Elden Ring: What is is Good for?

[oudeis]

I bought this on sale last year to see (belatedly) what the hype was all about, and after some brief attempts to play that ended at the first encounter I am strongly leaning towards requesting a refund. Ugly design, ludicrously GrimDark world, bad controls- could someone explain its appeal? What is the benefit to pushing my way through? I've trimmed out most of my negative comments so as not to provoke fanboys, but man has this game disappointed me so far.

Also, the Dark Souls trilogy is 50% off on Steam for another couple days, and while I understand that they are even grimmer, darker, and harder to play than ER, I also understand that they are considered masterpieces of game design and are hugely influential with both developers and gamers. Would it be beneficial for an aspiring game designer to buy these, or would the punishment factor outweigh any possible educational benefits? Is there actual enjoyment to be had in playing them? Thanks.

[GloatingSwine]

The point is to take a challenge that seems insurmountable and inscrutable and, by learning, practice, and persistence, overcome it.

To, as they say in the trade, Git Gud.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Would it be beneficial for an aspiring game designer to buy these, or would the punishment factor outweigh any possible educational benefits? Is there actual enjoyment to be had in playing them? Thanks.

I'm of the opinion that the Dark Souls series and its successors are the most influential games released in the past 15 years. Millions of people have found enjoyment in playing them, myself included, and they've inspired a wealth of developers to make their own systems and games directly or indirectly referencing them. However, like any entertainment, it may simply not be for you. The main thing to embrace going into the Souls games is to meet them on their terms. They're probably not going to be like other games you've played - they punish mistakes in a way very few other games do, they often have obscure info that you need to seek out or infer as a player, and the design is about overcoming an oppressive challenge instead of a power fantasy. If you don't keep an open mind to that, you're going to immediately and viciously hate them for not being what you expect.

It's okay to not like what other people like. You don't have to love them or even play them at all. I do think you're being overly critical in some aspects, though, which is why I suspect you went in with some certain expectations. "Ugly design" feels especially vindictive, since Elden Ring won awards for its art direction and design.

[Rynjin]

Do you have any more coherent criticisms? Because "ugly design" doesn't really mean much, and you never really define what you consider "bad controls". Along with "ludicrously grimdark", these are all extremely subjective qualities without going into more detail.

For my money: the game is absolutely beautiful, with some of the best art direction in gaming. The only things "ugly" are...monsters, which should be. The controls are the best in the series, and are fairly standard for a third person action game. I'd understand this criticism more for the earlier games, but I genuinely can't think of anything wrong with ER's control scheme except the use of Y/Triangle as a function switch being occasionally clunky, but typically only needed outside of combat so it doesn't matter much.

As for "grimdark", I'd classify it as just "dark", and largely hopeful that things can get better at that. The world of Elden Ring isn't the same as Dark Souls, where everyone is on an endless, explicitly inexorable downward spiral and nothing can ever get better. The world is simply in a slump after a war between the gods wrought havoc on everything, and it's your job to take the place of the new overdeity to set things right. Fairly standard Epic Fantasy fare.

From the perspective of a player, the game might not be for everyone. From the perspective of someone who wants to study game design...FromSoft are an incredibly influential company, and not being familiar with their works is kind of like being a film director who's never seen a David Lynch or Quentin Tarantino film.

Likewise, to circle back around to my query about coherent criticisms, being able to articulate exactly what you like and don't like about a game is an important exercise for game design. You can't simply say "it's bad" or "it's good" if you want to be taken seriously (and get graded well).

You don't need to go full on "we don't use the word graphics because it's imprecise" in casual conversation (though your teachers will probably give you that speech at some point), but you do need to be able to separate "design I don't like" from "design that is objectively flawed".

[Cikomyr2]

I bought this on sale last year to see (belatedly) what the hype was all about, and after some brief attempts to play that ended at the first encounter I am strongly leaning towards requesting a refund. Ugly design, ludicrously GrimDark world, bad controls- could someone explain its appeal? What is the benefit to pushing my way through? I've trimmed out most of my negative comments so as not to provoke fanboys, but man has this game disappointed me so far.

Also, the Dark Souls trilogy is 50% off on Steam for another couple days, and while I understand that they are even grimmer, darker, and harder to play than ER, I also understand that they are considered masterpieces of game design and are hugely influential with both developers and gamers. Would it be beneficial for an aspiring game designer to buy these, or would the punishment factor outweigh any possible educational benefits? Is there actual enjoyment to be had in playing them? Thanks.

People have argued very well the intended point of the game.

Ill just make you a recommendation of how to emotionally approach this game. Its explicitly unfair to you to a point unmaginable, so you shouldn't feel guilty to try to cheese as much as possible the game.

Elden Ring, explicitly, is more open-ended than any previous Dark Souls game. The intent is to remove linearity in favor of open-ended player progression of the challenge he overcomes. Each challenge will yield a reward, that opens up your toolbox to further cheese the game, until your cheese manage to beat yet another unfair boss.

Be cheap. Be smart. Do whatever it takes to win. And triumph.

Its not about being "good", its about being smart.

[Lord Raziere]

People have argued very well the intended point of the game.

Ill just make you a recommendation of how to emotionally approach this game. Its explicitly unfair to you to a point unmaginable, so you shouldn't feel guilty to try to cheese as much as possible the game.

Elden Ring, explicitly, is more open-ended than any previous Dark Souls game. The intent is to remove linearity in favor of open-ended player progression of the challenge he overcomes. Each challenge will yield a reward, that opens up your toolbox to further cheese the game, until your cheese manage to beat yet another unfair boss.

Be cheap. Be smart. Do whatever it takes to win. And triumph.

Its not about being "good", its about being smart.

Indeed, don't bother being a warrior and trying to dodgeroll and parry everything or whatever, thats for tryhards and gaming gods.

you want to be like a mage or something else broken to stack the deck so you can kill the boss in as few hits as possible. treat the game as a vast dnd dungeon crawl where preparation, optimal strats and coming up with the smartest and safest way to beat the foe is the order of the day and yes you should be wary of traps and ambushes. the mindset of an experienced paranoid DnD adventurer I'd say is a good model for how you should approach Soulslikes. you either break the game first, or it will break you. All's fair in war, don't hold back, use a guide or a wiki if you want, lore is optional, story is almost nonexistent and is mostly there to frame the challenges set before you, multiplayer is optional.

other way to think of this is like....a 3D Metroidvania where your dropped into the world and you have to navigate your way through it yourself with the way not being linear or clear.

or that the appeal is that its a game where you don't have to pull your punches optimization-wise to have fun, you use the resources you have to the fullest potential you can think of for them, if your skilled enough to do the melee combat stuff great, but even if your good at that, that won't solve everything, and there are ways to solve things in smarter ways. in some ways its a solo tactical combat rpg masquerading as an action game, where that tactical aspect and that real time action aspect are combined, where its not enough to know the strat, you have to actually execute it while the monsters are actively attacking you and react to that, just like someone would actually have to if they went around adventuring like this. if you don't win on your first try, thats fine, if you don't win on your second, third fourth tries or however many, thats also fine, these are games that want you to try again, and not in headbash against the wall way, but ideally in a way where you go and find other stuff to power yourself up, prepare better, to recognize when your hitting against something too strong for you right now and find something else to do until you are strong enough and have more experience.

and if all that is not your cup of tea? thats fine. its not for everyone. variety is the spice of life, do what you want that makes you comfortable. if your interested in seeing the appeal without playing it yourself, there is probably a few good playthroughs on youtube you can find that shows why. and I guarantee even if you know the bosses in advance and have seen others play the game before, that won't change the difficulty if you decide to get into it after that. I got into Soulslikes from watching Team Four Stars playthrough of Dark Souls 3, and I died a lot in my play through of Dark Souls 3 despite knowing to an extent what was waiting for me. there is at least one youtuber I can point you to that clowns on soulslikes with nothing but a broken sword called ZeroLenny, as well as a Lanipator of Teamfourstar fame playthrough of Elden Ring with a strength build with Lani himself being reasonably skilled at Soulslikes himself but not to god gamer levels in my view.

point is, you have options and if you really decide that its not for you to play, I understand, just remember that there numerous ways to experience something these days other than directly and sometimes seeing how someone else enjoys something can be enjoyable and help you understand in of itself even if you never pick it up ever again.

[Ignimortis]

I bought this on sale last year to see (belatedly) what the hype was all about, and after some brief attempts to play that ended at the first encounter I am strongly leaning towards requesting a refund. Ugly design, ludicrously GrimDark world, bad controls- could someone explain its appeal? What is the benefit to pushing my way through? I've trimmed out most of my negative comments so as not to provoke fanboys, but man has this game disappointed me so far.

Also, the Dark Souls trilogy is 50% off on Steam for another couple days, and while I understand that they are even grimmer, darker, and harder to play than ER, I also understand that they are considered masterpieces of game design and are hugely influential with both developers and gamers. Would it be beneficial for an aspiring game designer to buy these, or would the punishment factor outweigh any possible educational benefits? Is there actual enjoyment to be had in playing them? Thanks.

I mean, the first fight is explicitly unfair and designed to kill you so that the game can begin in earnest. Winning it doesn't even award much aside from a decent weapon that you can get later on if you wish.

The world of Elden Ring is much more hopeful (if currently in the dumps) than any of the Dark Souls entries. Perhaps the only world that also said "yeah you can deal with this and fix the world" was Demon's Souls. Not sure what you mean by "ugly design", but that's subjective. I sure know I would like more varied armor sets in the DLC, half of my characters end up with the same armor combo.

Controls are...iffy. I advise to play with a gamepad, it's really not the kind of thing that's as intuitive to control on a keyboard+mouse.

As for the enjoyment, I found that at least exploring DS1 and DS2 as a huge Metroidvania-style world was very much to my liking, despite the combat being rather jank at times. People who hype up the difficulty are usually of the "oh you must play this specific build otherwise it's not a real playthrough" variety - I find that the first two games, at the very least, are far more manageable with a single tip. Use a bow. Use a bow often and liberally to start fights, to snipe enemies from where they can't do anything to you but fire slow projectiles you can dodge, to deliver poison from beyond line of sight so that the massive giant with 3k HP dies without ever engaging you. If you really do use all the tools the game gives you, it's usually much easier than it's said to be.

[MinimanMidget]

Also, the Dark Souls trilogy is 50% off on Steam for another couple days, and while I understand that they are even grimmer, darker, and harder to play than ER, I also understand that they are considered masterpieces of game design and are hugely influential with both developers and gamers. Would it be beneficial for an aspiring game designer to buy these, or would the punishment factor outweigh any possible educational benefits? Is there actual enjoyment to be had in playing them? Thanks.

Normally the answer would be that it is absolutely beneficial to buy them, and enjoyable to play them. The first Dark Souls game is a masterpiece of game design, far more so than Elden Ring. It's also considerably easier to play, although the level/world design is arguably even more punishing. Dark Souls 2 is harder to recommend, for several reasons, but if you decide to try it, stick to the original, not Scholar of the First Sin, since it doubled down on the problems design decisions. Dark Souls 3 is essentially the same game engine as Elden Ring, just with a more linear (and better) world, and better bosses.

However, all of this is obviated by the specific complaints you made about Elden Ring - you will almost certainly have the same complaints about the Dark Souls games, probably even more strongly.

[Rynjin]

Dark Souls 2 is harder to recommend, for several reasons, but if you decide to try it, stick to the original, not Scholar of the First Sin, since it doubled down on the problems design decisions.

Scholar's great, its DLC are better than most of the mainline games. All the biggest issues with DS2 (like Soul Memory making co-op a ballache) are present in both versions.

[MinimanMidget]

Scholar's great, its DLC are better than most of the mainline games. All the biggest issues with DS2 (like Soul Memory making co-op a ballache) are present in both versions.

The DLCs are available for the original game as well, you know. I'm criticising Scholar purely on the basis of the changes they made to the enemy/level/world design, which I personally found tended to double down on everything that made 2 the most contentious entry in the series. First and foremost the tendency to throw in large numbers of enemies. Remember the infamous Silver Knight Archers of Anor Londo? There were 2 of them. Compare that encounter to the Shrine of Amana. Enemy spam is one of the least interesting forms of difficulty, and it's lazy design.

[Rynjin]

The DLCs are available for the original game as well, you know. I'm criticising Scholar purely on the basis of the changes they made to the enemy/level/world design, which I personally found tended to double down on everything that made 2 the most contentious entry in the series. First and foremost the tendency to throw in large numbers of enemies. Remember the infamous Silver Knight Archers of Anor Londo? There were 2 of them. Compare that encounter to the Shrine of Amana. Enemy spam is one of the least interesting forms of difficulty, and it's lazy design.

Shrine of Amana is really the only place I found it egregious, everywhere else it solidifies DS2's design as being the "slow, methodical, room clearing" game of the series which helps make up for its lackluster main game bosses, and it gives you the tools (like Lifegems) to fuel the slower paced movement so you're not just running form Bonfire to Bonfire.

DS2 in many ways is the Souls game that most returns to its King's Field roots.

[Buufreak]

Nothing i could say about most the series hasn't already been said, but I would like to add that if you have some sort of Sony machine, Bloodborne is my favorite fromsoft, and that is fully accepting it for its flaws. They aren't surmounting, and they aren't egregious, but they do exist.

[Maat Mons]

My personal philosophy is that your time is precious, and you shouldn't feel like you "owe" it to any game, book, movie, or show.

[Ignimortis]

Shrine of Amana is really the only place I found it egregious, everywhere else it solidifies DS2's design as being the "slow, methodical, room clearing" game of the series which helps make up for its lackluster main game bosses, and it gives you the tools (like Lifegems) to fuel the slower paced movement so you're not just running form Bonfire to Bonfire.

DS2 in many ways is the Souls game that most returns to its King's Field roots.

Exactly. I find DS2 to be the most enjoyable of the series specifically because it feels the most like a dungeon crawler that rewards pacing yourself, taking advantage of your surroundings (DS2 quite literally throws solutions for many fights at you for the most part, Shrine of Amana is egregious only because there are no in-built, in-level solutions), finding equipment that suits your playstyle (due to excellent balancing of most if not all weapons and armor), using consumable items like bombs and lifegems, using torches and bows...

DS3 got rid of all that to double down on the "high skill" reaction-based combat with showy bosses and locations that are basically lines between bonfires, and you'll get a bonfire in front of the boss gate, too.

[Rynjin]

Yep. DS2 still remains the only game in the franchise where I regularly used (and bought!) consumables like Firebombs past the early levels.

[Jophiel]

The point is to take a challenge that seems insurmountable and inscrutable and, by learning, practice, and persistence, overcome it.

Or just farm Eldenbucks until you've outleveled it

Seriously though, this is it. I typed the below stuff but the #1 thing is that everything in the game is there to support the "Get beaten up until you learn not to get beaten up, then get beaten up by the next guy" loop. If that loop leaves you cold, it's not a "Well, I didn't like the combat but the story was great" kind of game.

I played and beat Elden Ring at launch. I'm not sure why I decided to play it since I had previously only played Dark Souls 2 until I died to the tutorial boss and lost interest. But I bought Elden Ring and played it and beat it. My takeaways were:

- The goal is, as mentioned, to git gud. Find something, get wrecked, learn its moves and eventually be able to beat it. If this doesn't interest you, the game won't have a ton to offer.
- Expect to die a lot. Tons. Besides the first "boss" fight that you're supposed to lose, upon entering the main game you see a knight roaming around. I attacked him and he one-shot me. That actually helped set the tone for me and you gotta be able to laugh off a lot of deaths.
- I didn't have any real issue with the controls. I did quickly abandon M+KB for a controller since it seemed obvious that the game was designed that way. I also never really became good at the controls in a "Dodge roll the final boss and beat him with a spoon" way but that's more because I'm old and don't use my controller much than a problem with the responsiveness.
- I cheesed a lot of fights. I didn't care because many of the fights are cheesy. If luring a boss into throwing itself off a cliff is wrong, I don't wanna be right. Agreed with earlier suggestion that mage is a solid way to go (though I found it took a while to really get online and spent the first 30-40 levels as a fighter type before respec'ing once I had more mage gear/spells)
- I thought the world and critter design was... okay. It had a definite vision and it stayed to it and it's competently done. By the end, I was pretty enured to "Gaunt thing with too many hands/fingers". The world often felt like an MMORPG without any other players: open grind zones with ruins poking out of the ground and innumerable hostile things, and then static bosses. That's not to say there were no cool moments or areas but a lot of it settled in at "Serviceable" and it always felt very much like I was playing a game rather than exploring a living world.

In the end I beat it and it was okay. I can appreciate what others loved about it even if those aspects didn't hook me. If I actually disliked it, I would have quit before the end and my game catalog is testament to that. But if you play it for a few hours and still aren't enjoying it, I'd cut bait because the next umpteen hours are the same basic loop. If you're not invested in "Get beaten, get better/strong, win the fight" over and over, the story and world building likely isn't reason enough to keep playing.

[Cikomyr2]

Ill just point out that Elden Ring, out of all the FromSoft catalogue of Souls-likes, is the least inclined to force you to "git gud". The game isnt linear. The open world nature of the game allows you to just ignore bosses until you find a weapon, a spell or an item that makes the fight easier for you.

In other games, you hadnt the choice to beat a boss to keep advancing. Elden Ring is all about going to find a boss of your choice to challenge.

And some bosses are genuinely TRIVIAL with certain spells or weapons. Oh a boss is incredibly good at dodging? Find a tracking spell.

The gameplay and battles are also at their top tier when you fight bosses as part of a mini squad. The whole gameplay of managing your threat level, using distraction, etc.. really spins the challenge on its head. So do not "git gud" players berate you into not using either player summons, or merely NPC summons, to completement your arsenal to beat monsters.

There are no bad way to beat this game. Only pigheaded players who want adulation and status from their inability to find something else to spend hundreds of hours in "gitting gud"

[warty goblin]

Seriously though, this is it. I typed the below stuff but the #1 thing is that everything in the game is there to support the "Get beaten up until you learn not to get beaten up, then get beaten up by the next guy" loop. If that loop leaves you cold, it's not a "Well, I didn't like the combat but the story was great" kind of game.

In the few moments where various Soulsalikes, including Elden Ring, have clicked for me its that loop.

The downside is that the loop is kinda just... it. There aren't any characters to speak of, just weirdos saying creepy stuff very... slowly... and item descriptions. The combat never really seems to go anywhere, you don't learn new moves or anything, you just get bigger numbers so you can fight things with bigger numbers. Its Diablo with more overt player skill but less interesting progression and oh right I never beat ARPGs either because number treadmills bore me. The world is static and nonsensical and I can dig the surreality for a bit but I'm not playing a game for fifty hours based on vibes.

But beating hard fights is satisfying, I'm not denying that. The thing is I can get that in plenty of other games that actually have the rest of the game. People act like Dark Souls invented games being hard for some reason. I beat Halo on Legendary, I assure you, it did not. Arguably a traditional style RPG-free shooter is a less forgiving experience, because there's no number treadmill or I-frames to save you.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

In the few moments where various Soulsalikes, including Elden Ring, have clicked for me its that loop.

The downside is that the loop is kinda just... it. There aren't any characters to speak of, just weirdos saying creepy stuff very... slowly... and item descriptions. The combat never really seems to go anywhere, you don't learn new moves or anything, you just get bigger numbers so you can fight things with bigger numbers. Its Diablo with more overt player skill but less interesting progression and oh right I never beat ARPGs either because number treadmills bore me. The world is static and nonsensical and I can dig the surreality for a bit but I'm not playing a game for fifty hours based on vibes.

But beating hard fights is satisfying, I'm not denying that. The thing is I can get that in plenty of other games that actually have the rest of the game. People act like Dark Souls invented games being hard for some reason. I beat Halo on Legendary, I assure you, it did not. Arguably a traditional style RPG-free shooter is a less forgiving experience, because there's no number treadmill or I-frames to save you.

You learn new "moves" constantly in Soulslikes, though. Every new weapon, item, or spell is a new "move" for you to try. It's just not Metroid where it all builds together into one comprehensive toolkit, but a massive box of LEGO that you cobble your own creation out of. In every title, my character ends up significantly different at the end of the game compared to what they could do at the start.

Comparing it to Diablo is... woof. I don't see the comparison. Diablo and its ilk have rapidly increasing, multiplicative numbers based on a randomized loot pool. Soulslikes follow a traditional RPG structure where you have bespoke equipment and a character that gets linearly more powerful to a reasonable degree. The monsters in Diablo are simplistic, often doing nothing more than moving to the player and repeating a basic attack. Souls enemies usually have multiple moves, up to becoming minibosses in their own right, that require the player to learn how best to deal with them. There's a point of comparison in that both titles have numbers that go up, but that's the whole RPG genre.

People act like Dark Souls invented being hard because, at the time of its release, gaming was infatuated with "accessibility", which is in quotes because what the industry was actually doing was making every game as frictionless as possible. It was the post-360 era where developers had discovered how achievements could be used to track metrics on the playerbase and they were aghast at the low completion rates they found. There was a huge push to fix this by removing every pain point. Demon's Souls ignored all that. It was janky and obtuse, but word of mouth spread about how fun it was that it didn't hold your hand. It didn't even seem to care if the player won at all.

The series does get a religious rep it probably doesn't deserve; it didn't invent hard difficulty. It hit at the right time to cause a correction in how developers connect with players, though, and it gets a lot of reverence for that.

[warty goblin]

You learn new "moves" constantly in Soulslikes, though. Every new weapon, item, or spell is a new "move" for you to try. It's just not Metroid where it all builds together into one comprehensive toolkit, but a massive box of LEGO that you cobble your own creation out of. In every title, my character ends up significantly different at the end of the game compared to what they could do at the start.

I definitely recall switching sword A for sword B, because sword B had higher numbers but exactly the same moveset. I guess you do get weapons with unique special attacks, but this is a functionality so basic to third person RPGs I am incapable of considering it an interesting feature.

Comparing it to Diablo is... woof. I don't see the comparison.

My comparison is that the major loop in the RPG systems is making the number go up to kill things with bigger numbers. I never feel anything when I level up in a Soulslike, because it only changes one or two numbers. I don't learn anything new, the greatsword will do the exact same things at level 20 as it will at level 1. Which is pretty much how I feel in Diablo clones once I've got all the spells or special attacks learned, all that's left is numbers.

This is not inherent to third person RPGs. Plenty of them have combat systems that actually grow as you level, with new moves and abilities opening up pretty much throughout the experience. Unlocking a new combo or a double dodge roll or something is a level up I care about, because it changes what I can do in the combat sandbox. Putting another point in Strength so I do more damage with Str weapons is not. My point is not that Diablo 2 and Elden Ring are the same, it's that I find the leveling similarly mind numbing, and honestly Diablo comes out ahead here which is not good because I don't like Diablo. Or most of its genre, to be honest, so sub in game of your choice and I'll be similarly bored by it in all probability.

(Unless that game is the original Sacred. Sacred is amazing and perfect and I will die on that completely irrational hill.)

To be clear, I don't demand unlocking new moves, or vertical advancement at all. I like plenty of games with fixed move sets, or no/super limited vertical advancement. But if leveling up is important, I would also prefer it to be interesting.

[Eldonauran]

Elden Ring taught me a few valuable lessons, least of all was "Don't fall for the hype of games that use keywords from the genres you like to play because the language is evolving and things don't mean the same as they used to mean." I am a lot more thorough about being picky when it comes to what I buy now, and I will not purchase a game until I see actual gameplay footage. I don't care how fancy the cutscenes are or how pretty the scenery is. Brand names don't even mean anything to me anymore.

I was able to answer the question as to whether or not souls-like games were 'for me' or not. They are not. I can beat them but they don't feel like a solid investment for my time compared to money I spend paying for them, at least at full price.

I can appreciate the care and attention to detail that went into the game. And I know why so many people love the game. Everything is fluid and the controls, once you've gotten the hang of them, are nearly flawless. I am just not interested in learning how to 'play' what is essentially an instrument in order to progress a game. By the end of my playthrough, I was having more fun finding various outfits and playing 'Fashion-souls', than I was exploring and fighting.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

I definitely recall switching sword A for sword B, because sword B had higher numbers but exactly the same moveset. I guess you do get weapons with unique special attacks, but this is a functionality so basic to third person RPGs I am incapable of considering it an interesting feature.

Many of the weapons, even in the same class, don't have the same movesets, though. Sword A might be all slashing attacks, while Sword B incorporates a lot of thrusting moves. Choosing to stick with the weapons with identical movesets is certainly a thing you can do, but it's like picking Champion Fighter in DnD5e and then saying the system is bad because all you get is bigger numbers.

I started Elden Ring as a dude with a sword and a basic heal and ended it wielding a greatsword that shot black fire and a menagerie of magic shapeshifting tricks that grew tails or horns to slap enemies around. "Sometimes you get a special attack" is reducing it a bit much.

My comparison is that the major loop in the RPG systems is making the number go up to kill things with bigger numbers. I never feel anything when I level up in a Soulslike, because it only changes one or two numbers. I don't learn anything new, the greatsword will do the exact same things at level 20 as it will at level 1. Which is pretty much how I feel in Diablo clones once I've got all the spells or special attacks learned, all that's left is numbers.

This is not inherent to third person RPGs. Plenty of them have combat systems that actually grow as you level, with new moves and abilities opening up pretty much throughout the experience. Unlocking a new combo or a double dodge roll or something is a level up I care about, because it changes what I can do in the combat sandbox. Putting another point in Strength so I do more damage with Str weapons is not. My point is not that Diablo 2 and Elden Ring are the same, it's that I find the leveling similarly mind numbing, and honestly Diablo comes out ahead here which is not good because I don't like Diablo. Or most of its genre, to be honest, so sub in game of your choice and I'll be similarly bored by it in all probability.

I'm interested to hear about all the third-person RPGs with evolving combat systems, because I generally don't find many.* Sure, they exist, but it's incredibly difficult to make a system like that with a decent progression. There's only so many moves you can hand out as unlocks, especially if you don't want to fall into the trap of cutting the basic moveset to shreds only to sell it back to the player (looking at you, Dark Souls 2 Adaptability). It's even worse in a Soulslike because the combat encounters need to be developed with the understanding that you have the tools to deal with them - Lies of P ran into this issue by locking the "Dodge Off The Ground" ability, which then had players fuming because enemies could knock you down and beat you to death if you didn't rush to unlock it. Nioh runs into the opposite issue. There's a bunch of moves to unlock in Nioh and almost all of them are useless because they don't fit into the combat system. There are a lot of big flashy attacks that lock you into animations but do equal or less damage than mashing the basic heavy combo. Nioh also puts all that stuff behind leveling and leaves none to find, which makes exploring the stages a fruitless endeavor.

I guess there's the upcoming Dragon's Dogma 2 to look forward to. Though leveling in the first one was a source of vertical progression. The class system had all the unlockable goodies, but you still had a ton of number-beats-number in how equipment and character leveling went.

To make it clear, I'm agreeing with you that leveling should be interesting if it's going to be important. It's just difficult to do and risks damaging the rest of the game. I think that's the strength of Dark Souls' design. You have everything you need to beat the game at level 1 and the systems only give the player a choice of what they want to empower and focus on. As much as I enjoy Metroidvania ability collection sprees that dole out what you need to beat the game over time, I adore games where you're given an equally-viable tool chest and you get to pick out what seems interesting to use.

*This is not a rhetorical, sarcastic jab. Please sell me on some action-RPGs with interesting leveling.

[warty goblin]

Many of the weapons, even in the same class, don't have the same movesets, though. Sword A might be all slashing attacks, while Sword B incorporates a lot of thrusting moves. Choosing to stick with the weapons with identical movesets is certainly a thing you can do, but it's like picking Champion Fighter in DnD5e and then saying the system is bad because all you get is bigger numbers.

I started Elden Ring as a dude with a sword and a basic heal and ended it wielding a greatsword that shot black fire and a menagerie of magic shapeshifting tricks that grew tails or horns to slap enemies around. "Sometimes you get a special attack" is reducing it a bit much.

See, that sounds actually cool. I played for six hours and got a couple swords with bigger numbers. Maybe six hours is premature, but it's also between 50% and 80% of my gaming time in a week. As I close in on forty with what feels like ever increasing speed, I find my patience for "it gets good after 10+ hours" has gone from minimal to downright extinct. I'm not insisting on seeing everything the game has instantly or anything, but after 6 hours of Elden Ring the only thing I could foresee it offering me was some context free ruins full of context free weirdos I should probably kill for some reason, so I could get like 1% better and find some new desolation to pointlessly kill infinite weirdos in.

I'm interested to hear about all the third-person RPGs with evolving combat systems, because I generally don't find many.*

Honestly I'd say they're kinda like, just, normal. Almost any game that uses combos does it. The overly maligned Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance from a few years ago has unique unlocking combo systems for multiple different characters, including the spellcaster (disclaimer, I've only tried two, but both work fine). Valkyre Elesium has unlocked, extendable combos per weapon. I seem to recall Assassin's Creed Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla all have per-weapon type movesets that expand with leveling, IIRC Valhalla has unique weapons with special abilities as well. From a completely different direction, Oblivion and Skyrim have distinct directional power attacks that unlock different effects as you level up the associated skill. Of similar vintage Kingdoms of Amalur again has extending per-weapon combo systems. All of the Witcher games do this in different ways (very different for the first game) as does Cyberpunk. At least some of the Piranha Bytes games have extendable attack chains. I'm pretty sure every God of War ever made has attack chains that advance with your level. Indie jankfest and crime against good taste Age of Barbarian manages a broadening combo system in a 2d side scroller with a budget in the tens of dollars.


That's just off the top of my head.

Sure, they exist, but it's incredibly difficult to make a system like that with a decent progression.

And yet dozens of studios have done it for decades now, in a wide variety of subgenres and with dramatically different gameplay and advancement systems. I'm not saying it's easy - neither game design or implementation that design into code are ever easy - but it isn't exactly the Holy Grail.

It's even worse in a Soulslike because the combat encounters need to be developed with the understanding that you have the tools to deal with them - Lies of P ran into this issue by locking the "Dodge Off The Ground" ability, which then had players fuming because enemies could knock you down and beat you to death if you didn't rush to unlock it.

All games need to give you the ability to deal with the enemies you need to beat. Generally if you need the Parry skill or whatever to beat an enemy, they make sure you learn it before that enemy, or incorporate it into the basic moveset and add extended but not vital functionality as the game progresses. Again, this is a problem the industry has happily solved for decades.

To make it clear, I'm agreeing with you that leveling should be interesting if it's going to be important. It's just difficult to do and risks damaging the rest of the game. I think that's the strength of Dark Souls' design. You have everything you need to beat the game at level 1 and the systems only give the player a choice of what they want to empower and focus on. As much as I enjoy Metroidvania ability collection sprees that dole out what you need to beat the game over time, I adore games where you're given an equally-viable tool chest and you get to pick out what seems interesting to use.

Which is a fine view. Me, I don't find getting stronger inherently interesting, so the game needs to attach some gameplay to those systems for me to care. If you make a good set of weapons and an expressive combat sandbox, I'm happy to never level up anything at all. Shooters (used to, before they got a bad case of RPGitus) be really good at this. I've very seldom found melee combat games to be as adept at that trick, probably because of the substantial and inherent limitations in encoding the complicated kinetic geometry of a fight into legible animations. A shooter abstracts the basic and tedious aspects of shooting (sight picture, trigger control, usually beathing) out, leaving you with the geometric challenge of positioning and the reflex challenge of aiming. Melee combat in games nearly always abstracts away the most interesting parts (weapon interaction, balance, kinetics, leverage) and leaves just the timing and some degree of distance/measure. And in the case of Soulsalikes, their timing model has always felt awful to me. The tempo enforced by their poor guard positions, long attack animations, refusal to allow canceling into a defense, and unreadable stagger systems always just feels utterly wrong to me for a sword fight.

[Rynjin]

I definitely recall switching sword A for sword B, because sword B had higher numbers but exactly the same moveset. I guess you do get weapons with unique special attacks, but this is a functionality so basic to third person RPGs I am incapable of considering it an interesting feature.

Elden Ring is much like Dark Souls 2 in that magic is meant to be used by all characters for utility instead of just by dedicated casters. That's why there are a bunch of useful spells that require incredibly low stat requirements; even some of the "beefy melee brick" character classes start with Faith high enough to cast some buffs and very useful attack spells like Bestial Shards (which is a low damage, very fast, combo-able spell that easily staggers opponents, so if you find yourself out of position you can throw this shotgun-like spread out and stagger people attacking you), or else Intelligence high enough to cast some useful Sorceries as your ranged attacks.

You also, as you progress, unlock new crafting recipes for consumables that give access to elemental damage and AoE on demand, if you don't feel like investing in your mental stats at all.

I'll also say there are relatively few weapons in ER that simply have "bigger numbers but the same moveset" compared to other games in the series (which is a big gripe even I have about most of the franchise). What they typically have is different scaling, so they might be bigger numbers FOR YOUR BUILD (because it scales more off Str than another equivalent), but smaller for a different build.

I'd personally prefer if they just got rid of ALL of these and consolidated the mundane weapons down into simple weapon classes with some skins to choose from (since the Ash of War system now lets you choose your scaling affinity anyway), but maybe in Elden Ring 2.

Nioh runs into the opposite issue. There's a bunch of moves to unlock in Nioh and almost all of them are useless because they don't fit into the combat system. There are a lot of big flashy attacks that lock you into animations but do equal or less damage than mashing the basic heavy combo. Nioh also puts all that stuff behind leveling and leaves none to find, which makes exploring the stages a fruitless endeavor.

This is just...incorrect on both counts. There are moves that can only be unlocked by fighting optional bosses (making "exploration" via mission selection a good thing to do) and exploration in missions is mostly for Soul Cores (a lot of uncommon enemies are hidden off the beaten path) and Ninja/Mystic Locks which all increase the number of moves in your repertoire as well. And I think we've had the discussion before about "most of the moves being useless" in another thread.

The different moves you unlock are purpose-built. Few are useless, but they're meant to be used in specific scenarios. Likewise "heavy combos" swiftly start to become more punishable, so you need to learn your Low, Medium, and High stance movesets equally, and equip techniques that allow you to either more greatly take advantage of their strengths or shore up their weaknesses.

That is, to me, the MOST interesting leveling. Leveling up grants more options, but not always more power.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

See, that sounds actually cool. I played for six hours and got a couple swords with bigger numbers. Maybe six hours is premature, but it's also between 50% and 80% of my gaming time in a week.

Ah, that's a shame. For reference, my playthrough of Elden Ring was about 130 hours long. I hate to say six hours is peanuts, but it kinda is. I don't begrudge you not finding anything interesting. There's a lot of interesting stuff you can find immediately (a dagger made of blood with unique properties, a merchant that sells the ability to summon creatures, a friggin' dragon), but you aren't guaranteed to find it. One of the major downsides of being an open world is that it can't guide you as well and if you've got limited time, aimlessly wandering is far less appealing.

This is just...incorrect on both counts. There are moves that can only be unlocked by fighting optional bosses (making "exploration" via mission selection a good thing to do) and exploration in missions is mostly for Soul Cores (a lot of uncommon enemies are hidden off the beaten path) and Ninja/Mystic Locks which all increase the number of moves in your repertoire as well. And I think we've had the discussion before about "most of the moves being useless" in another thread.

The different moves you unlock are purpose-built. Few are useless, but they're meant to be used in specific scenarios. Likewise "heavy combos" swiftly start to become more punishable, so you need to learn your Low, Medium, and High stance movesets equally, and equip techniques that allow you to either more greatly take advantage of their strengths or shore up their weaknesses.

That is, to me, the MOST interesting leveling. Leveling up grants more options, but not always more power.

I beat Nioh 2 and then again on the unlocked Nightmare difficulty or whatever they called it. Got the hidden moves for a half dozen weapons. The special moves were by and large completely pointless. There are a few that do give you something cool, like the ranged grab on the Kusarigama, but a ton of them just... suck. Maybe they're useful in extremely niche scenarios, but medium/heavy combos are useful in all scenarios and didn't have awkward animation locks or hitboxes that missed the target. I don't know if they patched the balance later, but at the time I played, the only possible use for most of them was using the Diablo-style loot system to stack +damage bonuses to a specific attack so you could spam it at +400% damage, which is exactly the kind of "more numbers" progression we've all agreed is bad.

Cores and locks were never a reward to me. You get piles of cores just from fighting enemies, to the point where it became a bit of a chore wading through the inventory, and Ninja/Mystic Locks are a minor bonus since you can just get skill points by using the skills (many of which are terrible anyway).

You're not the first one to tell me that I'm wrong in my analysis of Nioh and that all the stuff I say is underbaked and poorly designed is actually awesome, but I beat the whole game twice using the tactics I described and didn't find it much of a challenge outside a few badly tuned bosses.

[GloatingSwine]

It was the post-360 era where developers had discovered how achievements could be used to track metrics on the playerbase and they were aghast at the low completion rates they found.

They paid to make that content and they were gonna make damn sure everyone got to see it.

And now they barely paid to make the content and they're gonna make damn sure everyone gets to pay to see it.

[Rynjin]

You're not the first one to tell me that I'm wrong in my analysis of Nioh and that all the stuff I say is underbaked and poorly designed is actually awesome, but I beat the whole game twice using the tactics I described and didn't find it much of a challenge outside a few badly tuned bosses.

Ehhh. This to me is kinda like saying that Devil May Cry's combat sucks because you found a couple of moves you like for a single weapon and they were enough to get you through Normal/Hard.

Like yeah it's possible, but it's not really the way the game is meant to be played, and if you'd planned to go up to/through Dante Must Die you'd have to unlearn a lot of bad habits.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Ehhh. This to me is kinda like saying that Devil May Cry's combat sucks because you found a couple of moves you like for a single weapon and they were enough to get you through Normal/Hard.

Like yeah it's possible, but it's not really the way the game is meant to be played, and if you'd planned to go up to/through Dante Must Die you'd have to unlearn a lot of bad habits.

At the time, those were the only two difficulties in the game.. I beat 100% of the content and you're telling me I played it wrong. I think we're not just on different pages, but clearly reading different books.

They paid to make that content and they were gonna make damn sure everyone got to see it.

I've made games myself. I can understand the intent behind it. I'd probably have a similar reaction to someone showing me that only 20% of the people who played the game made it to the end. "Oh god, what did I do wrong? They hate it!" A greater grasp on statistics shows us that most people just don't finish games. 20-30% is a fairly average completion percentage and nothing you can do will change that, short of making a game that can be finished in a single sitting and that invites a lot of other criticisms.

Granted, now with the advent of much more advanced tracking tools, we've entered the age of the Monthly Active User and found that it can be so much worse than games being too easy.

[warty goblin]

Ah, that's a shame. For reference, my playthrough of Elden Ring was about 130 hours long. I hate to say six hours is peanuts, but it kinda is. I don't begrudge you not finding anything interesting. There's a lot of interesting stuff you can find immediately (a dagger made of blood with unique properties, a merchant that sells the ability to summon creatures, a friggin' dragon), but you aren't guaranteed to find it. One of the major downsides of being an open world is that it can't guide you as well and if you've got limited time, aimlessly wandering is far less appealing.

I'd say that 1, most games don't play enormously different at hour 30 or 60 or 100 than they do at hour 6, and 2, even if they do, that is really awful pacing. It eventually gets good is a sensible reason to play through a slow hour or two at the start, but that's as far as it goes for me. And it isn't that I didn't find anything - I found the dragon and an underground city and fought a couple giants and some sort of (mini?) boss. It was that the only hook the game offered for anything was more barely contextualized combat against under-described and irrelevant monsters in some sort of desolate area. Worse, because the game punishes mistakes so hard, it really doesn't incentivize exploration or risk taking - arguably it's habit of spawning in giant crazed bear monsters with zero warning actively discourages it. Sure I might be able to jump up between those platforms, but I also might fall and lose all my souls and also odds aren't bad it'll ambush me with some BS monster somewhere along the way. And if I did get up there, I'd probably find another wasteland filled with some slightly different really ugly monsters. Same with the underground city, cool, bet that's fun to explore - nope, more monsters. I could die a bunch here learning their moveset, or I could go die a bunch somewhere else fighting some different dudes whose moves I already knew. I didn't even try to kill the dragon. Why bother? It'd just kill me a bunch, and once I battered my head against it long enough to succeed, all it'd let me do is explore a bleak swamp or a blasted shoreline or wherever it spawned. And yeah, there's some pleasure in figuring out how to beat a hard fight, but that's the only pleasure the game seemed to offer, and it just offered it again and again and again and again and again in this sea of vague nonsense vibes and boring leveling and pointless terrain.

(The other big problem was of course that the motivation was supposed to be to get to the next boss fight. I find boss fights anti-motivating, they're a thing I endure to get back to the actual game, so if the actual game isn't grabbing me, I'm definitely not putting up with it for the sake of the boss fights. You know Another Crab's Treasure, that joke crab-based Soulsalike that's coming out sometime soon, where you get a gun that lets you insta-kill every single boss? That is a game that understands me at a profound level.)

[Rynjin]

I think you and I might have very different ideas about how "hard" the game punishes mistakes, and it's extremely weird you're complaining about how the game never offered you any interesting equipment etc. when you actively refuse to do the things that would provide those things...exploring and fighting bosses.

Souls are an easily acquired currency that are difficult to lose. Even if you die at the exact same part 20 times, all you've gotta do is just smack the button when you're headed back in to wherever you died. And even when you do lose them...easy come, easy go. Especially if you are, again, seeking out optional challenges which provide, you guessed it, more souls than just grinding random mobs.

You should rarely be carrying around a ton of souls anyway. Money is for spending, you're not accruing interest on your in-game cash. If you lose souls under what's required to level you or buy whatever it is you want anyway, who cares? It sound slike the issue is less the game's design and that you are extremely risk averse for no particular reason, to the point that you would prefer to not play a game than engage in any risktaking behavior...which must make it extremely hard to play ANY game with any kind of temporary failure-state.

I've also never quite understood your gripe with Elden Ring's storytelling specifically. Of all the games, ER is the one that has an actual plot, told to you in pretty clear terms by actual characters. There's a few mysteries you don't immediately pick up from just following the critical quest path, but you know exactly what has happened, why everything is ****ed, and why your quest matters by just a couple hours in. Most of the plot-relevant information is fed to you by NPCs you cannot miss, and cannot kill at Roundtable Hold.

This isn't like DS 1-3's inane bull**** dialogue and item descriptions that to this day cause debates about what they actually mean, these are clear and (mostly) concise dialogues about overt plot details.