How FromSoftware rigged the review game

From USA Today: "FromSoftware has risen from relative obscurity to superstardom in the past ten years, and it’s essentially done this by creating the same game on repeat. Sure, there are subtle differences between Sekiro, Bloodborne, Dark Souls, and Elden Ring, but they’re similar in structure, feel, and shape. Hell, they even share many of the same assets between series. This is just an observation, not a criticism – why should developers redo a door-opening animation every time they make a game? Work smart, not hard.

When Dark Souls (2011) launched, this kind of game was an unknown quantity. Those who played Demon’s Souls two years prior knew it would be good, but secret battles waged behind the doors of major game publications. “Are you sure this is a 10/10?” I’m imagining editors asking their reviewers at the time. “Are you sure?”

You don’t get these games until you play them, and sometimes not even then. You have to conquer them. Whether it’s a genuine sense of accomplishment or Stockholm syndrome doesn’t matter – it works. Pushing your way through Dark Souls’ Blighttown as an active participant isn’t the same as watching someone do it. All you see as an inactive observer are the flaws – the technical issues, the apparent unfairness, the clumsy movement."

[TheDud3Abides]

I'll disagree with this opinion and offer this in rebuttal. Part of From Software's appeal is its heavy emphasis on exploration and player freedom. It has always been this way. In the article, the author seems to want to downplay the 96 meta average of Elden Ring on their ability to not recommend the game to everyone. I would say that about Super Mario Galaxy. It is a fantastic game but there are many people who dislike platformers for their own reasons. Does this mean we should lower its score?

[CrimsonWing69]

You know what I find funny, we have actual game journalists trying to throw shade or call out reviews, when this is something their audience has been pointing out to them for years.

What's even crazier is they're throwing that shade at a game that absolutely deserves the positive review scores and praise.

Look, you can dislike the game for X, Y, Z reasons, but there's no denying that they took a formula and translated it into an open-world genre that doesn't feel formulaic and gives an incredible sense of awe with exploration while keeping portions very much tied to the Soulsborne roots.

What I find wild is Souls games usually review well and get a lot of critical praise, but now that FromSoftware created a game that elevates the genre they defined and did incredibly well in sales, we now get all these weird articles and people within and out of the industry saying it doesn't deserve the praise it's getting.

[fitofficial]

It's one of the only ways journos know how to get attention.

[frostypants]

Welcome to the current state of popular culture and media: if it's popular and legitimately worthy of praise...tear it down. It's a mass psychological illness.

[fitofficial]

Game "jOuRnAlIsTs" rig the traffic game by saying something mildly inflammatory to draw eyes whether it makes sense or not.

[TheColbertinator]

Games stuffed with micro transactions, barebones content and outdated ideas get praised all the time too. Difference is that game "journalists" receive their swag bags and event invitations so the 8s, 9s and 20s are given out like candy.

[VivaChe]

I don't think this article is disparaging FromSoftware games, or necessarily questioning the high scores they get. What I read is that FromSoftware games have a design that is not really "reviewable" in the traditional sense: they take too long to fully "get" or finish, or discover, etc. in order to meet review deadlines. Plus, because they need to be finished within a short time, you've got "FromSoftware veterans" reviewing them, which of course isn't ideal. I would agree with those points. The "rigged" part of the title feels a bit ironic -- like yes, they "rigged" the review game by making games that are too complex, deep, rich, nuanced (in other words, "good") for joe-schmoe Reviewer to really cram into the normal narrow categories that most game reviews use. Anyway I could be totally misreading it but that's my take.

[--Onilink--]

You can tell almost everyone commenting didnt bother to read the article. The author even reviewed Elden Ring favorably.

All the points he makes are absolutely valid, the games and the genre itself lends itself to a situation in which for the most part the people who will want to review the game are people who are pretty big fans of the games in the first place, so they can be inherently a bit more biased because a lot of the little quirks and/or annoyances might be things they already know how to deal with or avoid. (Putting aside that all reviews are subjective and therefore biased in one way or another)

Even more valid is the point in the article regarding actually being able to review the game in the strict timeline a reviewer would have (and with no wikis or guides available for the more obtuse stuff).
How likely is it that someone who has struggled with previous games or never played them would want to tackle the review of a 100h game that can be extremely challenging if they are not sure if they are going to be able to progress enough in it in the time that they are given (plus actually write the review)

[KingofBandits]

They made an excellent game that garnered tons of hype and actually lived up to it. All while sticking to their core promises to their fanbase. It really is that simple, other teams and companies need to pay attention

[lucian229]

when the author said sekiro and dark souls is essentially the same game, they proved they never played these games......at all. All credibility thrown out the window

[thorstein]

"When Dark Souls (2011) launched, this kind of game was an unknown quantity."

King's Field (a 4 game series): Am I a joke to you?

[RabbitFly]

While the souls series undoubtably owes alot of its design concepts from king's field, they are very different games. Much more so than any modern from soft souls-like.

I. E. Sekiro has more in common with dark souls than dark souls have with king's field. Especially if we are looking in depth at design vs. Macro. I. E. Combat animations, which is actually a really big deal in the souls series.

[Harryvok]

While i'm enjoying the game, it's certainly not a 10/10 for me. I can understand that maybe being different for people who haven't played souls games before.

For me the biggest problem is the game just feels rooted in the PS3/360 era. It feels dated. You can feel the Demon's Souls DNA right to the core of the game. The combat, animations, overall clunkiness. Apart from being open world, it really hasn't progressed much past the original game. Jump and a mount have been around in games for a very long time.

The vast recycling of assets from the early games is a little bit of a let down. Also the dungeons etc through the game all just feel the same.

While the art style is superb, the actual quality of the graphics is just decent. Some models and textures leave a lot to be desired. Performance (as usual) needs a fair bit of work.

The defining aspects and saving grace for this game is the sense of both discovery and accomplishment. That's what lifts this game to being pretty great. The sense of discovery in this game has only really been matched by Skyrim from my experience.

I'm about 120 hours in and i'd give this game about 8.5/10. Great game, just feels dated in many ways.

[gurp]

I agree, the game is very good, but overrated in my opinion
It does feel dated, everything is recycled

I know this is going to get a lot of backlash, but add a difficulty setting
I don't want to die every 5min, and please no opinions saying that I shouldn't play this because I suck at it

[Harryvok]

I've found the difficulty fine, but if they added difficulty options, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. What do I care if some plays on 'easy' where they do more damage and take less damage? Wouldn't affect me at all and would mean some other people can enjoy the game more. Fine with me.

They'd have to do things like not allow access to PVP or make it so being invaded means you go back to taking normal damage to keep things fair, but other than that, I don't agree with people who say an easy mode wouldn't work.

[cerpintaxt44]

usatoday...... says everything

[lio_convoy]

After watching Ryukahr play Demon's Souls on YouTube and watching the stupid AI follow his avatar to a pit and then walk into the open pit and die... Over and over again until he cleared the level of baddies with one pit. I LUL'd then paid attention to the ugly graphics and janky animations... Hot garbage? Yeh. For sure. This is one dev I steer clear of.

[Nuvem]

They rigged it by making a good game.

[melons]

750 words of zero substance bait. Of course it's Kirk McKeand.

[boing1]

This is how they rigged it. If any reviewer will say he does not enjoy a from software game, it'll mean he's not a 'real' gamer and will be deemed by community as a loser and a noob.

[il-JumperMT]

where was this article for BOTW?

[WillyC009]

Lol this article is total bull and whoever wrote it is honestly a hack. What FromSoftware makes is exceptional outside of some optimization issues. They should be applauded for their work and creations.

[anast]

Make a solid game and deliver products your community wants and the rest will work out. Game journos need to figure out how to play games, it is their job after all.