ELDEN RING IS FROMSOFT'S MAGNUM OPUS

[Sif]

I get the open world fatigue and some of the repetition but in my opinion this is their BEST GAME TO DATE. I'd like to open a conversation that it's not toxic for once and invite people to state their opinions on FromSoft's current trajectory and how ER's DLC may change the vocal minority's perception on the game. My take on the FromSoft games that I've been playing since 2012 starting with Demon's Souls would be this, just to clarify my current stance on this:

DeS is very good and extremely atmospheric, but lacks qol, the bosses are nearly all gimmick fests, the world cut in isolated parts - it's understandably outdated.

DS1 is amazing, but the bosses are mechanically simplistic and the level design in the last third or so not nearly as good. Also Lost Izalith and Bed of Chaos.

DS2 is way better than people think and actually has a lot of great ideas and dared to be unique but adaptability is idiotic, the vast majority of the bosses are lame, level design in some cases is nonsensical and the hitboxes infuriatingly inconsistent.

BB is very good but is by far the most overrated of the bunch. Strong art direction (yet resulting to some really samey-looking areas) and level design and some exceptional theming and combat mechanics but a significant portion of the bosses are mechanically uninteresting, the level design and bosses have some baffingly low points (Hemwick Charnel Lane and lame witch), some builds aren't viable in the beginning of the game (arcane) and blood vials suck. Old Hunters bosses besides Living Failures and partially Laurence were great though.

DS3 has a very good boss roster, some good levels and Ringed city is very good. However, the first third or so has you going through uninteresting areas and many uninteresting bosses and... I think this game has the biggest indentity crisis out of all. DS1 memberberries, mix of BB's and DS1's aesthetic… doesn't feel like it's own thing.

Sekiro is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ great and their most consistent game quality-wise. Great bosses, very good level design, actually meaningful decisions that influence the few amount of endings and it's polished to a T. The combat can be orgasmic albeit a bit repetitive by the end because of the more restricted options and probably because of enemy variety. Very few low points here and I did actually think the learning curve deflates by the end (with the exception of Isshin) because once you learn the combat it comes down to the posture bar.

Elden Ring has one of the best boss rosters mechanically alongside Sekiro's, it's grand in scale and ambitious in execution, the open world is full of wonder and further incentivizes exploration, the art direction is godly and varied, the amount of viable builds you can make is insane and the level design is above and beyond many of the previous games - even some open world segments which are really carefully planned out from points of interest to clever use of elevation. ER's flaws are the enemy/boss repetition (still a great variety to quantity ratio), a few lore gaps and an underutilized pvp. It's the amalgamation of everything they learned in the past put into one of the most interesting, mechanically and thematically, open worlds to date.

[paincanbefun]

the characters in DS2 were a big step up from DS1, and Dark is extremely interesting and compelling

that hollowing mechanic though...

>BB is very good but is by far the most overrated of the bunch

wow, who hurt you that you could say such a thing?

[Sif]

Originally posted by paincanbefun:

the characters in DS2 were a big step up from DS1, and Dark is extremely interesting and compelling

that hollowing mechanic though...

>BB is very good but is by far the most overrated of the bunch

wow, who hurt you that you could say such a thing?

True, DS2 has a lot to love actually. The hollowing mechanic is a bit brutal but engaging, not gonna lie.

Hahaha I still really like it, but people do tend to sing it's praises but not mentioning it's flaws. I do think it's one of the most glazed games out there with very few meaningful critiques on it. That being said, I do prefer the rpg aspect and setting of the DS games more.

[Sirius]

Pretty sure they could do better.
But yes, I have no issues with this.

As always, I only stuck on DS2, just didn't like it for a variety of reasons that don't mean the game is bad, just that I didn't like it.

ER is great. DS1+3 was great. If they ever do another Souls, I'm sure it will be great.

[[FrozenEarth] Fra]

Idk why ppl wanna compare their masterpiece (Sekiro) with Elden Ring garbage, a game where u don't need to farm a single minion vs a game where more u grind to take new spells/weapons/items and more u're op. I don't like griding, I don't like a copy pasted multiplayer(worst than the previous game cuz no covenants -> No reason to play it), copy pasted enemies (how many times I had to kill stupid trees/dragons/magna wyrms and godskins? I lost the count), empty map (yes the map is empty, 1h on the horse just to skip stupid enemies which don't drop valuable items or souls in oder to go from point A to B). Many weapons/Spells which are totally useless since I can just blow up 90% of bosses with comet azur in a matter of seconds and the remaining 10% gets demolished by a simple Arcane build (bye bye Malenia, u're not hard), I heard Mohg is hard but to be honest I have no idea what he does since I kill him in 3 secs so I can't even see his moveset .
I loved Sekiro, no levels, skill based, no one-shot builds, challenging game... sadly with elden ring they decided to open their game to casuals who don't even know how to press circle (just invade someone on this game, they seem to me like robots, just magic builds to hit bosses from afar and when u hit them they don't dodge anything since they didn't learn anything from the game)... and there are actually ppl who say this is a good game and give clowns to who are countrary with their (wrong) opinions, like whaaaattt.

[Sif]

Originally posted by Sirius:

Pretty sure they could do better.
But yes, I have no issues with this.

As always, I only stuck on DS2, just didn't like it for a variety of reasons that don't mean the game is bad, just that I didn't like it.

ER is great. DS1+3 was great. If they ever do another Souls, I'm sure it will be great.

Pretty based take. They can do better as there are significant flaws in there, but still have achieved to improve a lot on the mechanical and level design side.

DS2 is a strange case. I too was frustrated at it (a lot of times), but I respect it a huge lot. Actually doing a replay now after years to re-evaluate it with an open mind, it's pretty fun till now... but I'll probably pause it because of the dlc.

I'm in for whatever they do next. I just want them to go forward and continue innovating and putting new IPs out there, their creativity output is much needed in the industry.

[Gabe Ate My Zombies]

Elden Ring is hampered by some things making the game trivial if you play 'as it's meant to be played.' There's also lots of copy/pasting of bosses, extremely spaced out quests that essentially require a guide or hours of backtracking, and lots of difficulty that stems from bosses waiting 5 seconds into their attack windup to actually try to hit you.

As far as combat goes, I like DS3's the best. Everything is pretty much viable but not busted if built correctly besides Darkmoon Blade. Best PvP and invasion experience. Linear enough that progression is meaningful with plenty of sequence breaks to later areas of the game. Ashes of Ariandel was a great DLC.

[Sif]

Originally posted by FrozenEarth Fra:

Idk why ppl wanna compare their masterpiece (Sekiro) with Elden Ring garbage, a game where u don't need to farm a single minion vs a game where more u grind to take new spells/weapons/items and more u're op. I don't like griding, I don't like a copy pasted multiplayer(worst than the previous game cuz no covenants -> No reason to play it), copy pasted enemies (how many times I had to kill stupid trees/dragons/magna wyrms and godskins? I lost the count), empty map (yes the map is empty, 1h on the horse just to skip stupid enemies which don't drop valuable items or souls in oder to go from point A to B). Many weapons/Spells which are totally useless since I can just blow up 90% of bosses with comet azur in a matter of seconds and the remaining 10% gets demolished by a simple Arcane build (bye bye Malenia, u're not hard), I heard Mohg is hard but to be honest I have no idea what he does since I kill him in 3 secs so I can't even see his moveset :praisesun:.
I loved Sekiro, no levels, skill based, no one-shot builds, challenging game... sadly with elden ring they decided to open their game to casuals who don't even know how to press circle (just invade someone on this game, they seem to me like robots, just magic builds to hit bosses from afar and when u hit them they don't dodge anything since they didn't learn anything from the game)... and there are actually ppl who say this is a good game and give clowns to who are countrary with their (wrong) opinions, like whaaaattt.

Wow, that was a lot. So, answering/commenting on some things:

1) Sekiro is amazing, I agree. I actually think it's their best game alongside ER and I can wholeheartedly understand someone picking it as their favorite, it's of really consistent high quality.

2) There's no need to grind in ER, it comes naturally by exploring. To the contrary, previous games incentivized grinding way more.

3) I partially agree with the enemy reuse issue, but I still think they're mostly fun to fight. Also, they still give you something useful and/or change the way you see your build or incentivize you to make a new one and/or give you more lore for the world.

4) Having the ability to use Comet Azur comes from a) exploration and b) making the build that can use it efficiently. I know it's op but there are so many other options to choose from. Having it be there as an option is a non-issue.

5) The world is not empty, it's actually full of things to find - from interactions between enemies, castles, side dungeons that also reward you for doing them be it with resources, ashes, weapons, talismans you name it.

6) The casuals argument is just wrong. ER's enemies and bosses are way more complex in movesets and AI behavior. You could make a point on being overleveled because of exploring, but that's unfortunately a drawback of many open worlds.

[Sirius]

Originally posted by FrozenEarth Fra:

block of text

Hey man, to be taken seriously, find your enter key every now and then.

Otherwise your opinion is invalid on grounds of "nobody gonna entangle that ♥♥♥♥ for a lukewarm take"

[VDRSK]

I do think ELDEN RING is FROM's best yet, but I do not want to see all their future Soulsborne games be open world in all honesty.

[DarkFenix]

I disagree. While in many ways Elden Ring is an improvement over its predecessors, it's a step backwards in just as many ways.

Most of those ways relate to one thing; scale for its own sake. An open world is only as good as the content you fill it with, and Fromsoft created enough bespoke content to fill a world about a quarter the size of the one they gave us.

Whether it's going through the same copy-pasted dungeon to fight the same copy-pasted boss for the 10th time, having to traverse absurd distances to find a needle-in-a-haystack quest NPC, or simply spending far too much of your time trekking across empty nothingness, Elden Ring is soured by its underdeveloped open world.

I get why they did it, including an open world is a ticket to a larger fanbase, attracting the enormous crowd who don't really care if they're getting a 10/10 game, they'll take a 5/10 game as long as it gives them 2000+ hours of busywork to do. And look at the result, it's unarguably their most popular game to date, doubtlessly making them an obscene amount of money.

But magnum opus? No chance. As a PC-only player, I still hold up DS3 as their best work to date, and I'm yet to see something so far above the other games that I'd label it their magnum opus.

[Sif]

Originally posted by Gabe Ate My Zombies:

Elden Ring is hampered by some things making the game trivial if you play 'as it's meant to be played.' There's also lots of copy/pasting of bosses, extremely spaced out quests that essentially require a guide or hours of backtracking, and lots of difficulty that stems from bosses waiting 5 seconds into their attack windup to actually try to hit you.

As far as combat goes, I like DS3's the best. Everything is pretty much viable but not busted if built correctly besides Darkmoon Blade. Best PvP and invasion experience. Linear enough that progression is meaningful with plenty of sequence breaks to later areas of the game. Ashes of Ariandel was a great DLC.

If by "as it's meant to be played" you mean exploring, that's extremely subjective to even come to a conclusive statement. You play it how you want to play it, it's an RPG. I do understand the copying bosses and spaced out quests though, they should have avoided or rectified that somehow. Btw, the guides argument can be applied to previous FromSoft games too, to the contrary there are npcs here that tell you directly where to go, it's just hampered a bit because of the open world structure.

I mean you like what you want to like, but saying that everything is pretty much viable when ER has multiple times the amount of viable builds seems insane to me. Also, the combat of one game is extremely dependant to the enemy design too: mechanically, ER is way above DS3 in boss and enemy movesets. As for the delayed attacks, they were always a thing stop bringing it up as a negative - it's a non issue. Sequence breaks in DS3?

Ashes of Ariandel wasn't good. Friede is awesome, everything else was mediocre. That's their most overpriced dlc for a reason.

ER's PVP needs an overhaul, that's true. Fight clubs and covenants were awesome.

[Sif]

Originally posted by VDRSK:

I do think ELDEN RING is FROM's best yet, but I do not want to see all their future Soulsborne games be open world in all honesty.

I fully agree.

[paincanbefun]

Originally posted by DarkFenix:

scale for its own sake

i don't think this is the purpose of the open world. i think the purpose is to provide a meaningful *first* experience of exploration and discovery. if you don't know where things are, you need to look everywhere, but this only exists the first time. for subsequent playthroughs, the empty spaces are easy to skip but the player needs to have ownership over their own experience in a way that you don't with the classic format

[Sif]

Originally posted by DarkFenix:

I disagree. While in many ways Elden Ring is an improvement over its predecessors, it's a step backwards in just as many ways.

Most of those ways relate to one thing; scale for its own sake. An open world is only as good as the content you fill it with, and Fromsoft created enough bespoke content to fill a world about a quarter the size of the one they gave us.

Whether it's going through the same copy-pasted dungeon to fight the same copy-pasted boss for the 10th time, having to traverse absurd distances to find a needle-in-a-haystack quest NPC, or simply spending far too much of your time trekking across empty nothingness, Elden Ring is soured by its underdeveloped open world.

I get why they did it, including an open world is a ticket to a larger fanbase, attracting the enormous crowd who don't really care if they're getting a 10/10 game, they'll take a 5/10 game as long as it gives them 2000+ hours of busywork to do. And look at the result, it's unarguably their most popular game to date, doubtlessly making them an obscene amount of money.

But magnum opus? No chance. As a PC-only player, I still hold up DS3 as their best work to date, and I'm yet to see something so far above the other games that I'd label it their magnum opus.

Scale for it's own sake? What even is the meaning of this, there's a healthy content to space ratio here. Also, the legacy dungeons by themselves contribute to this and feel more organic.

I don't think there are many copy pasted dungeons tbh. Different layouts, enemies, theming (in many of them), traps and environmental hazards, hidden objects and bosses... yeah, I don't agree in the slightest - Chalice Dungeons exist. The enemy reuse is a valid complaint though and even though I find many of them to be fun fights, I'd want a bit more variety. As for the "needle-in-a-haystack" argument, I don't think it holds any weight. You don't like the content thus naming it like this - also there are a lot of quests with many steps. Executing those steps could be a valid criticism though (log quest book).

They presented an interesting open world to explore with many hidden stuff and areas to find in it, so yeah their risk ofc paid off.

I do think ER is above and beyond DS3 in many aspects like enemy/boss design and level design. But I guess you love the action aspect way more than the rpg/build one (which I still think is better in ER but I respect it).

[Sif]

Originally posted by paincanbefun:

Originally posted by DarkFenix:

scale for its own sake

i don't think this is the purpose of the open world. i think the purpose is to provide a meaningful *first* experience of exploration and discovery. if you don't know where things are, you need to look everywhere, but this only exists the first time. for subsequent playthroughs, the empty spaces are easy to skip but the player needs to have ownership over their own experience in a way that you don't with the classic format

Exactly.