Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice (new From Software game)

[fork]

I have no idea what you're even talking about lol.

All I said is that FromSoftware's composers are absolute dogshit, implying they should hire a competent one. I don't care who does the music, as long as they do a good job (ie. Bloodborne).

Yeah, it was me who started that employee/contractor discussion.
It's not like the previous half dozen posts prove you wrong, asshole!

 

[fork]

All of them. Starting from King's Fields, Shadow Towers, Kuon, and all Dark Souls. The worst music I noticed in all these games was inoffensive, unremarkable, and those were single tracks. Overall, I would describe From's soundtracks as fitting, atmospheric, very good, and that includes Sekiro. Music is the least of From's problems, imo.

I don't know about Kings Field, but Dark Souls 1 was not scored by a FromSoftware composer. Motoi Sakuraba is a free lancer. Bloodborne had 6 composers and only 1 of them was employed by FromSoftware - who was humiliated by the work of the others.

Sekiro is composed solely by Kitamura (FromSoft's composer) and the soundtrack is just dogshit in every aspect. Even Nioh 2 which doesn't really put the focus on its music had a better japanese soundtrack.

Well, that's turning into quite the academic discussion, isn't it? I'm talking about the music which appears in FromSoft titles, whether they're employed by FromSoftware directly or external contractors is absolutely irrelevant. And I think Sekiro is one of From's weaker titles, but the soundtrack is still way above average.

Is it? You were replying to my comment which was specifically about FromSoftware's composers.

Marked where employee/contractor first entered the discussion.
I hope you die of cancer, after every member of your family died of cancer, dishonest faggot.

 

[Sentinel]

All of them. Starting from King's Fields, Shadow Towers, Kuon, and all Dark Souls. The worst music I noticed in all these games was inoffensive, unremarkable, and those were single tracks. Overall, I would describe From's soundtracks as fitting, atmospheric, very good, and that includes Sekiro. Music is the least of From's problems, imo.

I don't know about Kings Field, but Dark Souls 1 was not scored by a FromSoftware composer. Motoi Sakuraba is a free lancer. Bloodborne had 6 composers and only 1 of them was employed by FromSoftware - who was humiliated by the work of the others.

Sekiro is composed solely by Kitamura (FromSoft's composer) and the soundtrack is just dogshit in every aspect. Even Nioh 2 which doesn't really put the focus on its music had a better japanese soundtrack.

Well, that's turning into quite the academic discussion, isn't it? I'm talking about the music which appears in FromSoft titles, whether they're employed by FromSoftware directly or external contractors is absolutely irrelevant. And I think Sekiro is one of From's weaker titles, but the soundtrack is still way above average.

Is it? You were replying to my comment which was specifically about FromSoftware's composers.

Marked where employee/contractor first entered the discussion.
I hope you die of cancer, after every member of your family died of cancer, dishonest faggot.

see

I cannot believe how dogshit FromSoft's composers are.

 

[fork]

FromSoft's composers is unspecific and, in a sane world, includes contractors, you sorry fool.

 

[Sentinel]

So wait: "a FromSoft composer" in your brain means "being employed by FromSoft", but "FromSoft's composer" doesn't?

Whatever you say, schizo friend.

 

[Deflowerer]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

 

[cvv]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

It's like saying Nioh is primarily "about running around". Like, it's an essential part of it but there's much more.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

Pretty much, yes
Sekiro combat is about learning the specific moves that work on a given enemy and effieciently applying those set responses on subsequent encounters
The reason it feels off for you, is because Nioh's enemies aren't "invulnerable" to but a very limited number assaults/behaviours nor are your character build options reduced to essentially one set playstyle
Meaning, that like any good brawler, Nioh allows for improvisation and experimentation (i.e. both the player and the enemies can be truly versatile in Nioh)
Essentially Sekiro is rhythm game, not really a brawler

 

[cvv]

Essentially yes
Sekiro combat is about learning the specific moves that work on a given enemy and effieciently applying those set responses on subsequent encounters
The reason it feels off for you, is because Nioh's enemies aren't "invulnerable" to but a very limited number assaults/behaviours nor are your character build options reduced to essentially one set playstyle
Meaning, that like any good brawler, Nioh allows for improvisation and experimentation (i.e. you can be versatile in Nioh)

Bro you're talking out of your arse. There are plenty of mobs and bosses in Nioh that require a a very specific approach otherwise you're toast. And there's a surprising space for improvisation in Sekiro, considering it's not an RPG.

Have you actually played and finished any of those games? There are a lot of differences between them but this is not one of them.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

There are plenty of mobs and bosses in Nioh that require a a very specific approach otherwise you're toast.

Like who?

And there's a surprising space for improvisation in Sekiro

No.
In Sekiro, you are at all times playing by From's tune
For every enemy, and depending on his state, the player only has a couple of "right" moves (arbitrarily decided by the devs) he can successfully perform
It's very binary as the wrong moves immediately translate in big punishments

 

[Wunderbar]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

Sekiro's combat is fine-tuned to the extreme, it can only be played in one exact way.

The enemy uses a spear? Mikiri-counter. The enemy uses a shield? Break it with an axe. The enemy performs a sweeping attack? Jump. The enemy is in the air? Throw a shuriken. All of the regular enemies are trash that can be spam-clicked to death or backstabbed from stealth, while all the bosses have a ton of HP and a ton of different moves that needed to be learned through trial and error. 90% of the "progression" (bonus tools, tool upgrades, active and passive skills) are either useless, or have very limited use. You can't grind souls to level some attributes, you can't upgrade your weapons without progressing further into the game, you can't change your tactics or approach. You either "git gud" (by learning patterns by heart), or you die.

 

[Salvo]

I liked Sekiro more than Dark Souls.
Yes, I know it's not an RPG.

 

[Tim the Bore]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

Sekiro's combat is fine-tuned to the extreme, it can only be played in one exact way.

The enemy uses a spear? Mikiri-counter. The enemy uses a shield? Break it with an axe. The enemy performs a sweeping attack? Jump. The enemy is in the air? Throw a shuriken. All of the regular enemies are trash that can be spam-clicked to death or backstabbed from stealth, while all the bosses have a ton of HP and a ton of different moves that needed to be learned through trial and error. 90% of the "progression" (bonus tools, tool upgrades, active and passive skills) are either useless, or have very limited use. You can't grind souls to level some attributes, you can't upgrade your weapons without progressing further into the game, you can't change your tactics or approach. You either "git gud" (by learning patterns by heart), or you die.

Tools can be very useful if you'd focus on them. Without investing any points they usually have only way of being used and are very situational (e.g shurikens for enemies in the air). They are much more versatile if properly managed though - said shurikens on higher levels allow you to shorten the distance between you and the enemy, deal some damages, stunlock them etc. Spear can clear the space around you or drag enemies closer. Axe can deal huge damages without Sekiro losing balance. Firecrackers can destroy enemies posture, as well as blind them. And so on. Not everything is useful in equal measure, but advanced tools can do a lot. That said, parrying is always needed.

 

[Raghar]

I played Dark Souls without parry. Because parry feels too cheesy. Killing Sliver knights without parry was hectic combat, killing them with parry is a breeze.

 

[Talby]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

Sekiro is a quicktime event stretched out into a full game.

 

[cvv]

Started playing this after 300 hours of Nioh and it feels so off.

Do I understand correctly that the whole game is essentially about parrying?

Sekiro is a quicktime event stretched out into a full game.

Also Dark Souls is a Roll Playing Game and Bloodborne is just a shootan spam.

Everything is shit.

 

[Black Angel]

Apparently there's a post from DJOGamer PT that somehow eludes me here. I'm gonna sit down, read, and reply to the best of my ability.

Action games are all about giving you tools to succeed and requiring you to effectively read their opponents and react.
Unfortunately Sekiro in my eyes fails in both parts.

Contrary to what you think, Sekiro does, in fact, gave you the tools to succeed and requires you to effectively read the opponents and react. It only fails for you because you refuse to play Sekiro in accordance to how the devs designed it, and instead try to approach it from the lens of Souls games, and also because you refuse to use the tools they offered you. Why am I confident in saying these? Well, based on your stance that the game is R1-L1 mashing, despite the presence of other mechanics and gameplay features, made me conclude that you haven't even tried to try and use the prosthetics, the combat arts, the consumables, etc etc.

It would be a different story if you actually have something to say regarding other gameplay features that Sekiro has to offer, but so far the most I see were people taking a glance at the list of tools, and then dismissing them as if they're some kind of waste of space. That all they need are the R1-L1 sword mashing...and then they came here to complain how there's only one way to play the game.

The PC is the slowest attacking character on the field. Enemies are able to dodge you, interrupt your attacks and their combos are longer and more damaging. Given the speed of enemies, there should be some sort of canceling animations in this game. If an enemy begins their attack while you are attacking, most of the time you’re going to be the one taking damage.

I doubt PC attack the slowest, there are a couple of enemies out there who're much slower, especially the giant enemies like those Taro Troop, the Juzou variant, and even the Armored Warrior have quite a windup when they attack. They also got substantial poise to them, the more obvious one being the Armored Warrior.
And there is cancelling animation in Sekiro. In fact, I'm confident enough to proclaim that Sekiro is the game where they've implemented the smoothest animation cancelling by far. And you're not the only one who can animation cancel; enemies can, too. I've so experienced many moments where I press R1 roughly at the same time as my target beginning their attacks (mostly bosses, mini-bosses, and mini-bosses turned mobs like the respawning Samurai General and Lone Shadow Swordsman), but on reflex I pressed L1, cancelling the attack animations, but they did the exact same, so we both just stand there trying to deflect even though none of us were attacking each other. I'm currently too busy with irl stuff, though, so once things got a bit calmer I'm gonna go back and try playing several boss rush and see if I could replicate it.

Regarding the three defenses: parrying, dodging, and jumping.
As you know they are used to counter specific attacks - for the most part (will talk about later)...
The problem is that it’s impossible on instinct/reaction to read what defense to use when. This isn’t a game where just looking at the enemy tells you what attacks to expect.
Enemy attack animations are fast, and similar to Soulsborne titles, the same starting attack animation can lead into different combo patterns.
Does this attack require parrying, or is it a jump? You’re not going to be able to answer this in the first few tries.

This is something that then intensifies to that prevaling issue of beating the enemies by memorization.

And this is the part where my suspicion, that you haven't actually paid attention to the game you're playing, grows even stronger. Once again, it reminded me that you folks, to this very moment, somehow refuse to try and play Sekiro as is, and instead headstrongly insists on playing it like it's Souls.

Did the visual cues, the big red kanji and the split-second shine, and the audio cues, not clear enough to you? You see, this is actually one of those part where we can argue that Fromsoft are streamlining their game; you know, big red kanji appearing above the PC's head, in addition to those split-second shine and the audio cues when enemies perform perilous attacks, these features reeks some kind of handholding. And yet, here you are, proclaiming out loud that the game made it *impossible to react on instinct*, that some you *can't just look at the enemy to expect their attacks*, despite the big ass red kanji and many other cues. And then that sentence,

Does this attack require parrying, or is it a jump? You’re not going to be able to answer this in the first few tries.

Well, duh? That's why they have those pop-ups tutorial, and even Hanbei the Undying to help you further understand the gameplay mechanics, and help yourself getting used to it. I tried reading this sentence in particular over and over again, and I can't comprehend how the hell is this even an argument?

In fact, the game feels very mechanical.
Enemies seem to be designed to block all your attacks except those specifically designed to kill them - i.e., if an enemy can only be defeated by counter slashing, then that’s it.
The only way to win is to know ahead of time what attack the enemy performs and how to counter them. There's no room for experiementation or improvisation, the whole thing appears to be about performing a sequence of X maneuvers perfectly - like a choreography.
You can even see this in how weirdly limited/specific in use most tools and moves are.

What the hell are you talking about here, mate? I can't- what is this?!

Enemies seem to be designed to block all your attacks except those specifically designed to kill them - i.e., if an enemy can only be defeated by counter slashing, then that’s it.

What?! You mean, like, a spear-wielding enemies *can only* be defeated with Mikiri Counter? If so, then, you really haven't paid attention to the tutorial; thrusting attacks CAN be step-dodged, other than being perfectly deflected. So, that's 3 ways to deal with a spear/thrusting attacks. 4 if you count the Umbrella as a stand-in for perfect deflect, 5 if you bother to use the Mist Raven Feather.

But trying to argue against Sekiro from this angle in the first place, is just retarded, man. Because it's like trying to argue that rock shouldn't defeat scissors because you expect the scissor to be made of adamantium, or that in addition to paper defeating rock it should also be able to defeat scissors or whatever. Once again, with this point it became more and more apparent that you were expecting something like in Souls games.

Enemies also give me the feeling of having less attack patterns compared to the Souls series - if this is the case than it probably is to compensate for the fact that the player has to read the patterns more closely and because of the overall increased enemy number.

Now this is a fair argument. We can also say that the game is overall smaller, in both size and scope, thus not having close to as much enemy types as in Souls games. However

The design difference between Sekiro and Soulborne titles comes down to this - in previous games, a boss fight was dependent on both the enemy and your own build; here, the only thing that matters is the boss patterns itself and not the player.

I'm confident enough to say you're wrong here. As I've personally faced the bosses (mainly Sword Saint) many, many times through the boss rush, and watching a lot of Sekiro videos, I can safely conclude that the boss pattern CAN change depending on how you approach them; it boils down to mostly either approaching a boss aggressively (attacking, either with R1, combat arts, or prosthetics whenever you can, even initiate it instead of waiting for their attacks) or defensively (waiting for enemies to attack, deflect everything that can be deflected, Mikiri counter, jumpkick, etc etc).

Action games have to be designed around a tug of war between player and enemy.
Problems arise when the game is not consistent in its rules and how the mechanics work from battle to battle. A notion which Sekiro has no problems in ignoring
Giving of some examples of my playtrogh: the thrust attack that’s supposed to always cause damage on block doesn’t always work on bosses; sometimes, even their normal attacks would go through my block, and then a minute later the block would hold;

And here I once again doubt if you've actually been paying attention. You do know that Sekiro basically elaborate further into the parry mechanics of Souls, right? And that includes the partial parries. Meaning this time, there's the Perfect Parry™

I might sound like a smartass here, but the truth is I actually only understand about it in practice; I vaguely remembered seeing people discussing how the parries in Sekiro goes even further beyond simple failed parries, partial parries, and perfect parries. Apparently there's a point between failed parries and partial parries, where the damage to HP is prevented, but the ones to posture is not, and thus resulted in posture breaks. Supposedly this discussion was in the video above, but I can't find it. But long story short; failed parries = full damage both to HP and posture goes through, partial parries = only partial damage to posture, chip damage to HP when charmless, will ALWAYS breaks posture if posture bar is filled, while perfect deflect = see above video.

there were cases where even dodging at the right time to avoid an attack I was still hit;

This is an interesting point; I'd like to dissect the game and see how Sekiro's dodging mechanics works in relation to hitboxes and iframes (if there's even ANY, other than for deflection), but I'm not that much of a savvy in this regard. Still, if I'm allowed to comment on this regardless, based on purely my experience alone, I have a feeling that a LOT of enemies attacks are designed to cover a vast swathe of ground, thus discouraging you from dodging and encourage to deflect instead. And yet, from playing by myself and watching some of the videos, there are instances where it seems that iframes for dodging DOES exists, it's just so brief that it might as well not there at all. However, vertical downward attacks can obviously be step-dodged, and so does attacks committed in a clearly discernible angles (45 degree slashes hitboxes can actually be dodged)

I also noticed cases where the speed at which posture reduces changed, regardless if I was holding block or not.

On half-health, posture regenerate much slower.

And finally speaking of stealth.
No it doesn't let you properly sneak your way through the levels and enemies.
Just the fact that enemies can spot you a mile away if you’re standing up, but can calmly walk around them while crouching is bad enough. But once an enemy spots you, all enemies in the area know where you are. Even if you break line of sight, they can still find your position (not even Oblivion did that man).
The stealth should have been more developed, considering how much it is a core gameplay system.

I'm not sure what to say to this. What's actually bad when you can be spotted from (((a mile away))) when standing up (meaning you practically announced your presence for all the world to see), and can calmly move around them while crouched (meaning you reduced your stature as to not be immediately noticeable)? And you said this, without considering the fact that you can stand right behind someone when they haven't reached even yellow indicator, but trying to move in front of them even while crouched will get you detected.

The only time when *all* enemies know where you are is if you get detected by this guy. If not, it will only be the guy whose indicator turns red; the rest would turns yellow, though I forgot if they saw they guy with red indicator moving they'll follow suit or not.
As for breaking line of sight; you didn't specify if you actually lose them, or you simply hide behind a wall when someone still got their sight on you.

I do agree that the stealth system should be more developed; even though you're hanging off a cliff/roof, they should somehow able to see you and not stuck at yellow indicator. Same with when only you got detected by someone who's not a Watcher, I remembered many instances where one guy saw me, the others turns yellow but instead of following the guy with red indicator they just stand there looking left and right.

Yeah.
Sure the combat migth not have the satisfying feel to it like Sekiro, and to be honest it's combat is not as difficult to master. But it does have: a conisderable amount of well designed mechanics that all inter-link with each other; a large variety of techniques that allow for multiple distinct playstyles; a very good enemy rooster that supports all those playstyles; none of the problems mentioned above.

Once again: Dragon's Dogma is an action-RPG, while Sekiro is a full-blown action game.

I'm not forcing you to love Sekiro as much as I do, or even slightly like it at all, no. I'm just saying you should stop judging Sekiro from the lense of Souls games or even the lens of an action-RPG. The only thing that matters is if Sekiro shows a good direction in regards to Fromsoft's true strength, and I'm saying that action-RPG signatures aren't where Fromsoft shines the brightest.
As for comparison to *other* action games, well, I've conceded this point; I haven't played much action games, so I don't have anything to say when comparing Sekiro to other action games.

To end my post here, lemme share some stuff

 

[Talby]

That's a lot of words to say "I have shit taste."

 

[cvv]

That's a lot of words to say "I have shit taste."

This is Codex not Twitter.

Absurdly long assplainings are proper etiquette.

 

[Black Angel]

That's a lot of words to say "I have shit taste."

What, you mean this post? I agree

Spoiler

 

[Silverfish]

The only thing he said in that post that was incorrect was claiming that Sekiro is better than Dynasty Warriors.

 

[Black Angel]

Indeed, Dynasty Warriors sure is better than a game of dodgefest

 

[DJOGamer PT]

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Ok...
Now to be completely serious (almost).

I ain't gonna reply to all that text point by point, as that goes beyond the scope of my autism (and patience).
But I've read that fucking walll, and I will adress your points in a general manner.


For starters, that post you answered to was made shortly afterwards my completition of the game, and at the time I was still trying to process why the game had failed IMO.
I had this general sense from my experience (both from my experience with Sekiro and playing other brawlers) that something wasn't quite right about Sekiro, and it was by trying to express it in that post (plus reading from other users) that I actually managed to grasp the problem.

Second you assumed from the beggining that I was judging Sekiro comparatively to jARPG's like DS, BB, Nioh and DD.
While in fact, I've always judged Sekiro comparatevely to the standards I've developed from playing other Brawlers.
And besides the distinction isn't that great since those Japanese Action RPG's all have Action Combat derived from the Brawler subgenre - and therefore can be analysed with the same general "lenses".



Now for the actual problem of Sekiro - I'll try to keep it simple and short.

Obsiously there's no set formula to make a Action Combat Gameplay System (of cource the same can be said of any type of gameplay system).
But a few aspects that should be universal is - consistency and clarity.
Now Sekiro does both these things, however it's in what follows that the game fails and makes the combat an anthesis of what a Brawler should strive to be.

I am have not invested much in my Speech Skill, and neither did I read a neatly defined manual on the design of Action games, so you'll have to give me some slack on the following text...

In their essence, Action combat is making the best decisions in the moment-to-moment gameplay. As such, their appeal lies not only on the challenges of combat, but also the process of mastery and the "tools" with which the player can make use of in those cenarios (here in the latter, the quality of "versatility" is highly important).
All of this to say that Action Combat should also possess:

• There should be "depth" to the actions the PC can perform in combat - attacks/defenses should have multiple intentions and applications (hence why "versatility"); in the best designed combat systems, some failed actions can even have advantageous purposes.
• Connected to the above, there should be a good balance between risk/reward in regards to the player's actions - this can break the combat if handled poorly, but if well done it can "hook up" players for years.
• Learning should be engaging by itself, and mastery shouldn't be definitive (as in, there should always exist room for improvement) - this point is highly dependant on the "depth" referred in the previous point (and of course the way devs introduce mechanics).
• The player should have the agency to engage challenges the way they please, even if it's wrong - now don't go misunderstanding this point, I am not saying that every "approach" should be equal; after all "every job has the right tool", as such for every challenge the game presents there should exist a more effecient action/"tool" and a less efficient one; and it up to the devs not to only craft a cool set of actions, but also design challenges to facilitate and emphasize a certain playstyle; devs shouldn't however stop players from tackling the challenge in ways contrary to their intended design by restricting player's agency with artificial barriers (a simple example of this are "color-coded enemies", and mechanics like cooldowns and "item" restricted actions can also be as bad if devs are not careful).
• Challenge - now of course this varies from person to person, but in general there should exist difficulty options that push both beginners and veterans without becoming tiresome or enraging (this depends on the quality of the above points, plus the challenges own design quality).
• Replayability, which can only come when all of the above is in good shape.

When you look at how Sekiro performs in these areas, you see how it's combat fails so hard (and honestly, sometimes it even seems these flaws are intentional).

All of the player's actions are very limited. Attempts to use them outside the devs intention is restricted.
All of it's enemies are meant to be defeated in specific ways that must be memorized by heart. Attempts to change tactics or improsive are highly discouraged.

Did the enemy sweep? Jump.
Did the enemy thrust? Mikiri-counter.
Is the enemy airborne? Throw shuriken.
Is the enemy attempting a grab? Run away.
Is the enemy using a shield? Break it with the axe.
Do you want to dispatch though enemies as fast as possible? Perfect deflection timing to break enemy Posture.

These are the main "nuances" of Sekiro's combat. There may indeed be other mechanics to it, but this is still the principal stuff that players will learn and make use of for the next 30 hours of gameplay, and I've just described it in 6 lines.
Once you get this, there's almost no sense of progression to the learning.
Combat Arts could spice things up, but most of them don't have purposes other than big damage and looking cool. The few that do have, serve very minor utility and are usually restricted by item requirements. And to further limit their usefullness, the player can only use 1 of them at a time.
Oh and lest I forget, there's no skill demanded in their execution - the player just presses the dedicated awesome button.
There's no other tools to play with aside from the Combat Arts and Prosthetics (which again, don't give much in the way of agency thanks to their poor versatility and the restricting enemy design), and the sword offers nothing to master (no combos of any kind).
Risk/Reward is extremely simplistic and further reduces player's agency. If you try to improvise, the risk is high but the reward small. If you play by the devs rules, it's mostly: you either fail and get buttraped or succeed and have the opportunity to perform high damage ownage. There's no in-between.
Most of regular enemies, don't even require the use of the more "advanced" combat mechanics since they can easily be spam-clicked to death, and the game offers no incentive to do otherwise.
Bosses are the most restrictive of enemies, as they require the most exact and complex playstyles from the player. The biggest challenge they pose to players is their muscle memory, as opposed to actual mechanical understanding and gameplay mastery (inb4 muscle memory is gameplay mastery).
And because of a lack of proper difficulty modes (and no buffed stats aren't proper difficulty), there's no incentive to push players behind the main combat mechanics.

This is pathethic for a Brawler.

And it's inexcusable for a company with FROM's experience, resources and the amount of good examples from the last 20 they could've draw from.
Blade of Darkness, was made by a studio infinitely smaller, with so few resources they had to cut development short, and they made it at a time when 3D Brawlers were yet to be a thing. Nevertheless, despite how janky, simple and "small" their project was, they still have shown to have possessed a better grasp on those concepts then FROM did with Sekiro.
Also despite the fact that just 1 game prior, FROM made a combat system that seemed to understand the basics of those concepts (Bloodborne).

Honestly I have a easier time believing that these flaws are a bit intentional - kinda like they were trying to make a anti-Brawler, (the fact they at least have the consistency and clarity further drives this).



Not every Action Combat needs to be this complex, "big brain" system to be good.
Simplicity can be very satisfying and produce great games (for example: Doom), but it still needs to respect those parameters.
And Sekiro does not...

 

[karoliner]

Stop it with the walls of text you degenerate!