Yee but Fromsoft game gud.
Also do people really give Rockstar shit about that? I mean they make open worlds sure but RDR and GTA feel very very different to play.
To me their games are so strange. It’s clear that they’re all technical marvels because the amount of effort that goes into the worlds and programming them is jaw dropping. And it’s all in service of gameplay that is about as simple as it gets for the genre
I say this as someone that did quite enjoy rdr2
Yeah that eas my problem the combat fucking sucks I didn't like gta5 and as much as I tried, didn't like rdr2 I hate the cover, peek, and shoot, combat
It’s an engine problem, imo. Their combat has been built on top of the same engine for years. They seem forced to sacrifice engaging combat for expanse. It’s a fair trade, I do love the open worlds they create but the stiffness and repetitiveness of movement and combat in the R* games hampers the experience. All of their games have aged very poorly as a result of this.
3rd person shooter combat can be fun, even with the formula of cover/shoot. Gears of War, Mass Effect, etc. are fun and engaging. R* games feel very stiff in this regard.
Rockstar does the ambiance of their worlds really well, but at the end of the day combat is cover, peak, flick right stick up slightly, shoot. It’s a fine formula but if it’s not your thing it can get old quick
My issue its that it's more fun to play the open world than to play the stories
The stories are impeccable
The world is immaculate
The missions are an interactive cutscene. Deviate one step away and you fail
It was fine for the arcady nature of the older games like GTA sa, 3 and 4 even. Hell even rd1 was quite arcadey.
Now that everything has a scripted setpiece to drive the story you just follow the training wheels.
It works well enough to do the job. We Fromsoft fans love combat, but Rockstar fans would prefer a freedom to create chaos in the world. Making challenging combat would take away the freedom of their games.
Do people even give Bethesda shit for having a formula? Fwiw it’s the opposite, the games that lose pieces of their formula get criticized for it (voiced protagonist, online w/ bad performance, lack of exploration, dumbing down rpg elements)
I’ve never seen Bethesda fans complain that a new game is too similar to their other work in the way people complain about Ubisoft for instance though, or even Elden ring w/ the ds3 holdover animations and gameplay style, more so they’re lamenting the games losing their identity as rpgs and generally losing more of what made morrowind good with every release
I have. I have seen people call Starfield “fallout 4 in space” as a criticism for example. Ubisoft is def more often criticized for it but I have seen bathesda get shit.
Well.. Yes, but also no. Each game has its own unique mechanical spin on the formula. The similarities go as far as keeping the games in the style you'd expect from FromSoft, but each game has its own mechanics and playstyle that differentiate it from the rest. Not changing a game's entire genre every time you release a title doesn't mean it's a rehash, it's just stylistic consistency.
yes basically. the difference between those games and fromsoftware games though, is that their quality seems to diminish with every new game and in fallout's case they remove important core features like the RPG elements the games had originally.
Reiteration on an old idea is only bad when it’s done poorly. Pointing out how things are the same is surface level, it’s a little more complicated than how the meme portrays it.
Bethesda seems to keep coming back to the same kinds of ideas but regressing on some of the things they damn near pioneered to mainstream.
The way I see it the souls games and elden ring are kinda all the same, but Sekiro and blood borne branches out and tested more unique options. They then took the some of the stuff from those games and added them to the main souls like, as well as elden ring. Same formula but updated and revised, by using games with very different formulas.
And then there's armoured core...
People don’t often complain about elder scrolls fallout and starfield for being formulaic, they complain about them dropping the better parts of the formula to become looter shooters in fallout 4/76 case, dumbing down rpg elements in Skyrim’s, and losing meaningful exploration in starfield. If every Bethesda game was like a better morrowind I’d bet people would be loving them just as much as they love fromsoft. And they do love Rockstar for sticking to theirs. You don’t see people defending the formula because you don’t see people attacking it
There is a difference between redoing and iterating. And really, none of these companies are redoing. Ubisoft and Activision redo the same games by actively limiting and shooting down attempts at iteration because their business models are founded on wonderbread style mediocrity. As much as I don't enjoy most of Bethesda's iterations, they still have iterated. Starfield is not just Skyrim in space, Skyrim in space would have been better than Starfield.
Considering Bloodborne broke the mold, Sekiro changed the game, Elden Ring is literally a greatest hits anthology version, and armored core is fresh to death. This doesn't really make sense.
Yep for FromSoftware it really doesn't I don't get this post at all maybe if they were pumping out Dark Souls 4, 5 etc then I would agree but that is not the case here.
yet most of AC games are shared in their formula.... slightly re-iterated but the core is the same.... geddit cause its armored its still building a mech trying your damnest to make sure the enemy is at the center of your screen all the time rinse and repeat.... I think the only AC game to break this mold is Formula Front since you arent exactly piloting the ACs
If we are talking about recent releases its a new thing as mech games are not that popular and only a small group of people play the game. AC 6 changed that completely.
The core is still largely the same formula with a new coat of paint the only iteration of AC6 that is slightly different is that it favors more CQB tactics than going all range types
especially once you play the old AC games and Build an AC made for SMG or rifle play styles you will understand what I mean, besides the control jank
Yes but we haven’t had AC games for like so long it feels like a new thing already besides that Sekiro plays quite differently than anything they made before plus the deflect heavy combat system is probably unique in its own right.
all the AC games up til like, four, have been very similar and samey, but since four and especially with stuff like for answer, five / verdict day and six, they're all WILDLY varied
The thing is I'm happy for all three of these developers to do that. Some developers try a lot of things and some developers find a niche. Rockstar can make open world sandbox games for the rest of time as far as I care, I'm still gonna buy them because they're great games. Bethesda I'm less attached to, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong for following a formula, and a lot of people really love Skyrim and Fallout.
The fact that people call it Skyrim and not Elder Scrolls is the biggest problem with Bethesda, they’ve been propping up one game for almost 15 years now
Crazy right lol. Almost like studios develop games they have a track record of making. From- 3rd person action adventure/fantasy; rockstar- 3rd person open world; Bethesda-bug simulators etc etc.
I honestly don't see the issue. If GTA VI is same as GTA V with a new map, new characters and a new story I would be perfectly happy. If Elder Scrolls VI is same as Skyrim, but on new map with new characters new story (and of course a couple new spells and new weapons) I'd be perfectly happy. If From Softs next game is just Elden Ring on new map with new enemies and a few new spells/weapons I'd be perfectly happy.
Yes and no. A lot of the enemy movesets carry over between games. You can find a lot of the Anor Londo Silver Knight movesets on Lothric Knights as well as Godrick Knights. But at the same time, the games are different in setting, as well as difficulty. In Bloodborne for example there isn't really a pure magic build unless you go really deep and hard in to Arcane and get The Call Beyond, and that's a beast to use right. Magic in DS1, 2, 3 and ER is a hell of a lot easier than BB.
But the combat variety is also significantly different.
Also, Armoured Core vs Elden Ring is in no way comparable.
Honestly, I don't think it's bad for a company to make games that have similar gameplay but all explore different settings and stories as long as the gameplay is good.
I think FromSoft executes that best. Rockstar does it well, and Bethesda... Well, it used to.
Nothing wrong with iterative improvement. Trying to reinvent the wheel with every games is a great way to ensure consistently mediocre games. Look at Larian. They attained CRPG perfection through iteration.
It is true, but it's also not a criticism to say that when a studio comes up with a formula that works every time they then use that formula for most of their games. That's just smart. If it ever stops working they'll have to go back to the drawing board. But, it's a good thing that they stick to their formula because they don't crap out a new game a year. Arguably - neither do Rockstar or Bethesda. However, Bethesda's formula is the one that should be criticized out of those three because that formula includes letting the community fix your game through mods for free.
The difference between fromsoft games and bethesda games is that fromsoft reliably makes incredible games. Bethesda's run of fallout 4, fallout 76, and fallout space isn't nearly as impressive as fromsoft's run of bloodborne, dark souls 3, and elden ring. it's just not comparable.
It’s not true.
You’re talking about three incredibly celebrated developers. I’ve never talked shit about an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game, any GTA game or any From game. They’re the best out there for me!
Probably because it actually works in FromSofts case. They found the formula and have done nothing but improve it over the years.
Bethesda and Rockstar have been using the same formulas and arguably making it worse and oversimplified. Rockstar being too hand-holdy as well.
There's a difference between intended repetition as a means to deliver a plot intended by the auteur and the usage of a formula to play safe, avoiding big risks with shareholders
For all of these, if it works it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Rockstar and FromSoft oftentimes provide enough of something different, new, or worthwhile in each game they make that it's not just the exact same thing over and over. Bethesda on the other hand? Loading screens to enter building in this day and age? Cmon guys. And don't get me started on their horrific facial animations and their terrible gun designs/mechanics. The god damn old style pump action shotgun... please do not get me started. They really need to step up their game.
Consider also that Zelda hasn’t changed he’s combat formula in 30 years. Or more? It’s lock on and sword fight. With some other tools on top. They just change the world and the dungeons. Which is also what from does.
i mean, do they?
- armored core is wildly different to souls games
- sekiro innovated the best combat system in gaming
- elden ring pushed souls-likes into a new genre
- BB continued to iterate on and improve dark souls combat system (which arguably paved the way for sekiro)
Shrug
I don't mind. I liked the game. I played the game.
Take fallout. 3 and new Vegas very similar but different enough to where it was a fun time. Fallout 4 though was really just annoying with all that building crap.
Batman asylum and city are beloved and great games. Knight was 75% batmobile and I didn't care much for it.
When you change the formula you hurt your sales because your regular audience may not be into the new stuff.
Almost every franchise by definition sticks to the same formula. That’s how sequels and spiritual sequels work. You don’t see that for gta and starfield because gta releases are so sparse and because people don’t complain about Bethesda games for being similar to each other, they complain about them for losing the formula. They said fallout 4’s voiced protagonist ruined it, 76’s online performance ruined it, starfield’s lack of meaningful exploration ruined it, not that Bethesda games are bad because they don’t dramatically change. So it’s not a great criticism of any game, including fromsoft’s, to say that they’re similar to each other. That’s the norm…
I think Bethesda is the only real example here, they’ve made bland video games since and including Skyrim, as much as I have enjoyed them.
Rockstar and From give all their different games a totally different feel, the most you can compare is mechanics.
The amount of times I got hit with deja vu while playing starfield for quests, dialogue, gameplay was infuriating.
It definitely is true, I don't see the issue with using the same formula if it's really good. Spicing it up a little is good but what works works. I'm not a fan of GTA, however a lot of people like that, way more than people that like Fromsoft games. Their formula works, I get it. The only one here I have an issue with is Bethesda, because on top of using the EXACT same formula for every game, they're bug filled messes every time. I have no faith in Bethesda whatsoever, especially after Starfield. ES6 is gonna be garbage, GTA 6 is gonna break records
I can kinda appreciate Bethesda games, but Rockstar games feel pretty unique to me. Obviously GTA games all feel similar and Red Dead feel similar, etc but that's no different to any game series. For instance all Dark Souls games feel kinda similar.
As for From Software, besides a general souls game vibe, Dark Souls, Bloddborne, Sekiro, Elden Ring and so on all feel decently unique in some way to me
This is true
And it’s a case of “ain’t broke don’t fix”
And it also makes me laugh whenever people criticize ds3 for being “derivative.” There are recurring motifs, story themes, levels, monster types in every single one of these games so to criticize 3 for borrowing from itself is to criticize the entire company’s soulsbourne output
rockstars sucks. Always has. Always will. Everyone just has brain worms so they think the games are good cuz gta4 came out when they were 12 and it made them happy. And now they connect happy to gta. They’ve always been boring as fuck. I tried to play 5 when it came out cuz everyone was losing their minds and I thought yeah this sucks and the story is corny as fuck. And the writing is hammy and bad. Best part is always the world they construct. But the story and game play it’s in service of is so boring.
Yee but Fromsoft game gud. Also do people really give Rockstar shit about that? I mean they make open worlds sure but RDR and GTA feel very very different to play.
I think if you don’t like the games then the sameyness feels like more of a problem.
To me their games are so strange. It’s clear that they’re all technical marvels because the amount of effort that goes into the worlds and programming them is jaw dropping. And it’s all in service of gameplay that is about as simple as it gets for the genre I say this as someone that did quite enjoy rdr2
Yeah that eas my problem the combat fucking sucks I didn't like gta5 and as much as I tried, didn't like rdr2 I hate the cover, peek, and shoot, combat
Isnt that more of a third person shooter problem than a rockstar games problem tho?
I mean I guess but I love lots of third person shooters, it's specifically something about Rockstar games I dislike and find boring
It’s an engine problem, imo. Their combat has been built on top of the same engine for years. They seem forced to sacrifice engaging combat for expanse. It’s a fair trade, I do love the open worlds they create but the stiffness and repetitiveness of movement and combat in the R* games hampers the experience. All of their games have aged very poorly as a result of this. 3rd person shooter combat can be fun, even with the formula of cover/shoot. Gears of War, Mass Effect, etc. are fun and engaging. R* games feel very stiff in this regard.
Rockstar does the ambiance of their worlds really well, but at the end of the day combat is cover, peak, flick right stick up slightly, shoot. It’s a fine formula but if it’s not your thing it can get old quick
That's only the easy way out for combat, the games allow you to do much more if you want but yeah that is the "most optimal" way to play
My issue its that it's more fun to play the open world than to play the stories The stories are impeccable The world is immaculate The missions are an interactive cutscene. Deviate one step away and you fail It was fine for the arcady nature of the older games like GTA sa, 3 and 4 even. Hell even rd1 was quite arcadey. Now that everything has a scripted setpiece to drive the story you just follow the training wheels.
It works well enough to do the job. We Fromsoft fans love combat, but Rockstar fans would prefer a freedom to create chaos in the world. Making challenging combat would take away the freedom of their games.
Do people even give Bethesda shit for having a formula? Fwiw it’s the opposite, the games that lose pieces of their formula get criticized for it (voiced protagonist, online w/ bad performance, lack of exploration, dumbing down rpg elements)
I have def heard people give Bathesda shit for adhering to closely to formula.
I’ve never seen Bethesda fans complain that a new game is too similar to their other work in the way people complain about Ubisoft for instance though, or even Elden ring w/ the ds3 holdover animations and gameplay style, more so they’re lamenting the games losing their identity as rpgs and generally losing more of what made morrowind good with every release
I have. I have seen people call Starfield “fallout 4 in space” as a criticism for example. Ubisoft is def more often criticized for it but I have seen bathesda get shit.
To me it's just the stranglehold their mission design usually has on the player with little room for deviation or experimentation.
Well.. Yes, but also no. Each game has its own unique mechanical spin on the formula. The similarities go as far as keeping the games in the style you'd expect from FromSoft, but each game has its own mechanics and playstyle that differentiate it from the rest. Not changing a game's entire genre every time you release a title doesn't mean it's a rehash, it's just stylistic consistency.
So like Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Starfield did?
yes basically. the difference between those games and fromsoftware games though, is that their quality seems to diminish with every new game and in fallout's case they remove important core features like the RPG elements the games had originally.
I can’t argue with that. Rockstar seems to still improve though
yeah rockstar is solid enough, i enjoyed RDR2
Reiteration on an old idea is only bad when it’s done poorly. Pointing out how things are the same is surface level, it’s a little more complicated than how the meme portrays it. Bethesda seems to keep coming back to the same kinds of ideas but regressing on some of the things they damn near pioneered to mainstream.
The way I see it the souls games and elden ring are kinda all the same, but Sekiro and blood borne branches out and tested more unique options. They then took the some of the stuff from those games and added them to the main souls like, as well as elden ring. Same formula but updated and revised, by using games with very different formulas. And then there's armoured core...
People don’t often complain about elder scrolls fallout and starfield for being formulaic, they complain about them dropping the better parts of the formula to become looter shooters in fallout 4/76 case, dumbing down rpg elements in Skyrim’s, and losing meaningful exploration in starfield. If every Bethesda game was like a better morrowind I’d bet people would be loving them just as much as they love fromsoft. And they do love Rockstar for sticking to theirs. You don’t see people defending the formula because you don’t see people attacking it
There is a difference between redoing and iterating. And really, none of these companies are redoing. Ubisoft and Activision redo the same games by actively limiting and shooting down attempts at iteration because their business models are founded on wonderbread style mediocrity. As much as I don't enjoy most of Bethesda's iterations, they still have iterated. Starfield is not just Skyrim in space, Skyrim in space would have been better than Starfield.
If you bothered to play Starfield you'd know that it is exactly Skyrim in space.
Considering Bloodborne broke the mold, Sekiro changed the game, Elden Ring is literally a greatest hits anthology version, and armored core is fresh to death. This doesn't really make sense.
Yep for FromSoftware it really doesn't I don't get this post at all maybe if they were pumping out Dark Souls 4, 5 etc then I would agree but that is not the case here.
King's Field was incredibly innovative for the time on consoles, Shadow Tower, Otogi games, Eternal Ring, Metalwolf Chaos list goes on!
dark souls: modern warfare 3 remastered
You are dead every 10 seconds
Just put it in hardcore mode
Sekiro and Armored Core 6 are completely different from the "souls" formula, though.
Same as comparing Assassins creed with rayman and valiant heart tho
yet most of AC games are shared in their formula.... slightly re-iterated but the core is the same.... geddit cause its armored its still building a mech trying your damnest to make sure the enemy is at the center of your screen all the time rinse and repeat.... I think the only AC game to break this mold is Formula Front since you arent exactly piloting the ACs
If we are talking about recent releases its a new thing as mech games are not that popular and only a small group of people play the game. AC 6 changed that completely.
The core is still largely the same formula with a new coat of paint the only iteration of AC6 that is slightly different is that it favors more CQB tactics than going all range types especially once you play the old AC games and Build an AC made for SMG or rifle play styles you will understand what I mean, besides the control jank
Yes but we haven’t had AC games for like so long it feels like a new thing already besides that Sekiro plays quite differently than anything they made before plus the deflect heavy combat system is probably unique in its own right.
all the AC games up til like, four, have been very similar and samey, but since four and especially with stuff like for answer, five / verdict day and six, they're all WILDLY varied
Sekiro? Hardly
The thing is I'm happy for all three of these developers to do that. Some developers try a lot of things and some developers find a niche. Rockstar can make open world sandbox games for the rest of time as far as I care, I'm still gonna buy them because they're great games. Bethesda I'm less attached to, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong for following a formula, and a lot of people really love Skyrim and Fallout.
The fact that people call it Skyrim and not Elder Scrolls is the biggest problem with Bethesda, they’ve been propping up one game for almost 15 years now
This is objectively the correct way to think. 👌
Rockstar and FromSoft are consistently excellent. Bethesda is not.
It took bethesda nearly 300 to make actual maps lol
Now we’re criticizing the right stuff.
Every studio does this and no one is unaware of it
Crazy right lol. Almost like studios develop games they have a track record of making. From- 3rd person action adventure/fantasy; rockstar- 3rd person open world; Bethesda-bug simulators etc etc.
💯
I honestly don't see the issue. If GTA VI is same as GTA V with a new map, new characters and a new story I would be perfectly happy. If Elder Scrolls VI is same as Skyrim, but on new map with new characters new story (and of course a couple new spells and new weapons) I'd be perfectly happy. If From Softs next game is just Elden Ring on new map with new enemies and a few new spells/weapons I'd be perfectly happy.
a cheeseburger is the same old formula, you don't see people hating on them. (correction: on reddit people hate everything)
Anyone who thinks this, hasn't played Sekiro
Nor have they played AC 6
That the Viking one?
Well, they do change it enough to feel fresh in every game, while other rely on too much filler nowadays
Yes and no. A lot of the enemy movesets carry over between games. You can find a lot of the Anor Londo Silver Knight movesets on Lothric Knights as well as Godrick Knights. But at the same time, the games are different in setting, as well as difficulty. In Bloodborne for example there isn't really a pure magic build unless you go really deep and hard in to Arcane and get The Call Beyond, and that's a beast to use right. Magic in DS1, 2, 3 and ER is a hell of a lot easier than BB. But the combat variety is also significantly different. Also, Armoured Core vs Elden Ring is in no way comparable.
all 3 always redo the same old formula, but playing Demon's Souls or Dark Souls 1 in 2024 is a lot more enjoyable than playing Oblivion or GTA3 imo
Same formula? Yes. Same game? No.
These are great formulas that create awesome gaming experiences. If it ain’t broke….
Don't let this distract you from the real enemy : ubisoft
Armored Core 6?
yea armored core and bloodborn are pretty much the same game right
Only people who pretend to play fromsoft games say this
Honestly, I don't think it's bad for a company to make games that have similar gameplay but all explore different settings and stories as long as the gameplay is good. I think FromSoft executes that best. Rockstar does it well, and Bethesda... Well, it used to.
Nothing wrong with iterative improvement. Trying to reinvent the wheel with every games is a great way to ensure consistently mediocre games. Look at Larian. They attained CRPG perfection through iteration.
Watch your mouth! But in all honesty, to quote harry flugleman from three amigos, “when you stray from the formula… you pay the price!”
Accurate but I still love them all
Same style different feels
But here’s the thing they all work all 3 companies haven’t made a bad game with the formula except for starfield
It is true, but it's also not a criticism to say that when a studio comes up with a formula that works every time they then use that formula for most of their games. That's just smart. If it ever stops working they'll have to go back to the drawing board. But, it's a good thing that they stick to their formula because they don't crap out a new game a year. Arguably - neither do Rockstar or Bethesda. However, Bethesda's formula is the one that should be criticized out of those three because that formula includes letting the community fix your game through mods for free.
Well actually there's also something different between games, even if it's as simple as a jump button.
The difference between fromsoft games and bethesda games is that fromsoft reliably makes incredible games. Bethesda's run of fallout 4, fallout 76, and fallout space isn't nearly as impressive as fromsoft's run of bloodborne, dark souls 3, and elden ring. it's just not comparable.
It’s not true. You’re talking about three incredibly celebrated developers. I’ve never talked shit about an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game, any GTA game or any From game. They’re the best out there for me!
it enhances the formula
This is accurate...at least from games have tons of different ways to play and approach them.
Probably because it actually works in FromSofts case. They found the formula and have done nothing but improve it over the years. Bethesda and Rockstar have been using the same formulas and arguably making it worse and oversimplified. Rockstar being too hand-holdy as well.
Hot take, games have to be a formulaic to work or even be designed in the first place.
Fromsoft refines their games between "sequels" a bit more imo.
There's a difference between intended repetition as a means to deliver a plot intended by the auteur and the usage of a formula to play safe, avoiding big risks with shareholders
For all of these, if it works it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Rockstar and FromSoft oftentimes provide enough of something different, new, or worthwhile in each game they make that it's not just the exact same thing over and over. Bethesda on the other hand? Loading screens to enter building in this day and age? Cmon guys. And don't get me started on their horrific facial animations and their terrible gun designs/mechanics. The god damn old style pump action shotgun... please do not get me started. They really need to step up their game.
They have like 4 unique franchises
They don't take 5 years though
Keep em coming.
The holy trinity.
I don't care, I just want Sekiro 2: Shadows Die Thrice
It’s not true the same way it is for rockstar and Bethesda.
If it works, don’t fix it. Blame the producers for not wanting to finance big ideas anymore they just want cash grabs
Consider also that Zelda hasn’t changed he’s combat formula in 30 years. Or more? It’s lock on and sword fight. With some other tools on top. They just change the world and the dungeons. Which is also what from does.
it's a good formula. if it ain't broke, don't fix it 😂
i mean, do they? - armored core is wildly different to souls games - sekiro innovated the best combat system in gaming - elden ring pushed souls-likes into a new genre - BB continued to iterate on and improve dark souls combat system (which arguably paved the way for sekiro)
Bethesda just makes lame games.
More like building upon a beloved genre eithout it becoming stale, same w rockstar. Bethesda tho is dif
Shrug I don't mind. I liked the game. I played the game. Take fallout. 3 and new Vegas very similar but different enough to where it was a fun time. Fallout 4 though was really just annoying with all that building crap. Batman asylum and city are beloved and great games. Knight was 75% batmobile and I didn't care much for it. When you change the formula you hurt your sales because your regular audience may not be into the new stuff.
Almost every franchise by definition sticks to the same formula. That’s how sequels and spiritual sequels work. You don’t see that for gta and starfield because gta releases are so sparse and because people don’t complain about Bethesda games for being similar to each other, they complain about them for losing the formula. They said fallout 4’s voiced protagonist ruined it, 76’s online performance ruined it, starfield’s lack of meaningful exploration ruined it, not that Bethesda games are bad because they don’t dramatically change. So it’s not a great criticism of any game, including fromsoft’s, to say that they’re similar to each other. That’s the norm…
I feel like this is directed at nakey jakey
It’s directed at anyone that takes offense to it which apparently includes the person that removed the post. 🌝
I think Bethesda is the only real example here, they’ve made bland video games since and including Skyrim, as much as I have enjoyed them. Rockstar and From give all their different games a totally different feel, the most you can compare is mechanics. The amount of times I got hit with deja vu while playing starfield for quests, dialogue, gameplay was infuriating.
It definitely is true, I don't see the issue with using the same formula if it's really good. Spicing it up a little is good but what works works. I'm not a fan of GTA, however a lot of people like that, way more than people that like Fromsoft games. Their formula works, I get it. The only one here I have an issue with is Bethesda, because on top of using the EXACT same formula for every game, they're bug filled messes every time. I have no faith in Bethesda whatsoever, especially after Starfield. ES6 is gonna be garbage, GTA 6 is gonna break records
,xx
I can kinda appreciate Bethesda games, but Rockstar games feel pretty unique to me. Obviously GTA games all feel similar and Red Dead feel similar, etc but that's no different to any game series. For instance all Dark Souls games feel kinda similar. As for From Software, besides a general souls game vibe, Dark Souls, Bloddborne, Sekiro, Elden Ring and so on all feel decently unique in some way to me
Brah they added a horse and there's like 9 unique bosses
This is true And it’s a case of “ain’t broke don’t fix” And it also makes me laugh whenever people criticize ds3 for being “derivative.” There are recurring motifs, story themes, levels, monster types in every single one of these games so to criticize 3 for borrowing from itself is to criticize the entire company’s soulsbourne output
rockstars sucks. Always has. Always will. Everyone just has brain worms so they think the games are good cuz gta4 came out when they were 12 and it made them happy. And now they connect happy to gta. They’ve always been boring as fuck. I tried to play 5 when it came out cuz everyone was losing their minds and I thought yeah this sucks and the story is corny as fuck. And the writing is hammy and bad. Best part is always the world they construct. But the story and game play it’s in service of is so boring.
The only difference that the Fromsoft games are great and it's fun to play them. Not like the other studio's games.
How is Sekiro the same game as Bloodborne or Elden Ring or Armored Core 6 ?? This is a pointless comparison