Gyoubu Masataka makes English the way to go

I like that yell, but Im not willing to give up R-O-B-E-R-T-O to get it.

@@swootproonce634 Nope, Spanish one is better.

Yes, that is yet another small problem. Well said. Sad to see an issue like that (which they had already solved) crop up here. And that is something I had in mind when I wrote the line about the increased cutscene frequency. That said, the main reason the addition of that to the game annoys me is that it makes precisely zero sense from a story standpoint. Deaths and respawns are canonical parts of the narrative. A person could conceivably argue that all enemy respawning, including the requirement to repeat early phases of boss fights, is somehow related to Ashina's rejuvenating waters, sediments, dragon's heritage, etc---but there is no conceivable argument along those lines in favor of the repeated cutscenes.

Just to offer another perspective, I'm a huge fan of that on PC, so I hope they'd at least decide to leave it in there. On subsequent playthroughs when you're familiar with the lore it can become really nice to zone in and watch those events play out after each death, you notice ingenious little details and moments that you wouldn't have before. I definitely understand how it could be seen as an outright flaw without near instant load times though, engagement is just as important to immersion as that repetition can be.

🤝

Preach

Ha, thank you. I imagine it helps that I am personally a big fan of the game.

@@TheGemsbok you're the GOAT ma man. Made me sub on a video criticising one of my favourite games so you know you're good at what you do. Most well earned sub in a very long time.👍

Wow, thanks! The video I'm working on for this month is about a movie, but the next video after that---ideally releasing at some point in April---will be about Elden Ring.

Well, it sounds like you might actually agree with the whole video then: the pros are the gameplay and the aesthetics/narrative; the cons are the AAA tropes. To quote some guy talking about the big departures the game risked from their previous games: "the risk paid off!" It's not the big departures, but the many small departures, that are criticized here.

Activision is an easy scape goat - but the large pubs are the not the reason for BS as much as people want to think.

@@xBINARYGODx They absolutely can be

Not starting the game with mikiri makes no sense

I love dark souls 1 and 2, and I just can't seem to keep it up with bloodborne, dark souls 3 and sekiro. I thought this was because of issues I was having outside of gaming, and sure, maybe it is... and maybe that's why I enjoyed dark souls 1 and 2 in the first place; they have an intimacy for me that I just couldn't find in those other games.

The world needs to be the world Miyazaki intended. Sekiro is the masterpiece it should be.

@@smokeyjo7420 can't see how someone can sound so circlejerky lmao

@@V0liathon Sure ya can. U just tried to make my comment sound extreme and out of the ordinary despite its mild and ordinary nature. It's the language equivalent of junkfood. Kids do it all the time. Take care of yourself and have a great day!

@@smokeyjo7420 anyone who has put In the hours in each Miyazaki game can realize how each game has rushed elements, its just another thing to consoom. How elden ring now had the first boss in the open world you encounter have lag in the area you fight him, and people act like it's the Mona Lisa

Well, I haven't played that game, but sometimes things like that are used to hide loading of upcoming areas. That is pretty clearly not the case in Sekiro, though, so I'm not sure.

On top of that GoW commits the first cardinal sin of video games - unskippable cutscenes... It's a genuinely better experience if you whatch it on YT then play it yourself, sadly.

Is it really that big of a deal? Spirit emblems are super cheap and drop all the time from enemies, and unlike Bloodborne you don't even have to sacrifice any levels for it. If you haven't beaten the ape, they cost like 20 sen. Just find a money farming spot, get a hundred of them and never think about it ever again. Yes, I agree, they should've given you a minimum 5 or something, but the game is fairly generous with them. Hardly what I call a deal breaker.

Dude, if you're running out of those you must be spamming the prosthetic arm like crazy. I clearly remember getting to that fight and having like 900 emblems.

The only time I had a small problem with that was ishiin cause he beat my ass so many times I ran out but if you just stick to it you don't even need spirit emblems

Thank you for taking the time to consider the subject and understand my perspective. I genuinely think that my writing on this particular video could've used another draft to make it more clear, as I should've drawn a sharper distinction between 'FromSoft's best design philosophy' and 'the details that cause Dark Souls to embody FromSoft's best design philosophy'. As it stands, I think it's much too easy for viewers to come away from the video mistakenly thinking that I'm saying Sekiro should've done specific things that Dark Souls did (which, of course, I'm not). For that reason, it's certainly comforting to hear that someone who felt the video was leaning in that direction was still able to see the actual point in the end.

I still think on the cutscenes thing it really is based on preference. Personally I like being told the story more directly and cinematically like it's a movie rather than having to read item descriptions or talk to some random npc's (albeit sekiro still has that too). For me it makes it so I actually can understand what's going on in the story instead of having to watch a vaati video to know what the fuck is going on.

@@user-zy7jx2rn1j yeah i don’t have a problem with cutscenes at all, and i like the ones in sekiro a lot. but it’s definitely a small part that adds to many other small parts that kinda ‘video game’ the setting, which dark souls doesn’t do. whether you see that as bad or not is like you said preference, i don’t mind either but it does show how unique dark souls is

Thats because you can sprint through every level and checkpoints are abundant. That is simply a result of the level design and type of game that Sekiro is. Personally, I would have favored the Bloodborne approach, where the enemies that kill you take your bloodstain. It would even make much more sense thematically, since most of the Sekiro enemies probably are interested in your money. What I find much worse is the permanent loss of xp. You loose about 50% with every death. This does not really matter in the early game, but in NG+ and beyond, where it takes several bosses to level up once and everything kills you in one hit, this is infuriating. I have tried to get all techniques for the achievement, and it is the most brutal thing ever. I doubt most people have gotten that achievement without farming.

Elden Ring does have that option! One of the first things I turned off in the menu. It was a very welcome change.

@@TheGemsbok ... damn it, I know I was drunk when first starting the game and playing with the menu, but not this drunk... It really couldn't be more obvious xD thanks.

@@LazarusBell Well, yes, you're right. I'm hoping to have a video on Elden Ring done next month. But it's not a philosophical analysis like the Dark Souls video---it'll be closer to this Sekiro video (although I am also actively working on another FromSoft philosophical analysis video).

Ha, it's a partial track made by a good friend of mine. More of his musical experiments can be found on his defunct KZfaq channel: kzfaq.infovideos

@@TheGemsbok lol thanks man, I appreciate the pointer!

Thank you very much for saying so! One of my guiding principles is that I try to make the kinds of videos that I personally prefer to watch---so I know exactly what you mean about how hard it is to find this kind of stuff.

he also doesnt have a bri-ish accent

@@ty-xq7bl Kinda funny that British accents bother you, lol.

@@ty-xq7bl British accent isn't the problem, the dry, whiny, "wah, I'm so cynical" style many wannabe video essayists and analyses videos use is tired, annoying and became a trope at this point. It's also a cowardly way to give a video faux perception of depth.

The gauntlets are certainly a nice touch that plays to the game's strengths---but even if they were mentioned in this video, it likely would've just been in a single sentence in the section that's already heaping praising on the combat.

I'm most intrigued by your premise that whispers die thrice.

@@TheGemsbok it is common knowledge that whisper is derived from the root words WHIZ and PEAR. WHIZ as in cheese whiz which is dead milk, and PEAR as in squishy fruit that dies quickly after purchase. The 3rd death is from the ears who have to strain to listen to the softly spoken word. COME ON GEMSBOK EVERYONE KNOWS THIS DONT BE A THICKY.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough and perceptive comment! If you're curious about my own (over-lengthy) responses to your points, read on: There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping. In the end, Sekiro only does a mildly better job of leading players through its world than FromSoft's earlier games. If you think otherwise, you should take some time to browse through the game's Steam discussion forums. Numerous players fail to find all three critical paths on their own after their first trip through Ashina Castle; although I had no trouble with it myself, level design, enemy placement, and/or dialogue should have been reworked to make those paths more clear, not less clear, to players. The big ways that Sekiro is different from FromSoft's earlier games are the greatest strengths (one might even say 'pros') of the game; it's the _small_ ways it's different that are regrettable. But it's still a terrific game, and I respect it---and even enjoy it---more than Dark Souls II or Dark Souls III, specifically because of its many excellent changes to the formula.

I wouldn't say it goes way overboard with fan service as much as I thought it did, but there is a lot in there. Aldrich and Anor Londo are nice mix-up of that fan service because the castle is pretty much ruined and Aldrich has eaten Gywndolin. Sure there's your firelink shrine, but it still felt different and I think Ds3 was a montage of the good moments they had with Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Dark Souls 2, and even Bloodborne. Was it a regression? Maybe. But they did it the way they wanted to do it. And it introduced more people to the series while not trying to take an obsene amount of stuff out.

I never get this "too much fanservice" critique. It pissed me off why it is always here as if it's a damning point to the game. Oh, the 3rd game of the series has stuff from the first 2 games, what a shock. So if Miyazaki wants to tie up something in Anor Rondo then which is more effective? A: Put down some note/ NPC beside a completely unrecognizable ruined building that may or may not be Anor Rondo or B: actually put Anor Rondo in the game so you can see how much it has been ruined? The entire plot of DS3 is basically a very meta story of how people keep trying to prolong a dying world and bring back the glory of the past and reflect in reality how the Dark Souls series is forced to make sequels that resulted in lower quality products. DS3 is Miyazaki putting his foot down and giving the series a send-off before it can degrade to something like yearly CoD. I feel the placement of "fanservice" is more than earned since this is the last time we will ever see this game universe. If anything, I feel there isn't enough called back actually (RIP a lot of interesting DS2 things) for a grand final. I suggest watching "Dark Souls 3 is Thinking of Ending Things" by Jacob Geller, he puts up a much better analysis than I can here.

I agree that DS3 doesn't feel nearly as immersive as DS1/2/demons, but I'm not sure if it's the fan-service. I think it might be the world design. There are incredibly immersive individual levels, but the distinct aesthetic changes and breaks between them kind of soften the otherwise insanely high immersive-ness. Even DS2, with some definitely weird fucking level switches (windmill is the most obvious example), still feels more like a cohesive world than a set of levels.

@@741852BEC I mean, you're right in that the fan service ties in with the themes and it's not poorly-done at all. I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. I can't help but roll my eyes at a lot of it, and while it's fairly well justified in the context of the world, story, and meta-story, that doesn't undo the initial cringe response. For me. Most people probably aren't that bothered by it, which is good. Maybe I'm more alone in this than I thought, which is good too.

@@741852BEC The problem is it doesn't just reuse locations and characters from the first 2 games. It also resuses locations and scenarios from Demon's Souls as well. If DS3 trully is a metanarrative on stagnation like Jacob Geller suggestes in his video essay, that still doesn't excuse it being a derivative game. To me It feels like a quick cash grab forced by a publisher contract. ER is what DS3 should've been, and even that game isn't orginal enough imo.

I've studied many works in Modern English, Early Modern English, and Middle English. Although I know they're generally wrong, for whatever reason those pseudo-archaisms don't bother me. Strange as it seems to us, that's just how early generations of sentient beings spoke in the Souls universe.

@@dmytrokovchenko6079 the reason why i dislike DS2 even though there are many build options is that is just feels so awfully to play comparing to the other souls games. I also find the vast majority of the bosses to be meh at best all this combined with a at best mediocre level design... Yeah. And then when it comes to build variety something like Bloodborne and to some extent ds3 might have less individual options but the options they do have are imo a lot more interesting. Like for example bloodborne. You don't have 30 different straight swords but you have single weapons that are more complete.

That all sounds fair enough to me! The position you are arguing against, in fact, seems to be somewhat different than what is actually argued in the video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written---or at least structured---less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

@@TheGemsbok Ah, that's all fair enough then. I'd still consider Sekiro to be From's best game, because those kind of minor nitpicks are the only issues I have with the game, rather than the more serious issues I have with all of their other games. (Again, I love all of From's work, but it's hard to deny that Dark Souls 1 drops off heavily after Anor Londo, or that Dark Souls 2 is much less careful with its enemy placement, or etc.) But I see where you're coming from now. Also, I just want to say, I really respect you replying to a mostly-critical comment made over 6 months after the video's release. Most creators barely engage with comments at all, and when they do it's usually only for the first few days after the video drops. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the main thesis of your video.

Agreed! Both are absolutely top-tier experiences.

Cyberpunk kinda tried that to a degree in a huge open world environment, which I think gets overlooked because of its bad reputation. The control is rarely fully taken away from you even during lengthy conversations.

Well, I am glad to agree that Sekiro is a truly excellent and mechanically original game, and is my favorite game released in 2019. (For me, the only other title that comes close to that ranking for that year is Slay the Spire.)

'Objectively' is a difficult word. I'd venture to say that, among players who have completed both games, no one has spent remotely as long on their first kill of any individual boss in Dark Souls (runs through the level included) as they have grinding out attempts against Devil of Hatred or Sword Saint Isshin. And speaking for myself, I'll never be as frustrated or annoyed by sparse checkpoints as I will by having to manually skip hundreds of micro-interruptions like cutscenes, tutorial tips, and full-screen item descriptions in every session. As to the general point about immersion and quality-of-life not being necessary tradeoffs with each other, I'd agree. But neither game is a shining paragon of quality-of-life polish, while I would contend that Dark Souls is at least a very impressive example of immersion.

@@scandalouspanda7489 Yes, it would've been more accurate for me to say that I'll almost never be annoyed _period_ by sparse checkpoints in a FromSoft game. But that would have muddied my main point in responding to the other commenter, which was simply that the elements in question---even if arguably similar in being potential sources of player annoyance---do not affect player psychology, immersive potential, or the overall experience of a game in the same way.

The position you are arguing against is different than what is actually argued in this video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written---or at least structured---less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

@@TheGemsbok I see. If your ultimate goal is to express how certain technical aspects of the game ruin the immersion, enjoyment, or whatever the ever elusive “dark souls vibe” is, then I can see and even agree with you on that count. From a purely mechanical perspective, Sekiro did impede the player far more than in previous From Software titles. (I didn’t care for many of the UI elements you mentioned in the second half of your video myself). In regards to the structuring of your video, I didn’t mean to imply your argument was explicitly “not enough dark souls in Sekiro”. Perhaps it’s my own interpretation of the points you made in the first half of the video, but the two halves seemed disconnected. It appeared as though you were trying to address two separate grievances, the first being a disappointment in Sekiro’s divergence from things that made you love Dark Souls, and the second being technical game elements you felt subtracted even further from your experience of the game. Saying now that your issues with the latter case heavily influence the former, your position makes more sense to me. As a side note, I’m not offended by your opinion or anything like that. I was just a little surprised as I know your other videos to be very philosophical and thorough. This one seemed to me at first to be a little contrived, and for one of my favorite games of all time lol. Love your videos btw.

It seems like you may have slightly misunderstood what is argued in this video. All of the things you praise in that comment---the combat mechanics, the targeted alt-historical atmosphere, the presentation of Wolf, the details of the story---are exactly the strengths (one may even say 'pros') that receive enormous praise here. The big ways that Sekiro is different from From's other games are excellent; it's the _small_ ways it's different that are regrettable. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text. To put it another way, it's not remotely important that Sekiro didn't do specific things that Dark Souls did. What's important is that the philosophy of art-first design which produced Dark Souls without reliance on obtrusive design clichés seems to have faded from the minds of the team when producing Sekiro.

@@TheGemsbok after playing elden ring i have a suspicion that those things present in darksouls might have been accidents and not masterful consideration to detail from fromsoftware, maybe if someone had idea back then there would be item pop up in ds. Now when they a a bigger company they are slowly drifting to mainstream game design and are just taking a niche of a hard swordy games, with haphazardly implemented mechanics from demonsouls/darksouls1 in just so hardcore fans dont review bomb the game. But one day people will realize that the true immersive forward thinking game design isn't souls but Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie™ and we shall all praise the random french team whom made it.

@@kokoberi600 " might have been accidents and not masterful consideration to detail from fromsoftware, maybe if someone had idea back then there would be item pop up in ds." Well they've actually mentioned in one of the interviews that they're not very good with tutorials, and that's why they are doing partnership with Activision. So yeah... that's exactly what it was, a happy accident.

Well, uh, maybe it's a magic map? Haha, I don't know. Sadly, I agree with you that significant improvement in this area of design is unlikely. It feels inevitable that the more popular a studio becomes, the more it will cater to broad industry trends rather than continuing to improve at serving its original niche. I'm just holding out a little sliver of hope that I'm wrong about one thing I say in this video---that the earliest Souls games are very 'forward-looking.' It would be a real shame if Demon's Souls and Dark Souls actually continue for another 10 or 20 years being some of the only games at their budget level that have the same level of immersion, scope, and trust in the player.

​@@TheGemsbok I honestly think we won't see another Dark/Demon Souls equivalent again. Unless the industry starts realizing that creating AA games with smaller teams is better than pooling the population of Kentucky to create one AAA game. It seems that all studios are scared of implementing anything that induces any discomfort to players, even if it enhances the experience. I get it honestly, I had to help my friends multiple times in their Dark Souls play throughs so they wouldn't quit, and even though everyone of them LOVED it. All of them that tried Demon's Souls dropped it cause they faced an inconvenience at some point. I don't know if broad appeal declines games' quality, but it seems that most masterpieces, arguably, are alienating/inconvenient in some way. My only hope with Elden ring at this point - which am excited for - is for it to have a lot of new interesting things happening in the world, and not focus on "difficult" bosses and combat as much as DS3/Sekiro. But I've kinda given up on getting another DS experience.

Fromsoft learned that making games more accessible and easy to understand is better in general, DS1 design of constantly getting lost and the only bonfire in 2 hour of gameplay being hide in a secret wall is not very...fun. Imagine Sekiro in the DS1 design, throwing you into a complete new game and don't explain NOTHING about it. i know that those HARDCORE GAMERS love dying and having to rush 1 hour to the same area again e get lost, but people in general like to know how a game works e know where they need to go, like a tutorial on Mikiri Counter ou a indicator in a open world game, how can this be bad?

@Caradeconcha1702 If that's your takeaway, I'm afraid you've strongly misunderstood the video. No one is asking for the removal of tutorials---just better blending of tutorials into gameplay. A greater emphasis on Hanbei, for instance, and maybe the addition of a second training partner elsewhere in the world, could've served this purpose well for combat techniques like the Mikiri counter. And if you think people don't get lost when playing Sekiro, you should spend a few minutes browsing its Steam discussion forums. Aside from increased linearity, it does little more to help players navigate than their other games. Many players don't seem to find all three critical paths on their own after their first trip through Ashina Castle, and steps certainly should've been taken in the design to make these paths more clear to players. This video is not about the need for less instruction; it's about the need for less interruptive and less immersion-breaking forms of both instruction and narrative.

@@TheGemsbok no no i am not disagreeing with the video or something you said, i am talking more about "studios are scared of implementing anything that induces any discomfort to players", because most of the time people that say this are DS1 fans that think instructing player about the game or just guiding you to a place is "breaking the imersion". I have seen DS1 fans crying about the existence of tutorials in Sekiro, not immersion-breaking tutorials just tutorials in general. i am all for more imersive forms of guidence in games, i just don't agree with guiding the player being a bad thing. i am not criticizing you or your opinion, i am criticizing people that think throwing the player into the world blind is good game design and any form of help (like a pillar of light showing the way) in bad, with i know is not your case :]

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response! When you say, "Are cutscenes overused? Yes. Are they THAT detrimental to the flow of the game? Arguably not imho," it seems that we are in agreement. In the video, I also pin the uptick in cutscenes on growing budgets for their projects. Yet the increase in cutscenes is indeed relatively minor; I would like to see gameplay and/or in-gameplay dialogue replace some of them, but ultimately higher cutscene density is still just one small point in a list of seven such minor points which (when taken altogether) sum into my only con for the game.

A video on that subject is in the writing stage, but is not likely to be completed and published until late April.

Ha, great timing. I made this video for you . . . (and everyone else, but you can ignore that part if you want).

@@TheGemsbok lol, I agree with most of your cons however I give them a pass for trying to make something different and for me the pros overshadow them, but one thing that I feel made a difference is the publisher being Activision, something tells me they'd try to make the game more accessible, and fromsoftware doesn't hide the fact they don't like being exclusively tied to Bandai so trying to favor Activision may have happened

I hope it's clear from the video that I strongly agree---about the pros ultimately outweighing the cons.

@@TheGemsbok no I got that, I think my statement was incomplete, I said as a way to say I regard sekiro above ds2 and 3, it'd be probably lower than bloodborne if I had played though

I do intend to play that, but haven't yet.

I do have a video about Elden Ring in the writing stage (likely over a month before it's published here), but it is not about philosophy. That said, I am actively working on another FromSoft philosophical analysis---but it will be a long time before it is finished.

Yeah, they get close to this by having an option that auto-hides the primary HUD elements (vitality, prosthetics, items, etc) when they aren't in use. But it has no effect on the presence or prominence of indicators, text prompts, button prompts, etc. For that, they make you turn everything completely off. It's a shame.

Where we seem to differ is that I don't think it's impossible for a game to have both core mechanics as strong as Sekiro and immersion as strong as Dark Souls.

Interestingly, while the last boss took me a couple hours on my first playthrough, I managed to beat it first-try on my second playthrough. Story is the same with Demon of Hatred---more attempts than the final boss on my first time through the game, beat it in two tries on my second. Those are much more dramatic ratios than similar comparisons for Souls bosses in my experience, which to me indicates that Sekiro accomplishes its goal of both demanding and rewarding mechanical skill with its systems. I personally think people evaluate the bosses in Sekiro as more difficult simply because the gameplay is more fatiguing, especially for someone new to the game.

Isshin's extra long combos in the third and fourth phases really forced me to learn the perfect parries to finally beat him. It didn't help that I kept the Bell Demon Curse on; because for some reason Sekiro makes me want to do things the hard way, even if it makes me miserable. I thought utilizing the Prosthetic Tools would make things easier on myself, but I always ran out of Spirit Emblems before learning how best to use them on bosses. I felt forced to just learn each bosses patterns and focus on countering them with the basic mechanics, and Isshin definitely took me the longest out of everyone to do so.

I had the exact same experience! I had a lot of fun playing the game and some bosses were quite a challenge, but the last boss really ruined my experience. It took me more than 300 tries to beat him and I hated the whole experience.

Thank you for a reasonable and worthwhile comment! But just to clarify, like I say or imply at a couple points: if Sekiro was made by a different team, I can't imagine I'd bother making a video like this one. You're certainly correct that the vast majority of other developers have not demonstrated facility with the kind of 'mature, art-first design philosophy' that I highlight here as being behind the production of the earliest Souls games (and the production of some of the best aspects of Sekiro). But the industry is still playing catch-up with FromSoft in many ways, and so for the time being it's almost a truism to say that their games are superior in many important regards to other games within their respective genres. It doesn't help a master improve to hold them only to the standards set by a novice. Also, it's worth highlighting that it's a common misconception that this video is saying that Sekiro should've simply been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but I blame myself for not avoiding that implication better at the writing/structuring stage of this project. Dark Souls is included here as an example of a game produced by the same team with a preferable (possibly ideal) underlying design philosophy, not an example of a game with preferable mechanics or somesuch. So, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of the list of tropes and mechanics listed in the 'con' section. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.)

@@TheGemsbok Well I can completely agree with you there, i think you're copping more flak because of the prevalence of other youtubers who do put them in direct comparison without much nuance. It's why I could only say "somewhat" faulty, you make good points. Lessons learned in previous games should benefit the newer ones. Pro, the estus inspired gourd flask is a good use of previous ideas. Con, reusing multiplayer recordings impacts the story and makes Sekiro feel less of an individual. Very well said Gem, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The position you are arguing against is somewhat different than what is actually argued in this video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written---or at least structured---less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

In isolation? I would agree. That's why seven minor things like that are added together into a single con.

@@TheGemsbok I mean I just have to press select a couple of time not a big deal

16:30 i find it slightly funny you dont like this quick time adjacent movement, but to me the combat itself is basically a quick time event

That all sounds fair enough to me! The position you are arguing against, in fact, seems to be somewhat different than what is actually argued in the video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

@@TheGemsbok In that case, I see the nuance in your point more clearly and wholeheartedly agree. Also, thank you for taking the time to respond, and I admire your willingness to set a high standard for yourself. It's important to note that I was playing the devil's advocate... In practice, those tutorial and item pop-ups were grating, especially on repeat playthroughs, and I totally think Fromsoft was capable of more elegent solutions to this problem that capitalise on the different nature of this game. Concrete example: Item pop-ups. Those could have been made more tolerable if they either stopped appearing after having picked up the item before, or (better yet) provided a different text depending on the location of the item pick-up, just like the prayer beads, or a combination of the two solutions. The dragon-rot mechanic also could have been, especially considering that you can't attack NPCs, similar to world-tendancy, because as it stands you can't really affect the world around you, and in an action game it's always cool to see how the fixed in-game character responds to and changes along the story. They already did that with Wolf's animations becoming more violent and such in the shura ending, it would have been interesting to see World Tendancy return in place of Unseen aid. Such changes could have only strictly benefited the pacing of the story and our ability to connect with Wolf by reducing the jarring contrast between the "menu mechanics" which often feel like they affect us, the player, as opposed to Wolf (the most heinous example being Unseen aid), as opposed to the mechanics which originate from Wolf's own agency (refusing to attack NPCs, the perilous attack Kanji... etc.) I suspect this to be a fault in priorities, in which case streamlining the gameplay beyond what the souls formula would have allowed screams wasted potential.

In theory, they are realistic for the reason you describe. In practice, the acrobatic and gory set of animations used for them are what cause me categorize them as silly and reminiscent of Mortal Kombat.

Quite a tough one, yes. But, speaking for myself, it seems to be neither the hardest From has made nor even the hardest in Sekiro (let alone hardest ever). In fact, it took me less tries than solo Midir, solo Lud and Zallen, or Demon of Hatred.

@The Gemsbok Demon of hatred was easy, just jump on the roof. & he offs himself, Midir I haven't fought, father owl is second for sure in my list for sure. I can't think of a boss that's harder, I've played all the souls games too. Just didn't fight midir.

Sounds like your experience of fighting Midir is quite similar to your experience of fighting Demon of Hatred.

@@ebayaccount675 I agree with Gemsbok, you cheated yourself out of properly fighting the Demon of Hatred, thus like Midir, did not truly experience.

@IronStark917 I beat him without the cheese as well the fact its in the game means it can be used thus making the boss easy is my point. I just wanted to beat the game at that point, needed the extra health for sword saint. All you need is the umbrella shield fully upgraded & the demon is a cake walk. Father owl embarrasses demon of hatred

To be honest, I don't have a very clear memory of my first experience of a 10-minute tutorial from 6 years ago. And maybe that's the key: replaying that section doesn't feel like going through the tutorial again since the messages can so trivially be ignored. At any rate, I do agree that it is absolutely the case that Dark Souls would have benefitted from having a completely 'invisible tutorial' that prioritizes learning as one plays rather than using dev messages. In fact, I would go further than that and say that the message system in general harms immersion somewhat, as it nearly always breaks the fourth wall. However, there are many reasons that I vastly prefer how the tutorial is done in Dark Souls to how it's done in Sekiro. The messages are brief and to the point, and entirely optional. No points are ever repeated or appear as grating reminders later. It's shorter. There are only cutscenes before and after it, never during. There's only one NPC interaction, and it's a vitally important one both mechanically (grants Estus flask) and narratively (tells undead legend). And on and on.

@@TheGemsbok I do really like the original dark souls tutorial, especially in retrospect, the level design of the tutorial is far smarter than sekiro's (and i love sekiro despite this) but I just also remember bouncing off the game originally, and I think I did feel overwhelmed by the immersion breaking messages at the start. I do believe that sekiro deserves its place amongst the rest of souls, so perhaps I was feeling a bit defensive despite agreeing with the core of the issue.

Strictly speaking, there are no fog walls in Dark Souls. Passing one of those hazy barriers provides a prompt that says, "Traverse the white light." It says that because the presence of bright light in Dark Souls indicates magic, power, or illusion done by Gwyndolin or a related god of light. The light walls are representative of the control of agents or descendants of Gwyn over the important areas and beings of the world. They're only called 'fog walls' by the community because that was what they were called in Demon's Souls (the prompt for passing a hazy barrier in that game says "Enter fog"). The entire plot of Demon's Souls is happening because the Old One is spreading a colorless, demon-spawning fog throughout the world. So the presence of that fog in the game, especially near demons, reinforces the connection between its plot and its gameplay. In other words, yes, that's better. Those methods of limiting movement have context and sense in the universe in which they're placed. At any rate, the presence of invisible walls in Sekiro is very minor; that's why it's only one of seven such minor details listed in that section of the video, which sum together into the point being made.

@@TheGemsbok dude, there's a fog wall before the fight with capra demon and two dogs, all of which are regular enemies at some point. It is just an invisible wall with a texture.

The demons acted as soldiers of Izalith's army in a war fought between Gwyn and Izalith. Some, like the batwing demons and asylum demons, were apparently ceded to Gwyn's forces after the war. The presence of a Capra and a Taurus above ground is something Gwyndolin would definitely take a keen interest in.

@@TheGemsbok you take immersion too seriously lol. What you are saying is just speculation. To me and the majority of players it is just a fancy invisible wall.

@@KaueBR89 It's visible.

Ha, that seems like an odd summary . . . considering a substantial chunk of this video is about how Sekiro's big departures from games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are by far the biggest strengths (one might even say "pros") of the game.

@@TheGemsbok exactly what I was thinking. You give all that great praise about literally everything in the game but then you say, but it wasn’t good “enough”. I watched and re watched the con section to come to that conclusion of my initial comment and you kept pointing out how it doesn’t feel like a “game for gamers” like how dark souls was. You gave examples of dialogue and pop up boxes, basically saying that Dark souls is a true video game because it’s doesn’t do that, but Sekiro isn’t because it does.

I've responded to a similar comment previously. If you're curious about it, here is a copy-paste of that response: "It seems like you may have slightly misunderstood what is argued in this video. All of the things you praise in that comment---the combat mechanics, the targeted alt-historical atmosphere, the presentation of Wolf, the details of the story---are exactly the strengths that receive enormous praise here. The big ways that Sekiro is different from From's other games are excellent; it's the _small_ ways it's different that are regrettable. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text. To put it another way, it's not remotely important that Sekiro didn't do specific things that Dark Souls did. What's important is that the philosophy of art-first design which produced Dark Souls without reliance on obtrusive design clichés seems to have faded from the minds of the team when producing Sekiro."

The position you are arguing against is different than what is actually argued in this video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written---or at least structured---less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

@TheGemsbok I see, thanks for clarifying. The wording and structure of the video did make your point less clear, but I get what you mean now and I apologise for misunderstanding.

@@vladi3784 No problem at all! Thank you for the kind response.

The position you are arguing against is somewhat different than what is actually argued in this video. But that's not your fault; I honestly believe that this video in particular is written---or at least structured---less clearly than it should be. If you want an explanation of that, I have copied and pasted the (somewhat lengthy) remarks which have accumulated on that subject in my other comments here over time: "There are two levels of commentary occurring in this video. On the one hand, there is the macro-perspective, theoretical level where I am discussing the art-first philosophy which seems to have governed the production of games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls moreso than Sekiro. On the other hand, there is the micro-perspective, technical level where I am discussing the specific set of obtrusive AAA design cliches that appear in Sekiro (these often don't appear in their earlier games, but that is not crucial to the point). As it stands, these levels are somewhat mixed up in the content of the video, and with another draft I am certain that I would have separated them more clearly. But because of this confusion between those two points, several people have misunderstood the video as saying that Sekiro should've been more like Dark Souls---and that by doing specific things that Dark Souls does (being more open, having a more ambiguous story, etc), it would've been improved. That is not what I'm arguing at all, but you are not alone in thinking that it is. As I say, I blame myself for this. What I am actually arguing is that the elements listed in that second level provide independent evidence for Sekiro's change in the first level. It's not quite a coincidence that those elements are less prevalent in their earlier games (after all, I take it to be a result of the macro-level philosophy in question), but it's still practically irrelevant to the main point being made. That is, what I'm really arguing is that Sekiro's own separate goals as an immersive linear stealth/action game are not well-served by the inclusion of such things. Elements like invisible walls, repeated tutorial messages, contextual button prompts, full-screen item descriptions, etc---either do not serve its goals, or only do so in a clumsy way. (Think of the clip in this video where I am paused in mid-air after jumping off a building toward an enemy . . . so the game can explain the 'Unseen Aid' system.) This mismatch between that set of intrusions and the majority of its design in turn demonstrates a departure from the art-first approach implied by the production of their earlier games. This kind of mismatch would be a flaw in any game---I just don't hold most games to such high standards because the vast majority of the industry has not showcased the level of care that FromSoft has in selecting mechanics and designs. In other words, I am not asking for the removal of narrative material, instruction, or even outright tutorializing---just better blending of narrative and tutorial into gameplay. It would be nothing other than an unmitigated improvement to the game, for instance, for the combat techniques to be taught primarily through a character like Hanbei rather than primarily through big slides of text; for there to be an option to disable the tutorial messages and 'tips'; for bosses to speak more during combat rather than primarily in cutscenes (and even then, only having those cutscenes or that dialogue present for the first time they are seen/heard); and for Wolf to be able to continue sneaking around while eavesdropping."

Sadly, this is not that. I look forward to your analysis!

Oh yes, it is perfectly true that some can be skipped with wall jumps and other moves. As soon as I realized that while playing, I certainly skipped as many as possible. But there are some ledges too long or too curved for that method to be reliable (albeit possibly not on the path taken by speedrunners). At any rate, even if it can eventually be avoided in many situations, I still don't feel it should've been included in the first place; no singular part of Wolf's moveset needed to be so significantly slower than the rest.

@@TheGemsbok yeah I only did one new game run after I saw that strategy so I’m sure missed a lot of ledges you have to take because I didn’t explore the same areas thoroughly. And regardless I do agree with your point because when I have to use the ledge and it’s not to avoid enemies I do find it disruptive. Also hey nice Dark Souls philosophy vid.

I am guessing that you made that comment because you are familiar with the pronunciation of the word 'gemsbok' in Afrikaans, although the origin of the word (before Afrikaans and Dutch) is German. At any rate, the word 'gemsbok' is now also a word in the English language, where it is pronounced with a hard 'g' sound, like that found in the words 'guy' and 'gap.' You can confirm this by listening to the pronunciation sample for the word in an English dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gemsbok

@@TheGemsbok damn That was 12 years of Afrikaans wasted

@@baconboi4654 Hahaha, whoa, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you then.

Yes, many people in the comments here have pinned the change on Activision. And there may be truth there. But knowing that development on Sekiro actually began well after the start of development on Elden Ring, I suppose we'll have to see how things are handled in their next release to know for sure. I should say, though, that I have nothing against their games being inviting to new players. I simply want any changes made in that regard to be consistent with their earlier excellence at making such elements unobtrusive, immersive, and (where applicable) entirely skippable for experienced players.

The combat of Sekiro is not glanced over. It stands on its own as one of the listed pros of the game, in its own dedicated section. "A menu that pauses the game" does not stand on its own in this video that way; that's just one of seven minor annoyances listed in the relevant section, which altogether sum into a single con.

@@TheGemsbok "Combat good, list of mechanics:" does feel like a glance over, do you really prefer any of Dark Soul's boss fights over Isshin? I'm for real, give one of the games you were thinking when you said this game is just as good as another company's best. I can't think of one game in the action adventure genre that mixes the perfection of Sekiro's combat with its living boss design, not even other From titles I played get close to it (DS1,3 ER).

Again, I agree with you about its combat. I consider it, and in particular how it differs from the combat in FromSoft's other games, one of the primary strengths (one might even say "pros") of the game.

@@TheGemsbok The explosion lolypop has a pro, it tastes good, the con is that it explodes my head... I guess 1 vs 1 makes it ok 👍 Blah, this dance isn't clicking for me. Do keep up the good content though, your channel's subject is amazing.

I think you're deliberately overlooking the many times in the introduction, conclusion, and other parts of this video where I explicitly state that the game's demerits are outweighed by its virtues. At any rate, the explosion lollipop would still be noticeably worse if it happened to taste quite bad before exploding your head.

Haha, yeah, I went back and forth about whether to bother with quoting him here, given that I've done it in a couple other videos. He is a perceptive critic, though.