The Souls Series Replayed

[sXeth]

That's like says every turn-based RPG is exactly the same because they all have HP and MP bars.



Lots of games have stamina mangement. Similar gameplay foundations don't mean the games are similar.



My guy....have you....have you played a souls game before? Because this is so unbelievably wrong that I can't even reply to it.



People who beat the games at level 1 say "hello".



This whole paragraph reads like, "Bro all you gotta do to win is simply...like..hit the boss until it dies."

Monster Hunter doesn't require anything on a complex level either. Hit the fucker until it falls over and don't get hit back. That is the core of action games period so you might as well be comparing Monster Hunter to Devil May Cry or Street Fighter.

Dark Souls and Monster Hunters are too different from a fundamental design philosophy that I do not believe they can fairly be compared. Monster Hunter requires boss farming, and gear grinding. Bosses are more dynamic and often require pre-planning of traps, buffs, foods, and response items. There is soo much more to Monster Hunter than a Souls game that they do not work when related to each other.

When Souls came out, Stamina management was a much different beast. And the combination with dodge rolls, an emphasis on boss fights, and again, the VISUALLY IDENTICAL UI used for all these elements. (Also the restocking health potions at checkpoints, and the baseline of the upgrade system). Oblivion has health and stamina, sure, but the UI is notably different, and none of the othere similarities apply.



I have played as you are well aware given how many times we've interacted on thee forums. If you want the exact count, Demon Souls twice, DArk Souls 1 twice, Dark Souls two once, Dark Souls 3 4 times (mostly because that point I'd gotten into embracing the ludicrous nature of it, hence the meme "Switch weapon" after every boss run, and an entire run in unleevelled farmers gear with the rusty pitchfork, Bloodborne twice, Elden Ring 1.1 times because I couldn't drag myself through it over again. I might actually forgotten one or tow in here for the aforementioned everything blurs together reasons.


(Also Lords of the Fallen, Both Surges, Both Salt and Sa----'s , Hollow Knight, and a brief foray in Mortal Shell. in hte broader family)


They really really aren't difficult. Dark Souls 1 (as the first one) I played contemporary with Lords of Shadow (the Castlevania would be God of War one). Almost identicalllly, light attacks and dodges. My initial impression (on the old forum even) was a combination of "does this game ever get any kind of compelling engagement, and this gaping dragon boss looks cool but its an inane slog cause it took 40 minutes and then someone (hell, might've been you) explained the upgrade system that the game doesn't bother telling you.


You can beat the game at level 1. Using the exact same skills you would have at level 60 (assuming you're not a spellcaster). That's the point/problem. The only difference in the game challenge is the HP/Damage values, the only difficulty isn't adding difficulty its making it take more time or requiring upgrades. Your skillset does not grow or expand to include new tactics/combos/items. You're still hitting and dodging the entire time . You master two of the most basic skillls in action videogames and you are done, that is the journey of Dark Souls difficulty. That and stamina management, which yourself have pointed out is also a pretty common one.


You can also do Monster Hunter with Rank 1 weapons and naked, and no consumables. at least to a point. Timers usually force you to at least move up the weapon tree a bit, but you can stick in the basic ore tree. But the game heavily leans into making each weapon have uniqueness and gives you more tools to do unique things. I'll give Elden Ring some credit for vaguely trying to shake up this a bit in the Souls series, or From side of things as well, though I would say for the most part they refused to allow it to be effective so its mostly so much inventory trash to manage more then anything. Another game that has the same samey feel for their weapons that Souls does? Warframe's melee weapons. To the point that Axes are actually sword skins . But the action-component of the melee aside, Warframe also has builds and such on the back end.


To re-iterate, I don't disparage the Souls as bad games (I definitely think the earlier entries are teetering on it under the weight of poor presentation of mechanics, awful UI (which hasn't really gotten much better), and some outright unfinished or leftover things (The "Resistance" stat that did nothing, or Lost Izalith with its empty canvas and placeholder enemies). The comparison I made to Assassins Creed was.... that they're a stale, but competently executed series of similar games with overall shallow experiences.. Streamlining is... "fine". Breath of the Wild was "fine" if weirdly un-Zelda like with the removal of all gadget/powers. But I won't pretend that they are monumentally difficult, or that their difficulty is anything beyond a base mastery of literally two buttons, 3 if you want to be adventurous and use heavy attacks. Again, comparing two games with a similar basic melee action. On Souls people beat it with a dancepad or on a toaster or whatever and consider it a triumph over diffciulty, not a definition of the games simplicity. When someone made a melee-solo-run vidoe in Warframe pressing only the circle button it was (laughed at because funny) but also seen as indicative of how basic it was.


In cross-comparison to any action game (forget Monster Hunter), they feel very limited in just having two attacks with a combo of each (again, Elden Ring tries to mix it up a bit with weapon arts). Can you imagine DMC or God of War where the main characters attack chains were either presing Triangle 3 times or Square 5 times or an occasional "Ultimate" if we throw in weapon arts and thats it? OR are we pretending Souls is not an action game, because I will have a lot more critiques if we start calling it an RPG (either in the traditional sense or the Diablo-esque buildcrafting sense).

 

[CriticalGaming]

snip

My original point was that Souls and Monster hunter are too different to directly compare. This post of yours just rants about how basic the games are, which only further proves my point and I think you lost sight of what you were arguing for bro.

I think you are overly simplifying the Souls games. Saying you have the same skill set at the begining of the game as the end is plainly wrong. Mechanically you might be right in the sense that you are talking about dodging and attacking basically gets you through the game. However to say that a player doesn't learn and adapt their own skills within the game between the time they fight the first boss to the time they defeat the final boss is just false.

A player beating the game on level-1 is not the same as a first time player running through the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't certain story missions require specific things? Traps, gear, tighter time limits etc. I don't think getting through the game with basic stuff is all that reasonably possible outside of maybe cheeses or exploits. Maybe a skip. I dunno. I've never really given Monster Hunter the time of day because after trying Worlds I just found the gameplay loop and progress too tedious.

Regardless, samey UI's don't make the games the same. Nioh is not even close to a Souls game despite the visual set up for it. Similar elements don't make similar games. Perfect example Salt and Sanctuary is a Souls clone, but visually and gameplay wise is not even close to a souls game, yet that comparison works because why? All the gameplay elements are the same, the atmosphere is the same, the way exploration works is the same, the games work the same way outside of the removal of a dimension.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I get that Souls games have a simplistic combat design in that the player doesn’t have a bunch of skill trees or moves lists to learn, but it still wouldn’t explain why, if the games are so stupid easy, they’re known so much for their difficulty. It would suggest that either 99% of gamers are simple idiots for dying so often, or perhaps the 1% that doesn’t are by some metric exceptionally gifted human beings.

As an aside, there are also plenty of action games that don’t require much thought or variations on a tried and true “win” button combo for the majority of their run times. I mean, we’ve all heard about Square Square Triangle, even though I’d say that’s also a gross oversimplification of what’s required to get through GoW. Same with R1/Dodge for Souls, but the ever-expanding appeal of the games, to some extent, has to have been rooted in its mechanical simplicity. Its other various aspects have enough complexities to compensate, which is probably another appealing factor. Kinda the opposite of other more action-oriented game types.

 

[EvilRoy]

In cross-comparison to any action game (forget Monster Hunter), they feel very limited in just having two attacks with a combo of each (again, Elden Ring tries to mix it up a bit with weapon arts). Can you imagine DMC or God of War where the main characters attack chains were either presing Triangle 3 times or Square 5 times or an occasional "Ultimate" if we throw in weapon arts and thats it? OR are we pretending Souls is not an action game, because I will have a lot more critiques if we start calling it an RPG (either in the traditional sense or the Diablo-esque buildcrafting sense).

In terms of the intent behind game mechanics in DS games, I would actually class them a lot more similar to fighting/brawling games rather than action/RPG games. Yeah in fighters you have a combo list a mile long that you can totally memorize, but often it comes down to knowing a few really important moves and being able to execute them with precise timing and reaction speeds. I'm no fighting game expert, but I did play the shit out of them as a teen and usually just knowing a bunch of complex combos does not make you better at the game and its totally possible to get stomped by someone using very simple combos because they are really good at block timing, wiff punishing, and have a good understanding of how frames work. Alternatively, you could look to games like Chivalry, For Honor, or Kingdom Come which seek to emulate what real swordfighting is (sort of) like, and there you have only a few attacks and winning is all about reading and timing.

Similarly, in DS, the game is focused around needing to memorize move patterns, blocking behavior, grab ranges, i-frame timing, and knowing the arena. Adding more combos wouldn't really add much to that, because barring a combo that somehow hobbles an opponent's mobility/defense, since it would just be a different way to apply damage which is not typically the barrier to success. The beauty of a simple moveset and limited damage types is that the game comes down to your ability to apply those moves/damages really well, and it frees you from having to worry about memorizing all sorts of combos, damage types and resistances, which I consider a chore (and is why I got out of fighting games).

The thing that I actually consider ER's greatest leap forward is the easily accessible jump button. Now instead of sidestepping, dodging and blocking, you can also jump over attacks. It significantly shook up how I played ER relative to previous games. I doubt I would feel that way about having more combos to use with my bloodhounds fang, considering the fact that the way/amount of damage I apply is borderline irrelevant compared to my ability to survive long enough to do so. If I really need a different move set, then I usually just pick up a different weapon from the ten million sitting in my backpack.

 

[sXeth]

In terms of the intent behind game mechanics in DS games, I would actually class them a lot more similar to fighting/brawling games rather than action/RPG games. Yeah in fighters you have a combo list a mile long that you can totally memorize, but often it comes down to knowing a few really important moves and being able to execute them with precise timing and reaction speeds. I'm no fighting game expert, but I did play the shit out of them as a teen and usually just knowing a bunch of complex combos does not make you better at the game and its totally possible to get stomped by someone using very simple combos because they are really good at block timing, wiff punishing, and have a good understanding of how frames work. Alternatively, you could look to games like Chivalry, For Honor, or Kingdom Come which seek to emulate what real swordfighting is (sort of) like, and there you have only a few attacks and winning is all about reading and timing.

Similarly, in DS, the game is focused around needing to memorize move patterns, blocking behavior, grab ranges, i-frame timing, and knowing the arena. Adding more combos wouldn't really add much to that, because barring a combo that somehow hobbles an opponent's mobility/defense, since it would just be a different way to apply damage which is not typically the barrier to success. The beauty of a simple moveset and limited damage types is that the game comes down to your ability to apply those moves/damages really well, and it frees you from having to worry about memorizing all sorts of combos, damage types and resistances, which I consider a chore (and is why I got out of fighting games).

The thing that I actually consider ER's greatest leap forward is the easily accessible jump button. Now instead of sidestepping, dodging and blocking, you can also jump over attacks. It significantly shook up how I played ER relative to previous games. I doubt I would feel that way about having more combos to use with my bloodhounds fang, considering the fact that the way/amount of damage I apply is borderline irrelevant compared to my ability to survive long enough to do so. If I really need a different move set, then I usually just pick up a different weapon from the ten million sitting in my backpack.

Out of the comparitive examples I've only played For Honor extensively (Kingdom Come was broken AF and I just refund windowed t). It still goes massively more in depth then Souls ever deigns too. You do have combos in For Honor, along with triggered buffs, a win condition often outside of your immediate health-duel with an enemy, and status effects as that goes. You're also generally (As is the case with fighting games) on a relatively even health/damage level with your enemy.


I'm not contesting that Souls has difficulty in its basic approach (being generous, Elden Ring has a light, storng, jump, crouch, block, and single super/special move, if we're using fighting game terms. Wind back to the Souls and you lose the jump, crouch, and the Special only rarely pops up mainly in DS3).


Limited mechanics create a limited difficulty ceiling. Souls can not be a major source of difficulty while staying within the realms of those mechanics without becoming actually unfair (something it does topple into when it starts input reading) or hitting a point where the animations actually look broken and inconsistent with reality (their other main trick with swings that pause for actual seconds mid attack). All it can do is make the same things longer (HP bloat), or more punishing (instakills). Becoming either time-wasting repetitions or in the latter case preventing any kind of pattern memorization.


Take off to another completely different genre, platformers. Platformers have, since the SNES era if not before, never stuck to their Run/Jump baseline. They prettymuch always have air dashes/grapples/wall jumps/etc. Or they populate levels with items such as coins that embellish a reason to do a difficult route. Or time constraints (not my favorite) to force you to move and decide more rapid.


Souls doesn't reward any risk approach. Thereby the difficulty lies flat at the least risk. IF you can the fighting game by with pokes and basic movement, you win the fighting game. But most fighting games will have a time out metre stopping that (or getting hit like that will cause your opponent to build up an Ex Meter and do something you won't be able to dodge). There are two bosses in the entirety of Elden Ring that have an answer for basic light-light and rolls. One is Crystalians that have to stagger to do any effective damage, the other is a Knight Phantom right before Rennala who input reads (IE cheats) and auto-parries (though you can just switch to unparriable jump attacks, didn't really change much overall as difficulty goes).


The main thing I see people actually struggling with in Dark Souls? They try and dodge like its actually dodging and not a "I leave realty and am invulnerable" dash. (This is also funnily, the main thing you have to reverse when changing between Monster Hunter to Dauntless)

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Out of the comparitive examples I've only played For Honor extensively (Kingdom Come was broken AF and I just refund windowed t). It still goes massively more in depth then Souls ever deigns too. You do have combos in For Honor, along with triggered buffs, a win condition often outside of your immediate health-duel with an enemy, and status effects as that goes. You're also generally (As is the case with fighting games) on a relatively even health/damage level with your enemy.


I'm not contesting that Souls has difficulty in its basic approach (being generous, Elden Ring has a light, storng, jump, crouch, block, and single super/special move, if we're using fighting game terms. Wind back to the Souls and you lose the jump, crouch, and the Special only rarely pops up mainly in DS3).


Limited mechanics create a limited difficulty ceiling. Souls can not be a major source of difficulty while staying within the realms of those mechanics without becoming actually unfair (something it does topple into when it starts input reading) or hitting a point where the animations actually look broken and inconsistent with reality (their other main trick with swings that pause for actual seconds mid attack). All it can do is make the same things longer (HP bloat), or more punishing (instakills). Becoming either time-wasting repetitions or in the latter case preventing any kind of pattern memorization.


Take off to another completely different genre, platformers. Platformers have, since the SNES era if not before, never stuck to their Run/Jump baseline. They prettymuch always have air dashes/grapples/wall jumps/etc. Or they populate levels with items such as coins that embellish a reason to do a difficult route. Or time constraints (not my favorite) to force you to move and decide more rapid.


Souls doesn't reward any risk approach. Thereby the difficulty lies flat at the least risk. IF you can the fighting game by with pokes and basic movement, you win the fighting game. But most fighting games will have a time out metre stopping that (or getting hit like that will cause your opponent to build up an Ex Meter and do something you won't be able to dodge). There are two bosses in the entirety of Elden Ring that have an answer for basic light-light and rolls. One is Crystalians that have to stagger to do any effective damage, the other is a Knight Phantom right before Rennala who input reads (IE cheats) and auto-parries (though you can just switch to unparriable jump attacks, didn't really change much overall as difficulty goes).


The main thing I see people actually struggling with in Dark Souls? They try and dodge like its actually dodging and not a "I leave realty and am invulnerable" dash. (This is also funnily, the main thing you have to reverse when changing between Monster Hunter to Dauntless)

Parrying is one of the riskiest things in Souls and it’s rewarded with high damage riposte opp’s. Also risky is not knowing which enemies can be riposted, unless either taking a chance or checking a wiki. Bloodborne does this a bit differently by making the parry mechanic a consumable, discouraging spamming of resources. Recovering lost souls/bloodstains/runes/etc. is another way they introduce risk/reward, as it’s naturally incentivized to retrieve them albeit not the easiest path.

I suppose if FROM wanted Souls to actually be more difficult it would require more risk-based tactics to defeating different enemies and change them up more often. Maybe this has never been their strong suit, or a goal at that. In terms of gameplay Miyazaki has said he wanted to instill a sense of accomplishment in players through overcoming odds initially thought too steep, and it seems he’s largely succeeded at that with most peoples’ general feedback from the games over the years.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Parrying is one of the riskiest things in Souls and it’s rewarded with high damage riposte opp’s. Also risky is not knowing which enemies can be riposted, unless either taking a chance or checking a wiki. Bloodborne does this a bit differently by making the parry mechanic a consumable, discouraging spamming of resources. Recovering lost souls/bloodstains/runes/etc. is another way they introduce risk/reward, as it’s naturally incentivized to retrieve them albeit not the easiest path.

I suppose if FROM wanted Souls to actually be more difficult it would require more risk-based tactics to defeating different enemies and change them up more often. Maybe this has never been their strong suit, or a goal at that. In terms of gameplay Miyazaki has said he wanted to instill a sense of accomplishment in players through overcoming odds initially thought too steep, and it seems he’s largely succeeded at that with most peoples’ general feedback from the games over the years.

The point of Souls is limiting damage as much as possible and the risk of parrying is completely not worth the reward when there's much less risky ways of dealing damage. Bloodborne fixed parrying a great deal and made it worth doing by not needing a FAQ to know if you can and made the timing window bigger. Also, you don't have a shield in Bloodborne so you don't have the superior option either.

 

[sXeth]

Parrying is one of the riskiest things in Souls and it’s rewarded with high damage riposte opp’s. Also risky is not knowing which enemies can be riposted, unless either taking a chance or checking a wiki. Bloodborne does this a bit differently by making the parry mechanic a consumable, discouraging spamming of resources. Recovering lost souls/bloodstains/runes/etc. is another way they introduce risk/reward, as it’s naturally incentivized to retrieve them albeit not the easiest path.

I suppose if FROM wanted Souls to actually be more difficult it would require more risk-based tactics to defeating different enemies and change them up more often. Maybe this has never been their strong suit, or a goal at that. In terms of gameplay Miyazaki has said he wanted to instill a sense of accomplishment in players through overcoming odds initially thought too steep, and it seems he’s largely succeeded at that with most peoples’ general feedback from the games over the years.

To be fair to them, the handful of times they've tried to change up the occasional fight. The wider base doesn't really seem to adapt and keeps doing the same old anyways (Hell, half the folks don't seem to know to use a non slash weapon on armoured dudes to not bounce).


At 5 games in, it might be tough to do any significant change without dropping the fanbase. Without doing a full sidestep out of the series in a clearly denoted manner like Sekiro.


As Phoenix noted, parry is more often a false positive. You have to dodge/wait around for the parriable moves (assuming you even figure them out), and have a weapon that has the parry/backstab boosts. You really are just better using conventional attacks in the same period.


The actual Souls mechanic. It really only has two variations. If you had a significant amount of souls for some reason, you're incentivized to play more cautiously, which is to say, less experimentation and risk. If you had a non-significant amount, its literally irrelevant. The more common negative on death is losing your Humanity/Ember/Great Rune.

 

[bluegate]

Parries were only done right in Bloodborne where you could perform them from a safe distance and with a larger window and Sekiro with its larger window and "spamability".


Parry in a Dark Souls game and miss the small timing or try to parry an unparryable and gone is a large chunk of your health.

 

[Dalisclock]

Parries were only done right in Bloodborne where you could perform them from a safe distance and with a larger window and Sekiro with its larger window and "spamability".


Parry in a Dark Souls game and miss the small timing or try to parry an unparryable and gone is a large chunk of your health.

I'm reminded of a joke that describes how I played the series.

"I've beaten every Souls game without learning to parry and I'm sure as hell not gonna start now."

 

[CriticalGaming]

Bloodborne!!!!!!

HA I bet you expect me to do DArk Souls 3 next. But noooooooo, I'm doing release order and next up is easily one of the best games in the From catalog if not THE best game depending on who you ask.

Bloodborne is a souls game but set in a Lovecraftian horror / Victorian setting. Bloodborne is also the game that makes me wish From would explore other settings because it's clear the formula can work in a wide array of ways and applications if done right. The Surge has a cool Sci-Fi concept but doesn't quite hit the marks that From could in the same setting, for example.

Anyway Bloodborne takes the Souls formula and tweaks it a bit. No more shields, and no more turtling options. Bloodborne is faster and more aggressive than the Souls series and gives players the tools to handle that. The rallying system is an interesting inclusion. Basically taking damage will leave you with a window to counter attack. If you counter attack successfully you can get all or almost all of the health you just lost back which can turn the tide of a battle and minimize your healing.

The combat works perfectly in Bloodborne, the setting and the bosses are all incredibly cool and mostly memorable. Plus you have Chalice Dungeons which might not suit everyone, they do add a cool extension onto the core game to be worth playing at least once. The chalice dungeons also offer the hardest challenges in the game (even harder than Orphan of Kos).

Speaking of difficulty. Bloodborne is by far the easiest From game for me and I don't know why. For some reason I just click with the comabt in this game and I steamroll it. This playthrough I even counted my deaths and by the time I beat Kos I had died a mere 15 times throughout the entire playthrough, which is WAY low for a Souls game for me.

This marks probably my 5th playthrough, maybe 6th, and it is still a blast to play every fucking time.

However it's not perfect. Bloodborne suffers from a variety issue. There are not lot of weapons available to the player until very late or NG+ playthroughs. Alternate options like Arcane and bloodtinge also don't really work until NG+ playthroughs. Which is a shame because the variety of weapons and combat approaches is one of the cool things about the Souls series. Bloodborne however really wants to drive that agressive focus into the player and doesn't want you distracted by playing around with different combat styles.

Also the enemy weakpoints are often very much the same. Dodge forward and to your character's left for every attack and you can beat the following bosses without getting hit ever: Blood Starved Beast, Cleric Beast, Father Gasconige, Ludwig, Lady Maria, Kos.....oh actually every boss in the game. Do this to every boss and you can escape with barely ever gettting it, if you get hit at all. Some bosses have aoe's and auras which you'll still have to deal with, but as for actually swings this wins every time. And once you get this down....well GG I guess.

Still it's great and one of the best games ever made.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I think that’s kinda the thing with Souls gameplay. It’s all kinda ambiguous and optional, in terms of not really forcing the player to learn much besides simply figuring out what works best for them. Sekiro was a bit different in that progression was funneled more down the posture/swordplay path, with some assistance via prosthetic attachments and consumables.

Otherwise, I get the impression especially with ER that Miyazaki basically said anything players are able to get away with is fair game.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

In the videos thread but also kinda relevant to this one -



It’s interesting to see how after experiencing all these games’ differences over the years and various iterations it makes it easier to appreciate them all a bit more for what they were in their time.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Skimming through the thread so I'll just add these two thoughts of mine:

I played Demon's Souls before Elden Ring, of course the first game on my new PS5 after Astro's Playroom, and I found it fascinating. Going to Elden Ring after that, the really big change in the series that hits me is boss fights.

In Demon's Souls, boss fights are just... the next part. Some of them are the hardest parts, sure, but some aren't. They're different. Some are thematic, or use the environment more than the enemy, and some are just tough enemies. That is cool! It's interesting.
I feel starting with Dark Soul 2 maybe they got into this formula where boss fight = HARDEST THING OMG and it got worse and worse until the absolute insanity of Elden Ring where you can go through interesting levels or boring caves and then BOSS FIGHT HARD HUR DUR. And I think it's a shame.

Bloodborne- yes, they're best, or at least my favorite, by far. Also my first, so there's that bias. But after that I played all three Dark Souls and thought, yeah BB is pretty much the culmination of the style. DS were great but missing that awesome vibe and action-y feel, and DS3 is like lamer BB.
I do love my some body horror and creepy monsters though.

 

[CriticalGaming]

In Demon's Souls, boss fights are just... the next part.

I think the hardest part of the Demon's Souls boss is figuring out the puzzle they represent. Almost every boss is a puzzle is some way and it's up to the player to figure it out. Interestingly the hardest fights are the bosses that are straight up fights like Maneaters and Flamer Lurker, simply because the dodge and actual long term fight mechanics are not good.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I think the hardest part of the Demon's Souls boss is figuring out the puzzle they represent. Almost every boss is a puzzle is some way and it's up to the player to figure it out. Interestingly the hardest fights are the bosses that are straight up fights like Maneaters and Flamer Lurker, simply because the dodge and actual long term fight mechanics are not good.

That’s why I cheesed both of them the vast majority of my playthrough’s. Flamelurker gets stuck behind a large rock on the left side and the maneaters could be poached from outside the fog gate or later by dropping to the lower ledge under the bridge and playing peekaboo with arrows. Fuck those maneaters they won’t be chewing me up.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

To me, Elden Ring bosses were the biggest "puzzles," because they all have different weaknesses and crazy movement (like some are resistant to magic, and just those delayed attacks or which flurry of combos you can and can't dodge). The "puzzles" of Demon Souls were by comparison much easier. LIke I got right away not to charge through the fire to get to armored spider.

One thing that did amuse me in Demons Souls was that even though it is the oldest game in the series, but still the 6th such I played, one thing was consistent- "cheese" strategies don't work for me.

the maneaters could be poached from outside the fog gate or later by dropping to the lower ledge under the bridge and playing peekaboo with arrows.

Not for me! I could not get that down. I could only beat the Maneaters by Leroy Jenkins the first one's tail to maximize the chance I take it out quick enough to just have one left.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

To me, Elden Ring bosses were the biggest "puzzles," because they all have different weaknesses and crazy movement (like some are resistant to magic, and just those delayed attacks or which flurry of combos you can and can't dodge). The "puzzles" of Demon Souls were by comparison much easier. LIke I got right away not to charge through the fire to get to armored spider.

One thing that did amuse me in Demons Souls was that even though it is the oldest game in the series, but still the 6th such I played, one thing was consistent- "cheese" strategies don't work for me.



Not for me! I could not get that down. I could only beat the Maneaters by Leroy Jenkins the first one's tail to maximize the chance I take it out quick enough to just have one left.

They might’ve tuned/fixed things differently in the remake. It’ll be interesting to play whenever I get to it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

They might’ve tuned/fixed things differently in the remake. It’ll be interesting to play whenever I get to it.

They didn't. The AI, and most exploits work exactly the same. It's supposed to be the same exact game except better looking. However there were a few progression bugs that they did fix.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Yeah it's not the remake it's me. There have been a number of From bosses where youtube is like "hey just do this easy thing" and the easy thing is impossible and then I have to just beat it.

Most recently was Melania in Elden Ring- saw youtubers run to the back of the room, run up a wall, and spam spells. I couldn't get my character to run up that ledge even.

This pattern of random "do cheats work" started right away, with Dark Souls. Supposed cheat for Taurus Demon was to run back and forth and trick it into falling off. Didn't work. Then was doing a plunging attack from the tower- I could not get that attack down.
But then the Capra Demon cheat of tossing poop at it absolutely did work. That random bit of nonsense was always part of the fun of these games, honestly.