I found Sekiro's alleged lack of level design to be grossly exagerated when i played the game. Yeah it's not Dark Souls, but saying it's a "corridor" is hyperbole.
I was not talking about Sekiro's level design
You made a point that the best level design is one in which the player's progression through it is carefully curated by the developer and essentially the player has not much say in that matter (at least this is what I understood by your "set in stone" claim)
I made the counter-argument that the best level design is that which offers the player the largest variety of meaningful gameplay choices, specially if the combination of these choices is able to create a multitude of possible distinct ways to navigate said level
And that in this level design analogy, Sekiro's combat is dangerously close to be considered the equivalent of the "Corridor based level design" - where any deviation from the intended path is immediately met with either a failure state or a very high punishment, because the gameplay is so is so extremely fined-tuned that there is only 1 valid way to play it
I also disagree with the notion music requires no input. It requires no physical input, but you still need an intellective "exertion" to get it.
I do find it ironic you say this, but still defend Sekiro's combat design which as far as Figthers go requires very little mental exertion
I don't see it as simplistic merely because you have reduced options for skill expression.
I think I've been more than clear that the problem here isn't simply just reduced options for skill expression
Although options for skill expression are important since they add replay value and make the game experience more personal to each individual player
Fact is, the whole design of Sekiro's combat is ultimately basic and bare
I know I'm repeating myself here, but the depth of the game's combat really does not go much beyond the fundamentals learned in the first few hours and those fundamentals are themselves are few and as simple as any mechanic could be
In an ideal Figther, the moment-to-moment gameplay during battle should endeavour create a constant stream of gameplay possibilities and considerations
"How do I deal with this particular enemy? Do I play it defensively or agressively? Perhaps I could use this opportunity to test that new mechanic I unlocked last time? What weapons should I employ? Oh he's doing a charge attack, do I nibble him with some quick light attacks or do I attempt a more riskier move? What moves do I have that best overwhelm the enemy? If I manage to counter him, what combo do I follow up with?"
And in an ideal Figther, the answers to these questions shouldn't be clear-cut for most situations - like in Chess, a degree of ambivalence is part of the appeal, as it make the game more challenging and also puts emphasis on the player's choice
Is this regard, the best Fighting games go above and beyond the most complex hack-and-slashes, with even basic moves being packed with small mechanical details
Which is why those games can genuinely be played for years and still not fully understood by its players
Sekrio on the other hand, for the overwhelmingly majority of the campgain the "intellection" boils down to:
"The enemy performs a thrust attack? Mikiri-counter. The enemy performs a sweep attack? Jump. The enemy performs a grab? Dodge. The enemy uses a shield? Break it the axe. The enemy is airborne? Throw a shuriken. Aside from that, all regular enemies are riff-raff that can be spam-clicked to death (or insta-killed with the hilariously lenient stealth) and for Bosses just learn their patterns by heart."
About as much gameplay possibilities and considerations as Flowchart Ken lol
This is the main problem, but everything is not much better either...
Having the Combat Arts limited to one slot is a stupid decision that discourages their use and needlessly curtails player expression, but further having them tied to a limited non-regenerative consumable resource is just plain retarded - even fucking cooldowns would've a more elegant solution
The simplicity of the mechanics and the fact that most of what you learn after the tutorial is useless, the game has nothing to learn and pratice - something which has always been big appeal of the genre and is guaranteed to hook the more enthusiastic audience - but alas Sekiro's combat has no substancial meat for the player to chew on past the 1st playthrough
I just have no affinity for anything of a "gratuitous" nature. That includes games giving you tons of options for the sake of having options even though you don't need most of them to get it done. If we set up a distinction between what you can do and what you need to do, and then we consider complexity and emphasis in each aspect, i tend to favor anything that puts emphasis in the second, which i think is where FromSoft is situated at, Sekiro being the ultimate example given you only have one weapon.
You're taking a reductive utilitarian stance on this matter to unreasonable levels
Under this outlook, RPG's don't really need much in the way of stats and skills - just have a martial, magic and machiavellian parameter for the character building
Hell if the RPG is about killing shit in the dungeon, why have 3 playstyles at all, just keep whichever is most efficient at clearing the dungeon and scrap the other two
Shit, under this outlook Checkers are a better designed game than Chess
It's absurd to take it things to this degree
And Sekiro also doesn't survive scrutiny under this outlook - the vast majority of the "progression unlocks" (extra items, item upgrades, skills) are useless or highly situational.