So was it able to distance it self enough from the Souls formula to justify being called something else...

So was it able to distance it self enough from the Souls formula to justify being called something else, or could this have easily been called Darks Souls 4 and no one would have batted an eye?

Attached: 48A1542B-2474-480B-9DE1-2D39D62DD29B.jpg (2560x1427, 463.41K)

no you see, the names of souls and bonfires were changed, so it's not dark souls

Hard to explain but the game feels like a remake of DS2. Maybe it’s all the random secrets, dozens of bosses with some repeating, or world design

Everyone already knows it's dark souls 7

It's just Dark Souls 4 with a shitty open world attached to it.

Should have been called Dark Souls 4, or Dark Souls: The Elden Ring or something like that. Everything is just Dark souls, the atmosphere, the mechanics, the vague bullshit lore.

Could have been called Dark Souls 4 and nobody would have complained. In fact it would have been hailed as the best Dark Souls yet.

It's not set in the world of Dark Souls so why would it be called Dark Souls

It actually is kind of funny how so many things in this game feel like a No Name style Knock Off of Dark Souls;
>runes are totally not souls
>grace is totally not bonefires
>incantations are totally not miracles
>wretched is totally not the deprived

Has some of the same NPCs and basically all the weapons from Dark Souls. I wouldn't be so sure.

They took what works and built on it so I'm not complaining

I wish it had been Dark Souls 4

Where are the dark souls then, tough guy

Agreed, it feels like this is what they wanted to do with DS2.

Elden Ring could be set in the same "world of Dark Souls" but ~10k years in the future or in the past without causing any major retcon.

Legitimate, unironic question: what's wrong with it being Dark Souls 4?

They were used to make the Elden ring.

It's a prequel, user.
Each of the endings represent a different timeline forming. One for DeS, one for DaS, one for BB

Less marketing. That's all. people would feel like they need to play the first 3, play the first one, and then give up because they're exhausted.

Sekiro > Bloodborne

Honestly the game feels like a mix of Souls, Bloodborne, and Sekiro all mixed together eith some new ideas in terms of both setting and gameplay.
Setting wise you have the obvious Souls inspirstion but then you have Bloodborne-like areas like Caelid which look like a nightmarish hellscape.
Gameplay wise you have more emphasis on posture breaking (and counter attacks) like Sekiro along with weapon skills which feel like a mix of weapon arts from 3 and Sekiro. Not to mention stealth being brought over from Sekiro but toned down to not be so overly powerful.
I genuinely feels like a culmination of From's work.

That's besides the point but kinda yes almost, in some ways

>It's a mix of Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Sekiro
Name one feature they implemented from Sekiro that's not in Dark Souls 3.
(You're probably right but I'm just curious)

Jump

Guard Counter and Stealth.

>bunch of shitty reused assets, inferior artstyle to BB and vastly inferior combat to sekiro in favour of swamp rolls 3 tier combat is a culmination of their work

Attached: 1635704655492.gif (700x500, 14.58K)

I feel like they are cognizant of all the potential knockoffs so they are trying to occupy all of that space possible competitors would try to take as well. It is pretty smart business-wise.

Sekiro is still a really different game from everything they've done since Demon's Souls. Not just the gameplay but its general atmosphere and vibe

Honestly when Dark Souls was announced this is what I thought it was going to be. Rather than 3D Castlevania SOTN.

No it's very much just big dark souls. Same slimes, same slightly larger lothric knights, sideways shield slap and all. These little motherfuckers are just village gremlins with big head mode on instead of big hat mode

Attached: jade-goblin-enemy-elden-ring-wiki-guide.jpg (300x169, 8.03K)