Which is a
mixture of old school (as in arcade/console action) and modern 3D action games with an anti-animu aesthetics and good "gamefeel". I apologize to Lyric in advance, because I'm going to try and analyze his tastes and explain them to make a point, which is kind of autistic and rude on my part. I ask you, feel free to correct anything you find insulting or don't agree with, I hope I'm not too far from the mark.
First, sorry to repeat myself, because I know I said this many times before, but they are really good examples at illustrating the point. But games like og Ninja Gaiden, Castlevania, Shinobi, etc with high difficulty that needed you to understand the patterns of levels and bosses, often times through trial and error, and had a kind of "rythm" to the action, patterns you could learn and once mastered "flow" through the game so to speak. Anyone that has played modern From or read Lyric's post will probably find this description familiar. And yes, those games had, in a manner of speaking, "bullshit" you had to memorize, which I can see why Lyric is not only not bothered by it, but instead enjoys it, even if most players don't. This is inherent of these types of games. And the other side, the combat system itself, was simple, with limited options, each with a purpose and often times hard counters to bosses or levels that require solving the "puzzle" left by the developer. An example would be how in Castlevania 1 the Axe is good against the bat, the watch against Frankestein's monster and holy water against Death. The game didn't really told you directly, but through logic, experimentation and subtle hints you could figure out these things.
These games difficulty and fun was all about learning bosses and levels, and figuring out intended solutions by the devs, instead of creating your own solutions through a "toolbox". This kind of combat experience is what From's offer and Lyric defends.
All of From's modern games, specially Sekiro being the best example, do follow this kind of game design. Is true, as I said, that they cannot get rid of the legacy of action games before them: it can be seen on its mechanics, the way bosses are designed, the fundamentals, from Zelda to MH and in between; those concepts have become ingrained as fundamental elements of 3D action games, From just cannot suddenly get rid of them. Which is why we can compare them. But From's had made a concious effort to go for a more, without any intention of sounding insulting, "primitive" design in an attempt to simulate those old games.
This excerpt from an old interview is quite revealing:
Demon's Souls was born out of a desire to return gaming to its fundamentals - that is, to re-embrace the trial and error and difficulty that we used to take for granted, and leave the player to work things out for themselves. "From the outset, we started making it based on a 'back-to-basics' concept," says Miyazaki. "We wanted a 'game-like game', something that was fun in the way games used to be, and we were confident that we could do it.
While it could be argue that, no it was Kings Field the main inspiration, in other interview he specifies that the core of DeS was very different to Kings Field.
I feel that King's Field and Dark Souls are two separate entities. For starters, yes, the perspective is different, but also they are guided by differing core game design concepts
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016100...uls-creator-miyazaki-on-zelda-sequels-w443435
So, with this, we can reach the conclusion that a lot of this decisions are a result of this design. In a way, From made a flawed combat system on purpose because it wanted to mimic those kind of games, "back-to-basics", 'game-like games'. The memorization, overly strict timing and limited tools are on purpose. They made for a worse modern action combat system, but bring them closer to the intended combat experience From wanted to create.
But then, comes the issue. How can this be true, if Lyric hates anyhting that feels arcade? Easy. The second key to the equation is aesthetics and game feel. See, the problem with arcade games of old and those derived from them is that they are way too "japanese". DMC, God Hand, Ninja Gaiden, Nioh, Bayonetta, etc, etc. They are too "animu" and "silly". From's new arstyle is not only outstanding, but also very palatable to those that dislike that kind of "animu" aesthetics. So even if you can cut the air a thousand times in Sekiro in the most weebish manner possible, the aesthetics makes them "aceptable" and "cool" compared to Vergil from DMC, who is too "animu". Add great "gamefeel" due to good animation work, sound design and graphics, and it offers the old japanese arcade experience but in a more agreeable package. Lyric himself didn't like using deflection in ER because it didn't feel nearly as good as Sekiro, for example, and I'm sure he isn't the only one, as Sekiro gamefeel is one of the most cited reasons for its success and why combat is good.
Taking all of this into account, an agreement between defenders of Souls and defenders of action combat could never be reached. As action games, From modern games are deeply flawed. Yet at the same time they are trying to offer an specific kind of experience that by necessity will have these flaws. Certain games do a better job at achieving this (Sekiro is the clear one, it nails that feel of being a modern "old" game) and other are more questionable (Elden Ring, which amalgamation of past From's games does throw a bit of a wrench on this idea. Add that they added the more emphasis on memorization of enemy pattern, and is probably why it is the more divise among players). And then you have AC6 which is closer to modern action games in an attempt to keep its own identity while adapting some ideas from their other games.
Now, as my personal opinion,
From's combat system does suffer when compared to modern action games. I think Nioh, DMC, MH are superior
if we compare them strictly as action games. But is a fact that
From's is offering a specific brand of combat experience that by necessity is anathema to good action games design, and perhaps the question is that
the quality of their combat is more accuretly measure by how good are they at achieving this specific experience. Of course there are more factors than mere combat to the games quality, ergo why people can dislike ER combat but sill enjoy the RPG, exploration and level design, but that is not so relevant to the discussion.
Another different topic that emerges then, is if this idea of "returning back to basics" is good or was flawed as its conception, and is now reaching their ugly head as they double down on them. Or on the contrary, their are about to reach new heights on this brand of combat.
