Elden Ring was my first Fromsoft game. I’ve since played DS1, Bloodborne, DS3 and Sekiro. Sekiro was the game that reminded me the most of Elden Ring bosses. However, I had way more agency fighting those enemies because of the parry system. One mind: parryable. Waterfowl dance: Master’s thesis in dodge rolling, i-frames and spacing. To drive home that point, Fromsoft even brought in dryleaf arts which looks like something from the Senpou esoteric text. I can’t tell what Bride Radahn is doing half the time and somehow they’ve made using spirit ashes worse. The bosses switch aggro so randomly and use so many AOE’s that I seem to be better off without them. So yeah, everything you’re saying is spot on. Luck more than skill might be the reason I beat the final boss.
Why did you skip Dark Souls 2? Because of what the souls community says about the game? You're doing yourself a disservice skipping Demons Souls AND Dark Souls 2.
I'll definitely take the uh not-so-constructive criticism 😅as a push to do more research if I do more videos. While I should have definitely looked a bit more into the technical aspects of the game I still hold strong that there are mechanics in this game that just aren't fun and take away from the core fantasy of Souls likes, and some mechanics that clearly aren't explained that well, that's just my opinion. I still think Sekiro is like 10000x better than Elden Ring though lol.
So, which is it? Are people objectively wrong for believing the game to be fair and fun based on their own personal experience with it? Or is your stance just a subjective opinion? You say one thing in the video, then here you say the other. It can't be both.
@@noicoiner6151 It is a fact that there are bad mechanics within the game because they are inherently contradictory, but it's obviously up to personal opinion how much fun someone might find in a game despite that. For me personally these mechanics fundamentally harm my experience to the point where I don't really like Elden Ring's combat that much. I'm saying that most people accept the status quo because there is an aura around souls-like games and FromSoft games to not blame the game but rather to blame the player to "get good" at the game. But the specific mechanics that Elden Ring has forces the player into a boring playstyle even if you are "good" (and I'm not referring to the best of the best, I'm talking about average player beat-the-game "good").
@@noicoiner6151 No one said that lmao. Stop trying to misconstrue my argument just because you don't agree with it. If they said it wasn't contradictory they would be wrong. If they said they had fun because of or in spite of that then ok that's your fucking opinion I'm not gonna debate someone on their subjective feeling of happiness. Everyone enjoys games even with bad design, that's no surprise.
@@Noveze_ I'm just taking you at your word and asking for clarification. The fact that you can't answer a simple clarifying question about your argument with a straightforward answer but instead get hostile and defensive about it brings the validity of your entire argument into question.
I had a looooot of problems with the base game already. I finished it but the last third wasn't fun anymore. I did not pay for the DLC, I'm not spending my cash and time on this nonsense.
This video went in the opposite direction that I thought it would half way through, but in spite of that it still conforms to my perspective on the underlying issue with Elden Ring (both the game and its fanbase), only as an example. And I'm not saying you're an example to imply your criticism is bad or that you're a bad actor just... level with me. So lets say, perchance, that a boss is designed to punish me if I roll into a combo and hit it, that the act of pressing R1 or R2 will immediately bait another attack. So clearly, if the aim of the game is to not die, and getting hit means I loose HP, then I should be AVOIDING that, that even though I could perhaps survive GETTING HIT, that the aim of the game is to NOT get hit, and that then logically... I should be playing in ways to avoid that, and if it feels impossible to do that, then the boss might be unfairly designed. So as a "reasonable" player I'd avoid punishing that combo at times I KNOW it would hit me, and that removes player agency, or atleast doesn't feel good and slows the fight down for preservation sake. Here's the thing... I'll take that bait. I'll get hit. On purpose. 100%. Especially if I can get a charged R2, especially if I have a great sword. I mean I put in the vigor and and endurance to take it. And STAGGER, BOY HOWDY, does stagger damage make me want TO. GET. RECKLESS. So I eat that hit, I eat a couple. And then I get a break... boss can't retaliate if its on the floor. But... I'd be lying if I said that felt... good. And it certainly is NOT how I played any previous soulslike. Except one... I think you can guess which. Certainly not the favorite of the series. And that assessment from earlier still stands (from a narrow perspective, just continue running this with me), that if the object of the game is to not get hit and attack, that design that engenders behavior like trading or waiting though most of the combos instead of engaging, doesn't feel great. It doesn't seem like good design... And here's the thing, no amount of top tier players spending 30 hours to learn how to do a boss damageless, the POTENTIAL to do a boss damageless, necessarily means a boss is "balanced". Because contrary to popular belief, Souls games aren't that hard in the grand scheme, compared to games like Ninja Gaiden Black or Dante Must Die difficulty. If the boss requires perfection even from fresh players then that is a massive balance issue, and the very REASON that games like Devil May Cry even have difficulty modes is because learning a boss needs to be fun and allow mistakes before asking the player to achieve absolute mastery. And sure enough, people who play these sheer action games don't argue for this VIRGINAL, unspoiled, and grueling first clear experience like the many souls gatekeepers, they would think you were stupid for wanting to start Devil May Cry on the hardest difficulty. If a game doesn't have those difficulty settings then there's a higher burden of balance... but I CAN trade... and Souls games... aren't action games. I mean we play them like action games, they have the same effect of satisfaction from attaining mastery, its built a cult following ABOUT perfecting play... but they aren't action games. And I think that's a major issue. My perspective, is that the souls series as whole, has had a MASSIVE disconnect with its RPG and Action mechanics, in a way that other action RPGs like Kingdom Heart, does not. The stat distribution and supplemental mechanics are built to be obscure and combat options not tied to melee are often inconsistent. But most importantly, is the fact that when you engage with certain mechanics, when you learn about buffs and damage negation, when you summon NPCs, when you get a hefty shield and no longer roll... it feels like you are ignoring the combat mechanics, rather than working with them. This is where the Git Gud Gatekeepers were born, or at least their progenitors. People who trudged on in the original Demons Souls and Dark Souls, noticed the brutality of the game, immediately used their knowledge to gain the upper hand, and found the game boring. These are the original Havels. And they conferred with others, people who said the game was harder... but funner, than their own experience and asked... why? and the response was, getting beat up, treating it like an action game, and focusing on mastery, was what made the game fun. But thats not REALLY mastering the game is it, just learning boss patterns and dumping strength. Fromsoft has been using the SAME calculation for damage negation in EVERY game and no one knows how it works, because on one hand you have players who are just focused on not getting hit, and on the other you have players who are reading the wiki for the best build ever... and if an action RPG can't naturally lead these players to engage with these mechanics, and understand them... then that's kind of a failure. And yet, Dark Souls 3 succeeded, Elden Ring broke the cult status and pushed it to mainstream. Why is it ONLY this new DLC that people are revolting... but its not. As you correctly pointed out, base game Elden Ring had DISCOURSE, about Radahn, about the vigor stat, about input reading and pacing, about late game balance. But as you also stated, even people who acknowledged these criticisms felt the game made up for it. In a way, the players who are complaining NOW about these encroaching RPG mechanics, and bosses being balanced around them, aren't only complaining about the DLC, whether they know it or not. These are "issues" from the main game that are ignorable because the content is optional, and grinding is easy. But grinding in the DLC is very specific with the scadu fragments, its less thinly veiled that you're leveling purely for more effective health, and even still there are several players that don't understand damage negation, and are still fighting bosses that are balanced expecting you to get hit or use a shield, without a shield, and without the ability to tank hits. BUT, back to playing not to loose. The question I want to ask, the question I was expecting YOU to ask (not faulting you, this is a good video regardless of how much I agree or disagree with your direction and sentiment), is if RPGs, if dumping vigor to take more hits and to mitigate randomness, if REACTING to a boss by leveling, is passive play. Because this is a criticism I have somewhat with dumping vigor, and DEFINITELY with the scadu fragments, is that its just me deciding I want the game to allow me to make more mistakes or trade more hits. But even though I claimed that Fromsofts RPG mechanics don't always mesh well with its real time combat, I DON'T feel like adjusting your build, or making a build focused on tanking hits, is playing not to loose. And I feel you'd agree considering you articulated as much about how playing defensively is not the same as playing not to loose. I too, think Elden Ring is far from the masterpiece people claim it is. I too prefer Sekiro. I love Bloodborne and Lies of P, because all three of these games don't portend that blocking and parrying are optional mechanics, and have much more streamlined RPG mechanics. But guard counters exist... I forgot to use them, I equipped a shield to try to parry, it was to much for little reward in some cases and outright impossible in others, and I ditched the shield. But you know what you might do to a boss with a "bullshit" follow up outside of trading... bait a guard counter... why the fuck didn't I think of ever doing that. I can't guard an entire combo, but if avoid the combo, poke, get punished, but punish that punish... that sounds pretty fuckin cool. I guess what I'm arguing is that, rather than fight your assessment that these follow ups don't encourage player interaction by telling you "Thats not how it works, you just need to space it properly, its based on your position", I just wanted question if designing a fight in a deep deep RPG around possibly trading is actually bad design and what potential options still exist. If trading can actually be useful for teaching the importance of character building and if the problem it creates makes a tanky build feel more engaging than in the past, because I believe that that's exactly the direction Fromsoft went in Elden Ring... I believe that the core of Fromsofts brutal design was ALWAYS about giving players an excuse to engage with its RPG mechanics to win against unreasonable circumstances, and that a core of the audience just found attacking the problem head on to be more engaging. I don't think Elden Ring fixes those problems with the original Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, and its a detriment in every souls title even if players find that treating them as pure action games is fun enough to make up for that... but it did get me to trade without shame, and it did find mainstream appeal, so surely the shift in design succeeded in a way that previous action RPGs from them failed. And I'll be honest, while I've been out here playing devils advocate for the SotE haters, trying to articulate their arguments more accurately than they can... I actually think the DLC is better than base game in boss fights and exploration (as stated, I don't love the scadu, I think rewards are scant, and the story telling leaves a lot to be desired even if the stuff about Marika and the Hornsent is cool) But I only love those bosses from this perspective of build crafting and survival=success. If I were playing for pure competency, I think basically only Midra, Bayle, and Romina would be satisfying to me. I mean... based Bayle not having multihit on his fire AOE and having consistent lightning effects, if only the other dragons were built like that, practically a Monhun fight.
What an absolutely excellent reply and analysis of Elden Ring! I am so glad that my video would engage someone enough that they would write something this long. It's a lot to dig through but I'll try my best. I think your main point is in these two sentences where you say, "I DON'T feel like adjusting your build, or making a build focused on tanking hits, is playing not to loose", and "I just wanted question if designing a fight in a deep deep RPG around possibly trading is actually bad design and what potential options still exist." With the first point, I agree! Adjusting your build to be more tanky is not playing to not lose, as it gives the player an extra cushion to blunt potential mistakes. This is a choice made with the mindset that damage is most likely inevitable (as is the case for average players) when fighting a boss, and it accounts for mistakes in actually skill and ability to manuever a boss's attacks. But the problem is, that simply increasing health in Elden Ring can not be your main strategy. As I said in the video boss's do much more damage to the player than you to them. So even if you have every flask, and you do have high health, the boss can still kill you pretty simply. Not only because of mechanical reasons so that you can you beat the boss, but also for fantasy reasons, because I argue that the fantasy of Souls games still is a test of skill and ability to not get hit. As such, it is still the perogative of the player to get hit as little as possible, which still leads to the avoidance of certain aspects of a boss's moveset entirely because there is a random behavior that is not worth risking. If you compare Elden Ring to Bloodbourne and Sekiro, Bloodbourne reinforces that player's ability need to be aggressive by letting them regain lost health if they quickly retaliate against the enemy. Sekiro reinforces it's need to be aggressive by having quickly decaying stamina bars, and by having every attack be counterable. In this case, if you now look at Elden Ring it feels like it doesn't have any identity! What does Elden Ring want the player to really do? If they want the player to be aggressive and to memorize movesets, why do they add optional extensions, and moreover why don't they explain or reinforce them if they're core to the identity of Elden Ring. And this takes me to your second point, trading isn't bad design, but Elden Ring isn't designed to have people trade! FromSoft obviously believes this otherwise they would've replicated Bloodbourne's health replenishing mechanic. If it was more about struggling through a long fight with a ton of health and flasks then they would've implemented something like Lies of P's flask replenish mechanic. But they didn't! This is because FromSoftware wanted Elden Ring to be more directly a successor to the Souls games, by having more bosses, and by giving said bosses more complex movesets. But while they upped the ante for bosses, they're strategy for making the player stronger and more capable to respond to these mechanics so as to enforce them was.... nothing!!! From's response was to give spirit ashes, and magic, and tons and tons of different spells and weapons and tools, but none of them are fundamentally necessary, nor do as any single one act as a direct response to the madness of Elden Ring's bosses. There is no core pillar to the player's capability in Elden Ring, so it doesn't matter what playstyle or build you're using, there's a problem with all of them. And in a way, this was inevitable considering the scope of Elden Ring. It would be an immense challenge to find a core pillar of game design across so many bosses, and so many weapons, and so many spirit ashes. So in the end all you're left with is a game that has largely outgrown it's shell of traditional Souls game. That's why no matter the build, there are always inconsistencies in design ethos. Finally, if you're saying the core Elden Ring's game is truly the RPG mechanics and that it's not an action game, then I would disagree completely as I personally already have a grudge against "RPG mechanics" (simple stat counters) as I feel they are completely unnecessary and work to function purely as balance meters, not as something that fundamentally alters the play of a game. This is not only for Elden Ring but for most games imo. At the end of the day nobody plays the game in a stat screen, you play the game by playing the game if that makes sense lol. It's about interaction, not preparing or planning ahead. Hopefully this answered your question, it was bit hard to organize my thoughts on this matter and honestly it helped me come to the new revelation of the fact that Elden Ring really isn't built around any one specific mechanic and that was an inevitable result of its scope.
This video has many great points. But they are, idk how to say. Applied incorrectly? Like, once you understand the bosses it's not really random, ER is almost like your controlling the boss once you understand it. Way less reactionary. Sekiro still did everything better.
I find myself in an awkward position of agreeing with most of the points in this video, but not the way in which they presented. I think there's a bit of missing the forest for trees because, yeah, Elden Ring does have a lot of faults, especially in its boss design, but the analogy of the undeccorated hall that randomly resets the players progress falls flat on the fact that Elden Ring is a VERY decorated game with a whole lot more option than just walking in a straight line. Yes, the bosses are very punishing, arguably even unfair to fight alone, but as correctly mentioned ,using summons or spirit ash introduces new opportunities and openings by dividing the boss's aggro. Now, maybe some might call that bad design, but others might call it FromSoft pushing players to engage more fully with all the options and mechanics. That said, Shadow of the Erdtree goes way further than the base game. In the base game, most bosses will start the battle passive, or are at least slow enough to provide the player ample time to activate a spirit ash. In Shadiw of the Erdtree, the bosses are so much more aggressive right from the moment the player steps through the fog that trying to use a spirit ash at the start of the fight will almost always be punished. Instead, the player has to start dodging right away and wait for an opening to use a spirit ash just for the hope of being able to create those extra openings later in the fight.
These SOTE bosses seem to be well tuned for Spirit ashes. Some of them will split their attack chain between you and the spirit ash. Not to mention all the AOE attacks and sweeping projectiles that the spirit summons can’t evade. I find my maxed out spirit summons (SOTE/Base game max) gone with the boss at about 35% health. And since I hadn’t really learned the attack patterns because I’d been gank fighting until then, I’m SOL after that.
I understand where your coming from. After playing MH and then coming back to ER for the DLC. Raw Combat does feel dull. It’s one thing to not agree with your opinions but the proof lies in the fact that all the most popular overhaul mods of the game literally address the “feel” you are really talking about. 👍🏾
Joseph Anderson had the same gripes about ER bosses, so you're take isn't so out there. For me, I went all-in with the summons and mimic tear and never looked back. BK Oleg was my bro and got my through the game.
I just beat Sekiro and I promise you the bosses don't do anything randomly. If you study them they only have a few different moves that you can even bait them to do repeatedly. I do agree with your Elden Ring take.
I would not Simply answer with a Skill Issues, but I would like to start with a simple question: if It Is so random, how Is it possible that people have completed a boss- fight with no damage, multiple time? I suggest you tò give It another try: bosses Attack are really predictable, once you take your time to learn them. The animations give you clear indications of what Attack they are going to do. Not to talk about the fact that you have a lot of tools to fight the bosses. This game Is a dance between you and the bosses, you have tò understand their moves and you Will be able to defeat them. If you are not able to do so, you can Experiment with various weapons, tools and summons to help you defeat the game. Design, in general, Is centered around providing and experience, the experience of From Software games Is exploration, sperimentation and learning. The only week point of the game design Is the Quest Design, but other than that you have all the clues you Need to complete the game
They do it by not engaging on any attack that the possible follow up that would kill while waiting for the rare ones that don't, That's information you could gather from the video. I have seen a player that did a SL 1 of every Dark souls game and Elden ring and he came to the same conclusion, ER is the most shitty to do it on because it's the one you have less oportunities to do anything And he did mention the tools, and how he is okay with it, but if you think its a good game design choice to pick a franchise that already exist, destroy the prefered playstyle of most of your fans, just because they are smart to cook a strategy that trows a rench on the enemy AI, IDK what to tell you, fighting AIs is not why I play fantasy games, I'm surprise it's anyones, I tougth everyone was on the same page that games are better when we are immersed and stuff
I really appreciate how charitable your comment is :) ty for that. Regarding your question about how people are able to beat bosses without taking damage, it's because they simply don't risk punishing specific moves which have optional extensions or more often than not, a lot of no hit runs use weapons with high stagger or damage so usually the boss isn't even able to get off the worse moves. For example, in my gameplay I was using a buckler shield against Margit, and it's relatively easy to parry most of Margit's moves which makes the fight surprisingly easy. Also of course there are runs where people use really weak weapons but those take much longer. And moreover, I think one thing you're missing is the fact that most of these runs take a lot of practice and attempts. My point in the video is not that these are impossible feats, but rather that having to go so slow for a boss fight because you're functionally not allowed to react to some moves is not fun. It breaks the flow of combat, and it feels like the boss is having more fun than me. It's not just slow because it's a souls game, rather Elden Ring in particular forces you to play very passively. I hope that explains it more :D
People are too used to winning. What's considered fun for most people too is a power fantasy rpg "oh let me be the main character and be the Elden lord and if I die its the game's fault not meeee bye bye" I can agree with people thinking that this is boring but you can't say that a boss going ape shit on you is. It's also not wrong for them to go ape shit on you and utterly destroy you, you're a tarnished. You are meant to die, it's not a choice. And if you're not a fan of that, the game isn't for you. Stop forcing yourself to play a game that its not meant for you. I don't play to lose, I play to go apeshit on the boss after they go apeshit on me. And no hit or parry runs are being done because of skills (I don't count terra magica and Azur comet run as no hit), you give an average player the same resources which they already have, it won't be done the same. Some people aren't just them and it's not the game's fault.
Ive been telling my fiends this since week 1. We are playing sekiro with Ds3 control's. Rellana was the tipping point for me, she is clearly pontiff inspired but becomes unbearable because of combo extensions make it impossible to stay close and get good flow of combat. When i frst fought pontiff years ago i already had a feel for the game as i entered the room, i wanted to get in close to the boss and fight him directly. In elden ring the best way yo play is stay back and bait a combo, fake going in to bait the extend and then jump attack the boss once, rinse and repeat. Especially Input reading does not belong here, i want to learn and dance with the boss not bait and switch.
I find that most optional followups depend on your position. I won't say there aren't unfair attacks, but different players DO react to the boss in different ways so I don't agree that the game doesn't give you a choice
8:24 he’s guaranteed to do the double quick knife when you’re in front of him after a one handed cane slam, it isn’t an optional extension it’s a follow up that depends on your positioning relative to the boss. Once you know this it can be easily played around, for example you could sprint to his sides/back to get a heavy punish in, if you position to his tail he can do a tail swipe which is jumpable making the fight more active and aggressive.
TL.DR: chad + subbed + god i love fromsoft + god i hate white knights + blessed be critical thinking + agreed on pretty much everything, have a like (as ironic as that is to write after praising critical thinking) Based af. I've been a Fromsoft fan for 20 years. And I'm absolutely sick and tired of Elden Ring white knights. The core F.S community had criticism on Demon's souls, dark souls 1 through 3, Bloodborne, even Sekiro, which is by far their most polished game. I think all the media praise, awards, and global positive reviews, has given the newcomers, and some old time players, a good old case of internet brainrot, and they've lost all objectivity. Look, if/when Dark souls 2 had broken hitboxes, some AIs being barely functional, some barren optional zones, reused bosses for the dlcs, terrible netcode, constant ganks, bad gank boss fights, bad 1v2 bossfights, and didn't feel like ds1 and ds3, it was HEAVILY criticized. Why does Elden Ring have a free pass on that? + the over utilization of rng extensions, input reading, a huge downgrade in multiplayer mechanics, exploits for the longest time, a recycled DLC ending which is downright criminal to do, and it had 5 times the manpower, 3 times the dev time, and almost a decade more experience and 8 years development behind it (if you count the dlc). Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Elden Ring. I'm insane enough to have explored the literal entirety of it 100% , step by step, torrentless, at least 4 times by now, and 1 and a half times including dlc. I think it has some of the highest highs, and it adds a lot of mechanical improvements. But it lacks a lot in design philosophy of enemy encounters, multiplayer mechanics, and mechanical polish. Bloodborne, Dark souls 3, and Sekiro, were pretty much peak for what they were. Everything was there for a reason, and polished to fit perfectly. You may have liked some areas and enemies more than others, but that's subjective. The reality is, everything worked. And not only did everything work, but some of it is still by this day, the best FromSoft has ever done. Not entirely subjective take, once you put everything on a scale. All encounters, areas, and weapons/spells, had perfectly reasonable placings, balancing, ludo-narrative logic, and peak art design to back it up. Ds3 multiplayer had the most worthwhile covenants, with the most rewards, the best arena, and probably the best-in-slot archetypical bosses for Knight 1v1, Monster 1v1, 1v2, and Dragon boss fights, on top of Yuka Kitamura's overall best soundtrack. Elden Ring is way to flawed to get to that level. A lot of placements lack meaning, a lot of the enemy design is to inflate difficulty and take away options from the player, rather than to design a fun and challenging fight, some of the higher highs are high enough to intoxicate the player into thinking it's peak, but once you start to compare, you realize it's not. If anything, Elden Ring is the first downgrade in design in almost a decade, which speaks wonderfully of FromSoft, but is a shame, because it really was almost there, to actually be peak. They just had to put in so much ''extra'', and refused to polish it afterwards.
I think your takes from these mechanics are in the complete wrong direction of how they're supposed to be interpreted. As somebody who loathes the phrase "Git Gud", I think the better phrase should be "Adapt". For example, the Godskin Apostle fight at 12:56. When I first played this game, this guy kicked my ass... HARD. Even when relatively adequately leveled for the area (about 60-80, it's been a minute), I easily died to him dozens of times, so this guy is a bit of a sore spot for me. But the issue I see is that you are actively healing when the apostle is doing the attack animation, which should be a pretty easy telegraph that he is going to hit you. If you dodge his fire attack, you have a decent window to heal before he either: A. Tries to close the distance from you, if he's close enough. or B. Repeats the same telegraphed attack at you again, allowing you to roll towards him and get a hit off. I understand this game is frustrating, especially when a strategy you have been so used to eventually fails, I've been there. But this game is teaching you to keep an eye out for when to dodge, and when to punish. When an enemy follows up an attack it previously didn't, it should be seen as a lesson that you should be paying attention to if he's winding up for another attack or if you have an opportunity to strike. Bossfights are a dance between you and the boss. You should definitely keep trying for video essays, as you have potential, but I think you need to think carefully about the lessons you take away from your frustrations.
honestly pretty cute video despite the outright incorrect statements about the game. i think you have potential, you just have to refine your stuff and do more research. see the negative comments as encouragement to improve.
i mean he liked it so, mission complete. but yeah this is a very substance free comment, i could've gone more in-depth but imo i felt like just being a bit positive, other comments have already said what i would've.
12:55 this mechanic has been a thing since ds1, the bosses will punish when you heal when they’re in neutral simply roll out a boss combo and get a healing opportunity.
You have 0 understanding of the bosses lol there’s 0 randomness with the follow ups. Just another unresearched review, doesn’t even know why the game has a mixed reviews on steam hint it’s not because of the difficulty or performance.
you are constructing a narrative around false perceptions and I'm not wasting any more of my life listening to it. All the best and I hope you come right.
He’s right. For instance, Bride Radahn in the DLC has certain attacks that are punishable maybe 50% of the time with no tell. Like that jump attack. Sometimes it’s two jumps, other times it’s one. The three swing combo can sometimes just end or get followed up with the punishing 2 sword cross slash. Yeah, so many Sekiro elements were brought into Elden Ring but they don’t fit the base game play loop of roll,dodge, jump, hit. So they resort to balancing it out with spirit ashes.
15:01 this is what I mean, you don’t even know what you’re talking about yet are saying the game is badly designed? I’m trying to be cordial but it’s incredibly difficult with how annoying the tone of this video is.
There’s no rng with the boss follow ups tho, every boss follow up will happen depending on your positioning relative to the boss. Your video proves this as margit only does the quick knife when you’re in front of him after he does a one handed cane attack, he telegraphs this by holding his hand up in preparation. I’ve done many SL1 runs and can consistently no hit the bosses, the reason for this is because the bosses are consistent. I’ll just post a video of me playing aggressively and no hitting a boss to prove you wrong on your point that the game is somehow forcing you into playing passive. Idk why you didn’t do any research on this and made a very pretentious video even tho you’re factually wrong about basically everything you said. The tone of this video is very bad to say the least, you act as if you’re factual and objectively correct about what you’re saying when it’s the complete opposite, pretty sure that’s why people are dogpiling on you in the comment section, you pretentiously/ignorantly shat on a game they like so they retaliated in an aggressive way which is completely understandable.
In a critique such as this I think it's important to have a confident tone even though at times it may seem pretentious because I truly do believe in what I'm stating and I find far too often that critiques especially of well beloved media are delicate so as not to draw negativity-as clearly my video has. While the comments do make me wish more people had actually paid attention to the video, they don't bother me too much, because at the end of the day convincing all the "get good" types is part of the purpose of this video. While it's great that you can complete Souls games no hit consistently, and you can still find a lot of engagement and joy in these games, I personally find Elden Rings additions to the formula to be damaging to the core of Souls design. There's an inherent ebb and flow to the combat of Souls games because unlike many other games, the threats in Souls games are actually dangerous to the player and thus require you to put more thought into your decisions-aka strategy. While I surely believe your ability to beat these games without much effort seemingly from your vast experience, I'm going to suggest you play Elden Ring again, because optional extensions are indeed a part of the game. I'm sorry if my gameplay demonstrations weren't that detailed and this detracted from my argument but I can't do much about that now. Not only are they a part of the game, but when considering strategy which is so vital to Souls games, they remove your ability to safely punish a boss' or enemy's attacks, this is a fact. If you want to play in a calculated and skilled way to avoid these attacks, you will never take the gamble of trying to punish moves with optional extensions. But these moves can be a large part of a boss's arsenal, which means you have to spend a significant chunk of your fight simply dodging. It isn't even a choice. I find that incredibly boring. And beyond that I'm saying everyone should recognize how flawed it is that these types of moves implement luck into fights that are moreover skill based. Since being unlucky in this instance is so damaging, there's only ever one outcome. You can definitely enjoy the games now, but with a few design tweaks you would be able to enjoy them much more. That's all :)
@@Noveze_ if you don’t believe me even tho I challenge run, study the game and speak with other challenge runners about the game, please just watch the most recent video by Loopine os he addressed all this misinformation in the video. He also has multiple videos of him beating the bosses at SL1 +0 weapon whilst playing aggressively. The boss follow ups depend on positioning, there’s nothing optional about them I provided an example of this idk why you keep insisting they’re rng when it’s factually and objectively wrong. I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating JA and Feeble kings talking points, because these exact words have already been said by them and disproven.
@@makia3 Ok, so I ended up watching Loopine's latest video and his original critique of Joseph Anderson. 100% my mistake regarding the optional extensions being position based. I will say in my defense that 1. Not all attacks have position based extensions 2. This means there isn't a consistent language in the moves of the boss, meaning the average player (me for example) will not figure out the position based extensions easily. This is still a failure to communicate things on behalf of FromSoft and I'm sorry I just can't agree with Loopine that stuff like this that's very core to the game needs to be looked up, especially when it's relatively technical and aside from a few specific vids--like Loopine's--this mechanic isn't exactly regularly discussed online. Also, I still hold strong on the rest of my arguments. Input reading (yes ik technically it's animation reading) still feels really shitty to play against bottom line and that's just how I feel :/ It makes the AI seem really dumb, and as Loopine says and as even I pointed out in the video their behavior is so predictable that you start baiting animation reads. That seems extremely contrived to me, especially since to bait the enemy you're wasting a flask. For the record, I watched JA's critique when it first came out and as a matter of principle didn't watch while making this video so as not to plagarize. But even not remembering the video that well I still do end up having many similar points to JA, and tbh he definitely explained a lot of the issues better than I did, and I still agree with most of his points. Loopine shows and explains that the best way to address most of Elden Ring's bosses is to get in the pocket and punish them during the combo. And while I feel like that's definitely feasible for a lot of attacks, it isn't feasible for a lot of other attack chains, and still the best bet is that you run away. There's still a lot of dead air, and I don't find that fun. Elden Ring's boss fights just don't seem to have a good tempo, that's just my opinon. Also again it comes down to communication with punishing mid combo, because that has not been the status quo for Souls games, and again it also makes the combat feel less grounded. I know a lot of the stuff I used as talking points were technical, but at the end of the day this is still my opinion. While it's easy to say "get good", I think it devalues the conversation whenever a criticism is brought up.
The fact that getting good bottlenecks the player into playing like another person is what this guy means when he talks about the flow of combat. I can SL 1 as well because you wait exploit and break stance. Aggressive is a relative term but aggression in ER is intentionally a test of patience and knowledge more than general skill. (Miyazaki said this himself years ago) That’s why just watching a couple positioning videos and looking up a the fastest path to an overused build is so efficient. If we had more horah loux like fights I think we could strike a better balance.
Maybe you should grow some balls if you are running away from bosses. Most of them get easily staggered by heavy attacks and if you are up for it you can summon spirits for some easy meat shields to make the game even easier. Game is not really that random when you can narrow enemy AI to perform certain attacks and fry to predict on that. So in short, git gud.
SEKIRO is brilliant because if you play not to lose, the game literally becomes impossible. You MUST play to win. Hesitation is defeat.
Elden Ring was my first Fromsoft game. I’ve since played DS1, Bloodborne, DS3 and Sekiro.
Sekiro was the game that reminded me the most of Elden Ring bosses. However, I had way more agency fighting those enemies because of the parry system.
One mind: parryable. Waterfowl dance: Master’s thesis in dodge rolling, i-frames and spacing.
To drive home that point, Fromsoft even brought in dryleaf arts which looks like something from the Senpou esoteric text.
I can’t tell what Bride Radahn is doing half the time and somehow they’ve made using spirit ashes worse. The bosses switch aggro so randomly and use so many AOE’s that I seem to be better off without them.
So yeah, everything you’re saying is spot on.
Luck more than skill might be the reason I beat the final boss.
Why did you skip Dark Souls 2? Because of what the souls community says about the game? You're doing yourself a disservice skipping Demons Souls AND Dark Souls 2.
I'll definitely take the uh not-so-constructive criticism 😅as a push to do more research if I do more videos. While I should have definitely looked a bit more into the technical aspects of the game I still hold strong that there are mechanics in this game that just aren't fun and take away from the core fantasy of Souls likes, and some mechanics that clearly aren't explained that well, that's just my opinion.
I still think Sekiro is like 10000x better than Elden Ring though lol.
So, which is it? Are people objectively wrong for believing the game to be fair and fun based on their own personal experience with it? Or is your stance just a subjective opinion? You say one thing in the video, then here you say the other. It can't be both.
@@noicoiner6151 It is a fact that there are bad mechanics within the game because they are inherently contradictory, but it's obviously up to personal opinion how much fun someone might find in a game despite that. For me personally these mechanics fundamentally harm my experience to the point where I don't really like Elden Ring's combat that much.
I'm saying that most people accept the status quo because there is an aura around souls-like games and FromSoft games to not blame the game but rather to blame the player to "get good" at the game. But the specific mechanics that Elden Ring has forces the player into a boring playstyle even if you are "good" (and I'm not referring to the best of the best, I'm talking about average player beat-the-game "good").
@@Noveze_ so if someone says they had fun _because_ of the "contradictory" mechanics and see them as good, that person is objectively wrong?
@@noicoiner6151 No one said that lmao. Stop trying to misconstrue my argument just because you don't agree with it. If they said it wasn't contradictory they would be wrong. If they said they had fun because of or in spite of that then ok that's your fucking opinion I'm not gonna debate someone on their subjective feeling of happiness. Everyone enjoys games even with bad design, that's no surprise.
@@Noveze_ I'm just taking you at your word and asking for clarification. The fact that you can't answer a simple clarifying question about your argument with a straightforward answer but instead get hostile and defensive about it brings the validity of your entire argument into question.
Subbed. Keep making videos bro
I had a looooot of problems with the base game already. I finished it but the last third wasn't fun anymore. I did not pay for the DLC, I'm not spending my cash and time on this nonsense.
This video went in the opposite direction that I thought it would half way through, but in spite of that it still conforms to my perspective on the underlying issue with Elden Ring (both the game and its fanbase), only as an example. And I'm not saying you're an example to imply your criticism is bad or that you're a bad actor just... level with me.
So lets say, perchance, that a boss is designed to punish me if I roll into a combo and hit it, that the act of pressing R1 or R2 will immediately bait another attack. So clearly, if the aim of the game is to not die, and getting hit means I loose HP, then I should be AVOIDING that, that even though I could perhaps survive GETTING HIT, that the aim of the game is to NOT get hit, and that then logically... I should be playing in ways to avoid that, and if it feels impossible to do that, then the boss might be unfairly designed. So as a "reasonable" player I'd avoid punishing that combo at times I KNOW it would hit me, and that removes player agency, or atleast doesn't feel good and slows the fight down for preservation sake. Here's the thing... I'll take that bait. I'll get hit. On purpose. 100%. Especially if I can get a charged R2, especially if I have a great sword. I mean I put in the vigor and and endurance to take it. And STAGGER, BOY HOWDY, does stagger damage make me want TO. GET. RECKLESS. So I eat that hit, I eat a couple. And then I get a break... boss can't retaliate if its on the floor.
But... I'd be lying if I said that felt... good. And it certainly is NOT how I played any previous soulslike. Except one... I think you can guess which. Certainly not the favorite of the series. And that assessment from earlier still stands (from a narrow perspective, just continue running this with me), that if the object of the game is to not get hit and attack, that design that engenders behavior like trading or waiting though most of the combos instead of engaging, doesn't feel great. It doesn't seem like good design... And here's the thing, no amount of top tier players spending 30 hours to learn how to do a boss damageless, the POTENTIAL to do a boss damageless, necessarily means a boss is "balanced". Because contrary to popular belief, Souls games aren't that hard in the grand scheme, compared to games like Ninja Gaiden Black or Dante Must Die difficulty. If the boss requires perfection even from fresh players then that is a massive balance issue, and the very REASON that games like Devil May Cry even have difficulty modes is because learning a boss needs to be fun and allow mistakes before asking the player to achieve absolute mastery. And sure enough, people who play these sheer action games don't argue for this VIRGINAL, unspoiled, and grueling first clear experience like the many souls gatekeepers, they would think you were stupid for wanting to start Devil May Cry on the hardest difficulty. If a game doesn't have those difficulty settings then there's a higher burden of balance... but I CAN trade... and Souls games... aren't action games.
I mean we play them like action games, they have the same effect of satisfaction from attaining mastery, its built a cult following ABOUT perfecting play... but they aren't action games. And I think that's a major issue.
My perspective, is that the souls series as whole, has had a MASSIVE disconnect with its RPG and Action mechanics, in a way that other action RPGs like Kingdom Heart, does not. The stat distribution and supplemental mechanics are built to be obscure and combat options not tied to melee are often inconsistent. But most importantly, is the fact that when you engage with certain mechanics, when you learn about buffs and damage negation, when you summon NPCs, when you get a hefty shield and no longer roll... it feels like you are ignoring the combat mechanics, rather than working with them. This is where the Git Gud Gatekeepers were born, or at least their progenitors. People who trudged on in the original Demons Souls and Dark Souls, noticed the brutality of the game, immediately used their knowledge to gain the upper hand, and found the game boring. These are the original Havels. And they conferred with others, people who said the game was harder... but funner, than their own experience and asked... why? and the response was, getting beat up, treating it like an action game, and focusing on mastery, was what made the game fun.
But thats not REALLY mastering the game is it, just learning boss patterns and dumping strength. Fromsoft has been using the SAME calculation for damage negation in EVERY game and no one knows how it works, because on one hand you have players who are just focused on not getting hit, and on the other you have players who are reading the wiki for the best build ever... and if an action RPG can't naturally lead these players to engage with these mechanics, and understand them... then that's kind of a failure. And yet, Dark Souls 3 succeeded, Elden Ring broke the cult status and pushed it to mainstream. Why is it ONLY this new DLC that people are revolting... but its not. As you correctly pointed out, base game Elden Ring had DISCOURSE, about Radahn, about the vigor stat, about input reading and pacing, about late game balance. But as you also stated, even people who acknowledged these criticisms felt the game made up for it. In a way, the players who are complaining NOW about these encroaching RPG mechanics, and bosses being balanced around them, aren't only complaining about the DLC, whether they know it or not. These are "issues" from the main game that are ignorable because the content is optional, and grinding is easy. But grinding in the DLC is very specific with the scadu fragments, its less thinly veiled that you're leveling purely for more effective health, and even still there are several players that don't understand damage negation, and are still fighting bosses that are balanced expecting you to get hit or use a shield, without a shield, and without the ability to tank hits.
BUT, back to playing not to loose. The question I want to ask, the question I was expecting YOU to ask (not faulting you, this is a good video regardless of how much I agree or disagree with your direction and sentiment), is if RPGs, if dumping vigor to take more hits and to mitigate randomness, if REACTING to a boss by leveling, is passive play. Because this is a criticism I have somewhat with dumping vigor, and DEFINITELY with the scadu fragments, is that its just me deciding I want the game to allow me to make more mistakes or trade more hits. But even though I claimed that Fromsofts RPG mechanics don't always mesh well with its real time combat, I DON'T feel like adjusting your build, or making a build focused on tanking hits, is playing not to loose. And I feel you'd agree considering you articulated as much about how playing defensively is not the same as playing not to loose. I too, think Elden Ring is far from the masterpiece people claim it is. I too prefer Sekiro. I love Bloodborne and Lies of P, because all three of these games don't portend that blocking and parrying are optional mechanics, and have much more streamlined RPG mechanics. But guard counters exist... I forgot to use them, I equipped a shield to try to parry, it was to much for little reward in some cases and outright impossible in others, and I ditched the shield. But you know what you might do to a boss with a "bullshit" follow up outside of trading... bait a guard counter... why the fuck didn't I think of ever doing that. I can't guard an entire combo, but if avoid the combo, poke, get punished, but punish that punish... that sounds pretty fuckin cool. I guess what I'm arguing is that, rather than fight your assessment that these follow ups don't encourage player interaction by telling you "Thats not how it works, you just need to space it properly, its based on your position", I just wanted question if designing a fight in a deep deep RPG around possibly trading is actually bad design and what potential options still exist. If trading can actually be useful for teaching the importance of character building and if the problem it creates makes a tanky build feel more engaging than in the past, because I believe that that's exactly the direction Fromsoft went in Elden Ring... I believe that the core of Fromsofts brutal design was ALWAYS about giving players an excuse to engage with its RPG mechanics to win against unreasonable circumstances, and that a core of the audience just found attacking the problem head on to be more engaging. I don't think Elden Ring fixes those problems with the original Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, and its a detriment in every souls title even if players find that treating them as pure action games is fun enough to make up for that... but it did get me to trade without shame, and it did find mainstream appeal, so surely the shift in design succeeded in a way that previous action RPGs from them failed.
And I'll be honest, while I've been out here playing devils advocate for the SotE haters, trying to articulate their arguments more accurately than they can... I actually think the DLC is better than base game in boss fights and exploration (as stated, I don't love the scadu, I think rewards are scant, and the story telling leaves a lot to be desired even if the stuff about Marika and the Hornsent is cool) But I only love those bosses from this perspective of build crafting and survival=success. If I were playing for pure competency, I think basically only Midra, Bayle, and Romina would be satisfying to me. I mean... based Bayle not having multihit on his fire AOE and having consistent lightning effects, if only the other dragons were built like that, practically a Monhun fight.
What an absolutely excellent reply and analysis of Elden Ring! I am so glad that my video would engage someone enough that they would write something this long. It's a lot to dig through but I'll try my best.
I think your main point is in these two sentences where you say, "I DON'T feel like adjusting your build, or making a build focused on tanking hits, is playing not to loose", and "I just wanted question if designing a fight in a deep deep RPG around possibly trading is actually bad design and what potential options still exist."
With the first point, I agree! Adjusting your build to be more tanky is not playing to not lose, as it gives the player an extra cushion to blunt potential mistakes. This is a choice made with the mindset that damage is most likely inevitable (as is the case for average players) when fighting a boss, and it accounts for mistakes in actually skill and ability to manuever a boss's attacks. But the problem is, that simply increasing health in Elden Ring can not be your main strategy. As I said in the video boss's do much more damage to the player than you to them. So even if you have every flask, and you do have high health, the boss can still kill you pretty simply. Not only because of mechanical reasons so that you can you beat the boss, but also for fantasy reasons, because I argue that the fantasy of Souls games still is a test of skill and ability to not get hit. As such, it is still the perogative of the player to get hit as little as possible, which still leads to the avoidance of certain aspects of a boss's moveset entirely because there is a random behavior that is not worth risking.
If you compare Elden Ring to Bloodbourne and Sekiro, Bloodbourne reinforces that player's ability need to be aggressive by letting them regain lost health if they quickly retaliate against the enemy. Sekiro reinforces it's need to be aggressive by having quickly decaying stamina bars, and by having every attack be counterable. In this case, if you now look at Elden Ring it feels like it doesn't have any identity! What does Elden Ring want the player to really do? If they want the player to be aggressive and to memorize movesets, why do they add optional extensions, and moreover why don't they explain or reinforce them if they're core to the identity of Elden Ring.
And this takes me to your second point, trading isn't bad design, but Elden Ring isn't designed to have people trade! FromSoft obviously believes this otherwise they would've replicated Bloodbourne's health replenishing mechanic. If it was more about struggling through a long fight with a ton of health and flasks then they would've implemented something like Lies of P's flask replenish mechanic. But they didn't! This is because FromSoftware wanted Elden Ring to be more directly a successor to the Souls games, by having more bosses, and by giving said bosses more complex movesets. But while they upped the ante for bosses, they're strategy for making the player stronger and more capable to respond to these mechanics so as to enforce them was.... nothing!!! From's response was to give spirit ashes, and magic, and tons and tons of different spells and weapons and tools, but none of them are fundamentally necessary, nor do as any single one act as a direct response to the madness of Elden Ring's bosses. There is no core pillar to the player's capability in Elden Ring, so it doesn't matter what playstyle or build you're using, there's a problem with all of them.
And in a way, this was inevitable considering the scope of Elden Ring. It would be an immense challenge to find a core pillar of game design across so many bosses, and so many weapons, and so many spirit ashes. So in the end all you're left with is a game that has largely outgrown it's shell of traditional Souls game. That's why no matter the build, there are always inconsistencies in design ethos.
Finally, if you're saying the core Elden Ring's game is truly the RPG mechanics and that it's not an action game, then I would disagree completely as I personally already have a grudge against "RPG mechanics" (simple stat counters) as I feel they are completely unnecessary and work to function purely as balance meters, not as something that fundamentally alters the play of a game. This is not only for Elden Ring but for most games imo. At the end of the day nobody plays the game in a stat screen, you play the game by playing the game if that makes sense lol. It's about interaction, not preparing or planning ahead.
Hopefully this answered your question, it was bit hard to organize my thoughts on this matter and honestly it helped me come to the new revelation of the fact that Elden Ring really isn't built around any one specific mechanic and that was an inevitable result of its scope.
This video has many great points. But they are, idk how to say. Applied incorrectly? Like, once you understand the bosses it's not really random, ER is almost like your controlling the boss once you understand it. Way less reactionary. Sekiro still did everything better.
I find myself in an awkward position of agreeing with most of the points in this video, but not the way in which they presented. I think there's a bit of missing the forest for trees because, yeah, Elden Ring does have a lot of faults, especially in its boss design, but the analogy of the undeccorated hall that randomly resets the players progress falls flat on the fact that Elden Ring is a VERY decorated game with a whole lot more option than just walking in a straight line.
Yes, the bosses are very punishing, arguably even unfair to fight alone, but as correctly mentioned ,using summons or spirit ash introduces new opportunities and openings by dividing the boss's aggro. Now, maybe some might call that bad design, but others might call it FromSoft pushing players to engage more fully with all the options and mechanics.
That said, Shadow of the Erdtree goes way further than the base game. In the base game, most bosses will start the battle passive, or are at least slow enough to provide the player ample time to activate a spirit ash. In Shadiw of the Erdtree, the bosses are so much more aggressive right from the moment the player steps through the fog that trying to use a spirit ash at the start of the fight will almost always be punished. Instead, the player has to start dodging right away and wait for an opening to use a spirit ash just for the hope of being able to create those extra openings later in the fight.
These SOTE bosses seem to be well tuned for Spirit ashes. Some of them will split their attack chain between you and the spirit ash.
Not to mention all the AOE attacks and sweeping projectiles that the spirit summons can’t evade.
I find my maxed out spirit summons (SOTE/Base game max) gone with the boss at about 35% health.
And since I hadn’t really learned the attack patterns because I’d been gank fighting until then, I’m SOL after that.
I understand where your coming from. After playing MH and then coming back to ER for the DLC. Raw Combat does feel dull.
It’s one thing to not agree with your opinions but the proof lies in the fact that all the most popular overhaul mods of the game literally address the “feel” you are really talking about. 👍🏾
Joseph Anderson had the same gripes about ER bosses, so you're take isn't so out there. For me, I went all-in with the summons and mimic tear and never looked back. BK Oleg was my bro and got my through the game.
These SOTE bosses were designed to eat up spirit ashes. Mimic tear still can’t dodge AOE spam.
Elden Eing is essentially the Krauser vs Leon QTE Knife fight from Resident Evil 4 (OG version) for 100 hours.
In a sentence, it's not about how hard the game is. It's about how the game is hard.
I just beat Sekiro and I promise you the bosses don't do anything randomly. If you study them they only have a few different moves that you can even bait them to do repeatedly. I do agree with your Elden Ring take.
I would not Simply answer with a Skill Issues, but I would like to start with a simple question:
if It Is so random, how Is it possible that people have completed a boss- fight with no damage, multiple time?
I suggest you tò give It another try: bosses Attack are really predictable, once you take your time to learn them. The animations give you clear indications of what Attack they are going to do.
Not to talk about the fact that you have a lot of tools to fight the bosses. This game Is a dance between you and the bosses, you have tò understand their moves and you Will be able to defeat them. If you are not able to do so, you can Experiment with various weapons, tools and summons to help you defeat the game.
Design, in general, Is centered around providing and experience, the experience of From Software games Is exploration, sperimentation and learning.
The only week point of the game design Is the Quest Design, but other than that you have all the clues you Need to complete the game
They do it by not engaging on any attack that the possible follow up that would kill while waiting for the rare ones that don't, That's information you could gather from the video. I have seen a player that did a SL 1 of every Dark souls game and Elden ring and he came to the same conclusion, ER is the most shitty to do it on because it's the one you have less oportunities to do anything
And he did mention the tools, and how he is okay with it, but if you think its a good game design choice to pick a franchise that already exist, destroy the prefered playstyle of most of your fans, just because they are smart to cook a strategy that trows a rench on the enemy AI, IDK what to tell you, fighting AIs is not why I play fantasy games, I'm surprise it's anyones, I tougth everyone was on the same page that games are better when we are immersed and stuff
I really appreciate how charitable your comment is :) ty for that.
Regarding your question about how people are able to beat bosses without taking damage, it's because they simply don't risk punishing specific moves which have optional extensions or more often than not, a lot of no hit runs use weapons with high stagger or damage so usually the boss isn't even able to get off the worse moves. For example, in my gameplay I was using a buckler shield against Margit, and it's relatively easy to parry most of Margit's moves which makes the fight surprisingly easy.
Also of course there are runs where people use really weak weapons but those take much longer. And moreover, I think one thing you're missing is the fact that most of these runs take a lot of practice and attempts.
My point in the video is not that these are impossible feats, but rather that having to go so slow for a boss fight because you're functionally not allowed to react to some moves is not fun. It breaks the flow of combat, and it feels like the boss is having more fun than me. It's not just slow because it's a souls game, rather Elden Ring in particular forces you to play very passively. I hope that explains it more :D
@@Noveze_ very correct. people played around waterfowl dance. radahns fight is played around that double slash nonsense.
People are too used to winning. What's considered fun for most people too is a power fantasy rpg "oh let me be the main character and be the Elden lord and if I die its the game's fault not meeee bye bye" I can agree with people thinking that this is boring but you can't say that a boss going ape shit on you is. It's also not wrong for them to go ape shit on you and utterly destroy you, you're a tarnished. You are meant to die, it's not a choice. And if you're not a fan of that, the game isn't for you. Stop forcing yourself to play a game that its not meant for you. I don't play to lose, I play to go apeshit on the boss after they go apeshit on me. And no hit or parry runs are being done because of skills (I don't count terra magica and Azur comet run as no hit), you give an average player the same resources which they already have, it won't be done the same. Some people aren't just them and it's not the game's fault.
Ive been telling my fiends this since week 1. We are playing sekiro with Ds3 control's.
Rellana was the tipping point for me, she is clearly pontiff inspired but becomes unbearable because of combo extensions make it impossible to stay close and get good flow of combat.
When i frst fought pontiff years ago i already had a feel for the game as i entered the room, i wanted to get in close to the boss and fight him directly. In elden ring the best way yo play is stay back and bait a combo, fake going in to bait the extend and then jump attack the boss once, rinse and repeat.
Especially Input reading does not belong here, i want to learn and dance with the boss not bait and switch.
Produce more content pretty please.
I find that most optional followups depend on your position. I won't say there aren't unfair attacks, but different players DO react to the boss in different ways so I don't agree that the game doesn't give you a choice
i fw this vid tho
8:24 he’s guaranteed to do the double quick knife when you’re in front of him after a one handed cane slam, it isn’t an optional extension it’s a follow up that depends on your positioning relative to the boss.
Once you know this it can be easily played around, for example you could sprint to his sides/back to get a heavy punish in, if you position to his tail he can do a tail swipe which is jumpable making the fight more active and aggressive.
TL.DR: chad + subbed + god i love fromsoft + god i hate white knights + blessed be critical thinking + agreed on pretty much everything, have a like (as ironic as that is to write after praising critical thinking)
Based af.
I've been a Fromsoft fan for 20 years. And I'm absolutely sick and tired of Elden Ring white knights.
The core F.S community had criticism on Demon's souls, dark souls 1 through 3, Bloodborne, even Sekiro, which is by far their most polished game.
I think all the media praise, awards, and global positive reviews, has given the newcomers, and some old time players, a good old case of internet brainrot, and they've lost all objectivity.
Look, if/when Dark souls 2 had broken hitboxes, some AIs being barely functional, some barren optional zones, reused bosses for the dlcs, terrible netcode, constant ganks, bad gank boss fights, bad 1v2 bossfights, and didn't feel like ds1 and ds3, it was HEAVILY criticized.
Why does Elden Ring have a free pass on that? + the over utilization of rng extensions, input reading, a huge downgrade in multiplayer mechanics, exploits for the longest time, a recycled DLC ending which is downright criminal to do, and it had 5 times the manpower, 3 times the dev time, and almost a decade more experience and 8 years development behind it (if you count the dlc).
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Elden Ring. I'm insane enough to have explored the literal entirety of it 100% , step by step, torrentless, at least 4 times by now, and 1 and a half times including dlc. I think it has some of the highest highs, and it adds a lot of mechanical improvements. But it lacks a lot in design philosophy of enemy encounters, multiplayer mechanics, and mechanical polish.
Bloodborne, Dark souls 3, and Sekiro, were pretty much peak for what they were. Everything was there for a reason, and polished to fit perfectly. You may have liked some areas and enemies more than others, but that's subjective. The reality is, everything worked. And not only did everything work, but some of it is still by this day, the best FromSoft has ever done. Not entirely subjective take, once you put everything on a scale. All encounters, areas, and weapons/spells, had perfectly reasonable placings, balancing, ludo-narrative logic, and peak art design to back it up. Ds3 multiplayer had the most worthwhile covenants, with the most rewards, the best arena, and probably the best-in-slot archetypical bosses for Knight 1v1, Monster 1v1, 1v2, and Dragon boss fights, on top of Yuka Kitamura's overall best soundtrack.
Elden Ring is way to flawed to get to that level. A lot of placements lack meaning, a lot of the enemy design is to inflate difficulty and take away options from the player, rather than to design a fun and challenging fight, some of the higher highs are high enough to intoxicate the player into thinking it's peak, but once you start to compare, you realize it's not. If anything, Elden Ring is the first downgrade in design in almost a decade, which speaks wonderfully of FromSoft, but is a shame, because it really was almost there, to actually be peak. They just had to put in so much ''extra'', and refused to polish it afterwards.
"I won't pretend to see what they see - because I dont - so I'll say they're simply wrong"
Right back at you
Is this reddit
I think your takes from these mechanics are in the complete wrong direction of how they're supposed to be interpreted. As somebody who loathes the phrase "Git Gud", I think the better phrase should be "Adapt".
For example, the Godskin Apostle fight at 12:56. When I first played this game, this guy kicked my ass... HARD. Even when relatively adequately leveled for the area (about 60-80, it's been a minute), I easily died to him dozens of times, so this guy is a bit of a sore spot for me. But the issue I see is that you are actively healing when the apostle is doing the attack animation, which should be a pretty easy telegraph that he is going to hit you. If you dodge his fire attack, you have a decent window to heal before he either:
A. Tries to close the distance from you, if he's close enough.
or
B. Repeats the same telegraphed attack at you again, allowing you to roll towards him and get a hit off.
I understand this game is frustrating, especially when a strategy you have been so used to eventually fails, I've been there. But this game is teaching you to keep an eye out for when to dodge, and when to punish. When an enemy follows up an attack it previously didn't, it should be seen as a lesson that you should be paying attention to if he's winding up for another attack or if you have an opportunity to strike. Bossfights are a dance between you and the boss.
You should definitely keep trying for video essays, as you have potential, but I think you need to think carefully about the lessons you take away from your frustrations.
Weak foe ahead
honestly pretty cute video despite the outright incorrect statements about the game.
i think you have potential, you just have to refine your stuff and do more research. see the negative comments as encouragement to improve.
This comment is so hilariously condescending and entitled whilst offering no substance. Good job buddy 😂
i mean he liked it so, mission complete.
but yeah this is a very substance free comment, i could've gone more in-depth but imo i felt like just being a bit positive, other comments have already said what i would've.
12:55 this mechanic has been a thing since ds1, the bosses will punish when you heal when they’re in neutral simply roll out a boss combo and get a healing opportunity.
You have 0 understanding of the bosses lol there’s 0 randomness with the follow ups.
Just another unresearched review, doesn’t even know why the game has a mixed reviews on steam hint it’s not because of the difficulty or performance.
15:43 You can simply sprint out the magic swords and roll the sword.
skill issue I fear
get good 🙄
you are constructing a narrative around false perceptions and I'm not wasting any more of my life listening to it. All the best and I hope you come right.
actual skill issue lil bro
Fun issue lil bro
@@austin0_bandit05get good
He’s right.
For instance, Bride Radahn in the DLC has certain attacks that are punishable maybe 50% of the time with no tell.
Like that jump attack.
Sometimes it’s two jumps, other times it’s one.
The three swing combo can sometimes just end or get followed up with the punishing 2 sword cross slash.
Yeah, so many Sekiro elements were brought into Elden Ring but they don’t fit the base game play loop of roll,dodge, jump, hit.
So they resort to balancing it out with spirit ashes.
15:01 this is what I mean, you don’t even know what you’re talking about yet are saying the game is badly designed?
I’m trying to be cordial but it’s incredibly difficult with how annoying the tone of this video is.
There’s no rng with the boss follow ups tho, every boss follow up will happen depending on your positioning relative to the boss.
Your video proves this as margit only does the quick knife when you’re in front of him after he does a one handed cane attack, he telegraphs this by holding his hand up in preparation.
I’ve done many SL1 runs and can consistently no hit the bosses, the reason for this is because the bosses are consistent.
I’ll just post a video of me playing aggressively and no hitting a boss to prove you wrong on your point that the game is somehow forcing you into playing passive.
Idk why you didn’t do any research on this and made a very pretentious video even tho you’re factually wrong about basically everything you said.
The tone of this video is very bad to say the least, you act as if you’re factual and objectively correct about what you’re saying when it’s the complete opposite, pretty sure that’s why people are dogpiling on you in the comment section, you pretentiously/ignorantly shat on a game they like so they retaliated in an aggressive way which is completely understandable.
In a critique such as this I think it's important to have a confident tone even though at times it may seem pretentious because I truly do believe in what I'm stating and I find far too often that critiques especially of well beloved media are delicate so as not to draw negativity-as clearly my video has.
While the comments do make me wish more people had actually paid attention to the video, they don't bother me too much, because at the end of the day convincing all the "get good" types is part of the purpose of this video.
While it's great that you can complete Souls games no hit consistently, and you can still find a lot of engagement and joy in these games, I personally find Elden Rings additions to the formula to be damaging to the core of Souls design. There's an inherent ebb and flow to the combat of Souls games because unlike many other games, the threats in Souls games are actually dangerous to the player and thus require you to put more thought into your decisions-aka strategy. While I surely believe your ability to beat these games without much effort seemingly from your vast experience, I'm going to suggest you play Elden Ring again, because optional extensions are indeed a part of the game. I'm sorry if my gameplay demonstrations weren't that detailed and this detracted from my argument but I can't do much about that now. Not only are they a part of the game, but when considering strategy which is so vital to Souls games, they remove your ability to safely punish a boss' or enemy's attacks, this is a fact. If you want to play in a calculated and skilled way to avoid these attacks, you will never take the gamble of trying to punish moves with optional extensions. But these moves can be a large part of a boss's arsenal, which means you have to spend a significant chunk of your fight simply dodging. It isn't even a choice. I find that incredibly boring. And beyond that I'm saying everyone should recognize how flawed it is that these types of moves implement luck into fights that are moreover skill based. Since being unlucky in this instance is so damaging, there's only ever one outcome. You can definitely enjoy the games now, but with a few design tweaks you would be able to enjoy them much more. That's all :)
@@Noveze_ if you don’t believe me even tho I challenge run, study the game and speak with other challenge runners about the game, please just watch the most recent video by Loopine os he addressed all this misinformation in the video.
He also has multiple videos of him beating the bosses at SL1 +0 weapon whilst playing aggressively.
The boss follow ups depend on positioning, there’s nothing optional about them I provided an example of this idk why you keep insisting they’re rng when it’s factually and objectively wrong.
I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating JA and Feeble kings talking points, because these exact words have already been said by them and disproven.
@@makia3 Ok, so I ended up watching Loopine's latest video and his original critique of Joseph Anderson. 100% my mistake regarding the optional extensions being position based. I will say in my defense that 1. Not all attacks have position based extensions 2. This means there isn't a consistent language in the moves of the boss, meaning the average player (me for example) will not figure out the position based extensions easily. This is still a failure to communicate things on behalf of FromSoft and I'm sorry I just can't agree with Loopine that stuff like this that's very core to the game needs to be looked up, especially when it's relatively technical and aside from a few specific vids--like Loopine's--this mechanic isn't exactly regularly discussed online.
Also, I still hold strong on the rest of my arguments. Input reading (yes ik technically it's animation reading) still feels really shitty to play against bottom line and that's just how I feel :/ It makes the AI seem really dumb, and as Loopine says and as even I pointed out in the video their behavior is so predictable that you start baiting animation reads. That seems extremely contrived to me, especially since to bait the enemy you're wasting a flask.
For the record, I watched JA's critique when it first came out and as a matter of principle didn't watch while making this video so as not to plagarize. But even not remembering the video that well I still do end up having many similar points to JA, and tbh he definitely explained a lot of the issues better than I did, and I still agree with most of his points. Loopine shows and explains that the best way to address most of Elden Ring's bosses is to get in the pocket and punish them during the combo. And while I feel like that's definitely feasible for a lot of attacks, it isn't feasible for a lot of other attack chains, and still the best bet is that you run away. There's still a lot of dead air, and I don't find that fun. Elden Ring's boss fights just don't seem to have a good tempo, that's just my opinon. Also again it comes down to communication with punishing mid combo, because that has not been the status quo for Souls games, and again it also makes the combat feel less grounded.
I know a lot of the stuff I used as talking points were technical, but at the end of the day this is still my opinion. While it's easy to say "get good", I think it devalues the conversation whenever a criticism is brought up.
The fact that getting good bottlenecks the player into playing like another person is what this guy means when he talks about the flow of combat.
I can SL 1 as well because you wait exploit and break stance.
Aggressive is a relative term but aggression in ER is intentionally a test of patience and knowledge more than general skill. (Miyazaki said this himself years ago)
That’s why just watching a couple positioning videos and looking up a the fastest path to an overused build is so efficient.
If we had more horah loux like fights I think we could strike a better balance.
@@Thealphaman04 I played the dlc completely blind and learned the bosses on my own, I played in my own way with my own build and never had a problem.
Maybe you should grow some balls if you are running away from bosses. Most of them get easily staggered by heavy attacks and if you are up for it you can summon spirits for some easy meat shields to make the game even easier.
Game is not really that random when you can narrow enemy AI to perform certain attacks and fry to predict on that. So in short, git gud.