I’ve been revisiting anno 2205, infamously the ugly duckling of the Anno series of RTS games. I don’t mind so much the fact that it’s different, lacks customisation and random map generation - I’m bothered because the game is so slow to progress through on challenge settings, and it feels like a game designed just to artificially waste your time; in other anno games, you can always pull tricks to dig yourself out of economic crisis - selling off assets and surplus goods, completing quests for other parties, or taking loans. 2205 is very very confined in terms of what you can do to financially recover in the early game and forces you into a lot of military events.
Dark Souls 3. I have 160 hours in Dark Souls 3, and I hated probably 90% of it. Its just such a boring slog, it’s when Fromsoft imo jumped the shark with what i call, “flailing boss syndrome.” So many bosses and enemies in DS3 just flail wildly with such little telegraph or strategy other than, roll away, and mash roll. Dodging should be a strategic maneuver that lets you avoid damage and change your position, but it really hasn’t been that since Dark Souls 2.
DS3 is what started the whole dodge slop thing thats so prevalent in modern souls likes. Ironically, Bloodborne, which also has flailing boss syndrome, is one of my favorite games of all time, but the game is a lot more deliberate in its design around those kinds of bosses… minus a few.
I think DS3 is too Action, not enough RPG for me as a Souls game. Bloodborne is unique enough to be a separate category for me, and Elden Ring’s weapon ashes really add a lot more flavor and gameplay, along with letting you really diversify your build more. Plus I think the bosses in Elden Ring are more readable, and block is actually something you can feasibly do. (Though I do think they need to decrease the dead angle that can hit you when blocking.)
I just despise Dark Souls 3 so much, all everyone talks about are the late game bosses, but dont mention the slog of areas you need to get through to get to any of the good bosses.
But is DS3 a bad game? probably not, its probably a me problem. DS2 set my expectations up in the sense that DS2 was completely different gameplay wise to DS1, where as DS3 felt like a more generic sequel to DS1 rather than expanding and making the game feel different or unique. DS3 was just DS1 but super fast and that’s really it. I guess i just wanted something different.
I disagree, I love DS3, but I can respect this line of criticism. However, I cannot understand how anyone can criticize DS3’s bosses for the lack of readability, while praising ER. For me, ER bosses just take the worst aspects of DS3 ones and pump them up. For half of the bosses there is a complicated pattern of random movements, which makes the game a boring slog as you need to memorise them… unless you use summons that make the game trivial.
I thought the community census was that DS3 was peak roll fest in a bad way.
Oceiros is literally flailing with minimum telegraph. And most of the bosses are roll dodge checks with Dancer being the worst offender.
The thing is, I feel like Miyazaki’s design philosophy does have action at its core. The first game that From released after he joined was AC4, which was a wildy different experience from its predecessor. It went from controlling a helicopter to a god damn fighter jet, and is still the most twitch-based AC to this day.