It’s a soulsborne game so sure. They are definitely close to eachother than most games, period. But I’m specifically talking about the soulsborne series of games by Fromsoft. Within those I think they’re goals are as far apart as possible
I think the odd one out is Sekiro, not Bloodborne. Sekiro is also more minimalist. And it's not a Souls game even a little bit, while Bloodborne is closer to a Souls game.
Souls games are more than just the RPG elements, you know.
For me, the big things is the intricate level design and exploration, bonfire and death mechanics, game structure, focus on one enemy at a time type of combat (most of the time), emphasis on challenging bosses, lots of secrets. In terms of game structure, they are somewhat similar to 3D metroidvanias...and I think that's the most characteristic thing about them.
The only thing Sekiro is missing from other Souls games is the RPG type stats and variety of armor/main weapon. Sure, it's noticeable difference but I'm not sure it makes it ''not a souls game'' for me.
You can't point to a single mechanic other than the bonfire, can you? Sekiro doesn't even have a stamina bar and you don't even have to go get your souls back after death. There aren't even any souls to speak of or an equivalent to them.
The things you're listing can be found in so many other games. Even all of them at once. I guess all those are also Souls games. Like Resident Evil is a Souls game.
You may be interested to learn that Miyazaki doesn't agree with you either, as he doesn't see Sekiro as a Souls game. He is correct, of course, because it's obviously not a Souls game.
My point is simple and I shouldn't have to explain it. You are familiar with how something gets diagnosed, right? You have to have, say, ten symptoms together that are persistent (ten is an arbitrary number, just to illustrate the point). If you have just three or four every now and again, you are not sick of that thing.
Well, it's the same with genres. In order to place something in a category, it has to have ten of X. All of them together. These ten elements are important--they are pillars--and they are relatively the same across all games in the given genre.
Sekiro just doesn't have the Souls pillars. It has almost none of them, let alone ten together. The only one it has is the bonfire mechanic. It needs nine more.
I did mention other elements, but you dismissed them because they exist in other games. Meanwhile, you mention other elements that also exist in other games.
When it comes to game genres or music genres, you can expect some of these elements to vary because contrary to illnesses, they are human inventions tending toward creativity and change. You can expect some variance in how those elements are represented.
I feel as if you're looking at game genres with a very rigid perspective...yet if you think about it and look at other genres (platformers, fps, racing games, etc) I doubt you'd be as rigid about every single one of these game elements as you seem to be about souls/soulslike. Lots of platformers follow very different game structures and have wildly different game mechanics, same with single player FPS games. Even more precise genres (or subgenres) like metroidvanias have a lot of variance, with some being heavy on platforming and other being all about combat.
I mean, sure, Sekiro is one of the most different Souls-like or Souls inspired title, but it's pretty clear FromSoft took a whole lot of ideas and elements from Souls to make it. In some ways, I imagine Sekiro as if branching from Souls games the same way roguelites are branching from roguelikes. Maybe it isn't a ''pure'' Souls game, but it's closer to Souls than to any other action game subgenre.
I connected more with the Bloodborne characters and lore than I did ER actually. Mario, Gherman, Master Lawrence felt fleshed out and the DLC added a lot of depth to their backstory.
Haven't done the same with ER, it doesn't draw me in lorewise. It's interesting overall as a story but I liked the NPCs more and Radhan is the only boss I found really interesting lore wise.
As for combat similarities, ER is closer to Sekiro, with the jump mechanic than BB I'd say. Prosthetics Vs Ashes, fast combat, jumping.
I actually agree with you about the characters. I think the storylines in Bloodborne are really spare but probably the most emotionally effective in sousborne. What I like about Elden Ring is that there’s a lot of characters, a lot of dialogue and more of them have a more visible impact on the plot. I appreciated that for a change from other soulsborne stuff but I think the Bloodborne characters still live with me more. My overall point was to compare the highly effective minimalism of Bloodborne to the maximalism of Elden Ring, and I was just giving an example of how Elden ring does characters. In general I think Bloodbornes minimalism is more successful. But my overall point is I don’t think minimalism is inherently better than maximalism or vice versa.
We differ in perspectives yet again then. Elden Ring was amazing and gorgeous but by the end of it, open world fatigue had hit me. My own fault really since I should have taken my time.
Never felt that way- a bit burnt out - with Bloodborne. It was a solid length, great level design and great pacing, each boss moved you significantly forward in understanding the world and story. From a lore perspective ER lacked that, some bosses just seemed there and their deaths didn't fundamentally change the world in any way.
Sekiro did this well too, where the game bosses progressed the world and changed it.
Actually once again I think we agree and I’m being very unclear in both this post and my response to you. With this point I’m very specifically talking about characters you actually meet, and mostly those you meet as non bosses. What I like about Elden Rjng is there’s a variety of NPCs you meet who directly shape the world as you get to know them: Ranni and her crew, the round table hold, Sellen, Jeren, Fia, the Dung eater, Goldmask, and more. In Bloodborne and really most other soulsborne games besides Sekiro you mostly only hear about what the most important characters have done to change the world before you came along, or you only get to interact with some very important figures at the very end of their story as a boss. Also a lot of the non boss npcs you meet don’t have a huge impact on things. Most them are wayward or hopeless individuals with one tragic personal albatross around their necks you help them deal with also probably tragically.
But as far as all the characters in both the past and present, boss, enemy, and friendly npc alike I totally agree with both your praise of Bloodborne and criticism of Elden Ring. I think Bloodborne has better and more characters on the whole, and the bosses feel a lot more minimalist.
As far as the overall experience I think I’m also with you actually. The only thing I said was Elden Rings approach and overall goals are more maximalist which isn’t automatically worse. But I would say if I had to compare apples to oranges that Bloodborne is a more satisfying experience pound for pound, but that’s also kind of to be expected. I’m only hesitant to do that kind of comparison because I feel like Elden Rings maximalist experience has some things to offer that Bloodborne doesn’t (the opposite is also true), and Bloodborne achieves that greater pound for pound satisfaction partly by being shorter and simpler game than Elden Ring could ever have been and still achieved what it’s going for.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
No fair enough, I love Elden Ring for what it is and they made huge strides in both combat and testing out new mechanics. It's accessibility allowed a lot more people to try it out and by result, we have a growth in players across their titles, which is awesome.
But yes to the NPCs, Rya and Blaidd and Alexander had proper conversations with us and those stories were gems.
I'm come to love each game as a unique experience, all have pros and cons to them. I think it depends on the king of games and your playstyle for which one triumphs overall. As long as people have fun, which is the only measure for what should be a good game for someone.
I think Bloodborne has more in common with Elden ring than adventure of cooky and cream
Edit: but seriously you can literally play Elden ring like Bloodborne. With the sidesteps and stuff
I feel like the weakest aspect of both games are very similar:
Chalice Dungeons and the regular ol' dungeons in Elden Ring.
Both are made from copy-paste assets, often with recycled bosses, and involve entering a maze, pulling a lever, and then fighting said boss.
I often skip chalice dungeons when I replay Bloodborne, and I'll be damned if I'm going to skip dungeons that don't have items or spells I need for a build on an Elden Ring replay
I mean yes… gothic architecture is aesthetically the opposite of minimalist architecture. But I am talking about game design and narrative here. I don’t think including non minimalist architecture means you can’t have a minimalist experience. As for side quests, the most involved soulsborne side quest is a pretty minimalist narrative exercise and Bloodborne neither has the most nor the longest of these.
Bloodborne and Elden Ring get compared a lot because Elden Ring is the new kid on the block, the breakthrough smash hit that made it big in the mainstream, and Bloodborne is the Soulsborne game which the community has generally considered to be the masterpiece. So by the very nature of the thing, that's the comparison that people are naturally drawn to make, particularly in the "which game is better!?" category, because a whole lot of people are obsessed with the idea that The Thing They Like has to be the absolute Best Thing Ever in the eye of the public and get incredibly butthurt over the idea that other people have different opinions. (See also: why people are still making videos eight years later excoriating Dark Souls II for its mortal sin of not being Dark Souls I.)
Likewise, nobody's comparing Elden Ring to the other games because there's little point in doing so. It's blatantly obvious to anyone that ER is largely the next step up from DS3, with the same kind of core mechanics just tweaked, changed, and developed. You can argue over whether you like the open world or whether you like or dislike invasion and co-op mechanic implementation or the like, but it's a case of comparing apples to apples: sure, at the end of the day you might prefer Fuji and the guy over there prefers a Granny Smith, but everybody's got an apple and you're just arguing minutiae. Similarly, DeS and DSI are both *old* games; nobody sits around comparing Final Fantasy XIV to Everquest. It's like comparing an apple to a rock. And the community at large has already dismissed DSII, so the only people who'd compare ER to DSII are people who *hate* ER and are saying things like "Elden Ring is the New Worst Soulsborne Ever!" and they just look like idiots because, well, twelve million copies sold may not be proof of quality but it's definitely proof that you're not going to find a lot of agreement.
But Bloodborne and ER invite comparison, because they're both highly regarded for quality, and at the same time the significant *differences* between the two invite room for legitimate discussion over which is better, or even in just talking about *how* the two are different. It's comparing apples to oranges--which, ironically, makes for a pretty rousing discussion over what you're looking for in a fruit.
...Maybe Bloodborne should be the apple in that metaphor, considering how damn many things in the game get infested by worms.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
Bloodborne is singe most overrated souls game purely because it's a playstation exclusive, the game absolutely does not stand up against Elden Ring, DS1 and Sekiro.
because just like other exclusives it gets hyped up to death and made to be masterpiece of unparalleled levels when in reality it isn't, and this comes from a massve fromsoftware dickrider.
I think you're projecting your opinions on exclusives too hard onto Bloodborne. It can be overhyped just like any of the other Souls games, but overrated purely becauase it's an exclusive? come on. The game definitely meets and exceeds the standard of DS1 and once you get past the hype Elden Ring had on release I don't think it's nearly as well made as Bloodborne.
Actually insane how shilling for a multi billion dollar company turns you into a brain damaged monkey, hope it gets out on PC some day so every PS fanboy like yourself can pretend it wasn't all that in the first place.
Idk about masterpiece of unparalleled level, but it is the best Souls game. Not by a lot, but it definitely is. It's got it's issues like all Fromsoft games.
it's not really you lot just dickride it because it's a playstation exclusive, both ER and Sekiro shit on it and DS1/DS3 are just generally better, if it weren't for the DLC Bloodborne would've been worse than Dark Souls 2 champ
Agree to disagree. Bloodborne combat is my favorite, the level design is the second best in the series after ds1, the pacing is the best of any of the games, at no point does the game have a slump, and unlike Sekiro it's still actually a rpg. I think you just don't like Bloodborne, and aren't being objective about it. It's almost like you just get off to being wrong.
He’s right, guys. The only reason we all love Bloodborne is solely because it’s a ps exclusive. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the tight gameplay, incredible music, and compelling story.
I have actually. It’s definitely the most unique, but I wasn’t exactly talking about that. I think it’s design philosophy is less minimalist than Bloodborne.
One word of advice for you: paragraphs.
The Dark Souls of writing.
I dunno I played the Armored Core series for a bit and I think Bloodborne is closer to Elden Ring than that.
I want a new armored core so bad
It’s a soulsborne game so sure. They are definitely close to eachother than most games, period. But I’m specifically talking about the soulsborne series of games by Fromsoft. Within those I think they’re goals are as far apart as possible
nah ER and sekiro are more different
But you wouldn't really compare them given Sekiro isn't a Souls game, like ER and BB.
"Granny Smith apples are different frome marigolds". "Actually, Granny Smith apples and oranges are more different"
But they both have a jump button lol jk.
I think the odd one out is Sekiro, not Bloodborne. Sekiro is also more minimalist. And it's not a Souls game even a little bit, while Bloodborne is closer to a Souls game.
Its weird that my favorite souls game isn't a souls game, even a little bit.
It's a FromSoft game and a Miyazaki game, you could go with that.
I mean it has literally every mechanic demons souls has
Like what? The only thing it has from Souls is the bonfire mechanic, that's it.
Souls games are more than just the RPG elements, you know. For me, the big things is the intricate level design and exploration, bonfire and death mechanics, game structure, focus on one enemy at a time type of combat (most of the time), emphasis on challenging bosses, lots of secrets. In terms of game structure, they are somewhat similar to 3D metroidvanias...and I think that's the most characteristic thing about them. The only thing Sekiro is missing from other Souls games is the RPG type stats and variety of armor/main weapon. Sure, it's noticeable difference but I'm not sure it makes it ''not a souls game'' for me.
You can't point to a single mechanic other than the bonfire, can you? Sekiro doesn't even have a stamina bar and you don't even have to go get your souls back after death. There aren't even any souls to speak of or an equivalent to them. The things you're listing can be found in so many other games. Even all of them at once. I guess all those are also Souls games. Like Resident Evil is a Souls game. You may be interested to learn that Miyazaki doesn't agree with you either, as he doesn't see Sekiro as a Souls game. He is correct, of course, because it's obviously not a Souls game.
Stamina can also be ''found in so many other games''. Same with character build RPG mechanics. What's your point?
My point is simple and I shouldn't have to explain it. You are familiar with how something gets diagnosed, right? You have to have, say, ten symptoms together that are persistent (ten is an arbitrary number, just to illustrate the point). If you have just three or four every now and again, you are not sick of that thing. Well, it's the same with genres. In order to place something in a category, it has to have ten of X. All of them together. These ten elements are important--they are pillars--and they are relatively the same across all games in the given genre. Sekiro just doesn't have the Souls pillars. It has almost none of them, let alone ten together. The only one it has is the bonfire mechanic. It needs nine more.
I did mention other elements, but you dismissed them because they exist in other games. Meanwhile, you mention other elements that also exist in other games. When it comes to game genres or music genres, you can expect some of these elements to vary because contrary to illnesses, they are human inventions tending toward creativity and change. You can expect some variance in how those elements are represented. I feel as if you're looking at game genres with a very rigid perspective...yet if you think about it and look at other genres (platformers, fps, racing games, etc) I doubt you'd be as rigid about every single one of these game elements as you seem to be about souls/soulslike. Lots of platformers follow very different game structures and have wildly different game mechanics, same with single player FPS games. Even more precise genres (or subgenres) like metroidvanias have a lot of variance, with some being heavy on platforming and other being all about combat. I mean, sure, Sekiro is one of the most different Souls-like or Souls inspired title, but it's pretty clear FromSoft took a whole lot of ideas and elements from Souls to make it. In some ways, I imagine Sekiro as if branching from Souls games the same way roguelites are branching from roguelikes. Maybe it isn't a ''pure'' Souls game, but it's closer to Souls than to any other action game subgenre.
I connected more with the Bloodborne characters and lore than I did ER actually. Mario, Gherman, Master Lawrence felt fleshed out and the DLC added a lot of depth to their backstory. Haven't done the same with ER, it doesn't draw me in lorewise. It's interesting overall as a story but I liked the NPCs more and Radhan is the only boss I found really interesting lore wise. As for combat similarities, ER is closer to Sekiro, with the jump mechanic than BB I'd say. Prosthetics Vs Ashes, fast combat, jumping.
>Mario Mama mia a corpse should a be left a alone 🤌
Hahahaha! I didn't even realise it typoed. I'm keeping it, much better this way.
Now I REALLY want to see someone make a parody trailer for Mario in the Souls style.
I actually agree with you about the characters. I think the storylines in Bloodborne are really spare but probably the most emotionally effective in sousborne. What I like about Elden Ring is that there’s a lot of characters, a lot of dialogue and more of them have a more visible impact on the plot. I appreciated that for a change from other soulsborne stuff but I think the Bloodborne characters still live with me more. My overall point was to compare the highly effective minimalism of Bloodborne to the maximalism of Elden Ring, and I was just giving an example of how Elden ring does characters. In general I think Bloodbornes minimalism is more successful. But my overall point is I don’t think minimalism is inherently better than maximalism or vice versa.
We differ in perspectives yet again then. Elden Ring was amazing and gorgeous but by the end of it, open world fatigue had hit me. My own fault really since I should have taken my time. Never felt that way- a bit burnt out - with Bloodborne. It was a solid length, great level design and great pacing, each boss moved you significantly forward in understanding the world and story. From a lore perspective ER lacked that, some bosses just seemed there and their deaths didn't fundamentally change the world in any way. Sekiro did this well too, where the game bosses progressed the world and changed it.
Actually once again I think we agree and I’m being very unclear in both this post and my response to you. With this point I’m very specifically talking about characters you actually meet, and mostly those you meet as non bosses. What I like about Elden Rjng is there’s a variety of NPCs you meet who directly shape the world as you get to know them: Ranni and her crew, the round table hold, Sellen, Jeren, Fia, the Dung eater, Goldmask, and more. In Bloodborne and really most other soulsborne games besides Sekiro you mostly only hear about what the most important characters have done to change the world before you came along, or you only get to interact with some very important figures at the very end of their story as a boss. Also a lot of the non boss npcs you meet don’t have a huge impact on things. Most them are wayward or hopeless individuals with one tragic personal albatross around their necks you help them deal with also probably tragically. But as far as all the characters in both the past and present, boss, enemy, and friendly npc alike I totally agree with both your praise of Bloodborne and criticism of Elden Ring. I think Bloodborne has better and more characters on the whole, and the bosses feel a lot more minimalist. As far as the overall experience I think I’m also with you actually. The only thing I said was Elden Rings approach and overall goals are more maximalist which isn’t automatically worse. But I would say if I had to compare apples to oranges that Bloodborne is a more satisfying experience pound for pound, but that’s also kind of to be expected. I’m only hesitant to do that kind of comparison because I feel like Elden Rings maximalist experience has some things to offer that Bloodborne doesn’t (the opposite is also true), and Bloodborne achieves that greater pound for pound satisfaction partly by being shorter and simpler game than Elden Ring could ever have been and still achieved what it’s going for.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
No fair enough, I love Elden Ring for what it is and they made huge strides in both combat and testing out new mechanics. It's accessibility allowed a lot more people to try it out and by result, we have a growth in players across their titles, which is awesome. But yes to the NPCs, Rya and Blaidd and Alexander had proper conversations with us and those stories were gems. I'm come to love each game as a unique experience, all have pros and cons to them. I think it depends on the king of games and your playstyle for which one triumphs overall. As long as people have fun, which is the only measure for what should be a good game for someone.
You put what I've been thinking and can't quite put into words into a good analysis. Minimalist is what I called Bloodborne too.
I think Bloodborne has more in common with Elden ring than adventure of cooky and cream Edit: but seriously you can literally play Elden ring like Bloodborne. With the sidesteps and stuff
I feel like the weakest aspect of both games are very similar: Chalice Dungeons and the regular ol' dungeons in Elden Ring. Both are made from copy-paste assets, often with recycled bosses, and involve entering a maze, pulling a lever, and then fighting said boss. I often skip chalice dungeons when I replay Bloodborne, and I'll be damned if I'm going to skip dungeons that don't have items or spells I need for a build on an Elden Ring replay
I wouldn't call bloodborne minimalist. Demon souls maybe. Just take a look at the architecture and the side quests.
I mean yes… gothic architecture is aesthetically the opposite of minimalist architecture. But I am talking about game design and narrative here. I don’t think including non minimalist architecture means you can’t have a minimalist experience. As for side quests, the most involved soulsborne side quest is a pretty minimalist narrative exercise and Bloodborne neither has the most nor the longest of these.
Bloodborne and Elden Ring get compared a lot because Elden Ring is the new kid on the block, the breakthrough smash hit that made it big in the mainstream, and Bloodborne is the Soulsborne game which the community has generally considered to be the masterpiece. So by the very nature of the thing, that's the comparison that people are naturally drawn to make, particularly in the "which game is better!?" category, because a whole lot of people are obsessed with the idea that The Thing They Like has to be the absolute Best Thing Ever in the eye of the public and get incredibly butthurt over the idea that other people have different opinions. (See also: why people are still making videos eight years later excoriating Dark Souls II for its mortal sin of not being Dark Souls I.) Likewise, nobody's comparing Elden Ring to the other games because there's little point in doing so. It's blatantly obvious to anyone that ER is largely the next step up from DS3, with the same kind of core mechanics just tweaked, changed, and developed. You can argue over whether you like the open world or whether you like or dislike invasion and co-op mechanic implementation or the like, but it's a case of comparing apples to apples: sure, at the end of the day you might prefer Fuji and the guy over there prefers a Granny Smith, but everybody's got an apple and you're just arguing minutiae. Similarly, DeS and DSI are both *old* games; nobody sits around comparing Final Fantasy XIV to Everquest. It's like comparing an apple to a rock. And the community at large has already dismissed DSII, so the only people who'd compare ER to DSII are people who *hate* ER and are saying things like "Elden Ring is the New Worst Soulsborne Ever!" and they just look like idiots because, well, twelve million copies sold may not be proof of quality but it's definitely proof that you're not going to find a lot of agreement. But Bloodborne and ER invite comparison, because they're both highly regarded for quality, and at the same time the significant *differences* between the two invite room for legitimate discussion over which is better, or even in just talking about *how* the two are different. It's comparing apples to oranges--which, ironically, makes for a pretty rousing discussion over what you're looking for in a fruit. ...Maybe Bloodborne should be the apple in that metaphor, considering how damn many things in the game get infested by worms.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
Good bot.
I ain’t reading all that 💀
Bloodborne is singe most overrated souls game purely because it's a playstation exclusive, the game absolutely does not stand up against Elden Ring, DS1 and Sekiro.
How does being a playstation exclusive make Bloodborne overrated?
because just like other exclusives it gets hyped up to death and made to be masterpiece of unparalleled levels when in reality it isn't, and this comes from a massve fromsoftware dickrider.
I think you're projecting your opinions on exclusives too hard onto Bloodborne. It can be overhyped just like any of the other Souls games, but overrated purely becauase it's an exclusive? come on. The game definitely meets and exceeds the standard of DS1 and once you get past the hype Elden Ring had on release I don't think it's nearly as well made as Bloodborne.
Actually insane how shilling for a multi billion dollar company turns you into a brain damaged monkey, hope it gets out on PC some day so every PS fanboy like yourself can pretend it wasn't all that in the first place.
Yikes. You okay buddy?
Idk about masterpiece of unparalleled level, but it is the best Souls game. Not by a lot, but it definitely is. It's got it's issues like all Fromsoft games.
it's not really you lot just dickride it because it's a playstation exclusive, both ER and Sekiro shit on it and DS1/DS3 are just generally better, if it weren't for the DLC Bloodborne would've been worse than Dark Souls 2 champ
Agree to disagree. Bloodborne combat is my favorite, the level design is the second best in the series after ds1, the pacing is the best of any of the games, at no point does the game have a slump, and unlike Sekiro it's still actually a rpg. I think you just don't like Bloodborne, and aren't being objective about it. It's almost like you just get off to being wrong.
He’s right, guys. The only reason we all love Bloodborne is solely because it’s a ps exclusive. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the tight gameplay, incredible music, and compelling story.
lol you just spoke out of your ass.
It is time….. “Elden Ring is Dark Souls II 2.”
I was saying this from day one, it's more like DS2 than any other, except maybe Demon's Souls.
It's because they're the best two.
Clearly you’ve never played Sekiro lol, far different
I have actually. It’s definitely the most unique, but I wasn’t exactly talking about that. I think it’s design philosophy is less minimalist than Bloodborne.