Is Bloodborne Genius?

[Bombiz]

:
I was quite interested in Vanquish before it came out, then when it did I saw a few different reviews that made it out like it was just a less then average cover shooter so I never got it, but you guys seem to be saying its just that they weren't playing it the intended way so I may give it another look.

it's almost as if you should've also watched some gameplay footage(maybe some bits of an LP?) before making your decision.

though in all seriousness you should really use both to make an informed decision. You can rarely just rely on one nowadays.
Also Vanquish is like a cover based shooter but on crack. it's main gimmick is movement. it's like if platinum made a cover based shooter.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

The commentator's theory as to why a lot of people don't "get" the Souls games is due to them playing wrong. For example, hiding behind a shield or throwing magic from a distance to beat a hard enemy isn't nearly as satisfying as going in and say duel-wielding.

Different strokes for different folks.

I, for one, like to be Conan the Barbarian in mage form. The greatest thing is life is to crush my enemies, to drive them before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women...I just like to do it with fireballs and bolts of crystal magic energy.

I actually didn't like Bloodborne as much because it felt like a Souls game, but it forced me to play the game in a way that I wasn't accustomed to. You don't get the really good and useful magic items until you're a fair ways in (meaning there's no magic at all for a good, long while), and the usual heavy armor + tower shield + heavy weapon build I played the rest of the time simply wasn't available. I didn't care much for playing a light Dex-based character, because that character was much less forgiving.

I still beat the game, but it took me much, much longer than every other Souls game, and it's the only one I haven't beaten more than once.

Also Vanquish is like a cover based shooter but on crack. it's main gimmick is movement. it's like if platinum made a cover based shooter.

They did.

It's called Vanquish.

https://www.platinumgames.com/games/vanquish/

 

[Weaver]

I really wish it ran at a solid 60FPS instead of usually holding at 30 with dips.

 

[Bombiz]

Also Vanquish is like a cover based shooter but on crack. it's main gimmick is movement. it's like if platinum made a cover based shooter.

They did.

It's called Vanquish.

https://www.platinumgames.com/games/vanquish/

well then.

 

[CaitSeith]

At the 15 minutes mark, I realized I wasn't drunk enough to keep watching the video. I love Bloodborne, but until that point the video was mostly people criticism.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Gameplay wise, no, it's not genius.

There's too many annoyances that keep it from that. A staple Fromsoft issue being the lock-on sucking balls.

Secondly, it's an action game that controls like an action RPG. Meaning stiff and wooden controls with a camera that, again, sucks. This doesn't matter too much in a game like Dark Souls, since it allows you to choose from a myriad of gameplay styles. But in Bloodborne the only options you have are 'go fast' or 'go slow'. The game is all about going on the offense, but when it moves so sluggish and cumbersome it hardly invites you to do so.

The gun is shit to use. The input delay is ridiculous and you can't even manually aim it. Yes, a gun that for some stupid reason you can not aim. Together with the shit lock-on it's no surprise most people playing choose to ignore the stagger feature. It's supposed to be a quick secondary attack, but it's too slow and unwieldy for that.

The magic in the game is a giant cocktease. You don't find your first spell until you're at least one third of the way into the game, and by then you're not going to suddenly start putting EXP into your arcane. So why the hell are there magic spells in this game at all if they're placed so out of reach with no immediate benefit to acquiring them?

Bloodborne plays like an RPG without any of the pros, but all of the cons, of an RPG.

I agree almost entirely. However, I don't think action RPGs should control like action RPGs, they should control like action games. Putting up with shit combat is not acceptable when you spend most of your time fighting in a game regardless if it's an action game or an RPG. Even most turn-based RPGs have bad turn-based combat, and you eventually spend most of your time fighting in RPGs instead of doing the thing an RPG is supposed to focus on, which is role-playing. Anyways, I've not played many RPGs do to shit combat because the story is almost certainly not good enough to make up for shit gameplay.

The Souls games do feel like action games to me. The controls are responsive and tight for the most part. Just because you have be completely dedicated to a move (and can't cancel out) doesn't mean it's bad. It just requires more forethought. I will definitely say that I don't get why these games rely so much on an archaic lock-on system that doesn't work, you don't need lock-on anymore. The most annoying thing in Dark Souls was seeing an enemy around a corner and then pressing lock-on so I could backstep, but my character didn't lock on and I got hit in the back as my character turned their back instead of backstepping. Thus, Bloodborne "fixes" something wrong the Souls games by removing something that just didn't work that well (shield controls). Bloodborne is the best version of a Souls game because it basically just removes stuff that didn't work well.

I find the combat of the Souls games to just not have enough depth. There's not enough mechanics at play and the enemies themselves (outside of bosses) are not challenging nor do they require different strategies. Even Uncharted throws enemies at you that need different strategies vs the trash mob enemies of a Souls' game all going down with a single strategy. Also, the whole stamina system is supposed make you think about every move and manage your stamina, but it really doesn't; just block/dodge, then attack until you're out of stamina and back away.

I liked the guns but definitely feel like From could've done a bit more with what the guns could do mechanically as they are just there as a parry mechanic. Again, with these games just not having enough depth. I really feel the magic was there for additional playthroughs and Bloodborne had a very core design in place, which made it a better game.

The Souls games have been to me action games wearing the clothes of an RPG. Their RPG mechanics are pretty weak and unbalanced a lot of the time. And again, Bloodborne "fixes" that by streamlining and eliminating some of those mechanics. Like I said in my first post, I'd love for the series to evolve into a survival horror game because the core of what the games do best are level design and atmosphere. If the games had a lot fewer enemies to fight (but each enemy was a threat) while focusing a lot more on puzzles and traps, you'd have a really great game.

You forgot dual wielding, two-handed, archery, and miracles. Adding shield, no shield, and magic that counts for a good number of build variety to horse around with. And then ofcourse there's the variety in armors, which Bloodborne also lacks.

It's kinda hard to explain, but I don't feel like I'm playing a different build just because I'm using a katana, great sword, etc. Nor does two-handed or dual-wielding feel different either. Miracles were just magic, I had a dex/faith character with the lighting spear. I had a Dex-build in Dark Souls, which I recall the bow scaled with dex and the bow was really only useful in pulling enemies or just being cheap and slowly killing an enemy from a distance. Now in Dragon's Dogma, you could definitely be a full-on archer unlike Dark Souls. Dragon's Dogma had much more variety in playstyles due to getting class specific skills. And stuff like magic was so much better, you could call in meteors and tornadoes.

For example, hiding behind a shield

you mean like you do?

I did use a shield a good amount because of being conditioned by the game to use one and the game having poor RPG mechanics. I choose and stuck with a dex build because I like fast characters. However, in what decently balanced RPG does allowing a dex character to block just about everything make sense? It sorta makes strength characters obsolete then unless you just like using a big sword. It also didn't help that everyone describes these games as the hardest games EVAR when they are actually really easy. The Souls community even stole "git gud" from the MGO community, an actually really hard game.

 

[sXeth]

It requires some forethought and strategy behind how and when to apply your limited resource of magic and forethought in spell choices since you have limited slots for options.

In many cases that is true. Magic is certainly not the "easy" choice in a lot of encounters, but it's also so different to the rest of the game that it often seems to break a lot of the carefully crafted systems. Many bosses which normally require you to spend time figuring them out and maybe die to them a few times can effectively be skipped by dodging backwards and throwing soul arrows at them until they die, especially if you have a summoned NPC to take point. Homing soulmass further exaggerates this by making several normally challenging bosses quite trivial, just cast it in a position of safety and then run past them.

Yeah, I'd definitely agree that the magic feels poorly thought out, or dare say, tacked on. The spells running about 65% useless. 15% overpowered. And the other 20% are the half-dozen variations of a basic projectile attack in the Soul Arrow-Greater Soul Arrow-Slightly Faster Soul Arrow-Super Mondo Hyper Extreme Ultra Soul Arrow line.

The main core though is that the games don't incentivize aggressive play. Even Bloodborne only offers the opportunity to recover some lost health that you only lost because you went over-aggressive. Whether you want to plink from out of range with magic/arrows/firebombs/etc, hide behind a shield, or whittle down a boss with minor little light attack chips in between constant rolls, it is always the optimal strategy to use the defensive patient strategy rather then pursue risky attacks.

 

[Terminal Blue]

However, in what decently balanced RPG does allowing a dex character to block just about everything make sense? It sorta makes strength characters obsolete then unless you just like using a big sword.

Shields have a stability stat which determines how much stamina is knocked off when the shield gets hit. If you run out of stamina, then you get staggered for a few seconds, which is usually enough time to get hit again. The point of the big shields is primarily that they have much, much higher stability. So sure, you can block just about everything with your basic little [insert smallest shield with 100 physical damage reduction] but stronger attacks will deplete your stamina quickly and you will get staggered. There is a functional difference in how low-strength characters with shields and high strength characters with shields play, in that the former still needs to be more mobile due to their crappier shields having lower stability.

Weirdly, in DS1, most of the "really, really good" builds actually had reasonably low strength and dexterity, just enough to wield basic weapons, because fire and lightning completely removed scaling and generally did a lot of damage. DS1 was.. not a decently balanced RPG.

Yeah, I'd definitely agree that the magic feels poorly thought out, or dare say, tacked on. The spells running about 65% useless. 15% overpowered. And the other 20% are the half-dozen variations of a basic projectile attack in the Soul Arrow-Greater Soul Arrow-Slightly Faster Soul Arrow-Super Mondo Hyper Extreme Ultra Soul Arrow line.

Agreed, the range of slight variations on the basic soul arrow was kind of silly.

 

[Casual Shinji]

snip

snip

I don't consider any of the Souls games (that I played) genius on a purely mechanical level. They all have a bit of clunkiness to to how they move. In Dark Souls and the like however you always had a proper means to defend yourself; Shield and armor. And beyond that you had other means to handle situations, like bows or miracles. It didn't give you the ability to make a straight-up bow build, but the tools were there should certain enemies prove a problem.

Bloodborne gets rid of the those options, but doesn't replace them with anything, like fast and responsive controls. You get a gun that feels unnecessarily stripped down, kneecapping the stagger function in the process. It's kind of ridiculous that in a game that's all about going on the offensive you can't even build a character that's fast. For as clunky as Dark Souls was even it gave you the chance to make a character that could do swift and nimble cartwheels.

Also, the whole stamina system is supposed make you think about every move and manage your stamina, but it really doesn't; just block/dodge, then attack until you're out of stamina and back away.

Look, I can't judge how much trouble you did or didn't have, but if you had a shield build you most certainly needed to get a feel for the eb and flow your stamina bar. Unless you dedicate yourself to getting a stamina rich build the stamina bar is never lenient enough to allow you unrestrained actions. You take the stamina out of Dark Souls and it most definately impacts the game. Unlike Bloodborne where your stamina regenerates so fast, and where not one mechanic is effected by it, that you have to wonder why they implemented it at all.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

However, in what decently balanced RPG does allowing a dex character to block just about everything make sense? It sorta makes strength characters obsolete then unless you just like using a big sword.

Shields have a stability stat which determines how much stamina is knocked off when the shield gets hit. If you run out of stamina, then you get staggered for a few seconds, which is usually enough time to get hit again. The point of the big shields is primarily that they have much, much higher stability. So sure, you can block just about everything with your basic little [insert smallest shield with 100 physical damage reduction] but stronger attacks will deplete your stamina quickly and you will get staggered. There is a functional difference in how low-strength characters with shields and high strength characters with shields play, in that the former still needs to be more mobile due to their crappier shields having lower stability.

Weirdly, in DS1, most of the "really, really good" builds actually had reasonably low strength and dexterity, just enough to wield basic weapons, because fire and lightning completely removed scaling and generally did a lot of damage. DS1 was.. not a decently balanced RPG.

Yeah, I recall the stability stat, but very few attacks knocked off full stamina so I was rarely staggered due to blocking an attack. You could even block the black knights triple sword attack with like the spider shield. I shouldn't be able to block that with my build and my shield. Most boss attacks I was able to fully block as well. You could regain stamina super fast with your shield down so you could block a hit, lower your shield for a second to regain stamina, and then bring you shield back up to block the next hit with basically full stamina. There really didn't seem like much of a point to use bigger shields due to how much lower stability shields could block combined with how stamina worked.

I knew about adding elements to weapons to bypass scaling, but I also did get Dark Souls right after the patch that improved scaling, I think stat scaling ended up doing slightly more damage than elemental damage after that patch (I could be wrong though). I gave up on the Souls games until Bloodborne because of how shitty the RPG mechanics and balance were as Dark Souls was the 2nd try, not the 1st try. How could you mess up so much on a 2nd try? How do you make a core stat that literally does nothing? How do you not require a form of magic (pyromancy) to use a core stat? It would be like DnD having a magic class not needing a core stat.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't consider any of the Souls games (that I played) genius on a purely mechanical level. They all have a bit of clunkiness to to how they move. In Dark Souls and the like however you always had a proper means to defend yourself; Shield and armor. And beyond that you had other means to handle situations, like bows or miracles. It didn't give you the ability to make a straight-up bow build, but the tools were there should certain enemies prove a problem.

Bloodborne gets rid of the those options, but doesn't replace them with anything, like fast and responsive controls. You get a gun that feels unnecessarily stripped down, kneecapping the stagger function in the process. It's kind of ridiculous that in a game that's all about going on the offensive you can't even build a character that's fast. For as clunky as Dark Souls was even it gave you the chance to make a character that could do swift and nimble cartwheels.

Look, I can't judge how much trouble you did or didn't have, but if you had a shield build you most certainly needed to get a feel for the eb and flow your stamina bar. Unless you dedicate yourself to getting a stamina rich build the stamina bar is never lenient enough to allow you unrestrained actions. You take the stamina out of Dark Souls and it most definately impacts the game. Unlike Bloodborne where your stamina regenerates so fast, and where not one mechanic is effected by it, that you have to wonder why they implemented it at all.

I made the thread more to discuss the commentator's "play conditioning" aspect and whether you can play a game wrong or at least in a less enjoyable manner due to the game itself. He was talking about the beginnings of both a Souls game and Bloodborne and how they teach the player different things. Was Bloodborne genius in its different approach to conditioning the player vs the actual game being genius. All the Souls games have lots of problems IMO so I wasn't trying to say they are genius at all.

I was personally fine with removing those options because they just didn't work that well IMO. Bloodborne is a much more focused game with better core gameplay due to a narrowed focused. I felt Bloodborne's quicker sidestep did make combat faster and more responsive over Souls' roll. Didn't you need like a ring to do those faster flips or whatever? Another thing wrong with balance in Dark Souls, a character with the lowest carrying capacity for the quickest roll was outdone by a character carrying more but equipping the right items.

I wasn't saying stamina doesn't influence the game, I'm saying it doesn't add much depth or strategy to it that I feel it's supposed to do. Stamina basically acts as a damage limiter as you can only perform so many attacks before stamina runs out and you can't attack anymore. I remember in Bloodborne, it was rather big to increase you stamina enough to get in one more attack. For example, sidestep + 2 attacks vs sidestep + 3 attacks increased your damage output a lot.

 

[CaitSeith]

I made the thread more to discuss the commentator's "play conditioning" aspect and whether you can play a game wrong or at least in a less enjoyable manner due to the game itself.

That reminded me of the First Order Optimal Strategy.

Spoiler: Extra Credits explanation

It's about how players will tend to latch to the easiest efficient way to play that the game first presents. If the game doesn't properly make the player to learn and use a harder but more optimal strategy, the player will never stop using the first one. In the worst cases the player only knows how to do that first strategy; so the player will either get bored because the game is too easy and lacks variety, or will get too frustrated because the game became too hard to play in that suboptimal way.

Personally I think that at the start of the OP's video that guy comes out elitist and condescending. He gives a sense that fun isn't subjective, and that if you like something that he doesn't consider fun, then you don't know better or you're an idiot.

IMO if you want people to try to play in a way that you consider fun, don't be condescending towards them or the games they like. Understand their opinion.

Spoiler: For example...

13:34 - 13:48 So, he's The Dark Souls of Zelda bosses!

...I'll leave now.

 

[CaitSeith]

Unlike Bloodborne where your stamina regenerates so fast, and where not one mechanic is effected by it, that you have to wonder why they implemented it at all.

So the heavy weapon combos don't become too OP. I did a strength build run with the axe, and I loved to stagger enemies with it (even bosses). But you can't abuse the weapon, because if you spam attacks, you run out of stamina and leaves you wide open.

 

[Bombiz]

For example, hiding behind a shield

you mean like you do?

I did use a shield a good amount because of being conditioned by the game to use one and the game having poor RPG mechanics. I choose and stuck with a dex build because I like fast characters. However, in what decently balanced RPG does allowing a dex character to block just about everything make sense? It sorta makes strength characters obsolete then unless you just like using a big sword. It also didn't help that everyone describes these games as the hardest games EVAR when they are actually really easy. The Souls community even stole "git gud" from the MGO community, an actually really hard game.

I mean to be fair most RPG's don't have good RPG mechanics and I was trying to point out how you where playing the game the exact opposite way the guy was saying to play the game. ie using a shield for everything.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Unlike Bloodborne where your stamina regenerates so fast, and where not one mechanic is effected by it, that you have to wonder why they implemented it at all.

So the heavy weapon combos don't become too OP. I did a strength build run with the axe, and I loved to stagger enemies with it (even bosses). But you can't abuse the weapon, because if you spam attacks, you run out of stamina and leaves you wide open.

Doesn't really matter if you're left wide open though, since it requires just a sliver of stamina to dodge out of the way, And that sliver regenerates in a micro-second.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That reminded me of the First Order Optimal Strategy.

Spoiler: Extra Credits explanation

It's about how players will tend to latch to the easiest efficient way to play that the game first presents. If the game doesn't properly make the player to learn and use a harder but more optimal strategy, the player will never stop using the first one. In the worst cases the player only knows how to do that first strategy; so the player will either get bored because the game is too easy and lacks variety, or will get too frustrated because the game became too hard to play in that suboptimal way.

Personally I think that at the start of the OP's video that guy comes out elitist and condescending. He gives a sense that fun isn't subjective, and that if you like something that he doesn't consider fun, then you don't know better or you're an idiot.

IMO if you want people to try to play in a way that you consider fun, don't be condescending towards them or the games they like. Understand their opinion.

The beginning of the video is definitely condescending towards other action games, basically everyone will say DMC's combat has more depth. His point of Zelda playing fair is pretty asinine. The Souls games play just as fair IMO, the traps were so obvious in Sen's Fortress that I never even fell for one. He doesn't get to his point or interesting aspect until over 10 minutes in.

You brought up one of the main design flaws of the Souls game. The normal enemies in a Souls game are quite possibly the weakest enemies across gaming because 1) the same exact strategy can kill them all and 2) the checkpoints are far apart so you can't make the normal enemies major threats. I remember practicing the riposte early on because I figured the game was going to make me use it at some points, but nope and it was really too risky to use as you could just circle strafe for an easy backstab. Whereas Bayonetta throws enemies at you that are immune to Witch Time forcing to use the dodge offset to easily kill them.

However, I do find how a game conditions you to play an interesting concept, and his analysis of the introduction of Souls games vs Bloodborne was interesting. I do feel there's a point of some people enjoying a game less due to playing in a less fun manner even though it does come off as very elitist as you're basically saying someone is playing wrong. I gave the example of Jim Sterling's review of Vanquish [https://www.destructoid.com/review-vanquish-186214.phtml] where it was obvious he played the game like a whack-a-mole cover shooter and didn't understand how to use the mechanics properly as he said things that are just plain untrue. I think there's definitely something to playing "wrong" but it's definitely a very grey area and does not apply to every game either.

I mean to be fair most RPG's don't have good RPG mechanics and I was trying to point out how you where playing the game the exact opposite way the guy was saying to play the game. ie using a shield for everything.

I don't think I can name an RPG with worse RPG mechanics than Dark Souls. There's a core stat that is completely useless and a form a magic not tied to a stat. I don't think I've ever seen either of those HUGE mistakes in an RPG ever.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That reminded me of the First Order Optimal Strategy.

Spoiler: Extra Credits explanation

It's about how players will tend to latch to the easiest efficient way to play that the game first presents. If the game doesn't properly make the player to learn and use a harder but more optimal strategy, the player will never stop using the first one. In the worst cases the player only knows how to do that first strategy; so the player will either get bored because the game is too easy and lacks variety, or will get too frustrated because the game became too hard to play in that suboptimal way.

Personally I think that at the start of the OP's video that guy comes out elitist and condescending. He gives a sense that fun isn't subjective, and that if you like something that he doesn't consider fun, then you don't know better or you're an idiot.

IMO if you want people to try to play in a way that you consider fun, don't be condescending towards them or the games they like. Understand their opinion.

The beginning of the video is definitely condescending towards other action games, basically everyone will say DMC's combat has more depth. His point of Zelda playing fair is pretty asinine. The Souls games play just as fair IMO, the traps were so obvious in Sen's Fortress that I never even fell for one. He doesn't get to his point or interesting aspect until over 10 minutes in.

You brought up one of the main design flaws of the Souls game. The normal enemies in a Souls game are quite possibly the weakest enemies across gaming because 1) the same exact strategy can kill them all and 2) the checkpoints are far apart so you can't make the normal enemies major threats. I remember practicing the riposte early on because I figured the game was going to make me use it at some points, but nope and it was really too risky to use as you could just circle strafe for an easy backstab. Whereas Bayonetta throws enemies at you that are immune to Witch Time forcing to use the dodge offset to easily kill them.

However, I do find how a game conditions you to play an interesting concept, and his analysis of the introduction of Souls games vs Bloodborne was interesting. I do feel there's a point of some people enjoying a game less due to playing in a less fun manner even though it does come off as very elitist as you're basically saying someone is playing wrong. I gave the example of Jim Sterling's review of Vanquish [https://www.destructoid.com/review-vanquish-186214.phtml] where it was obvious he played the game like a whack-a-mole cover shooter and didn't understand how to use the mechanics properly as he said things that are just plain untrue. I think there's definitely something to playing "wrong" but it's definitely a very grey area and does not apply to every game either.

I mean to be fair most RPG's don't have good RPG mechanics and I was trying to point out how you where playing the game the exact opposite way the guy was saying to play the game. ie using a shield for everything.

I don't think I can name an RPG with worse RPG mechanics than Dark Souls. There's a core stat that is completely useless and a form a magic not tied to a stat. I don't think I've ever seen either of those HUGE mistakes in an RPG ever.

Pryomancies have their own special parameters separate from magic. From the DS wikia -

Unlike Sorcery and Miracles, pyromancies are unique in that they do not rely on any stat for their power. Rather, players may upgrade their Pyromancy Flame up to a total of 21 times to increase their damage output. This means that players can use pyromancies to deal high damage at low soul levels ? making it useful for PvP.

Unfortunately, many pyromancies share the deficiency of having limited range and having a slow casting time. This means that in order to use pyromancies properly, players must plan ahead and predict enemy movements. It also makes pyromancies dangerous to use in close combat, especially against other players. However, the speed of casting pyromancies can be increased through investing in the Dexterity attribute, the limit being 46 points in Dexterity before no further casting speed increases are given to the player, making pyromancies a far more viable choice for close range combat.

I've only played the first two Witchers, but managed to do well in each using only a fraction of their upgrade trees. Same goes for earlier, more traditional JRPGS like several Final Fantasy entries. Also are you really implying that DS's combat stats are more flawed than a game like Skyrim, where combat is so broken to begin with?

There are plenty of RPG's out there with worthless stats or odd design choices, so not sure why you're singling out these two rather subjective examples. Besides, DS has always been categorized as an Action RPG, which skews the criteria somewhat significantly.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Pryomancies have their own special parameters separate from magic. From the DS wikia -

Unlike Sorcery and Miracles, pyromancies are unique in that they do not rely on any stat for their power. Rather, players may upgrade their Pyromancy Flame up to a total of 21 times to increase their damage output. This means that players can use pyromancies to deal high damage at low soul levels ? making it useful for PvP.

Unfortunately, many pyromancies share the deficiency of having limited range and having a slow casting time. This means that in order to use pyromancies properly, players must plan ahead and predict enemy movements. It also makes pyromancies dangerous to use in close combat, especially against other players. However, the speed of casting pyromancies can be increased through investing in the Dexterity attribute, the limit being 46 points in Dexterity before no further casting speed increases are given to the player, making pyromancies a far more viable choice for close range combat.

I've only played the first two Witchers, but managed to do well in each using only a fraction of their upgrade trees. Same goes for earlier, more traditional JRPGS like several Final Fantasy entries. Also are you really implying that DS's combat stats are more flawed than a game like Skyrim, where combat is so broken to begin with?

There are plenty of RPG's out there with worthless stats or odd design choices, so not sure why you're singling out these two rather subjective examples. Besides, DS has always been categorized as an Action RPG, which skews the criteria somewhat significantly.

I know how pyromancy works in Dark Souls, it works just like any other magic but not requiring a stat. A level 100 character with pyromancy is more powerful than a level 100 character without pryomancy.

I don't really know Bethesda games as I don't like their questing or combat so I don't play them. I played a bit of Fallout 3, I'm pretty sure every core stat did something.

It was From's 2nd try with Dark Souls, not even their 1st, and to have 2 huge mistakes in the game is just unacceptable. There is a multiplayer aspect to the Souls games so balance is even more important than a strictly offline RPG. By the way, they aren't subjective examples, they're objective examples. I haven't seen an RPG with useless stats before. And, there's way more issues too. I was done with the series after just playing Dark Souls because I knew if there were mistakes that big in the final game that shouldn't have even made it out of the planning stages, then they really don't know what they're doing. I tried Bloodborne because I saw they were basically fixing much of the mechanics by just stripping out stuff that didn't work. Bloodborne, while more balanced and satisfying, still needs to up its game as the combat still doesn't have much depth.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

By "useless stats", which are you referring to...strength and ?

Every stat in the game has uses, regardless of how balanced they might be. I agree there should be more nuanced actions to go with some of them, like swing speed depending on strength/dexterity, but to say they're worthless seems a bit blatant. They both have different scaling options in one form or another.

Why does pyromancy need to be grouped into magic? It's not even technically magic anyways, as it's a fire-based skill set acquired from an item(s) and upgraded/scaled independently. We're splitting hairs over how features should be implemented in a game you said yourself is more action than RPG (which is basically how it's marketed in the first place), but to each their own.

It isn't purely an action game or an RPG, so why hold it so rigidly to one or the other's criteria.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

By "useless stats", which are you referring to...strength and ?

Every stat in the game has uses, regardless of how balanced they might be. I agree there should be more nuanced actions to go with some of them, like swing speed depending on strength/dexterity, but to say they're worthless seems a bit blatant. They both have different scaling options in one form or another.

Why does pyromancy need to be grouped into magic? It's not even technically magic anyways, as it's a fire-based skill set acquired from an item(s) and upgraded/scaled independently. We're splitting hairs over how features should be implemented in a game you said yourself is more action than RPG (which is basically how it's marketed in the first place), but to each their own.

It isn't purely an action game or an RPG, so why hold it so rigidly to one or the other's criteria.

Resistance

Whatever increases your arsenal and damage output should be restricted by level whether it's magic, melee, bow and arrow, etc. Pyromancy functions just like any other magic, it's magic but just coming out a glove or whatever. You can't buy say an item/weapon in DnD to triple your damage or anything like that as level restricts your damage potential. The Souls games are sorta embedded with multiplayer, thus it should be a balanced game regardless of the genre the game is. The Souls games are action games wearing the tattered clothes of an RPG.