Elden Ring - Review Roundup

Originally Posted by DArtTooEarly
For my own part, I'm hoping for a similar experience with Starfield - which is my kind of "Souls-like"

Here's hoping it's a good Beth game.

Yep I agree hopefully Starfield lives up to the hype as well. Anyway if a developer ever combined the best of Elden Ring and any Bethesda game, my tune would be different.

My prediction is Starfield will not get 10/10 scores and be found lacking to Elden Ring.

(Elex 2 will be lucky to get 6.5/10 from those same sites.)

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Yep I agree hopefully Starfield lives up to the hype as well. Anyway if a developer ever combined the best of Elden Ring and any Bethesda game, my tune would be different.

God no!

I would rather see the best of CDPR (art/writing) and Beth (freedom/exploration/immersion) combined - and it would be great to add someone who understood proper progression and meaningful challenge, which neither CDPR, Beth OR FromSoftware seem to fully grasp.

Maybe PB in a pinch - though they tend to oversimplify a lot of stuff.

Starfield will NOT get 10/10, no. No matter how good it is - the mainstream media has long since decided that.

In that same way, you're probably never going to see a PB game reach even 8/10 - though I consider most of their games far, far superior to most 8/10 CRPGs.

Again I agree. There is obsidian's open world RPG hopefully in 2023 also. Though some recent rumors and leaks don't sound to good. I'm still waiting on some game footage.

RPGWatch is the only site I know where authentic masterpieces of all time like DOS or Elden Ring will get mercilessly bashed. But don't you dare say anything bad about the eurojankie shit they play and worship like it's a sect and they are the chosen ones to carry the word of the master, ie Elex, Pathfinder, etc. The blood tide will fall upon you, cowardly bouncing off each other where they didn't dare to speak up on their own.

It's why these days I just pop my head around here every fwe months, if even. Really no point in fighting it, just accept that you can't teach new tricks to old dogs, and enjoy what's enjoyable to you.

As for me - Preloaded, ready and armed. Bring it on!

I can recommend ResetEra if you're looking for an echo chamber.

Just make sure you're woke all the way!

Originally Posted by DArtTooEarly
I can recommend ResetEra if you're looking for an echo chamber.

Just make sure you're woke all the way!

It's the left wing alternate RPGCodex.

I don't think Elden Ring has been really attacked to a high degree on this thread, to be honest. Moorkh made a two sentence criticism. Was it somewhat spicy? Yes. But its not like he/she went on a one page long rant against the game or something.

And I and a couple others were very mild, by just saying "this game is not for me" - it doesn't get much milder than that.

And Dart made some good points and was not bashing the game either.

All that said, its nice to see Nereida make a post again, I haven't seen them around here in a while. I liked Nereida's posts often before, because they can be spicy at times. (spicy = slang for controversial) Sometimes a forum does need posters who can be rather blunt and state their opinions strongly, just to keep things interesting.

Anyway, I do think there is some truth in this game having an air of pretension about it, just in terms of its marketing, and sometimes there does seem to be an element of that in the Dark Souls fan "community".

That said, I will now praise Elden Ring just to be even-handed. I have heard this game is colossal in scope and size, with a rich atmosphere, and that is a good thing for rpg games genre in general. I think this is how rpg games should be in the ultimate form, where a huge open world is presented and with every square foot having been hand built, and intricately designed with little pieces of lore all over the world. So good for the developer in this design aspect.

They also came up with a kick-ass name, "Elden Ring". I said this comment before, and its true, its a great name for a game or fantasy series. And yes, its important, all the little things, including the title of the game (or movie, or painting, or book, etc), are important.

Hmm I wonder if any of those early reviewers finished the game, or just posted for clicks? Just something to ponder at 4am in the morning, and still haven't gone to bed.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Hmm I wonder if any of those early reviewers finished the game, or just posted for clicks? Just something to ponder at 4am in the morning, and still haven't gone to bed.

Yep, I wonder that too and now we are in the essence of some interesting discussion. The scores are certainly influenced by the fame of the studio as many say above. How much are they influenced? I mean there certainly is a correlation with averaged critic score and game quality but that correlation is not 1 (i.e. perfect). I feel that games I tend to like often end up to the 80s. I see the quality in highly regarded >90 games but often those are not the ones I consider the best ones.

One also need to consider ones background when interpreting the scores: the reviewers play as their job, my job and life takes all my time from gaming. I have max a few hours a week. Then I should go an excel a game that is famed for its difficulty using a *controller* because I don't play enough to prioritise buying a new gaming PC. Forget that

I also agree that there has been very little bashing of any game here although it is possible to misinterpret some posts. Welcome back from your break Nereida

Gee, Dart. You can't think of a 10/10 game? CDPR, Bethsoft and FromSoft fail to understand challenge or progression?

What game/developer does good progression, then?

I'm also interested in Starfield (and Star Citizen!) but they'll have to do better than having a Steam page with screenshots taken from their CGI trailer if they want to get my attention. Also, you can only get one ship? Sounds like no progression at all, for a space game.

You say Elden Ring could be a 10/10 but you just don't see it? Mention Starfield being more interesting to you? But what the heck do you see there?! You're just imagining stuff. It's like Star Citizen all over again, for you!

There's just no indication at all that Starfield will be good. There's plenty of indication Elden Ring is good.

Originally Posted by SirJames
Gee, Dart. You can't think of a 10/10 game? CDPR, Bethsoft and FromSoft fail to understand challenge or progression?

What game/developer does good progression, then?

It's a rare quality

It's more about the individual games than the developer - and the kind of scope you're aiming for.

In terms of meaningful challenge - lots of people do that well, but it's very hard to accomplish in an open world freeform CRPG like the ones we're talking about.

I'd say PB used to be very good at it, but have somewhat fallen from grace and gone a bit lazy about it.

But that's not really because they're "good" at it - it's because they opt for very simple formulas in terms of how weapons/armor and so on work. It's easy to balance weapons when they're really just DPS sticks.

It's the combination of sophisticated mechanics and meaningful challenge that I prefer - but I can't really say it's something I see from any of the established titles.

Usually, you have to turn to the modding scene for that to work on huge open world games. You can find very strong progression/challenge mods for Witcher 3 and Skyrim - for instance. CP2077 as well, in fact.

I will say that Elden Ring seems significantly better than their past games in terms of progression, though. It seems they've finally added proper stealth and even ranged stealth for instance.

Progression is also about offering a wide arsenal - and the past Souls games have been heavily focused on melee combat with some magic spells thrown in. Ranged/stealth combat has been very limited.

It's much easier to do one thing really well than it is to offer a dozen things equally well.

Also, even the melee combat seems mostly focused on relatively "heavy" and slow combat - even with smaller weapons. I don't think it's even possible to properly dual wield in most of the past Souls games?

Things like that is a gigantic misstep when it comes to offering a compelling power fantasy to people like me, who have a specific playstyle that we prefer.

As for meaningful challenge, that's obviously subjective. It seems Souls fans actually enjoy being killed by not knowing what they can't know until they've seen it.

I mean, as a designer - it's not exactly hard to kill the player by doing something to him that he couldn't see coming.

Obviously, that does promote a level of investment and caution - and, as such, you're generating tension for the player.

I think that's part of why it's popular for many who feel some kind of satisfaction from learning patterns that are designed to be learnable.

Then there's the checkpoint paradigm - which is another very, very easy and convenient way of creating tension - from a developer/designer perspective.

Essentially, all you have to do is NOT design a proper save-system and you can create tension for the player by not actually doing something

I think that's pretty cool.

But, as a player, I'm really not that impressed by that design.

There's just no indication at all that Starfield will be good. There's plenty of indication Elden Ring is good.

Definitely, Elden Ring does seem really good. That's not in dispute.

I'm just saying I don't see anything to justify a 10/10 score.

As for Starfield - that might very well end up being crap, who knows. But I would be surprised if it's not very good for someone like myself - as I tend to agree with most of Beth's design priorities - even if I wish they didn't make so many concessions for the mainstream audience.

Souls games are actually very unique in that way - as they've made a niche design into a mainstream design somehow.

The original Demon's Souls was a monumental failure in Japan, for instance. It was only because of a slow burn build of popularity in the west that it eventually got the recognition it ended up getting.

In fact, I would never have played that game if it wasn't for the massive praise from a certain segment of the western audience.

Also, I did enjoy it for quite a while and completed most of it. Sadly, I finally "figured out" the design tenets and decided I didn't agree with them - and that the reason I was having fun was really more about my own investment and not because of what the game was doing for me.

That kind of fun I can have without a game

Originally Posted by SirJames
Gee, Dart. You can't think of a 10/10 game? CDPR, Bethsoft and FromSoft fail to understand challenge or progression?

What game/developer does good progression, then?

I'm also interested in Starfield (and Star Citizen!) but they'll have to do better than having a Steam page with screenshots taken from their CGI trailer if they want to get my attention. Also, you can only get one ship? Sounds like no progression at all, for a space game.

You say Elden Ring could be a 10/10 but you just don't see it? Mention Starfield being more interesting to you? But what the heck do you see there?! You're just imagining stuff. It's like Star Citizen all over again, for you!

There's just no indication at all that Starfield will be good. There's plenty of indication Elden Ring is good.

I also have a hard time thinking of a 10/10 game for me. The closest the last years is Hades. I loved that game. I still get an urge now and then to play it, which is rare to me.

Maybe Pathfinder:WotR will be one, but I'm still not far into it.

And I'll definitely consider Elden Ring after I've finished Pathfinder later this year. Maybe I'll enjoy it and maybe it will be amazing. I hope so.

I don't get the argument of 5/5 or even 10/10 being wrong.

It's a rounded value, and actually more a message than an actual value, so I don't see anything wrong with that. One reviewer may find a game overwhelming positive and deserving of a 10. Even at the university we could get a 20/20 every once in a while; it was rare but not impossible.

The one score on 100 was 98.

What I find more strange is that such a high proportion of max scores. I don't believe this game pleases everyone, but on second thought maybe reviewers who don't like the genre saved their time to write a review on another game they're more comfortable with. I'm not entirely convinced but there are other releases to review right now.

Quite the sidetrack, but if I had to think of a game I would personally consider 10/10 - or close to it - it would probably something like:

System Shock
System Shock 2
X-Com (1994 version)
Civilization (the original)
Master of Orion 2
Gothic

But even if they WERE 10/10 - it's with the understanding that they're all flawed, but extremely good and ahead of their time (which is a thing I respect a lot). It also has to do with my insight into their development process - and the industry around the time of release.

I'm generally not too generous with my scores when it comes to games that repeat themselves to a significant degree - which would also include something like Elden Ring, which - visually and in terms of core gameplay - is hard for me to distinguish from Dark Souls 3.

I'm very wary of too many stellar reviews.

Originally Posted by DArtTooEarly
Civilization (the original)
Master of Orion 2

You forgot the best of the lot, Master of Magic.

Not really interested in a Souls game, but I did find this amusing from the inXile twitter page: https://twitter.com/inXile/status/14…065920/photo/1

When I was younger I could maybe be hyped by great game and I would give 10/10 to
Warcraft2
Panzer general
Master of orion 2
Warhammer Dark Omen -- at that time I thought this game deserves 9999999/10
Homm3
Baldur's Gate 1/2
Starcraft
and Fallout 2 would get 9.5

But as I am older I really can't get so much hype any more. Maybe I am too old, or just the games are repeating themselves, or I am to slow for fast paced games or I have to old machine to enjoy game as it should be.

I will probably try this game but I really do not expect 10/10 game.
7/10 would be just enough.

Originally Posted by SirJames
Obviously it just comes down to your personality. If you're bad at games and have that sort of personality where you get frustrated easily I can understand how you'd quickly be filtered by games that provide a challenge. There's nothing objectively wrong with that. Just play what you enjoy.

Wow, that's incredibly condescending and, what is even more impressive, I'm not sure you even realized that while writing. Being condescending by accident is even worse than doing so on purpose

Originally Posted by Gwydden
Wow, that's incredibly condescending and, what is even more impressive, I'm not sure you even realized that while writing. Being condescending by accident is even worse than doing so on purpose

Not to mention someone can have any number of reasons they might not be good at twitch style games such as health issues. People can also be poor in one style game but excel at another type of game. Frustration also depends on personality and one persons frustration can be another persons type of enjoyment. Some might love the challenge of survival games but dislike reflex based games, or like tactical games over FPS style games.

Based on this persons post history, however, it clearly wasn't an accident.