Elden Ring 2 is a bad idea

[ElectricMutt]

Purely from a gameplay standpoint: Elden Ring 2 shouldn't be made.
I love this game. It is easily my favorite FS game of all time, but having played since Bloodborne, it's evident that they clearly have completely run out of ideas for combat design.

If they were to make another Elden Ring (or another DS, Bloodborne or new IP with similar design) it would be yet another repeat. There is not a single boss in the DLC which design cannot largely be found in something we haven't fought already.

Whatever FS ends up making, it needs to take a fresh new approach just like with Sekiro.

This isn't "advice" for FS btw. I am dead certain that whatever they put out will sell like warm bread, maybe even especially if it's ER2. If they have real integrity, they will retire this formula for good, unless the sequels/next IP does not play like DS, BB or ER.

The setting itself is fine. We could visit the Badlands, the land of reeds or even a lands between during its peak. Bloodborne and Dark Souls similarly could easily produce more lore, but the question is - Why would you want that if the gameplay is more of the same?

[zero]

couldn't disagree more, elden ring was basically everything i wanted in a soul game.

that said, they're not gonna make "elden ring" 2, they're most likely gonna make "souls-like game of new name" cause they prefer to make new things, but it will fundamentally play the same, and thats all i care about.

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

Why would you want that if the gameplay is more of the same?

this is basically every sequel ever.

borderlands, halo, deus ex, pokemon, souls games themselves, so on so forth.

the entire premise of growing a fanbase is that its always more of the same, with a new story and a couple of new things thrown on.

[Alexandre]

Agree, third person itself make no sense at all because if we are supposed to see through the eyes of the character (for immersion), it should be first person, also, those medieval weapons don't make sense on modern games. The character movement also should be more dynamic, with some slide mechanic that can be cancelled during the slide, as a example. Instead of FP, we could have a mechanic that allow us to use some skills after a certain amount of kills, with rewards for killstreaks of 3, 7 or 11, as a example. Anyway there's plenty of innovation Fromsoftware can do to make their games on par with dynamic and modern games.

[ElectricMutt]

@zero

Simply not true.

Onimusha, Zone of the Enders, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Monster Hunter and it goes on and on and on.

Many sequels build on the same sure, that is not a bad thing. You'd have to read into my text here in an asinine way to believe I'm saying you can't build on the same thing you've already done. My claim is that Elden Ring, exclusive button for jumping and delay attacks en masse aside, is largely the same game fundamentally as Dark Souls and Bloodborne. The differences in how you play these games is so miniscule that it's starting to show in a very tiring way.

Many bosses can be defeated on first few attempts and have to resort to some kind of bamboozled moment to actually gain an upper hand against the seasoned player's intuition.

I understand that some people just want the same with a new coat of pain repeatedly.

Call of Duty, Pokémon, World of Warcraft and so on are all great examples of that.

In order for From Software to retain their integrity as a developer, it's time to move on, lest they become like the developers of those 3 examples in reputation I provided here.

I don't want another Pokémon franchise. Fine if you do though.

[zero]

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

Simply not true.

Onimusha, Zone of the Enders, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Monster Hunter and it goes on and on and on.

Many sequels build on the same sure, that is not a bad thing. You'd have to read into my text here in an asinine way to believe I'm saying you can't build on the same thing you've already done. My claim is that Elden Ring, exclusive button for jumping and delay attacks en masse aside, is largely the same game fundamentally as Dark Souls and Bloodborne. The differences in how you play these games is so miniscule that it's starting to show in a very tiring way.

Many bosses can be defeated on first few attempts and have to resort to some kind of bamboozled moment to actually gain an upper hand against the seasoned player's intuition.

I understand that some people just want the same with a new coat of pain repeatedly.

Call of Duty, Pokémon, World of Warcraft and so on are all great examples of that.

In order for From Software to retain their integrity as a developer, it's time to move on, lest they become like the developers of those 3 examples in reputation I provided here.

I don't want another Pokémon franchise. Fine if you do though.

i do want to point out that half your list are games that fundamentally haven't changed, scrolls, monhun, kh, R&C/J&D are all games that settled into their niche quite comfortably.

yes, some games do choose to branch out, but in the same measure many games equally do not, they just do more of the same, cause thats what the people want.

there is nothing wrong with trying new things, but by the same measure there is no need to reinvent the wheel, fromsoft is good at what they do and have drawn a fanbase due to its consistently good games of the souls formula (in modern days, AC not withstanding), and they tried their own new things as well (sekiro) but they ultimately returned to formula, thankfully.

they aren't gonna lose their "integrity" but choosing to do what they do best, if anything, thats how you contuine to do good.

to each their own, no doubt, but i dont see why they should change things up if people want more of the same.

[ShadowDark3]

I agree with zero, Call of Duty isn't trash because it's a shooter, it's trash because a new one is pumped out every year with a business model designed around predatory monetisation. If From make another ER, as long as it's something they're passionate about there's nothing wrong with getting a second game with a fresh coat of paint.

[Akemua]

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

@zero

Simply not true.

Onimusha, Zone of the Enders, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Monster Hunter and it goes on and on and on.

Many sequels build on the same sure, that is not a bad thing. You'd have to read into my text here in an asinine way to believe I'm saying you can't build on the same thing you've already done. My claim is that Elden Ring, exclusive button for jumping and delay attacks en masse aside, is largely the same game fundamentally as Dark Souls and Bloodborne. The differences in how you play these games is so miniscule that it's starting to show in a very tiring way.

Many bosses can be defeated on first few attempts and have to resort to some kind of bamboozled moment to actually gain an upper hand against the seasoned player's intuition.

I understand that some people just want the same with a new coat of pain repeatedly.

Call of Duty, Pokémon, World of Warcraft and so on are all great examples of that.

In order for From Software to retain their integrity as a developer, it's time to move on, lest they become like the developers of those 3 examples in reputation I provided here.

I don't want another Pokémon franchise. Fine if you do though.

I mean... Final Fantasy kept it's formula from the late 80's and didn't truly try and change it until around XIII (excluding their MMO's).

It was either turn based, or turn based with ATB. Even then, the paradigm shift mechanic in XIII was an extension of ATB. So if you want to be technical, Final Fantasy main-line games didn't really change until XV (excluding the two MMO's)

Within that, they constantly tweaked the formula every game. But the base never truly changed for more than 20+years.

As for Pokemon, they did what Final Fantasy did for that long, kept the base formula and tweaked the game. Pokemon Sword and Shield plays nothing like Pokemon Red and Blue. Pokemon X and Y has extensively tweaked mechanics compared to Ruby and Sapphire, etc, etc. Heck, the Legends of Arceas games still only barely kept the turn based mechanic.

As for COD, that's what COD players want. Updated graphics with the core formula untouched. Run, and gun arcade shooter.

WoW objectively does not play the same way it does back in the early 2000's, if it did, they would not have Classic and Retail versions of the game. The only thing the same is... the base MMO formula.

Most of the games you quoted are like this. Small tweaks but the core never really changing.

[ElectricMutt]

I suppose we have a very different standard of what it means to remain the same then. Oblivion, fundamentally plays different from Skyrim. Designs are hugely overhauled, combat has different mechanics and the roleplaying is handled differently. All components the fundamental gameplay.

Same can be said for Devil May Cry - 1 and 2 are completely different games and yet again for 3 and 4.

Jak and Daxter goes from being another Super Mario to a much more firm and identifable experience seperate from its original DNA - Again with brand new mechanics, different controls, different approach to progressing in the game and so on, so forth.

Final Fantasy, famously switches up its formula for every single installation even if it keeps naming conventions and certain types of logic (mana, HP, turn-based) it's not as though I'm saying Patches is guilty of the games repeating conventions, you understand that, yeah?

Elden Ring has many 1:1 recreations of systems and gameplay to previous titles of FS. Torrent is about the closest thing we get to something brand new to a FS title. I mean, you can straight up take the game data of bosses and inject it into Sekiro or vice versa.

Where's your honesty?

[zero]

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

I suppose we have a very different standard of what it means to remain the same then. Oblivion, fundamentally plays different from Skyrim. Designs are hugely overhauled, combat has different mechanics and the roleplaying is handled differently. All components the fundamental gameplay.

Same can be said for Devil May Cry - 1 and 2 are completely different games and yet again for 3 and 4.

Jak and Daxter goes from being another Super Mario to a much more firm and identifable experience seperate from its original DNA - Again with brand new mechanics, different controls, different approach to progressing in the game and so on, so forth.

Final Fantasy, famously switches up its formula for every single installation even if it keeps naming conventions and certain types of logic (mana, HP, turn-based) it's not as though I'm saying Patches is guilty of the games repeating conventions, you understand that, yeah?

Elden Ring has many 1:1 recreations of systems and gameplay to previous titles of FS. Torrent is about the closest thing we get to something brand new to a FS title. I mean, you can straight up take the game data of bosses and inject it into Sekiro or vice versa.

Where's your honesty?

jak and daxter started as a platformer collectathon and ended as simply a platformer, that is the biggest change in that series.

all the scrolls have been first person (3rd person optional) rpgs that functionally have the same gameplay loop and cycle, albeit becoming more simplistic as they go, and their "roleplaying" is up to the user, nothing else.

dmc has and will be for the foreseeable future a spectical fighter, it has never budged from that, out of all the examples you can give this is probably the worst one you can do.

final fantasy has been atb based up until 13, and only recently started to stem out into action based games with 15, barring 11/14 being an mmo.

like i said: its all just more of the same, with some refinement in each series, they do try some new stuff to mix things up (light/dark powers in J&D) but the core gameplay loops for all these games are fundamentally unchanged from their inception.

where is YOUR honesty, to use your own words.

[BingusDingus]

The main reason an Elden Ring 2 wouldn't work is because it's a culmination of over a decade of assets.

Elden Ring is a ginormous game, thank's in part to it heavily using assets from their previous games, especially Dark souls 3. Specifically they used most of their best assets.
If they made another one they would need to put in an inordinate amount of work to recapture what made this game so good, by creating a massive amount of fresh content.
If they just reused all of the assets from Elden Ring and made another game, it wouldn't do near as well, people do not like experiencing the same things over and over. They need something new and exciting, otherwise it'd be impossible to recapture the magic of this game.

Maybe after another 2 or 3 soulsborne games will they have enough new assets to make another Elden Ring and do it's predecessor justice. But as it is, I don't see it being a viable option for them at this exact moment in time, It would be near impossible to recapture the magic without putting in two to three times the work.

[ElectricMutt]

You are talking in abstracts exclusively. By your logic, Final Fantasy is the same as Baldur's Gate.

[zero]

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

You are talking in abstracts exclusively. By your logic, Final Fantasy is the same as Baldur's Gate.

yes, the abstract concept of the playstyle of FF being fundamentally the same for a dozen games because of the atb system, truly an abstract idea.

or about how the elder scroll series have fundamentally been open world games with an overarching story you do not need to complete in any specific order and your exploration through the world is ultimately up to you, using the similar hack&slash style combat, albeit the older ones having far more complex (and scuffed) crafting systems, i admit.

i wasn't being abstract in any concept, nothing i said is vague, it is the core parts of the games.

and baldurs gate is, ironically, an example of a game that *has* changed, while its still an isometric crpg, the combat style changed between the second and the third, from RTWP to TB, for the better, imo.

but that is also to be expected when a different dev made the third game.

it also helps that bg3 is using the 5e version of D&D, and BG 1&2 were AD&D.

but if we're talking about "abstract" your entire argument is that fromsoft is gonna lose "integrity" for some unknown reason, and that more of the same is somehow a bad thing, for again, some unexplained reason.

i have no idea why you are choosing to be intentionally obtuse, but that will always be on you, not on me.

to use your own words:

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

Where's your honesty?

[Sirius]

Origineel geplaatst door ElectricMutt:

Purely from a gameplay standpoint: Elden Ring 2 shouldn't be made.

Purely from a game play standpoint: You are objectively wrong.

[XxX_pR0G3ym3R69_xXx [FaZe]]

I'd like it if they made a smaller scale game like Demon's Souls with combat like Dark Souls 1 or 2. More slow paced in general.

[zero]

Origineel geplaatst door XxX_pR0G3ym3R69_xXx FaZe:

I'd like it if they made a smaller scale game like Demon's Souls with combat like Dark Souls 1 or 2. More slow paced in general.

while i dont really care for going backwards, they really should bring back some of the gimmick items, give us the scraping spear

[XxX_pR0G3ym3R69_xXx [FaZe]]

Origineel geplaatst door zero:

Origineel geplaatst door XxX_pR0G3ym3R69_xXx FaZe:

I'd like it if they made a smaller scale game like Demon's Souls with combat like Dark Souls 1 or 2. More slow paced in general.

while i dont really care for going backwards, they really should bring back some of the gimmick items, give us the scraping spear

The return of gimmick fights would be a very welcome one in my eyes. Not just bosses that have gimmicks, but the arenas as well.