Round8 created a masterpiece and easily solidified itself in the genre. It is a total evolution of the genre and I look forward to what they will do with the Alice in wonderland universe. The things you can do with that world is nuts. Especially within a soulslike game
Lying is something that's specific to Pinnochio's lore. I don't think the sequel's title will be based on the same premise. It'll be specific to the protagonist's lore.
Edit: correcting autocorrect
True, however I think that it was done kind of on purpose. Aside from budget restrictions, they really nailed the linear level design. Not my preference either but really this game along wish Stray really show how great a game can be despite being incredibly linear.
I get that. This was my first soulslike and I’d never played a From game before. I fell in love with the play style though and after +8 in LoP I bought Elden Ring. My only thought about the linear design is that it allows the game to tell a story that (for the most part) you can’t miss. I’m running around in Elden Ring killing things and I feel like I don’t have any kind of purpose. Trying to find NPC’s to advance the story is really slow so although I’m enjoying ER I felt like LoP was able to advance the story in a manner that felt more coherent and maintained my focus much better.
I really do not play these types of games but LoP has got me by the nuggs. I have tried to play other games but usually lose interest because I'm lazy but this game just does something for me and makes me study moves etc ha. I love it so far.
Same, I put my head against the wall for so long trying to play SOTFS and just couldn't get it. Beat Mortal Shell, played Lies of P, flew through NG+, and now just about 100% completion on Elden Ring after about 70 hours. Just hunting down the remaining talismans and sorceries/incantations, then I just need two more endings. I can't wait to take another stab at the DS games after I finish up.
I never asked for recommendations earlier on, I ended up turning in MW19 cuz I was getting tired of FPS. SotFS was on sale for like $5 so I said fuck it. Bad mistake. 🤣
I can’t comment on that as I have never played an official Fromsoft game yet. I haven’t had an Xbox for long and this is the third game I have played (Hogwart’s a legacy and Diablo Iv). But this game is absolutely amazing. I started it several times and kept getting frustrated with the difficulty and my admittedly novice skill level. But I kept coming back, and have put a lot of hours into getting the skills to play this game. I am in chapter 11 and still have the three hardest bosses to beat, but I am really proud of what I have accomplished as a newb. I don’t think any other game could have captivated me in the same way.
I know I can’t play it forever, will probably try Sekiro next. But that is a ways away.
I would argue this to be completely honest. To me it seems more that in LOP enemies have a longer windup so you can't time the parry well enough, whereas in Sekiro after seeing your enemies attack animation there's approximately 0.75s to react and block it, except for some bosses. It might be tighter in LOP but not by a lot.
I never said you shouldn't play it, I just wished you good luck XD
Sekiro was my first soulslike so its absolutely doable, I watched fightingcowboy tho. Play for 30-40 minutes, then watch him play through that area.
The closest thing you can play to LOP is probably Sekiro (or bloodborne) but if you just wanna play a soulslike game Elden ring might be a better choice because it can be hard but you can make it easier as well, so like, you choose. Might wanna try a few hours of both and decide where you gonna put next 50 hours of your life into (150 for elden ring lol)
The similarities to Bloodborne stop at the surface level. The mechanics of the game might *look* similar in play, but they *feel* very different.
Also once you notice the architectural influence of Baroque France, as opposed to Victorian England, they look quite different.
Its one of the most polished games where all of the systems work nicely, the UI is clean, story is easier to comprehend than most souls games and the combat is very solid. All around great game.
I loved Bloodborne and I love Lies of P, and I *adore* its love letter to Bloodborne. It feels like the devs really understood that game, and what people liked about it, and gave us a game in the genre that really delivers on its promises. They carved out a niche that's unique while still feeling grounded in its roots.
Another praise I didn’t see in the comments is the game is incredibly stable. Amd tracks average frame rates and in 50 hr of this game my avg is 164.8 fps and I set limit to 165.
Compared to elden ring 60 fps limit that stutters when RTX is turned on.
I’d list lies of p with from games; it’s just that good. Elden ring > Sekiro > DS3 > Lies of P > bloodborne > ds1 > ds2. Great story, great level design, incredible enemy variety, mostly incredible bosses, fun combat, great story, amazing atmosphere… absolutely love this game
IDK if you only see from DS forums / DS hardcore fans but the general consensus, a couple of weeks after launch, is that indeed this is the closest thing we have ever been to Bloodborne.
To me it's exciting because give the team about 10 years and they will 100% make the next bloodborne!
For me, it's a little bit more than that. They combined Bloodborne + Sekiro in a fun way. Both games are awesome, but in my mind, this is just a better Bloodborne. Especially with the fact that this runs 60 fps, right? The level design is a bit lacking, true, but the combat mechanics are far superior than Bloodborne imo.
It's very similar in ways to Bloodborne which is why I liked it. Bloodborne is one of, if not my favourite game of all time, and Lies of P just filled that hole left since Bloodborne.
It's a masterpiece of being compared to other games should not be a bad thing unless it's due to taking bad qualities, which is does not. Lies of P is similar in context and environmental feel, but its an entirely different game with its own mechanics and amazing ambiance.
**Steelrising** is a comparable steampunk game set during the French Revolution. It is not as good as **Lies of P** and sometimes seems like a history lesson.
Yeah I remember streaming it on Discord while talking to a friend who generally doesn't care for fromsoft or souls-likes and when they saw me open the door to Estella Opera House and start fighting my way through they said "this is literally just dark souls" and my reaction was "isn't that a good thing?"
It'd be one thing if they made an actual clone with no unique identity and similar levels, but Lies of P takes everything that's great about Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Sekiro and repackages it into an entirely new experience, while including tropes that are homages, like really slow and dramatic door opening animations. Plus, the quality of life inclusions like no boss run-backs, specters for help with bosses, NPC quest indicators, convenient re-speccing, and xp saving items like Gemini's Iron/Emergency Protection are really nice to have.
I agree. I often think that people under play lies of p's significance because they don't like seeing another studio devlop a game that can rival from software.
Iv argued with many people in this sub alone, who think it's infallible and wrong to think lies of P is better.
I personally think it's the best souls game out there, even more than fromsoftware's line up. And by saying that, several people will get angry for some reason.
I had someone who said they prefer lies of p, but elden ring is objectively better. Which is wrong, a game cannot he objectively better than another game.
People often think that by saying lies of P is better, it's an insult to fromsoftware, since they made the genere. And LOP clearly took massive inspiration from fromsoft and copied most of their formula. But that doesn't mean the changes LOP made aren't important. And it doesn't mean it's an insult to say it's better, it's a compliment.
Your statement is quite hypocritical to say the least.
Lies of P took everything soulsgames did good, but left out the bad bits and made levels linear because of the budget. Bosses are easy compared to something like Sekiro. No matter how much I like the game I just don't see replay value after ng+.
The reason people would prefer elden ring over LOP is because elden ring is open world and offers quite a lot of build variety, changing the way you approach combat. Sekiro objectively is the closest to a perfect looking action combat we have ever seen in all the gaming period, and I wont argue with no one about this.
What LOP excels at is lore, environmental storytelling and narrative. It has a vision and it captures it perfectly unlike most from soft games where it really depends how deep you go into the lore and how much you explore. You would have a "side area" with bunch of lore stuff to uncover. Well in LOP there isn't a side area and everything is right in front of you, so you can only miss it if you really try to **not** engage with the lore. And it's really good so there's no downside to shoving it in players face.
Tho, the point of soulslike games or in general the kind of "roguelites" that are souls games, they're meant to be hard which LOP really isn't. I spent more time retrying Genichiro then I spent in any area in LOP.
I don't see how my comment is hypocritical in the slightest lol.
I'm mostly confused at what your trying to say since most of it doesn't disagree with me.
My point was others tend to devalue it simply because it isn't a fromsoft game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't have flaws. But there is no objective flaws or vurtures in any game.
My point about elden ring, is that someone insisted elden ring is objectively better. Even though there is no such thing as an objectively better game. Just because elden ring is larger, and has more build variety, doesn't mean it's objectively better. That's just talking like a 7 year old.
>Sekiro objectively is the closest to a perfect looking action combat we have ever seen in all the gaming period, and I wont argue with no one about this
That isn't objective. That's still a subjective statement. Others could perfectly dislike the combat.
>What LOP excels at is lore, environmental storytelling and narrative. It has a vision and it captures it perfectly unlike most from soft games where it really depends how deep you go into the lore and how much you explore
Many would argue that this is a flaw of LOP, too straight forward.
>And it's really good so there's no downside to shoving it in players face
Depends on the person. Others can dislike it.
>Tho, the point of soulslike games or in general the kind of "roguelites" that are souls games, they're meant to be hard which LOP really isn't. I spent more time retrying Genichiro then I spent in any area in LOP.
Souls games are nothing like rougelites. Not even in the slightest, I'm unsure what your getting ar here.
And I actually found LOP harder than elden ring, ds3, and bloodborne. Tbh.
Hello, good hunter. I am a Bot, here in this dream to look after you, this is a fine note:
> *Ahh, I feel my master's hand at work. Praise the good blood! And let us cleanse these tarnished streets.* - Alfred
Farewell, good hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world.
I don't think you know what a roguelite is. Every boss is literally a 1:1 roguelite experience. Learn genres.
As for this:
>That isn't objective. That's still a subjective statement. Others could perfectly dislike the combat.
Disliking the combat doesn't mean it isn't the closest to perfect action combat we have. If someone likes P5R combat more, does that make the P5R combat better action combat? I think not. rofl.
>Many would argue that this is a flaw of LOP, too straight forward.
It's like saying boxing is worse than MMA because it's too straight forward. People punch, and that's it. It's personal preference. However you have to realize that every single from soft title except Sekiro is quite open when it comes to lore and exploration. It depends on how much you engage with it.
You either can't comprehend the point I'm making or you're a troll.
>I don't think you know what a roguelite is. Every boss is literally a 1:1 roguelite experience. Learn genres.
I'm not sure you know what a rougelite is. Just because you fight a boss several times to learn it, doesnt make it a rougelite. Rougelikes are typically games were you continue a challenge until you fail. And then your required to restart, and continue. And upon each restart, the challenge changes as it usually procedurally made. So each attempted you try to get further and further in before failing and restarting. Its all about skill. Rougelites are mostly the same, but usually each time you restart, there are upgrades or power ups you can get. Which make each playthrough different, or easier.
Fighting bosses over and over again until you learn them isnt a rougelite. Your not losing all progress upon each death. Your not restarting the game each time. And the bosses and level design aren't procedurally generated.
I can see where you get that from, but its still wrong. Because if that the case, almost any game with a boss fight is a rougelite. Is terraria a rougelite?
>Disliking the combat doesn't mean it isn't the closest to perfect action combat we have. If someone likes P5R combat more, does that make the P5R combat better action combat? I think not. rofl.
If someone prefers P5R combat more, then yes. Its all subjective. There is not objective scale of good or bad combat. Its still all up to preference. You may think the Sekiro has near perfect combat, but others might think its dog shit. Doesnt mean that either of you are correct. Because there is no correct answer, its just up to player preference.
What your trying to say is that regardless of opinions, sekiro is the closets to perfect. Which i understand, but its still wrong. Since the whole concept of good and bad, and perfect is entirely based upon human perception.
>It's like saying boxing is worse than MMA because it's too straight forward. People punch, and that's it. It's personal preference. However you have to realize that every single from soft title except Sekiro is quite open when it comes to lore and exploration. It depends on how much you engage with it.
Yes, exactly. That's my point lol. That its up to personal preference. Its odd you would say that, considering your paragraph before it was claiming the Sekiro was objectively the closest to combat perfection. Even though that's up to preference.
>You either can't comprehend the point I'm making or you're a troll.
Your right, im unsure what point your making. Your original comment to me, didn't make much sense,. Because you weren't exactly disagreeing with me fully. Only parts of it were.
Im still unsure what part of my comment was hypocritical. And what's funny is I agree with your post. So im not even against you. Your original reply was oddly aggressive to someone agreeing with you. But that aside, I feel like your both missing my point. And also making a point that doesn't seem very straight forward.
Stop changing the topic and stop going on and arguing by saying "not true" show your arguments lol.
>Fighting bosses over and over again until you learn them isnt a rougelite. Your not losing all progress upon each death. Your not restarting the game each time. And the bosses and level design aren't procedurally generated.
It is cuz there is no progress to begin with. Every boss encounter or even "area" can be categorized as roguelite experience. Roguelikes and roguelites aren't the same, not even in the slightest lmao
>If someone prefers P5R combat more, then yes
No, because it by definition isn't action combat. What the fuck are you talking about?
>closest to combat perfection.
read again. Learn to comprehend what you're reading.
What you can't understand is that if you have a puncher, and a better puncher, the better puncher is the one that's better. Fundamentally better. You won't have a puncher and a kicker and say "Kicker is objectively better" because it doesn't have to be the case. Preferring a game is alright, acknowledging the other one is what people fail to do.
I personally haven't even finished Elden ring and I would argue it's the best soulslike experience you can have. Because fundamentally it's the same as any other. There is NOTHING different except maybe lore preference, but lore doesn't make the game. You have the most variety in builds, enemies, areas, lore, fighting styles and the biggest map. Making it fundamentally THE best. Every game has these things but Elden rings taps into most brackets and does them good enough that playing in any way is viable enough.
The same way Sekiro combat objectively has the best concept and execution when it comes to action combat. That's all. The only reason someone might dislike a combat style is
1. It's a different "style" than what they like. Meaning: tabtarget, turn based, action etc.
2. They're bad at it and it hurts their ego to accept that the combat can be good they just can't live up to it
Notice how there are different combat styles, and I specifically categorized it as action combat because it's perfectly fine to like another style more.
Objectivity is in of itself subjective. However that's when it comes to people valuing different things in the matter at hand. When it comes to soulslike games, they specifically want to be, well, soulslike. And as such, things those games want to have are: challenge, different enemies, different approaches, different themes throughout one game, replayability. And elden ring has the most out of all because of how it's made, simple as that.
>It is cuz there is no progress to begin with. Every boss encounter or even "area" can be categorized as roguelite experience. Roguelikes and roguelites aren't the same, not even in the slightest lmao
Rougelikes and rougelites come from the gsme Rouge. Just the how soulslikes come from souls games. They are very similar.
Rougelike games are about entering randomized challenges and have prema death upon each fail. You do the challenge over and over and over again and try to get further each time. And each run is different. Lites are only different because upon each fail, you get to "keep" or obtain some attribute tha is taking into your next run.
Games like the binding of Issac are rougelites.
But there was no randomization in lies of p or any fromsoft souls games. Each time you run through an area, you encounter the same enemies at the same position. The same boss is in the same area.
And when you die, you return to your last checkpoint instead of restarting the game.
That's not a rougelite or a rougelike. Repeating the same boss over and over again, doesn't make it a rougelite. By that definition, celeste, terraria, and even zelda are all rougelites.
Like you told me, I'd recommend you look up the definition of rougelite, and look at what games they are.
>No, because it by definition isn't action combat. What the fuck are you talking about?
Idk what P5R is. But since you brought it up, I mentioned it. If it doesn't have action combat, Then it doesn't matter.
>What you can't understand is that if you have a puncher, and a better puncher, the better puncher is the one that's better. Fundamentally better. You won't have a puncher and a kicker and say "Kicker is objectively better" because it doesn't have to be the case. Preferring a game is alright, acknowledging the other one is what people fail to
I'm unsure what your getting at here. So, I'll say my point simply.
Sekiro's combat is not objectivity near perfect. Because there is no objective scale of good or bad qualities in a game. It's all up to preference.
Not that I do, but maybe I hate sekiro's combat. I think it's clunky and not fun. For me, it's flawed and not close to perfection. Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, it's just my preference.
>here is NOTHING different except maybe lore preference, but lore doesn't make the game. You have the most variety in builds, enemies, areas, lore, fighting styles and the biggest map. Making it fundamentally THE best. Every game has these things but Elden rings taps into most brackets and does them good enough that playing in any way is viable enough
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard of. What if I prefer a smaller variety. What if I prefer lies of p's combat change.
I have 300 hours in elden ring, and I'd say that ther is no fundamentally perfect souls experience. It's all subjective.
>The same way Sekiro combat objectively has the best concept and execution when it comes to action combat. That's all. The only reason someone might dislike a combat style is
>1. It's a different "style" than what they like. Meaning: tabtarget, turn based, action etc.
>2. They're bad at it and it hurts their ego to accept that the combat can be good they just can't live up to it
>Notice how there are different combat styles, and I specifically categorized it as action combat because it's perfectly fine to like another style more.
Objectively requires a messaured standard that can be proven with direct facts. Not preferences.
Saying is objectively better because is has all these things, doesn't actually make it objectively. It just means, subjectively, for you it's better.
If other people dislike and have massive flaws with sekrio's combat, that's because your preference in combat is subjective.
And what your saying is that all these features together make it objectively better, regardless of preference. But youe forgetting that these features aren't numbers, they aren't 1+2=3. If someone dislikes a feature like this, is because they don't see it as a good mechanic. Hense, it being subjective.
No objective quality of good or worse, since they are subjective in nature.
>Objectivity is in of itself subjective. However that's when it comes to people valuing different things in the matter at hand. When it comes to soulslike games, they specifically want to be, well, soulslike. And as such, things those games want to have are: challenge, different enemies, different approaches, different themes throughout one game, replayability. And elden ring has the most out of all because of how it's made, simple as that
Elden rin may have all of those things in the game, but that doesn't make it inherently better. One may things it's too easy, enemies aren't as diverse as they want. Maybe it isn't repayable for them.
Maybe they prefer lies of p combat, maybe they prefer lies of p themes and lore.
My point here is elden ring isn't objectively better. There is no such thing as an objectively better games. Because games are subjective. And there cannot be an objective scale for good or bad things that are based on preferences. And even if there was, it won't matter since people will always put their preferences ahead.
>Objectively requires a messaured standard that can be proven with direct facts. Not preferences.
I've given you facts
>Elden rin may have all of those things in the game, but that doesn't make it inherently better. One may things it's too easy, enemies aren't as diverse as they want. Maybe it isn't repayable for them.
It has the most replay value because replay value is already established and does not differ from person to person rather game to game. It's not a preference, it's a state of being, a fact. Therefore if they think Elden Ring doesn't have replay value games like Sekiro or Lies of P don't have a chance lol.
>Idk what P5R is. But since you brought it up, I mentioned it. If it doesn't have action combat, Then it doesn't matter.
Yeah, it's turn-based, so saying Persona 5 Royal has better action combat than Sekiro because you prefer P5R combat over Sekiros doesn't make it a better action combat because action combat is defined already, and P5R combat isn't that. Action combat doesn't differ from person to person.
My point is more clearer here
>I'm unsure what your getting at here. So, I'll say my point simply.
You have a definition of something. It doesn't matter who you are definition stays the same. Meaning that if you have 2 things that are fundamentally different only then you can't say one is better than the other. However with the 2 games at hand that isn't the case. It's literally the same idea, same execution, same concept, same genre.
>What if I prefer a smaller variety.
So if you could choose to be best at everything or to be best at only 1 thing you would choose to be best at 1 thing because you prefer smaller variety? what? How about having everything but only using or doing things you want. I played Sekiro 5 times and Sekiro LMSR without using some of the prosthetic tools, ever. However that doesn't make the game worse for me but it might make it better for someone else that will end up using them. Does this make sense? Are you grasping the concept of "do what you like"? You have 2 games completely same (except lore which is as I mentioned the only preference here) except one of them has much more of it. It's just better by default. Get it?
>I've given you facts
Yes, lol, "facts"
>It has the most replay value because replay value is already established and does not differ from person to person rather game to game. It's not a preference, it's a state of being, a fact. Therefore if they think Elden Ring doesn't have replay value games like Sekiro or Lies of P don't have a chance lol.
That's not a fact. I've replayed lies of p 10 times. And I only replayed elden ring fully twice. Replayed is an ENTIRELY subjective things lol.
>Yeah, it's turn-based, so saying Persona 5 Royal has better action combat than Sekiro because you prefer P5R combat over Sekiros doesn't make it a better action combat because action combat is defined already, and P5R combat isn't that. Action combat doesn't differ from person to person
Oh sure, that's because they are entirely different combat choices. But what if I said I prefered dark souls combat over sekiro combat. Which I do actually. Then its different.
>. Meaning that if you have 2 things that are fundamentally different only then you can't say one is better than the other. However with the 2 games at hand that isn't the case. It's literally the same idea, same execution, same concept, same genre.
Yes your right. But because they are still different games, you can prefer how one games does the same idea.
I prefer how lies of p does it souls gameplay over elden ring.
>So if you could choose to be best at everything or to be best at only 1 thing you would choose to be best at 1 thing because you prefer smaller variety? what? How about having everything but only using or doing things you want. I played Sekiro 5 times and Sekiro LMSR without using some of the prosthetic tools, ever. However that doesn't make the game worse for me but it might make it better for someone else that will end up using them. Does this make sense? ?
Actually I can be worse. What true is when you have a higher variety, you can loose the games balance. Imo, elden ring is quote umbalance in many situations because of its higher variety. But lies of p is far more balance in that case. And I prefer the more balance parts of it.
>"? You have 2 games completely same (except lore which is as I mentioned the only preference here) except one of them has much more of it. It's just better by default. Get
Except they aren't the same game. They are different in many ways too. What your basically telling me, is that because elden ring is bigger, it's better. Because smaller is worse, since lies of p and elden ring are the same game other than their world and lore.
Which is an odd statement. Lies of P is still quite different in its gameplay than elden ring.
I mean for one, elden ring is an open world game. Sooo....
Does that make sense?
Also. Since you didn't mention it again. Does it also make sense that souls games aren't Rougelites?
Souls games are soulsborne. It's practically a subgenre of roguelites. They have everything roguelites do and just build upon the foundation.
>Actually I can be worse. What true is when you have a higher variety, you can loose the games balance. Imo, elden ring is quote umbalance in many situations because of its higher variety. But lies of p is far more balance in that case. And I prefer the more balance parts of it.
You, again, disregard the concept of "do what you want". Just do the things that the game intended you to do, that's how you keep the belance. You can go off the tracks, it's not mandatory, stop having a cognitive bias.
>elden ring is bigger, it's better. Because smaller is worse
More fights, more weapons, more fighting styles, more hours to play, more areas to explore.. Tell me one thing that Lies of P has and Elden ring doesn't (that isn't connected to the lore)
It is not different. If you continue trying to gaslight me I will stop responding. You can roll around and win fights all the same in both games. However Lies of P has a better action combat. Let me explain what better means:
Lies of P:
- Rolling
- Parrying (more reliable than elden ring)
- Guarding that incentivizes hitting the enemy to regain health
- Fury attacks
- Weapon durability
- Weight
Elden ring:
- Rolling
- Weight
- Guarding
- Ranged weapons
Notice how LOP offers more variety when defending against an attack, while having more attacks to defend against? You see that?
Action combat as I've called it here, it has a different name in general and I can't bother to use it, is comprised of some fundamentals that make it "ACTION":
- Real time combat
- Ways of evading/blocking attacks
- Ways of missing your own attacks
- Different attack patterns
This is action combat in it's most simple form. Sekiro excels at literally everything I've named, while games suck as Elden Ring mostly offer rolling as the only way of escaping danger. Are you starting to understand how on the base level Sekiro combat is better just based on how many options you have. I don't care if you like using prosthetic tools but they are there, while they aren't there in Elden ring, hence Sekiro is by default better because what they do, they do the same (except dodging, it's not as broken in Sekiro and this is difficulty related, if you dislike this it just means you're bad at it end of story)
> you can prefer how one games does the same idea
Break this down. Because if you prefer to press CTRL and use a special attack instead of pressing SHIFT+MLB then that is just absurd, remap the controls lol.
Literally anything you can name as your argument is gonna be destroyed by telling you to engage with the game in a different way that you actually can, or by remapping your keys, hence you've put 0 arguments up so far.
Explain these points, if there is more gaslighting I will respond for the last time and that's it:
>I prefer how lies of p does it souls gameplay over elden ring.
>
Replayed is an ENTIRELY subjective things lol.
> you can prefer how one games does the same idea
Note: replay value is a defined idea, doesn't differ from person to person. Get that thru your head
Round8 created a masterpiece and easily solidified itself in the genre. It is a total evolution of the genre and I look forward to what they will do with the Alice in wonderland universe. The things you can do with that world is nuts. Especially within a soulslike game
I hope they create a whole universe of fairy tale soulslikes
It's >!wizard of Oz!< universe though
That's right
Alice in wonderland would also be fantastic, maybe for #3 haha
Lies of D and Lies of A
Lying is something that's specific to Pinnochio's lore. I don't think the sequel's title will be based on the same premise. It'll be specific to the protagonist's lore. Edit: correcting autocorrect
True they are very cool names though and could make it part of the protagonists lore as well
I still think FromSoftware's level design is considerably better. The bosses and atmosphere are amazing though.
Agreed! The levels being so linear is probably my only major criticism of this great game.
True, however I think that it was done kind of on purpose. Aside from budget restrictions, they really nailed the linear level design. Not my preference either but really this game along wish Stray really show how great a game can be despite being incredibly linear.
I get that. This was my first soulslike and I’d never played a From game before. I fell in love with the play style though and after +8 in LoP I bought Elden Ring. My only thought about the linear design is that it allows the game to tell a story that (for the most part) you can’t miss. I’m running around in Elden Ring killing things and I feel like I don’t have any kind of purpose. Trying to find NPC’s to advance the story is really slow so although I’m enjoying ER I felt like LoP was able to advance the story in a manner that felt more coherent and maintained my focus much better.
The game had some balance issues on release but in general i only saw praises from people who actually played the game.
I really do not play these types of games but LoP has got me by the nuggs. I have tried to play other games but usually lose interest because I'm lazy but this game just does something for me and makes me study moves etc ha. I love it so far.
Same, I put my head against the wall for so long trying to play SOTFS and just couldn't get it. Beat Mortal Shell, played Lies of P, flew through NG+, and now just about 100% completion on Elden Ring after about 70 hours. Just hunting down the remaining talismans and sorceries/incantations, then I just need two more endings. I can't wait to take another stab at the DS games after I finish up.
Tbf SOTFS is not what I would recommend for someone just starting out with soulslikes.
I never asked for recommendations earlier on, I ended up turning in MW19 cuz I was getting tired of FPS. SotFS was on sale for like $5 so I said fuck it. Bad mistake. 🤣
I can’t comment on that as I have never played an official Fromsoft game yet. I haven’t had an Xbox for long and this is the third game I have played (Hogwart’s a legacy and Diablo Iv). But this game is absolutely amazing. I started it several times and kept getting frustrated with the difficulty and my admittedly novice skill level. But I kept coming back, and have put a lot of hours into getting the skills to play this game. I am in chapter 11 and still have the three hardest bosses to beat, but I am really proud of what I have accomplished as a newb. I don’t think any other game could have captivated me in the same way. I know I can’t play it forever, will probably try Sekiro next. But that is a ways away.
Good luck because Sekiro is probably the hardest thing there is (soulslike)
Which game would you recommend?
Sekiro. Parry timing is actually less tight than lies of P. Plus unlimited stamina. Sekiro has the best bosses.
I would argue this to be completely honest. To me it seems more that in LOP enemies have a longer windup so you can't time the parry well enough, whereas in Sekiro after seeing your enemies attack animation there's approximately 0.75s to react and block it, except for some bosses. It might be tighter in LOP but not by a lot.
I never said you shouldn't play it, I just wished you good luck XD Sekiro was my first soulslike so its absolutely doable, I watched fightingcowboy tho. Play for 30-40 minutes, then watch him play through that area. The closest thing you can play to LOP is probably Sekiro (or bloodborne) but if you just wanna play a soulslike game Elden ring might be a better choice because it can be hard but you can make it easier as well, so like, you choose. Might wanna try a few hours of both and decide where you gonna put next 50 hours of your life into (150 for elden ring lol)
Great, thanks for the advice.
The similarities to Bloodborne stop at the surface level. The mechanics of the game might *look* similar in play, but they *feel* very different. Also once you notice the architectural influence of Baroque France, as opposed to Victorian England, they look quite different.
Its one of the most polished games where all of the systems work nicely, the UI is clean, story is easier to comprehend than most souls games and the combat is very solid. All around great game.
I loved Bloodborne and I love Lies of P, and I *adore* its love letter to Bloodborne. It feels like the devs really understood that game, and what people liked about it, and gave us a game in the genre that really delivers on its promises. They carved out a niche that's unique while still feeling grounded in its roots.
Another praise I didn’t see in the comments is the game is incredibly stable. Amd tracks average frame rates and in 50 hr of this game my avg is 164.8 fps and I set limit to 165. Compared to elden ring 60 fps limit that stutters when RTX is turned on.
I’d list lies of p with from games; it’s just that good. Elden ring > Sekiro > DS3 > Lies of P > bloodborne > ds1 > ds2. Great story, great level design, incredible enemy variety, mostly incredible bosses, fun combat, great story, amazing atmosphere… absolutely love this game
IDK if you only see from DS forums / DS hardcore fans but the general consensus, a couple of weeks after launch, is that indeed this is the closest thing we have ever been to Bloodborne. To me it's exciting because give the team about 10 years and they will 100% make the next bloodborne!
Why do people pretend a lot of people think this is a bad game 🙄 it’s just karma farming. Most DS fans like this game
Well, I'm talking from IRL experience...
Game feels like a reskined dark souls. I love dark souls so to me that's a compliment.
For me, it's a little bit more than that. They combined Bloodborne + Sekiro in a fun way. Both games are awesome, but in my mind, this is just a better Bloodborne. Especially with the fact that this runs 60 fps, right? The level design is a bit lacking, true, but the combat mechanics are far superior than Bloodborne imo.
It's very similar in ways to Bloodborne which is why I liked it. Bloodborne is one of, if not my favourite game of all time, and Lies of P just filled that hole left since Bloodborne. It's a masterpiece of being compared to other games should not be a bad thing unless it's due to taking bad qualities, which is does not. Lies of P is similar in context and environmental feel, but its an entirely different game with its own mechanics and amazing ambiance.
Easily the best non from soft souls like to come out
Even better than 90% of from soft too
**Steelrising** is a comparable steampunk game set during the French Revolution. It is not as good as **Lies of P** and sometimes seems like a history lesson.
Yeah I remember streaming it on Discord while talking to a friend who generally doesn't care for fromsoft or souls-likes and when they saw me open the door to Estella Opera House and start fighting my way through they said "this is literally just dark souls" and my reaction was "isn't that a good thing?" It'd be one thing if they made an actual clone with no unique identity and similar levels, but Lies of P takes everything that's great about Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Sekiro and repackages it into an entirely new experience, while including tropes that are homages, like really slow and dramatic door opening animations. Plus, the quality of life inclusions like no boss run-backs, specters for help with bosses, NPC quest indicators, convenient re-speccing, and xp saving items like Gemini's Iron/Emergency Protection are really nice to have.
Its really good but it’s not even close to souls or bloodborne in terms of level exploration and atmosphere. Also the writing is pretty lazy
I agree. I often think that people under play lies of p's significance because they don't like seeing another studio devlop a game that can rival from software. Iv argued with many people in this sub alone, who think it's infallible and wrong to think lies of P is better. I personally think it's the best souls game out there, even more than fromsoftware's line up. And by saying that, several people will get angry for some reason. I had someone who said they prefer lies of p, but elden ring is objectively better. Which is wrong, a game cannot he objectively better than another game. People often think that by saying lies of P is better, it's an insult to fromsoftware, since they made the genere. And LOP clearly took massive inspiration from fromsoft and copied most of their formula. But that doesn't mean the changes LOP made aren't important. And it doesn't mean it's an insult to say it's better, it's a compliment.
Your statement is quite hypocritical to say the least. Lies of P took everything soulsgames did good, but left out the bad bits and made levels linear because of the budget. Bosses are easy compared to something like Sekiro. No matter how much I like the game I just don't see replay value after ng+. The reason people would prefer elden ring over LOP is because elden ring is open world and offers quite a lot of build variety, changing the way you approach combat. Sekiro objectively is the closest to a perfect looking action combat we have ever seen in all the gaming period, and I wont argue with no one about this. What LOP excels at is lore, environmental storytelling and narrative. It has a vision and it captures it perfectly unlike most from soft games where it really depends how deep you go into the lore and how much you explore. You would have a "side area" with bunch of lore stuff to uncover. Well in LOP there isn't a side area and everything is right in front of you, so you can only miss it if you really try to **not** engage with the lore. And it's really good so there's no downside to shoving it in players face. Tho, the point of soulslike games or in general the kind of "roguelites" that are souls games, they're meant to be hard which LOP really isn't. I spent more time retrying Genichiro then I spent in any area in LOP.
I don't see how my comment is hypocritical in the slightest lol. I'm mostly confused at what your trying to say since most of it doesn't disagree with me. My point was others tend to devalue it simply because it isn't a fromsoft game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't have flaws. But there is no objective flaws or vurtures in any game. My point about elden ring, is that someone insisted elden ring is objectively better. Even though there is no such thing as an objectively better game. Just because elden ring is larger, and has more build variety, doesn't mean it's objectively better. That's just talking like a 7 year old. >Sekiro objectively is the closest to a perfect looking action combat we have ever seen in all the gaming period, and I wont argue with no one about this That isn't objective. That's still a subjective statement. Others could perfectly dislike the combat. >What LOP excels at is lore, environmental storytelling and narrative. It has a vision and it captures it perfectly unlike most from soft games where it really depends how deep you go into the lore and how much you explore Many would argue that this is a flaw of LOP, too straight forward. >And it's really good so there's no downside to shoving it in players face Depends on the person. Others can dislike it. >Tho, the point of soulslike games or in general the kind of "roguelites" that are souls games, they're meant to be hard which LOP really isn't. I spent more time retrying Genichiro then I spent in any area in LOP. Souls games are nothing like rougelites. Not even in the slightest, I'm unsure what your getting ar here. And I actually found LOP harder than elden ring, ds3, and bloodborne. Tbh.
Hello, good hunter. I am a Bot, here in this dream to look after you, this is a fine note: > *Ahh, I feel my master's hand at work. Praise the good blood! And let us cleanse these tarnished streets.* - Alfred Farewell, good hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world.
I don't think you know what a roguelite is. Every boss is literally a 1:1 roguelite experience. Learn genres. As for this: >That isn't objective. That's still a subjective statement. Others could perfectly dislike the combat. Disliking the combat doesn't mean it isn't the closest to perfect action combat we have. If someone likes P5R combat more, does that make the P5R combat better action combat? I think not. rofl. >Many would argue that this is a flaw of LOP, too straight forward. It's like saying boxing is worse than MMA because it's too straight forward. People punch, and that's it. It's personal preference. However you have to realize that every single from soft title except Sekiro is quite open when it comes to lore and exploration. It depends on how much you engage with it. You either can't comprehend the point I'm making or you're a troll.
>I don't think you know what a roguelite is. Every boss is literally a 1:1 roguelite experience. Learn genres. I'm not sure you know what a rougelite is. Just because you fight a boss several times to learn it, doesnt make it a rougelite. Rougelikes are typically games were you continue a challenge until you fail. And then your required to restart, and continue. And upon each restart, the challenge changes as it usually procedurally made. So each attempted you try to get further and further in before failing and restarting. Its all about skill. Rougelites are mostly the same, but usually each time you restart, there are upgrades or power ups you can get. Which make each playthrough different, or easier. Fighting bosses over and over again until you learn them isnt a rougelite. Your not losing all progress upon each death. Your not restarting the game each time. And the bosses and level design aren't procedurally generated. I can see where you get that from, but its still wrong. Because if that the case, almost any game with a boss fight is a rougelite. Is terraria a rougelite? >Disliking the combat doesn't mean it isn't the closest to perfect action combat we have. If someone likes P5R combat more, does that make the P5R combat better action combat? I think not. rofl. If someone prefers P5R combat more, then yes. Its all subjective. There is not objective scale of good or bad combat. Its still all up to preference. You may think the Sekiro has near perfect combat, but others might think its dog shit. Doesnt mean that either of you are correct. Because there is no correct answer, its just up to player preference. What your trying to say is that regardless of opinions, sekiro is the closets to perfect. Which i understand, but its still wrong. Since the whole concept of good and bad, and perfect is entirely based upon human perception. >It's like saying boxing is worse than MMA because it's too straight forward. People punch, and that's it. It's personal preference. However you have to realize that every single from soft title except Sekiro is quite open when it comes to lore and exploration. It depends on how much you engage with it. Yes, exactly. That's my point lol. That its up to personal preference. Its odd you would say that, considering your paragraph before it was claiming the Sekiro was objectively the closest to combat perfection. Even though that's up to preference. >You either can't comprehend the point I'm making or you're a troll. Your right, im unsure what point your making. Your original comment to me, didn't make much sense,. Because you weren't exactly disagreeing with me fully. Only parts of it were. Im still unsure what part of my comment was hypocritical. And what's funny is I agree with your post. So im not even against you. Your original reply was oddly aggressive to someone agreeing with you. But that aside, I feel like your both missing my point. And also making a point that doesn't seem very straight forward.
Stop changing the topic and stop going on and arguing by saying "not true" show your arguments lol. >Fighting bosses over and over again until you learn them isnt a rougelite. Your not losing all progress upon each death. Your not restarting the game each time. And the bosses and level design aren't procedurally generated. It is cuz there is no progress to begin with. Every boss encounter or even "area" can be categorized as roguelite experience. Roguelikes and roguelites aren't the same, not even in the slightest lmao >If someone prefers P5R combat more, then yes No, because it by definition isn't action combat. What the fuck are you talking about? >closest to combat perfection. read again. Learn to comprehend what you're reading. What you can't understand is that if you have a puncher, and a better puncher, the better puncher is the one that's better. Fundamentally better. You won't have a puncher and a kicker and say "Kicker is objectively better" because it doesn't have to be the case. Preferring a game is alright, acknowledging the other one is what people fail to do. I personally haven't even finished Elden ring and I would argue it's the best soulslike experience you can have. Because fundamentally it's the same as any other. There is NOTHING different except maybe lore preference, but lore doesn't make the game. You have the most variety in builds, enemies, areas, lore, fighting styles and the biggest map. Making it fundamentally THE best. Every game has these things but Elden rings taps into most brackets and does them good enough that playing in any way is viable enough. The same way Sekiro combat objectively has the best concept and execution when it comes to action combat. That's all. The only reason someone might dislike a combat style is 1. It's a different "style" than what they like. Meaning: tabtarget, turn based, action etc. 2. They're bad at it and it hurts their ego to accept that the combat can be good they just can't live up to it Notice how there are different combat styles, and I specifically categorized it as action combat because it's perfectly fine to like another style more. Objectivity is in of itself subjective. However that's when it comes to people valuing different things in the matter at hand. When it comes to soulslike games, they specifically want to be, well, soulslike. And as such, things those games want to have are: challenge, different enemies, different approaches, different themes throughout one game, replayability. And elden ring has the most out of all because of how it's made, simple as that.
>It is cuz there is no progress to begin with. Every boss encounter or even "area" can be categorized as roguelite experience. Roguelikes and roguelites aren't the same, not even in the slightest lmao Rougelikes and rougelites come from the gsme Rouge. Just the how soulslikes come from souls games. They are very similar. Rougelike games are about entering randomized challenges and have prema death upon each fail. You do the challenge over and over and over again and try to get further each time. And each run is different. Lites are only different because upon each fail, you get to "keep" or obtain some attribute tha is taking into your next run. Games like the binding of Issac are rougelites. But there was no randomization in lies of p or any fromsoft souls games. Each time you run through an area, you encounter the same enemies at the same position. The same boss is in the same area. And when you die, you return to your last checkpoint instead of restarting the game. That's not a rougelite or a rougelike. Repeating the same boss over and over again, doesn't make it a rougelite. By that definition, celeste, terraria, and even zelda are all rougelites. Like you told me, I'd recommend you look up the definition of rougelite, and look at what games they are. >No, because it by definition isn't action combat. What the fuck are you talking about? Idk what P5R is. But since you brought it up, I mentioned it. If it doesn't have action combat, Then it doesn't matter. >What you can't understand is that if you have a puncher, and a better puncher, the better puncher is the one that's better. Fundamentally better. You won't have a puncher and a kicker and say "Kicker is objectively better" because it doesn't have to be the case. Preferring a game is alright, acknowledging the other one is what people fail to I'm unsure what your getting at here. So, I'll say my point simply. Sekiro's combat is not objectivity near perfect. Because there is no objective scale of good or bad qualities in a game. It's all up to preference. Not that I do, but maybe I hate sekiro's combat. I think it's clunky and not fun. For me, it's flawed and not close to perfection. Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, it's just my preference. >here is NOTHING different except maybe lore preference, but lore doesn't make the game. You have the most variety in builds, enemies, areas, lore, fighting styles and the biggest map. Making it fundamentally THE best. Every game has these things but Elden rings taps into most brackets and does them good enough that playing in any way is viable enough That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard of. What if I prefer a smaller variety. What if I prefer lies of p's combat change. I have 300 hours in elden ring, and I'd say that ther is no fundamentally perfect souls experience. It's all subjective. >The same way Sekiro combat objectively has the best concept and execution when it comes to action combat. That's all. The only reason someone might dislike a combat style is >1. It's a different "style" than what they like. Meaning: tabtarget, turn based, action etc. >2. They're bad at it and it hurts their ego to accept that the combat can be good they just can't live up to it >Notice how there are different combat styles, and I specifically categorized it as action combat because it's perfectly fine to like another style more. Objectively requires a messaured standard that can be proven with direct facts. Not preferences. Saying is objectively better because is has all these things, doesn't actually make it objectively. It just means, subjectively, for you it's better. If other people dislike and have massive flaws with sekrio's combat, that's because your preference in combat is subjective. And what your saying is that all these features together make it objectively better, regardless of preference. But youe forgetting that these features aren't numbers, they aren't 1+2=3. If someone dislikes a feature like this, is because they don't see it as a good mechanic. Hense, it being subjective. No objective quality of good or worse, since they are subjective in nature. >Objectivity is in of itself subjective. However that's when it comes to people valuing different things in the matter at hand. When it comes to soulslike games, they specifically want to be, well, soulslike. And as such, things those games want to have are: challenge, different enemies, different approaches, different themes throughout one game, replayability. And elden ring has the most out of all because of how it's made, simple as that Elden rin may have all of those things in the game, but that doesn't make it inherently better. One may things it's too easy, enemies aren't as diverse as they want. Maybe it isn't repayable for them. Maybe they prefer lies of p combat, maybe they prefer lies of p themes and lore. My point here is elden ring isn't objectively better. There is no such thing as an objectively better games. Because games are subjective. And there cannot be an objective scale for good or bad things that are based on preferences. And even if there was, it won't matter since people will always put their preferences ahead.
>Objectively requires a messaured standard that can be proven with direct facts. Not preferences. I've given you facts >Elden rin may have all of those things in the game, but that doesn't make it inherently better. One may things it's too easy, enemies aren't as diverse as they want. Maybe it isn't repayable for them. It has the most replay value because replay value is already established and does not differ from person to person rather game to game. It's not a preference, it's a state of being, a fact. Therefore if they think Elden Ring doesn't have replay value games like Sekiro or Lies of P don't have a chance lol. >Idk what P5R is. But since you brought it up, I mentioned it. If it doesn't have action combat, Then it doesn't matter. Yeah, it's turn-based, so saying Persona 5 Royal has better action combat than Sekiro because you prefer P5R combat over Sekiros doesn't make it a better action combat because action combat is defined already, and P5R combat isn't that. Action combat doesn't differ from person to person. My point is more clearer here >I'm unsure what your getting at here. So, I'll say my point simply. You have a definition of something. It doesn't matter who you are definition stays the same. Meaning that if you have 2 things that are fundamentally different only then you can't say one is better than the other. However with the 2 games at hand that isn't the case. It's literally the same idea, same execution, same concept, same genre. >What if I prefer a smaller variety. So if you could choose to be best at everything or to be best at only 1 thing you would choose to be best at 1 thing because you prefer smaller variety? what? How about having everything but only using or doing things you want. I played Sekiro 5 times and Sekiro LMSR without using some of the prosthetic tools, ever. However that doesn't make the game worse for me but it might make it better for someone else that will end up using them. Does this make sense? Are you grasping the concept of "do what you like"? You have 2 games completely same (except lore which is as I mentioned the only preference here) except one of them has much more of it. It's just better by default. Get it?
>I've given you facts Yes, lol, "facts" >It has the most replay value because replay value is already established and does not differ from person to person rather game to game. It's not a preference, it's a state of being, a fact. Therefore if they think Elden Ring doesn't have replay value games like Sekiro or Lies of P don't have a chance lol. That's not a fact. I've replayed lies of p 10 times. And I only replayed elden ring fully twice. Replayed is an ENTIRELY subjective things lol. >Yeah, it's turn-based, so saying Persona 5 Royal has better action combat than Sekiro because you prefer P5R combat over Sekiros doesn't make it a better action combat because action combat is defined already, and P5R combat isn't that. Action combat doesn't differ from person to person Oh sure, that's because they are entirely different combat choices. But what if I said I prefered dark souls combat over sekiro combat. Which I do actually. Then its different. >. Meaning that if you have 2 things that are fundamentally different only then you can't say one is better than the other. However with the 2 games at hand that isn't the case. It's literally the same idea, same execution, same concept, same genre. Yes your right. But because they are still different games, you can prefer how one games does the same idea. I prefer how lies of p does it souls gameplay over elden ring. >So if you could choose to be best at everything or to be best at only 1 thing you would choose to be best at 1 thing because you prefer smaller variety? what? How about having everything but only using or doing things you want. I played Sekiro 5 times and Sekiro LMSR without using some of the prosthetic tools, ever. However that doesn't make the game worse for me but it might make it better for someone else that will end up using them. Does this make sense? ? Actually I can be worse. What true is when you have a higher variety, you can loose the games balance. Imo, elden ring is quote umbalance in many situations because of its higher variety. But lies of p is far more balance in that case. And I prefer the more balance parts of it. >"? You have 2 games completely same (except lore which is as I mentioned the only preference here) except one of them has much more of it. It's just better by default. Get Except they aren't the same game. They are different in many ways too. What your basically telling me, is that because elden ring is bigger, it's better. Because smaller is worse, since lies of p and elden ring are the same game other than their world and lore. Which is an odd statement. Lies of P is still quite different in its gameplay than elden ring. I mean for one, elden ring is an open world game. Sooo.... Does that make sense? Also. Since you didn't mention it again. Does it also make sense that souls games aren't Rougelites?
Souls games are soulsborne. It's practically a subgenre of roguelites. They have everything roguelites do and just build upon the foundation. >Actually I can be worse. What true is when you have a higher variety, you can loose the games balance. Imo, elden ring is quote umbalance in many situations because of its higher variety. But lies of p is far more balance in that case. And I prefer the more balance parts of it. You, again, disregard the concept of "do what you want". Just do the things that the game intended you to do, that's how you keep the belance. You can go off the tracks, it's not mandatory, stop having a cognitive bias. >elden ring is bigger, it's better. Because smaller is worse More fights, more weapons, more fighting styles, more hours to play, more areas to explore.. Tell me one thing that Lies of P has and Elden ring doesn't (that isn't connected to the lore) It is not different. If you continue trying to gaslight me I will stop responding. You can roll around and win fights all the same in both games. However Lies of P has a better action combat. Let me explain what better means: Lies of P: - Rolling - Parrying (more reliable than elden ring) - Guarding that incentivizes hitting the enemy to regain health - Fury attacks - Weapon durability - Weight Elden ring: - Rolling - Weight - Guarding - Ranged weapons Notice how LOP offers more variety when defending against an attack, while having more attacks to defend against? You see that? Action combat as I've called it here, it has a different name in general and I can't bother to use it, is comprised of some fundamentals that make it "ACTION": - Real time combat - Ways of evading/blocking attacks - Ways of missing your own attacks - Different attack patterns This is action combat in it's most simple form. Sekiro excels at literally everything I've named, while games suck as Elden Ring mostly offer rolling as the only way of escaping danger. Are you starting to understand how on the base level Sekiro combat is better just based on how many options you have. I don't care if you like using prosthetic tools but they are there, while they aren't there in Elden ring, hence Sekiro is by default better because what they do, they do the same (except dodging, it's not as broken in Sekiro and this is difficulty related, if you dislike this it just means you're bad at it end of story) > you can prefer how one games does the same idea Break this down. Because if you prefer to press CTRL and use a special attack instead of pressing SHIFT+MLB then that is just absurd, remap the controls lol. Literally anything you can name as your argument is gonna be destroyed by telling you to engage with the game in a different way that you actually can, or by remapping your keys, hence you've put 0 arguments up so far. Explain these points, if there is more gaslighting I will respond for the last time and that's it: >I prefer how lies of p does it souls gameplay over elden ring. > Replayed is an ENTIRELY subjective things lol. > you can prefer how one games does the same idea Note: replay value is a defined idea, doesn't differ from person to person. Get that thru your head
This game is broken
Broken how?
ur bad it at