In the videogame industry there are many studios who simply rinse and repeat one title over and over again with minor differences and turn profit
All of these companies are, rightfully, chastised for this. Whether it be through online noise or directly through sales. All, except these guys.
All of their games are interchangeable from each other. >dark world >"spooky" bosses with "epic" names, i.e: Jim the conquerer or Sam the slain, just generic "epic" sounding names >an abundance of "epic" orchestra music, the kind that kids who think they're fancy for listening to listen to >the overused, "Le game hard = Le game good" meme, an abundance of artificial difficulty
The above mentioned elements cover ALL of their games. Yet when someone points this out they're met with a barrage of insults and fanboyism.
Why are these guys allowed to be lazy and unoriginal with their games? Why are they given a pass from the gaming community?
because they have the most fun lazy and unoriginal games
Isaac Nelson
because there fun to play
Wyatt Richardson
Fun is subjective
Are you saying other studios are allowed to be as lazy as they are because someone finds it fun?
Lucas Long
the studios that are chastised usually have yearly releases. we get a new from software game like every 2.5 years.
Levi Green
So one extra year and half is all it takes for you to forgive lazy design?
Xavier Edwards
they're video games
Joseph Rogers
'someone' is simplifying it down, most people like these games and most people have fun with it, saying that it is lazy and unoriginal is nothing new. Probably half the shit in dark souls 1 is ripped off something else entirely but most people aren't immensely analytical like you so they don't get on rants about it either. Their formula is lazy and mostly unoriginal but still gets majority approval, there is no excuse to what they do aside from the fact it works extremely well for them.
Xavier Wilson
>minor differences Except for the most important thing: content. Each game has its own unique world, enemies, and bosses. The gameplay is at its best when you're going through new content.
Grayson Smith
Because it's fun.
Adrian Sanchez
>Why are these guys allowed to be lazy and unoriginal with their games? >Why are they given a pass from the gaming community? >So one extra year and half is all it takes for you to forgive lazy design? >Are you saying other studios are allowed to be as lazy as they are because someone finds it fun?
They're one of the only Jap devs that not only didn't shit the bed 7th gen but managed to actually grow and completely eclipse their previous success. Shut the fuck up you zoomer faggot.
Jordan Torres
Nigger your point isn’t bad, but your examples are shit. Here let me help you Demon souls >you must defeat the corrupted king in the fallen kingdom Dark souls >you must defeat the corrupted, uh Zeus, in the fallen kingdom!
>swamp level every game >witches do fire for some reason >dragons swoop in and breath fire on you suddenly >npcs go insane because edgy game Miyazaki is a hack really. That’s why he refused to keep any of the good ideas from ds2, like zone kindling and darthmaul sabers.
Jaxon Ortiz
They are lazy and unoriginal. But they're still good despite that. You can't say the same for most other games.
Luke Cook
I loved demon's souls but they really failed to improve on the series with it's sequels.
Zachary Cook
Cause there games consist 90's on metacritic and they make bank. Kill yourself Jed!
Jaxon Lopez
>Miyazaki is a hack really. That’s why he refused to keep any of the good ideas from ds2, like...darthmaul sabers. Rakuyo
Parker Anderson
Because the games are good retarded op
Joshua Jackson
If you really believe games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne are as similar as FIFA 2018 and FIFA 2019 you might be suffering brain damage or mental retardation.
Matthew Morales
99% of games nowadays are more or less rehashes of decade old games and almost none of them get shit for it because originality hardly matters in video games
Landon Mitchell
Am I the only person who thinks that Miyazaki's games have generally gotten better with each new game? Bloodborne has a lot of levels and bosses that I find pretty bland to play through again, but I really enjoy every single major section in Sekiro. The only bland parts are the short cave sections. For some reason Sekiro's caves are more bland than the average videogame cave which is saying something. Also Dark Souls 3 and Sekiro are the only games they've made that had satisfying final levels, and both had fantastic final bosses. In fact Sekiro and Dark Souls 3 are the only full games in the series that I would say had overall great bossfights. Their other games had a few standouts, but the vast majority were pretty unmemorable either experiential-wise or mechanics-wise.
Juan Morgan
>since dark souls 1, every from software game has become the gold standard for ARPG. every game has been an improvement over the last or changed things up (except ds2). >long release cycles creates more hype >they are primarily single player games, meaning people typically beat them and don't play again until the next release, which is a long way away >compare this to franchises like assassins creed (there's a game like every 3 months, they're all the same), 2k sports (literally no change except rosters, yearly release), COD (little change from game to game until the last few titles, yearly releases, expensive)
Kayden Gray
I was more referring to ds3, but true that Rakuyo is an outlier to my generalization i don’t get the meme
Bentley Ramirez
shut up Ubisoft
Aiden Nguyen
I have played literally all miyazaki games and trust me when i say this, he has gotten MUCH better from when he started. Most people trip and end up saying dumb shit but objectively he has gotten much better.
>The above mentioned elements cover ALL of their games. How does that describe Armored Core
Robert Wilson
You're literally only talking about dark souls/demons souls. Sekiro/bloodborne are significantly different - aesthetics, soundtrack, and gameplay.
Jaxson Smith
Yeah, I think you're mostly right. Sekiro is fantastic beginning to end, and many of it's strongest points are near the end, compared to the usual situation where From games start strong but finish weak. DS3 might have some problems, but it's got a noticeably good final quarter (its weakest coming in the middle sections), and the bosses are much better than the prior games in the series. Haven't played Bloodbourne, but many anons consider it the best From game of the last decade
Because they are the ones that successfully created a game ( Demon Souls / Dark Souls ) to fight back against the never ending barrage of shooters that stagnated the industry at the time. At least they are alternatives to Cod / Battlefield 28 and Fifa/NHL/NFL current year EA games. We live in a money first era in games right now and it's not going to end any time soon, but at least there's some variety.
As to your question >Why are these guys allowed to be lazy and unoriginal with their games? Why are they given a pass from the gaming community?
I would say that there aren't many good games in that genre that compare except MAYBE Nioh. How many threads you see about that one now? Yet here you are making a thread about From. When you find a winning combination that you put your heart into, do you throw it away because times and fan base change, or stick with it because you love it?
Isaiah Wilson
Oh for sure, as things to play they've only gotten successively better. I like aspects of just about all the games but I do have favorite parts I like out of them >Demon's Souls - Bosses tend to be puzzles rather than actual fights, locales are fairly interesting, World Tendency is a neat idea ON PAPER, being rewarded for killing the tutorial boss that you're not supposed to kill is great >Dark Souls - Introduces plunging attacks which were a silly omission from DeS, its world and set-up are more interesting than DeS's, introduces a pseudo-open world design compared to the Mario-like "world 1-1" structure of DeS, has some killer armor designs >Artorias of the Abyss - Tries its best to introduce Dark as an element through the magic/physical dark sorceries and dark pyromancy, golden sorceries bring some much-needed utility to the spell lists, teases Bloodborne with Marvelous Chester, expounds upon Artorias and the other Gwyn knights who were legendary but unshown in the normal game >Dark Souls 2 - Introduces Dark as its own element-type and dedicated school of magic through hexes, requiring a specialized buid to make use of. Honestly does the open-world better than Dark Souls (if you're not playing SotFS which fucking gates everything off with statues), has some neat plot-threads and factions like the Alonne Knights but is far, far more disjointed than the previous game's story because of its troubled development, the focus on the torch and lighting was really cool, weapon-durability actually mattered a little bit and Santier's Spear was nice to have for infinite durability >Bloodborne - Didn't play lol PS4 exclusive >Dark Souls 3 - Magic feels good to use, went from D&D limited casts to DeS's MP, being a spell-sword is the most viable way to play but all the playstyles and builds are really fun. Bosses are great on the whole and if you know how multiplayer works there's only one or two actually bad covenants, gameplay's sped up compared to DS1/2, NO POISE
Bloodborne has the most consistent quality beginning to end. Also, having a small number of unique weapons with much more complex movesets than the other games is a huge boon. Probably its biggest shortcoming is its difficulty: the base game is pretty easy, with the DLC and chalice dungeons being full of one-shotting damage sponges.
Austin Wood
Game Freak is lazy. From is based.
Julian Morgan
>Bloodborne has the most consistent quality beginning to end no it doesn't, the forest nightmares and yahar'gul (second time) aren't quallity at all.
