General Gaming LEAKED ELDEN RING FOOTAGE

[Bacon]

Might also be coming out in October if the other leak I saw was true 

[Bacon]

 

[Keyser_Soze]

@Bloodporne got his wish

[Bloodporne]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

@Bloodporne got his wish

Bloodborne PS5 edition? I don't see it!

[Keyser_Soze]

11 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Bloodborne PS5 edition? I don't see it!

 

Yeah but you went off on a tangent that they should just show this game.

[Bloodporne]

9 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Yeah but you went off on a tangent that they should just show this game.

Actually, I'm more curious about how one can even film footage in quality this low in 2021 now. That's the biggest mystery.

 

Whatever this blob of a video is, it sure looks like Fantasy Game: Open World.

[Keyser_Soze]

25 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Actually, I'm more curious about how one can even film footage in quality this low in 2021 now. That's the biggest mystery.

 

Whatever this blob of a video is, it sure looks like Fantasy Game: Open World.

 

From Software version of The Witcher.

[Xbob42]

22 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Actually, I'm more curious about how one can even film footage in quality this low in 2021 now. That's the biggest mystery.

 

Whatever this blob of a video is, it sure looks like Fantasy Game: Open World.

You say that as though we have a large selection of high quality open world fantasy games to choose from. We've got Skyrim, which has the gameplay so bad it had to be made poorly on purpose, and we've got, like... Dragon's Dogma, where the gameplay is great and literally nothing else is. I guess we can toss Breath of the Wild into that list... sort of. Not really traditional fantasy. The Witcher counts well enough but is 6+ years old at this point, like most of these games. Games like Dragon Age Inquisition, which was a big joke.

 

We've definitely got a few high profile open world fantasy games over the years, but hardly enough to talk about it in the same tone you would a survival game or a Battle Royale!

[Bacon]

There are people already saying "IT JUST LOOKS LIKE DARK SOULS BUT WITH HORSES WAHHHHHH! IT IS GONNA BE SHIT!"

 

Fuck those people. Dark Souls 3 came out in 2016. I need more. I don't even want anything different. I want From to keep making things that a Dark Souls or basically Dark Souls. If I wanted something else I'd play games from a different dev. Like, I wouldn't want Bethesda to make TES6 into a go-kart game. I mean, that's a lie, but you get what I mean. 

[Bloodporne]

11 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

You say that as though we have a large selection of high quality open world fantasy games to choose from. We've got Skyrim, which has the gameplay so bad it had to be made poorly on purpose, and we've got, like... Dragon's Dogma, where the gameplay is great and literally nothing else is. I guess we can toss Breath of the Wild into that list... sort of. Not really traditional fantasy. The Witcher counts well enough but is 6+ years old at this point, like most of these games. Games like Dragon Age Inquisition, which was a big joke.

 

We've definitely got a few high profile open world fantasy games over the years, but hardly enough to talk about it in the same tone you would a survival game or a Battle Royale!

No, I say that as in I can't see enough to really have an opinion on it and it just kind of indistinctly looks like an open world Fantasy game because of that. There's swords and a horse and some dragons in 240p, so that's what I meant, just that I don't have an opinion on it.

 

And while horses in games suck without fail, if there's one dev I do trust to finally somehow squeeze some fun out of horse combat, it'd probably be From.

 

Edit: I'll add that when it was first announced and some supposed insiders on ResetERA were babbling about it, I followed that thread and it was mentioned the game was supposed to be aesthetically a huge departure and very striking looking. I've had those comments in my head since and this definitely isn't it based on what I'm seeing. BUT AGAIN, I'm seeing...this...so no opinion really.

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, Bloodporne said:

No, I say that as in I can't see enough to really have an opinion on it and it just kind of indistinctly looks like an open world Fantasy game because of that. There's swords and a horse and some dragons in 240p, so that's what I meant, just that I don't have an opinion on it.

 

And while horses in games suck without fail, if there's one dev I do trust to finally somehow squeeze some fun out of horse combat, it'd probably be From.

In that case I agree fully! Aside from the games-with-horses thing, sounds like you had a traumatic experience. What did the horse do to you?!

[Bloodporne]

8 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

In that case I agree fully! Aside from the games-with-horses thing, sounds like you had a traumatic experience. What did the horse do to you?!

It controlled like shit and added no fun gameplay mechanics to already tedious traversal. 

 

I took it out back and shot it.

[Bacon]

I fully expect horses/mounted combat to suck horse cock in ER. Just like in every other game, I will only use them when I can't fast travel and have to travel a long distance. The only games to get riding animals right is WoW and FFXIV. 

[Bacon]

hmmm this like looks fake now lol

 

Like the part where where the guy walks down the stairs with the torch looks straight outta DS2. 

 

Prolly not fake tho 

 

For when that gets taken down

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Firewithin]

 

[Bacon]

Now this is poggers 

edit: YT link for the above. Let's see what gets taken down first

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Bloodporne]

I hate to say it but I'm not really too psyched about it seeing more now. I'm sure it'll end up being fucking cool, it's From, but it looks weirdly DS2-ish and I'm not just saying that because @Bacon did. Don't even know what it is about it. That 'sneaking up on guy' segment looks especially like DS2 jank.

[Bacon]

Well, the games, except for shitty DS2, have this same combat feel to them at their core and as long as ER has that I'll like it a lot. The only thing I'll have to adapt to is their new gimmicks. Like Sekiro's posture and dying twice. I legit just played BB like DS1 and had noting to really adapt to. 

[Xbob42]

I'd personally be down for more mobile and physics-driven combat rather than just more basic animation priority. Would love to be able to fling myself around a bit with heavy weapons, enabling crazier combos without necessarily having a combo tree based on specific inputs. I feel like I have more and more trouble sticking around each subsequent From game when they start to feel too much like "light attack, heavy attack, parry" for the majority of the time. DS3 had weapon abilities but for the most part they sucked shit and were too limited/slow.

 

Maybe if they could streamline spellcasting? Would absolutely love an easily accessible list of spells I can cast (like a hotbar, but less clunky and shitty than a hotbar) that wasn't switching between them like items, which always felt clunky and weird.

 

What do we know about this game so far? It looks pretty open world, and open world fantasy always makes me crave open world fantasy RPG that I can play from start to finish with friends. Even Eurojank bullshit like Two Worlds 2 was more exciting with a group, let alone actually good games like Divinity OS 1 and 2. No weird summon system where I can only help during bosses or for weird sections, no me being a ghost who can barely interact, I just want to party up with some friends and heal those dipshits with the sickest Dark Soul heals around. WHY DOES NO ONE LIKE THE HOLY TRINITY IN NON-MMOS. Let me be a fucking healer you hacks!

[Greatoneshere]

Elden Ring is being directly directed by Hidetaka Miyazaki as I understand it, and he was the reason Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1, Bloodborne, and Sekiro were all so very good. Dark Souls II and Dark Souls III were directed by From Software's B-team, and it showed in those two titles compared to when Miyazaki is directly at the helm.

 

So I don't think we have anything to worry about, and with George RR Martin writing the backstories and incidental information and doing the world building, I think we should by all accounts be in for a treat. Miyazaki has hit it out of the park 4 times in a row, it'd be surprising if he suddenly failed us now.

[Bacon]

3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I feel like I have more and more trouble sticking around each subsequent From game when they start to feel too much like "light attack, heavy attack, parry" for the majority of the time.

I don't. The games come one once every few years, and it is the only game like this that I play. If you want something different play something else. If they change up their shit too much then I won't have any FROM-like games to play. No one has actually aped the feel of their ARPG games. If they change it that is just less games I have to play. Like with Zelda. Shit is dead to me unless they basically go back to how it was, and I don't have anything to replace Zelda cuz no one makes 3D Zelda-like games. All the Zelda clones are of the 2D style. The Zelda I like doesn't exits anymore and I don't want that to happen here. 

[Xbob42]

5 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I don't. The games come one once every few years, and it is the only game like this that I play. If you want something different play something else. If they change up their shit too much then I won't have any FROM-like games to play. No one has actually aped the feel of their ARPG games. If they change it that is just less games I have to play. Like with Zelda. Shit is dead to me unless they basically go back to how it was, and I don't have anything to replace Zelda cuz no one makes 3D Zelda-like games. All the Zelda clones are of the 2D style. The Zelda I like doesn't exits anymore and I don't want that to happen here. 

Old Zelda suuuuucked. But I do always want more Zelda clones.

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Elden Ring is being directly directed by Hidetaka Miyazaki as I understand it, and he was the reason Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1, Bloodborne, and Sekiro were all so very good.

I dunno if I'd lump Sekiro in there. I'd rather play Dark Souls 2 ten times in a row before playing Sekiro even just once more. It really did not gel with me. In fact, I had a similar issue with Bloodborne, but not to the same extent. They really want to shoehorn players into a specific playstyle now and that sucks. Give me options and let me find my own way! Didn't help that Sekiro went from the dreamlike, fantasy-lost-in-translation strangeness of Dark Souls, or the Gothic horror of Bloodborne to fucking generic ass stoic Japanese samurai/mythology bullshit. Best part of that game was killing all those dumbass samurai monkeys.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

I dunno if I'd lump Sekiro in there. I'd rather play Dark Souls 2 ten times in a row before playing Sekiro even just once more. It really did not gel with me. In fact, I had a similar issue with Bloodborne, but not to the same extent. They really want to shoehorn players into a specific playstyle now and that sucks. Give me options and let me find my own way! Didn't help that Sekiro went from the dreamlike, fantasy-lost-in-translation strangeness of Dark Souls, or the Gothic horror of Bloodborne to fucking generic ass stoic Japanese samurai/mythology bullshit. Best part of that game was killing all those dumbass samurai monkeys.

 

That's the first time I've heard someone think Sekiro was not at the same level as the rest of his work, and worse than maybe DS2 and DS3? Damn. Well, I agree that they do force you into playstyles, but the game was so damn cool and the combat was buttery smooth and hard but in a way that could be mastered. But it's definitely not a game for everyone. If you had issues with Bloodborne and Sekiro, you maybe should have concerns for Elden Ring then. 

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Old Zelda suuuuucked

Yes, 2D Zelda sucked. OoT-SS were all great fantastic games. 

[Xbob42]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

That's the first time I've heard someone think Sekiro was not at the same level as the rest of his work, and worse than maybe DS2 and DS3? Damn. Well, I agree that they do force you into playstyles, but the game was so damn cool and the combat was buttery smooth and hard but in a way that could be mastered. But it's definitely not a game for everyone. If you had issues with Bloodborne and Sekiro, you maybe should have concerns for Elden Ring then. 

Definitely not the first time I've heard it, in general people I've spoken to seem to share a similar opinion, though probably not as strongly. More just like "Yeah Sekiro was really good, but I want what they used to make," which is not my stance either. Frankly I really value choice in builds and playstyle in RPGs, and especially in how I can approach any combat scenario. Once you're good at Sekiro, you're just... good at Sekiro.

 

You don't get that moment of rolling an entirely new play style and sucking at it and building a new set of skills, all of which can come back for the brief moment in Souls games where the PvP isn't bullshit. I think even if one style is clearly the best (though they should strive to make it more balanced than that) that having more than one style is still very good for the longevity and replayability of a game, as well as making it seem larger than it is.

3 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Yes, 2D Zelda sucked. OoT-SS were all great fantastic games. 

I loved OoT. But then, after Majora's Mask, every subsequent game, at least to me, was like OoT but less impactful. Not necessarily worse, because obviously if you played Skyward Sword first and then went back and played OoT, you probably wouldn't be blown away by very much except for maybe not having a 600 hour long tutorial for the absolute basics, but it really felt like they were just kind of making the same game over and over with little tweaks.

 

I get that there's value in that for people who like comfort food gaming, much like how I prefer my JRPGs to have turn-based battles, but at some point I really started to miss the original concept of Zelda: an open-ended adventure where I spent the vast majority of the game discovering and exploring. For the couple hundred hours (as if that's a small number) in Breath of the Wild where I felt like that, before the samey-ness of the shrines and overworld and lack of meaningful surprises really started to kick in, that's exactly what I had. I don't need Zelda to be like Breath of the Wild, and I don't need it to be like Ocarina of Time. What I need it to be is unafraid to try new ways to delight and surprise me, and I don't mean weird gimmick shit like Four Swords Adventures or whatever. 
 

Personally I wouldn't mind if they had two different teams. One making "classic" 3D Zelda games and a wildly experimental department. Maybe we'd get more overall Zelda titles each generation and satisfy more people.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

Definitely not the first time I've heard it, in general people I've spoken to seem to share a similar opinion, though probably not as strongly. More just like "Yeah Sekiro was really good, but I want what they used to make," which is not my stance either. Frankly I really value choice in builds and playstyle in RPGs, and especially in how I can approach any combat scenario. Once you're good at Sekiro, you're just... good at Sekiro.

 

You don't get that moment of rolling an entirely new play style and sucking at it and building a new set of skills, all of which can come back for the brief moment in Souls games where the PvP isn't bullshit. I think even if one style is clearly the best (though they should strive to make it more balanced than that) that having more than one style is still very good for the longevity and replayability of a game, as well as making it seem larger than it is.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest there weren't people turned off by Sekiro, I just didn't realize people might like DS2 or DS3 more than it but I didn't really enjoy those games. I'm with you that Sekiro doesn't offer playstyle "builds" in the same way as Demon's Souls and Dark Souls did, because it's not really trying to do that. You do have some leeway in your support abilities, which ones you choose to upgrade first over others which would affect your playstyle (more stealth or not, and what you rely on in combat once you're fighting) but if you're not into that by its very nature, I agree, Sekiro wouldn't be something you'd be as into. Not every From game is trying to do the same thing and it's clear Miyazaki is trying to do something different with each one of the games he helms. I liked Sekiro for what it was trying to do rather than what it wasn't trying to do but I would say my tastes are by comparison diverse so I'll buy what the game is selling even if it's not per se my cup of tea, so long as it's done well. But you are right about Sekiro - it's not very replayable and it doesn't offer multiple builds that can vary considerably from one another but still allows you to play through the game and win.

[skillzdadirecta]

Sekiro is a game a skill based game that literally requires the player to "get gud". That's the only way to progress in the game and it's a throwback to the arcade games of old. The replayability come in getting better at the games mechanics and tackling higher difficulties. It's not unlike a fighting game in that regard, or a puzzle or rhythym game. Sekiro turns a lot of modern players off because there are no easy game breaking builds in it to make it easier. You have to either master the game's gameplay and nuances or fail miserably.

[Bacon]

I have 54 minutes and 19 seconds of proving you don't have to git gud to beat Sekiro. 

[Brick]

2 hours ago, Bacon said:

I don't. The games come one once every few years, and it is the only game like this that I play. If you want something different play something else. If they change up their shit too much then I won't have any FROM-like games to play. No one has actually aped the feel of their ARPG games. If they change it that is just less games I have to play. Like with Zelda. Shit is dead to me unless they basically go back to how it was, and I don't have anything to replace Zelda cuz no one makes 3D Zelda-like games. All the Zelda clones are of the 2D style. The Zelda I like doesn't exits anymore and I don't want that to happen here. 

 

Have you played Okami? 

[Fizzzzle]

8 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

You say that as though we have a large selection of high quality open world fantasy games to choose from. We've got Skyrim, which has the gameplay so bad it had to be made poorly on purpose, and we've got, like... Dragon's Dogma, where the gameplay is great and literally nothing else is. I guess we can toss Breath of the Wild into that list... sort of. Not really traditional fantasy. The Witcher counts well enough but is 6+ years old at this point, like most of these games. Games like Dragon Age Inquisition, which was a big joke.

 

We've definitely got a few high profile open world fantasy games over the years, but hardly enough to talk about it in the same tone you would a survival game or a Battle Royale!

We do have Greedfall and Elex. But while I enjoyed those games enough, the whole time you're thinking "damn, imagine if this had a budget."

[Xbob42]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Sekiro is a game a skill based game that literally requires the player to "get gud". That's the only way to progress in the game and it's a throwback to the arcade games of old. The replayability come in getting better at the games mechanics and tackling higher difficulties. It's not unlike a fighting game in that regard, or a puzzle or rhythym game. Sekiro turns a lot of modern players off because there are no easy game breaking builds in it to make it easier. You have to either master the game's gameplay and nuances or fail miserably.

As someone who has no problem "getting gud," all this does is shoehorn me into a specific playstyle that isn't tremendously difficult to get good at. Like most games by From Software, it is nowhere near as hard as people like to think it is.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

As someone who has no problem "getting gud," all this does is shoehorn me into a specific playstyle that isn't tremendously difficult to get good at. Like most games by From Software, it is nowhere near as hard as people like to think it is.

I never said it was hard... I said it forces you to get good at what the game wants you to get good at. It's a skill based game like a fighting game which requires pattern recognition and quick reflexes. It's not for you... cool. Not every game is for everybody. But there is a thriving community out there that loves the game and loves posting no-hit and no-damage runs. If you don't "get good" at the game's mechanics, you're not going to get very far. Just like if you button mash in most fighting games you're not gonna get very far. Same thing.

[Bjomesphat]

14 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

As someone who has no problem "getting gud," all this does is shoehorn me into a specific playstyle that isn't tremendously difficult to get good at. Like most games by From Software, it is nowhere near as hard as people like to think it is.

 

Is this the same tired, "Souls games aren't actually hard, you just have to recognize patterns, memorize enemy attacks, and understand how the game works"? This is pretty much the case with literally every game to varying degrees. Can't we just all agree that Souls games are hard, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that? Because really, what's the alternative for hard modern games?

 

Dark Souls games are hard because the gameplay systems are obtuse and it requires a lot of focus to manage your endurance while quickly reacting and countering enemy attacks. BUT, they're made easier when you have more understanding about key stats and gear upgrades, so you can build your character to help you. But this doesn't invalidate it's difficulty, because every game becomes easier once you have more knowledge about it.

 

With Sekiro, the systems are very straightforward and the character gameplay is very easy to understand, so there's really not a high barrier for entry. What makes it way harder than any Souls game is you can't do anything in-game to increase your chance of success. You have to memorize patterns and execute moves at a pretty high accuracy rate. And like with every game, once you master this it's easy. And that's why subsequent playthroughs you can take down bosses in minutes versus potentially hours. But I still think Sekiro is very much as hard as people make it out to be.

 

I actually really love Sekiro and it's one of my favorite From games. I didn't mind the lack of character customization probably because my Souls runs are always the same with a fast character, and a fast sword with minimal armor.

[Xbob42]

8 hours ago, Bjomesphat said:

Dark Souls games are hard because the gameplay systems are obtuse and it requires a lot of focus to manage your endurance while quickly reacting and countering enemy attacks. BUT, they're made easier when you have more understanding about key stats and gear upgrades, so you can build your character to help you. But this doesn't invalidate it's difficulty, because every game becomes easier once you have more knowledge about it.

But none of that matters. In the end, it all comes down to "don't be greedy," you just hit and move. Is it the easiest series ever? Not at all, but one of the main things that made the series so "hard" to begin with was how different it was from other modern games. That novelty is gone, and if you play a Souls game like a Souls game rather than DMC, you probably won't have much trouble. Yeah, some of the stuff around the edges can be obtuse and strange, but if you get the fundamentals of stick and move down, you'll struggle very little unless you have very poor reaction times or I guess if you insist on using your starting gear or something. I never said the Souls games "aren't actually hard," they're just not these life-or-death struggles people make them out to be. They're moderately challenging games that require some focus and dedication, but they're not trying to buttfuck you like arcade games or something. They're not pushing you to your absolute limits of perception like a bullet hell. They're fairly slow action games.

 

Yes, Sekiro is more difficult in one way because you can't increase your odds of success too much by upgrading your gear or character all that much, but in another way, because of the lack of builds, you also can't make a shitty character or build, you can only play the way they intended. So you either get good at that or you just give up. There's no winning with suboptimal builds or unusual builds or carving your own path through the game. You do exactly as they say, when they say, and you're fine.

I find that kind of shoehorned experience less satisfying, because I like to try weird and unusual builds, try out shitty gear, etc. When you take all that away, what you're left with is... well, to me, it's kind of like Devil May Cry, but then the combat system being less fun than something like DMC becomes apparent. Souls-likes are always built on super basic, super short combos and lots of rolling/parrying. They lack the physical interaction with enemies that makes a pure action game like DMC really fun, because total mastery usually just means you didn't get hit very much, not that you performed an insane combo where the enemy never even got to move.

 

When you have more proper RPG elements, I guess to me it stops being a comparison to something like DMC and more akin to a Witcher or similar title, so the combat seems way, WAY better than those. For me, Souls games had a pretty good balance of fun, satisfying combat and just enough ways to explore player progression to really make it feel like you were making choices on how you played the game, which was solidified even more when you engaged in PvP. You just never knew how someone else was going to fight. (Until one build became dominant and the PvP started to suck, a From staple.) I assume this is a large part of the reason they dropped any sort of multiplayer from Sekiro. Sure, the game was a little more mobile than before, but every Wolf fighting exactly the same probably would've seemed totally ridiculous.

[BloodyHell]

Sekiro is one of my favorite games of last gen (top 10) and probably the hardest game I have ever played. Beating it was probably the most accomplished I felt beating a game since I was raiding in Vanilla WoW and BC.

The Guardian Ape is one of the most memorable boss fights I've had in a long time. The Drunkard took me a lot of tries, and the Sword Saint was the hardest bosses I've ever fought. I prefer Bloodborne overall, but imo, bloodborne's challenge is a step or two below Sekiro. There were no bosses in BB that needed the precision that Sekiro demands.

 

I really need to try Nioh and Nioh 2.