I'm not sure how FromSoft forgot their legacy when ACVI is the culmination of 15 games and 20 years. Forgetting would be only comparing the first game and the last game
Watch the video and you'll know what they forgot. They said word for word what From forgot, From stripped down the management systems to a detriment, money too plentiful and pointless. What shouldve been mentioned as well was that tuning was dumbed down to the nth degree. Tuning used to make parts you couldn't use viable, make you faster, more aerodynamic, tankier, but now all we have is a few pve exclusive "tuning" options. It's just a meaningless skill tree now. Just because a game has flaws doesn't mean it's awful though. It just could have been better.
@@curbthepain AC's been this forgiving since 4, maybe 3. You can dislike the way the series has changed but they weren't design goals that formed overnight
@@blackestyang7528 You could probably go back further to AC1 where Human Plus was basically a handicap for players that were getting wrecked so hard that they start the player over with a clean slate, can keep all the parts they previously got, and got a super power baked into the AC/player profile. Human Plus, OP-Intensify, and Tuning are all basically one in the same concept but just done differently in approach.
I’d like to add that an interview with one of the devs revealed that the debt mechanic was initially considered but got cut. The team recognized how popular an AC game might be to a wide audience and wanted players new to the mecha genre to not feel punished for lacking familiarity with the underlying systems. They said that if there is an AC6 DLC or sequel, they would happily consider its re-inclusion. To me it seems like the idea was to get people interested and talking about mecha before leaning into the less forgiving debt system.
"A legacy betrayed" ? "The most fun part of the game is the management" ? What legacy exactly ? You yourself have completely erased said legacy. Your takes ONLY make sense if you compare the first game with with the 16th, erasing 14 games and 26 years worth of history between them, the majority of the mechanics you highlight as being new have been SLOWLY introduced to the series through the years, ESPECIALLY the things you complain about. Truth is, the series has been this forgiving since AC4, arguably even 3 (with nexus and last raven being exceptions), AC6 is simply the natural conclusion of a 15 game journey, and this garbage video does not do it any justice whatsoever These games came out at different times and have completely different design goals, you could criticize the direction AC as a series has taken but if you want to talk LEGACY then that's literally what AC 6 does best: it combines so many beloved mechanics from the entire series into one game for the first time, We have Shields, dedicated shoulder weapons but also switchable arm weapons, hover legs, an orbital core like weapon, a primal armor like system with the stagger mechanic (and straight up primal armor divided into terminal armor and assault armor), scanning, dashing, weapon purging, an arena, and even storyline choices with multiple endings and Ng+ changes. They even have the classic control scheme as an option, It's (almost) Everything a long time fan like me ever wished for, because these things matter a whole lot more than the economy ever did.
For some reason 6 feels faster to me due to how complex the action usually is, despite 4 and 4A being objectively faster Maybe it's because I'm still more used to 4A
Its just another video of an AC “veteran” thinking they know what’s best for a franchise, theres been a bunch of these videos from many die hard AC fans. The AC community has always been tight-knit so they feel entitled to dictate what is considered a legacy game or what stays “true to the formula.” As someone who has played since 4A I’d say that the franchise has gone in a step in the right direction, as AC VI has been by far the most popular armored core game ever released and I thoroughly enjoyed it since it shook up the formula slightly rather than being a carbon copy and paste like all the braindead oldheads wanted to see. Do I wish we had access to overed and ultimate weapons? Sure, but the game’s core mechanics and gameplay wouldn’t benefit from having them in the game anyways. People need to learn to appreciate change where it is needed, there are plenty of other video game franchises that have completely gone in the wrong direction.
On one hand I totally agree with this video's points in that ACVI is an easier game with less consequences for failure, on the other hand I love the feel of the combat and the cinematic world and missions. I also disagree that the story is shallow, even if it's presented obtusely. I love ACVi and it makes playing any other mech game feel boring in comparison. Ultimately I just don't mind that the game is easy (even though several bosses did give me a lot of trouble, especially the NG++ final boss). ACVI is still an extremely cinematic, well polished action game that is really fun to play and a delight for giant mecha fans like myself!
On one hand I consider all numbered AC entries to be easier... I still think that point still holds true for the most part, but until we get something else expansion or major overhaul DLC then that is something to consider
I was kinda curious to hear a different opinion about a game I loved, but you just totally lost me at "Despite what you may have heard from people on UA-cam paid by Fromsoft to tell you otherwise". Are we still going on with these UA-cam conspiracies in 2024? Come on bro
@@curbthepainExcept they said it in the SotE critique too about paying shills to make lore. Makes me doubt it's a joke for them and instead using joke as cover.
It's unfortunate that you didn't get to experience Balteus before the nerfs because I think you would have loved it. Getting through OG Balteus required me to dodge several attacks in 3D space, not just left and right, but up and down, which is a significant step up in complexity from Dark Souls. A few weeks later, the nerfs dropped and were harsh to a point where you can now stunlock the boss to death without learning anything, which I think is a shame because Balteus single-handedly made a 7/10 game feel like a 9/10.
@@nathwcx8299 Nerfs to speed and tracking for missiles... on a boss whose main thing is missiles... I do agree that it was always possible to stun-lock the boss, but the response online shows that it was far more common after the patch, especially from new players with potentially unoptimized builds.
@ianmurphy7460 Speed was not nerfed, only tracking. The missiles aren't even the most threatening aspect of his arsenal by far. The bazooka, shotgun and flamethrower are much more dangerous and they remained untouched. >The response online shows that it was far more common after the patch, Responses where? >especially new players with potentially unoptimized builds. Everyone had an unoptimized build when they reached him the first time, that doesn't really prove anything.
@@nathwcx8299 You’re right that only tracking was nerfed, not speed. I’ll take the L on that. >the missiles aren’t even the most threatening aspect by far. The purpose of the missiles is to put pressure on the player rather than be outright damaging. In 1.0 the missiles require a lot of energy and attention to dodge, but in 1.02 they can be easily strafed while still attacking Balteus. Aside from using its core expansion, 1.02 Balteus can’t stop your aggression effectively. Its high damage moves aren’t useful if it consistently gets staggered out of them. >response where? Kinda everywhere? It was the dominant conversation point around the game. >Everyone had an unoptimized build. What I meant was that players new to AC would have less capable builds than veterans at that stage, yet would still defeat Balteus painlessly. I was highlighting that you don’t need deep game knowledge or an effective build to trounce the boss in 1.02.
Yeah I agree, the simplification of the financial management aspect of the game was certainly a downgrade from previous titles, especially not being able to fail a mission or "game over" per se. But, I would disagree over all that game is B Tier or Meh. I still enjoyed the combat and mech building aspect quite a bit, and the story was engaging enough I thought as well. Playing through it was a lot of fun, and it is one of the few recent games I have enjoyed enough to get the Platinum Trophy. And while I wouldn't describe the game as Hard, it can certainly be challenging. I actually landed on a similar general build as demonstrated here, but there were plenty of times I had to mix things up to achieve specific objectives or for certain fights. I died quite a few times on the final boss before downing her, and there was a certain mission on an abandoned manufacturing facility that required massive change ups to my build multiple times to finally complete the bonus objective. Would the game have been better if it kept the older style of mission/money management? Undoubtedly. Is the game still a lot of fun and well worth picking up? At least for me, Absolutely.
The game gives the player so many different and unique parts that you just refuse to use because you have found your "perfect strategy", and this is somehow the games fault? Do we not play games to have fun? And then you complain that money is meaningless, but that dosn't even effect you because you only use the one build the entire game!
Yes, it is the game's fault. If the developers want the player to experiment with different builds and options, then they need to design the game in a way that motivates (or forces) the player to do so. I gave an example of this in the video, when the low ceilings of one room forced me to replace my vertical missiles - but this is the only time that happened during my playthrough. You are making my point for me: yes, part of the reason money is meaningless is because you don't need to buy anything once you've settled into a dominant build. We may disagree, but I appreciate the comment regardless.
@@Erumore My point is they DO motivate the player. They incentivise the player to use them, rather than deter the player not to. They use the carrot not the stick, which is absolutely the smarter choice. Personally, I would try out every other AC part I got as I went because they looked fun. If I got a weapon I thought was cool I would change my build to fit with it. There is very little skill in making an OP build, whether it be dumping every level into damage in Souls or using the OP weapons in this game, both pale in comparison to the satisfaction of learning a boss. Achieving victory because of your own skill then your ability to fiddle with numbers.
@@Erumore Freedom is key word. I would have hated it if Fromsoft forced me to change my build. I love that I'm able to choose; which is the whole game philosophy: the liberty of making choices.
@@Erumore the freedom guy has it right imo. Winning is cool, but having fun and challenging oneself with different builds is why many of us return to Fromsoftware games.
Hm, fair enough - I should have considered that might be the case with Balteus. After finishing 6, I played 1 and then 3, but felt that both were pretty much the same. For the sake of consistency, I stuck with footage of just one game in the video. Thanks for watching and I'm glad you enjoyed!
Atm I have 228 mil in AC6 with all parts. It feels demeaning to be able to buy anything I could ever want but with nothing to buy anymore it’s just less thrilling. I wish they stuck with a stingy amount of money for us to earn like AC1, V or even Verdict Day. AC6 is also super easy so there’s little incentive to spend 1000+ hours in it even with multiplayer
Speaking of "half a game", how many endings did you get? Cause 15 hours to get all 3 endings sounds very low, and let's be real here, if you have only beaten the game once, you haven't really beaten it
My ears perked up when I heard you say your opinion was mixed and then had to stop the video the second you said other people were being paid by Fromsoft to like the game. That is beyond disingenuous and reveals a lot about you. Sad to have given you that chance but glad you telegraphed that you're not a serious person pretty early.
I play on day 1 and if you wanna experience it search for mod for first difficulty, Balteus spam more missile and the bazooka is used more compare to current patch
Hey, could you make a Bloodborne critique some time? There´s currently an emulator being made for it and I think you could capitalize a little on it (I also really just want to hear what you thoughts on it) Nice vid btw:)
I'll think about it if Bloodborne ever gets a full PC release. I was finally able to play it on a PS4 last year, but honestly... I didn't love it. That might be because I'm so finished with stamina-based combat after Elden Ring that I just can't enjoy it any more, but here are some very brief and off-the-cuff thoughts just for you: Healing vials being an item that you have to farm was a huge step backwards from estus - no idea what they were thinking with that. I hated the random chalice dungeons. Knowing that a dungeon was created procedurally rather than purposefully made by a designer sucked all the enjoyment out of the Souls format for me, and after trying a few I had zero interest in going back. I liked the Lovecraftian setting, but the environments were a bit too samey - way too many Victorian streets and manors, not enough variety. The focus on dodging over blocking was a great bit of experimentation that was sorely needed in the Souls space... but Sekiro blows it out of the water with the focus on deflecting because it isn't purely defensive - it's both defensive AND offensive at the same time, which I think is one of Sekiro's main innovations. A smaller number of weapon choices with multiple uses for each was another good idea that gave the game some focus... but once again, Sekiro refined this even further by reducing that number to one. Thanks for the comment and I'm glad you enjoyed the video! I hope I'm correct in assuming that FromSoft is as tired of the stale Souls formula as I am, because if they are then I'm very much looking forward to what they do next.
@@Erumore Thanks alot!!, I understand how you didn´t enjoy it since you played all the other souls-games beforehand. I sometimes think fromsoft should have just used their expirience and resources with the chalice dungeons on Elden Rings caves to "perfect" the procedural generation, like that they would´ve spent more time on the legacy dungeons and less on caves that no one´s gonna go through on replays. Think they could´ve took advantage of that And yes, I´m also kind of tired of the same souls formula, I wish they´d do something new like sekiro again or at least try.
As someone who (having played no other From games) really enjoyed AC6, particularly the linear level structure as a palette cleanser from open-world "exploration", this really brings into perspective a lot of the nagging concerns I had on my playthrough (or playthroughs, ng+ and ++ included). It brings to mind Hbomb's deus ex video, specifically the point about choosing upgrades in the original vs the sequel - while I still liked the mech customisation, the satisfaction of making a call on a part swap that pays off would clearly be greatly increased if there were real consequences for choosing unwisely.
I think a lot of modern games (not necessary AC6 in particular) have focused so hard on checklist-type gameplay that difficult, playthrough-altering decisions are kinda out of the question. There's this culture that expects that every game should let you see all the content and get all the shiny upgrades without complications, which causes developers to sand away some of the friction that keeps older games engaging. Deus Ex and AC6 are great examples of this effect in action, as their upgrade economies both discourage the critical decision-making that was present in their older titles.
I haven’t played since AC IV. Just got AC VI a month ago and I’m addicted. I play it daily. I have multiple builds now and I’m grinding my way toward S rank in pvp. Only regret have is not getting it on launch day.
I agree that the game is too easy overall. I do not agree that playing 2 AC games and then saying From is going in the wrong direction with the series is a valid complaint. I'm not sure why you would even play a game like this if you aren't interested in customizing your AC for its own sake. Saying "well I wasn't forced to change my AC after a certain point in the story" is more likely that you fulfilled the build/playstyle that you wanted and stopped experimenting. No AC game forces you to paint the thing or change the emblem either but people still do it. Your build is super standard, and it looks like you painted your ONE mech ONE time then never again. That's half the fun! And then to say you don't care about S ranking missions, that means you also don't care about collecting parts and finding secrets. I'm not trying to be an A hole but I really don't get why you would publish a critique like this when there is clearly zero passion.
Fair play if you don't care about getting S ranks but when you say you could surmount every challenge the game threw at you using the same basic strategy, was that enough to be consistently getting you S ranks? I found that pushing for S ranks made me experiment with different mechs and strategies, unlocking more potential from the game. I also think the game explicitly recommends that you do this to get more out of your experience (in the menus or loading screens maybe?). I found it impossible to get S ranks by relying on the exact same strategy as some missions require different approaches in order to be carried out efficiently. So I had a lot more fun tinkering with different strategies and mastering my approach to certain missions. Then again, if you don't care about S ranks, the game is mid at best maybe? You could probably say the same thing about DMC5: spam the same attacks again and again and you'll probably win but get a low rank and miss out on the game's potential which is all about experimenting and trying out different combos and approaches. It's not a 1:1 comparison as they're both different kinds of action game but this is what you got me thinking about with this critique. I do think you've been a bit too harsh with it but you do you. I enjoy your content.
Personally I'm not particularly motivated by scores and rankings, so it was unlikely I was ever going to get pulled into replaying missions in AC6. It wasn't exactly clear to me what the criteria was for getting an S-rank on each mission, which I don't think is a great move. But anyway, what this comes all down to is how the game motivates the player to experiment with different features; if the main game is allowing me to beat every level with the exact same build, then it has failed to motivate me to engage with the build system. I finished the game with several million in unspent currency, because I just stopped buying anything - that never happened in the older games that I played. If I'm "not supposed to" stick to one build, then it's the developer's responsibility to stop me... and they didn't.
seeing AC6 didn't make me hopeful for king's field 5, if it ever gets made it's probably going to be the same actiony stuff fromsoft seems obsessed with.
If you find the controls annoying just rebind the look keys to the face buttons and turn them intp a pseudo 2nd stick. Every AC game has customizable controls for a reason Also the games offer more freedom then you might think because you can always sell parts for the same amount you bought them so if you dont like a part you suffer no loss
I agree with a lot of what you say but also disagree with a lot too. AC6 feels like an action game dressed up in the clothes of an AC game. For better and for worse. I dont agree that reusing different areas more than once is bad whether the mission is 5 minutes or 50. Firstly, because its efficient game design. Second, because the levels you return to have narrative reasons for returning and new gameplay gimmicks. Lastly, because I think it helps gives you a sense of existing in the world. Since its mission based it would be very easy for the world to feel like a sequential checklist. In one ear and out the other. I dont think the characters are shallow. Im fact I think the criticism doesnt make sense. They're exactly what they're supposed to be. This isnt a movie-game like Uncharted or something. Most characters you encounter are just names and flavors to the enemy. Your mercenaries out doing a job not making friends. Pater for example. Can you remember even one line? Or what his build looked like? And the characters that do matter are quite deep. But like their souls games it requires you to investigate and pay attention. Walter for example has a history, has motivations, and is a sort of tragic hero when you understand his story. He thinks hes saving the world by burning the coral. And honoring the sacrifices of his dead friends. He sends vegetables like you off to die for a "greater good". Its absolutely not a "b game". While I resent it for not being a true AC game it feels like you're being hyperbolic and contrarian. It has a compelling plot, great action, plenty of spectacle. Id say it's a solid 8/10. The answer to why people found the game hard is quite simple. Knowledge deficit. The game is won in the garage as they say. If you dont understand the stats and run a bad build you can have a rough time. And the controls take a minute to get a handle on. For example I struggled with Balteus for like 3 hours. Changed my build and then beat him in like 3 tries. It was night and day.
i think this was done cuz armored core is a story game even if you dont like the story. so you cant "fail" missions. like story says you are supposed to use the launcher in chapter 2 to reach the other half of the lake what were you supposed to do if you died? just not continue the story? I understand the criticisim and probably from took the wrong approach but this approach makes failable missons probably impossible
While i do agree that infinite money does remove a lot from the "mercenary" experience of the game, i think it was a good decision to be able to replay missions to get a better rank and experiment more builds. Old AC games seemed to narrow your build choices while the new one throw more mechanical demanding bosses to give the player a reason to experiment and find what works against them. But i agree that dilute your immersion as a mercenary and i dont really know what the right answer might be. Still, AC6 has great bosses, enough mission variety and a solid and more cinematic narrative than its predecessors so i wouldnt say it ruins their legacy. Its the good'ol 2 step forward, one step backward that From Soft seems to have which enable them to experiment enough on each serie to justify new games
Bro they nerf Balteus 2 patch ago. Yes Balteus WAS hard for the end of chapter because everyone AC have not enough OS upgrade to deal enough damage yet to overcome Balteus. People also get stuck on IBIS the most compare to final boss. It's not the final boss that frustrate people it's the journey to get there and get used to with dodging more instead just using the biggest and strongest weapons.
The only valid point you make, and the only one I agree with, is that AC6 gives you too much money. Replaying missions should be available so we can strive for S ranks and collect logs and items that players miss, instead of having to start the game from the very beginning just to complete everything the player wishes too. Fromsoft understands that the old formula of AC wouldn't work in the current state of the gaming industry, we either get AC6 the way it is, or we wouldn't have gotten one at all. There's always a chance of us getting DLC or spin off sequels that are more difficult like we have in the past. If you compare AC6 to 4 and 5 You'll see that this was the trajectory the series was heading.
This is not what I was expecting when you said you were planning on covering ACVI. Especially not the commentaries you made that honestly make it seem as if you think the evolution of the franchise has been strictly linear. The truth is, AC stopped caring about the economy for the most part after AC4 on the 7th gen consoles era, but before that (And even after that) the franchise constantly changed mechanics and gameplay dynamics with each entry, even during the PS2 era, where it could be argued the games didn't really changed that much due to the yearly release schedule. If anything during this era, they played around with the economy quite a lot, and introduced new mechanics or stats that changed things and showcased a lot of creativity on their part. Once again the evolution of the franchise has branched out in many directions over the years rather than in a straight line of constant "improvements". Quite ironically, one of the more heated discussions around the game leading to, and after release was the inclusion of a more aggressive lock-on system and the stagger system (Clearly taken from Sekiro, given the shared director of the games). If you really want to experience AC, go play the following games after AC1, and see for yourself the evolution in mechanics, ideas and narratives the franchise has experienced over the years. AC1 is the most basic of the AC games superficially, and its partly because it was the studio's 2nd actual game. To finish, I must add that I DO agree, the franchise shouldn't have gone away with limiting the player's freedom or punishing them for bad management and lack of skill or thoughtfulness when approaching the missions. Just like old racing games, a good progression used to do a lot of the heavy lifting to keep players engaged with the game. Don't give up with the controls, as you can always emulate the game or resort to mods that add analogue support for the games that lacked it. That last platform section you gave up was the last level in AC1, and arguably the worst level of the game and franchise.
Good analysis. However i don't get why you compared the first and the last installment in the series as if the changes present in 6 have happened momentarily. The AC series has both evolved and regressed a lot over the years. Seeing that 6 hasn't learned much from many of the pitfalls the older games fell in when they experimented with the formula really dissapointed me when i played it for the first time.
AC series is not for everyone. I do agree with your point about the repetitiveness of the mission (also NG+) but... The game is supposed to be somewhat repetitive, so you experiment with different loadout and challenge yourself. If you're just interested in clear the game and have some fun then forget about it, AC series might just not be the game for you. It's more like a super hardcore game those E-sports level fighting game / RTS / FPS games. It's a CS not a CoD.
I've been a fan of the games for years and I agree with the sentiment. I personally liked ACIV well enough but it felt more like the Fromsoft of the past decade's attempt at using their new experience to make an action game wearing AC's skin rather than a revival. It's a shame From dropped so much of what was in AC Verdict Day to make something that feels like a hybrid between a souls game and Rachet and Clank, only retaining the mission-based mech building aspect. It's interesting that you mentioned the target locking. This is one of the key criticisms that most old players have of the gameplay of ACIV since all past AC games were balanced around the player's ability to manage their limited turn speed and positioning. Now you instantly whip around and never lose your target and so the core gameplay falls apart. The shallowness of the new gameplay system is highlighted in multiplayer. I highly suggest you take a look at what PvP looked like in AC Last Raven, for Answer, and Verdict Day. It makes ACIV look like a joke.
Despite some weird ideas you floated, you have many good points to make up for the odd ones. Replaying missions for easy money really does defeat the purpose of making some serious choices if you can just replay a mission to get a different part. Unable to affect the story kinda grinded my gears after hearing so much about how the franchise began allowing for branches of how a story may go based on your decisions. If missions are able to be done with the same loadout without much difficulty, it kinda defeats why an AC is an AC and not a Gundam that can get around with the same loadout in their respective series. Hopefully they rethink the Arena, because it was unfortunate to fight certain characters before their actual reveal in a mission. Hopefully, From may work on the actual framework of Armored Core since they basically have "most" of the combat system down, and work on making the story more compelling with limited resources per playthrough instead of being able to find a way to buy all the parts offered per Chapter. Hope you are willing to cover whatever Armored Core expansion/DLC comes around.
I hate how gen 4 forward kinda more streamline (head have no more weird quirk like NV or bio) and the missing of Hover leg since everything can hover now and how you are feel like protagonist compare to Gne 1 to 3 where you just 1 raven who screw up bigger picture by being actual manace
Balteus was severely nerfed he is no where near as hard as he was on release. This game has had several patches since release. In fact you are using chain guns that weren’t even available when the game came out. If you are finding the game “easy” then these reasons would be why.
I see it, but the one thing i have to say, on new game+ and new game++ i had to do some real menu reading inbetween super hard missions. The first playtrough is a deceptive lowball. on my second one as soon as i got to the alt dam mission it was clear i was out of my depth
I get where you're coming from, one of main reasons I prefer Darkest Dungeon over the sequel is the long-term management of both your base and your team, but broadly speaking your critique misses the mark. First off, if replaying missions for money is so immersion-breaking, then just don't do it. Treat the game like AC1 and only play each mission once. You'll still end up with plenty of money for parts because the financial side of AC6 is overly generous, but it gets you closer to feel of the older games. And the flip side of the excess cash is room for way more build experimentation. Sure you can settle on a build that's fairly simple buts gets the job done, or you can build something more unique with more complexity and room to fail. Because the financial stakes are lower (assuming you forego replays to avoid grinding and making them nonexistent) you have more room to try and find a setup that is the most fun for you, rather than one that works but bores you to tears. The combat is only stale if you decide to let it be, the easy finances of AC6 give you the freedom to pursue a build and style of combat all your own, that you can enjoy without it being "optimal" or safe. That's where all the improvement to mech mobility and such really shines. AC6 is still easy compared to other From games, no question, but if you find approaching all the missions with the same build boring, use that extra cash to try something different. It's not the game's fault if you deliberately don't engage with the options it gives you; if you make a build that ends up OP and makes you bored, you have the financial flexibility to change your build. Use it. Secondly, your complaint about the ludonarrative is just flat out wrong. AC6 is explicity not telling the same type of story as AC1. It begins with the same framing, of a merc just doing jobs for cash without a greater goal, but that is a facade for a another story underneath. You said the story was shallow (I highly disagree) but even if we take your opinion as given, the critique stills misses the mark because AC6 is not just about being a merc hunting for your next paycheck - its about Coral, how it affects humanity, how you decide to handle it and what sacrifices your decision entails. Not to mention the game goes through significant changes on NG+ and NG++, with new missions that expand the story - which have a sufficient bump in difficulty given your better gear - and a 3rd ending that is only possible in NG++. I usually hate NG+ cycles in From games, the only other game where I bothered with them was Sekiro, to do a Charmless run. But I loved the first two NG+ cycles in AC 6.
You should checkout the video the AC fandom made with full thoughts on the game from lots of veteran players. It's really interesting how you noticed how disappointing 6 was with only playing gen 1.
idk, i personally dont think "welp, got scammed by an item that wasn't as good as it says it was on the tin, time to restart the entire game" is a good mechanic, but ok bro 😒
You don't need to restart the entire game - you just need to reload a save from five minutes ago, before you bought the part. The point I'm making is that a limited amount of currency forces you to make tradeoffs that are actually meaningful and have lasting consequences. You can easily undo mistakes or regrets by reloading - but you'll still never be able to buy everything because currency isn't infinite.
What a well-done video. Bravo. And I totally disagree lol. The biggest question is whether stakes are enforced or optional. It's "choose your own adventure" -- do you want to grind currency or not? Even with Elden Ring -- my first From game (yes I'm one of those) -- you'd bump into the Tree Sentinel and have to decide whether you wanted to "git gud" or level up first. Choose your own adventure. My first play through was in maximum easy mode, cause I'm not that good lol. But my second was done without summons or grinding. I tried a third run at level one, but that's way above my skill set. Anyway: I really agree with the "optional stakes" formula. If I had hit a true wall with the Tree Sentinel, I'd have put the game down forever. I'm midway through AC6 and loving it. I haven't replayed any mission or arena battle. I experiment with builds because it's more fun than finding an I-WIN button. That doesn't negate your point that failing a mission is temporary, not permanent. But that's just the way all video games are designed now. What game treats death as permanent?
The bosses got nerfed pretty hard, i think theyre too easy now. Also you gotta take into account this is probably most players first mech game. Youve got some valid criticism, but personally I still love the game. One last thing is that the shoulder mounted gun you breezed through the game with came out post launch which would have probably forced some degree of variation in play style.
Not gonna lie my response was also meh when I bought and finished everything in the game. I just prefer the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen mechanics and gameplay. But I did enjoy armored core 6
You can't earn every part by grinding the first mission. There are parts to be earned through further missions and secrets. It sounds to me that you're more or less upset that you can't budget like in the first game. Also, did you even play the other paths of the game? You called THAT boss the final boss when it's really only the first final boss you can get to. There are three final bosses. Armored Core VI was the first ever AC game I ever played, same as you. Being curious, I decided to play AC4 and FA. Even though I still prefer AC6, they have amazing identity and mechanics, but I never thought to myself that AC6 "didn't fit the legacy". As far as I can tell, AC4 was WAY DIFFERENT from the previous games and so was AC5 (I haven't seen as many things from the older gens). Whether we're talking about Armored Core or their soulsborne games, Fromsoft's identity has always been about making something different and interesting. By doing new things, they're sticking to their own legacy to a tee.
Regarding the castration of consequences in AC6 - very interesting observation and yet another evidence that Fromsoftware's current aprroach seems to be focused around cutting off more and more of the unique and potentialy controversial mechanics in favor of creating products that cater to bigger audiences. I know it's natural that the bigger a company gets the more money it has to generate but there's still this little naive part of my soul that feels extremely dissapointed and frustrated thinking about all the wasted potential. Literally all they have right know is spectacular art direction and presentation (that includes the combat, I'm almost confident if it wasn't for the amazing choreography and spectacle of bosses people would get sick of the simplistic fighting very quickly). I'm a sucker for they're taste in art myself so I get the appeal but I wonder if the general fanbase will ever start to notice the gameplay stagnation and voice their discontent in future years. I feel like a bot every time I bring up Matthewmatosis's famous video but it's still just depressingly true - Formsoft is shackled by the expectations of a narrowminded fanbase. From my observation majority of fans quite literally don't have enough imagination to look past the pretty art and think what a game like Elden Ring could've been if it wasn't satisfied with being only an action game with exploration that's only good on the first playthrough. At this point I've spent more time and energy ranting about Elden Ring than playing it lmao. At least it's a proof to me that From still has enough spark to make me interested in their games regardless of my gripes wich is nice.
I'm expecting From to release their own "Starfield" soonish. A game that results in public opinion doing a sudden 180 because it accumulated and failed to address various glaring issues with their design that have been suppressed by a loyal fanbase for too long.
@Nipah.Auauau This is ridiculous. Stanfield happened because Bethesda only made one type of single-player game they stopped making for about a decade. FromSoftware is nowhere near as decrepit as that, they put out different types of single-player games regularly.
"cutting off more and more of the unique and potentialy controversial mechanics in favor of creating products that cater to bigger audiences" People complain about the ACS "stance" breaking constantly. Also AC is like the final fantasy of FromSoft. The series is constantly experimenting with new mechanics from Heat to Primal Armor to Quick Boosting. If anything, Armored Core the mecha shooter is more preferable to AC the melee.
@Nipah.Auauau That was Bluepoint and Sony who made the Demon's Souls remake. Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP, FromSoftware had no bearing on its development at all.
Alright, the gutting of the metagame happened in 4/For Answer (though arguably it happened in Last Raven), the very same game(s) that was designed around the twin stick control scheme. So AC6 isn't really new in that regard. As for the controls of old gen games, I think that they add a lot more than you think. As with heavy restrictions on the player in controlling their machine they now have to actually think about how they approach combat and just can't go in head first like any run of the mill action game. As now they have to learn to master their machine in order to earn the right to smash head first into danger. The same sorta thing goes for MGS3, the controls do feel clunky, but I would argue that it's intentional to force the player into not being spotted in the first place so they don't try to go in guns blazing. Imho, controls are a core part of game design. Regardless of what anyone tells you. Also, go play AC3 and Silent Line (AC:SL is the 'sequel' to 3)
Pre twinstick AC controls allowed for snappy and responsive change of your direction of travel. Even more than modern twin stick controls, since with the stick you have physical travel time between directions and unwanted intermediate directions you could input. I hate how often people call them "restrictive" when, in fact, they're surprisingly liberating for an early 3d 3rd person shooter
Alternatively you can just rebind the controls into something better. AC was one of the first games i could remembwr where you could do that on console
Don't let the haters get to ya, these are wholly valid criticisms. AC6 isnt bad, it's just what classic fans were worried about. A stripping down and streamlining of the basic management. They need to find something better to replace the old tuning and add more parts to make money more meaningful. Also I personally think the ACS overload system could use tweaking. But with more parts the ACS overload mechanic could become more tenable.
a b game? 15 hours? i've gotten at least 150 hours so far, and im still obsessed with it because of the skill ceiling that certain types of builds alow for, i will easily get 250 hours on ac6 and who knows how much further i'll take it
and that's not to say i disagree with alot of the critiques at all, i do think that the economy and the inability to fail missions is a hinderance, i just find the action gameplay to be the most fun i've had in a video game
This video interested me, so I thought I’d leave my thoughts. I have played and beaten Armored Core 2, Armored Core 3, Armored Core 4, Armored Core For Answer, and Armored Core 6. First things first, “it very much feels like a B game, despite what you may have heard from people on UA-cam paid by FromSoftware to tell you otherwise.” Not cool. Accusing people of stuff like that without proof, even if only in a UA-cam video, is extremely disingenuous and distasteful. It’s basic decency. You did this in your Shadow of the Erdtree critique as well, where you implicitly called VaatiVidya a paid shill. From my experience, the metagame around the losses and penalties you take from missions doesn't really exist in practice. This is because you can save scum to your hearts content, meaning you can always just try again or attempt a different mission each time you’re not satisfied with your earnings on a mission. When I played AC2 and AC3, it got to the point where I treated my first attempt at each mission as scouting for when I would actually try later. First I would try the mission with my energy weapon tank (it’s weapons have no ammunition cost to fire), and if that didn’t work out, I would then try something more specialized. Using this strategy, costs and debt were never a notable concern when selecting which parts I used in a mission. You can’t really fail a mission in the older games either. To add on to that, Armored Cores lets you sell your parts for 100% of their value. This means that you don’t have to select which parts you buy carefully, because the credits you spend on buying parts is value you still have. So you if want to make a different build, you can just sell all the parts you don’t need and buy the ones you do for no downside. As long as you make more money on missions than you lose on average (which you will, using the save scum techniques mentioned above), the net value of credits you possess will only increase. You don’t have to make real tradeoffs. The older games didn’t really force you to change your build that much either. You were more than capable of just running in with a machine gun and clearing most missions without too much sweat. There were more specialized missions that encouraged you to change things up, but the same is true of AC6 as well. Overall, I didn’t find this video compelling. The management metagame you mentioned doesn't really exist in practice, and you could beat most missions without experimenting with your build in the older games as well. Last, but certainly not least, accusing other people of being paid off without proof is completely tasteless.
Weird review.. You managed to play some of the oldest AC games. But you didn't went through the 4 endings. You didn't did the S rank. Looks like you played on easy mode and rushed through the game. Your point of view is interesting, and your point on the menu management is valid. But that's all- not valid as a solid review.
I wonder how many people who played it had the feeling that something is wrong but can't verbalize it. I skipped it cause elden ring soured me on from.
If I have to critique AC6 is that for better or for worst AC6 being made from the ashes of 5th gen AC with a bit of 4th gen AC is to its own demerits, granted 5th gen AC is easily the most "easy to control" AC game that came out it doesnt have obscure controls nor does it rely on specific hardware to take full advantage of it unlike say 4th gen AC "2nd staging Quick Boost anyone?", a lot of mechanics that came from AC have been "stapled" as normal in the souls games, the Stagger mechanics of Sekiro? Refined from 5th gen AC if you didnt know stagger system existed in 5th gen, getting more damaged when staggered ala sekiro? Armor break from 5th gen but contextualized similarly to the PA system of 4th gen, but comparing it to Sekiro just over simplifies on how the system works yet the point makes sense in context. The 3 damage system? Chromehounds then 5th gen AC, energy weapons costing money? 4th gen, yet at the same time charging weapons slow down energy regen? Pretty much almost the entire series as a whole. What I liked about AC6 is that its basically the distillation of all the ideas across the 5 generations before it, Ocean Crossing? Its an indirect reference to defend Lawdas factory in Silent Line, the opening sequence? Basically an homage to both Silent Line and AC2, Institute City? An entire easter egg's worth of reference to the entire series about living underground AC1-MoA, AC3, AC2:AA, lore of 5th gen. AIs masterminding the entire events of the game? Literally also the series crux 1st gen, AC3-Silent Line, 5th gen (kinda)
The last AC game I've played was Last Raven and the 6 gameplay felt so unappealing. The first mission in, and there's that stagger rigmarole, boss pattern memorization I guess, something about camera control which feels weird and clunky, it felt just like, if the whole game is like this, why bother?
@@Dizerfullpower its because AC6 was built with a lot of assets from Elden Ring I mean this is from software anyway so its kinda expected, they basically made Elden Ring with an AC skin "kinda", to its detriment turn speed for most legs are absent as turn speed is just tacked on to the tank legs since now turn speed and camera control is different by not tieing the 2 While different go try 5th gen sure the servers are dead so you lose some stuff but 60-70% of the content should still be accessible
@@lesslighter The engine they've used for everything I believe actually goes back to AC4, which predates Demon's Souls. So that interestingly just brings the point you were making earlier full circle as AC forms the bedrock of everything that AC6 supposedly copies to its detriment according to this awful video. I don't hold it against them for using Elden Ring or Dark Souls as a building block for basic little things though. If you go back and play King's Field and early Armored Core you'll find that the movement controls are identical. From Software has secretly always been making "the same game over and over" since long before they started getting really successful for better or worse.
I'm not sure how FromSoft forgot their legacy when ACVI is the culmination of 15 games and 20 years. Forgetting would be only comparing the first game and the last game
Watch the video and you'll know what they forgot. They said word for word what From forgot, From stripped down the management systems to a detriment, money too plentiful and pointless. What shouldve been mentioned as well was that tuning was dumbed down to the nth degree. Tuning used to make parts you couldn't use viable, make you faster, more aerodynamic, tankier, but now all we have is a few pve exclusive "tuning" options. It's just a meaningless skill tree now. Just because a game has flaws doesn't mean it's awful though. It just could have been better.
@@curbthepain AC's been this forgiving since 4, maybe 3. You can dislike the way the series has changed but they weren't design goals that formed overnight
@@blackestyang7528 You could probably go back further to AC1 where Human Plus was basically a handicap for players that were getting wrecked so hard that they start the player over with a clean slate, can keep all the parts they previously got, and got a super power baked into the AC/player profile. Human Plus, OP-Intensify, and Tuning are all basically one in the same concept but just done differently in approach.
@@curbthepain Money hasn´t been an issue in in the last few entry's. In verdict day it only became a recourse to be managed in hardmode new game +.
A bunch of the bosses were actually nerfed in patches. Proud to say I beat them all pre-nerf.
I didn't even know they were nerfed. Need to try those out. I did quite struggle with some of those.
I’d like to add that an interview with one of the devs revealed that the debt mechanic was initially considered but got cut. The team recognized how popular an AC game might be to a wide audience and wanted players new to the mecha genre to not feel punished for lacking familiarity with the underlying systems. They said that if there is an AC6 DLC or sequel, they would happily consider its re-inclusion. To me it seems like the idea was to get people interested and talking about mecha before leaning into the less forgiving debt system.
"A legacy betrayed" ?
"The most fun part of the game is the management" ?
What legacy exactly ? You yourself have completely erased said legacy.
Your takes ONLY make sense if you compare the first game with with the 16th, erasing 14 games and 26 years worth of history between them, the majority of the mechanics you highlight as being new have been SLOWLY introduced to the series through the years, ESPECIALLY the things you complain about.
Truth is, the series has been this forgiving since AC4, arguably even 3 (with nexus and last raven being exceptions), AC6 is simply the natural conclusion of a 15 game journey, and this garbage video does not do it any justice whatsoever
These games came out at different times and have completely different design goals, you could criticize the direction AC as a series has taken but if you want to talk LEGACY then that's literally what AC 6 does best: it combines so many beloved mechanics from the entire series into one game for the first time, We have Shields, dedicated shoulder weapons but also switchable arm weapons, hover legs, an orbital core like weapon, a primal armor like system with the stagger mechanic (and straight up primal armor divided into terminal armor and assault armor), scanning, dashing, weapon purging, an arena, and even storyline choices with multiple endings and Ng+ changes. They even have the classic control scheme as an option, It's (almost) Everything a long time fan like me ever wished for, because these things matter a whole lot more than the economy ever did.
to be fair, seeing how fast ACIV schmoves around makes me double-take at ACVI
For some reason 6 feels faster to me due to how complex the action usually is, despite 4 and 4A being objectively faster
Maybe it's because I'm still more used to 4A
@@clankymochait’s definitely because ACVI is more mechanically complex. In 4 you zoom, in 6 you zoom and have more decisions to make each moment.
Its just another video of an AC “veteran” thinking they know what’s best for a franchise, theres been a bunch of these videos from many die hard AC fans. The AC community has always been tight-knit so they feel entitled to dictate what is considered a legacy game or what stays “true to the formula.” As someone who has played since 4A I’d say that the franchise has gone in a step in the right direction, as AC VI has been by far the most popular armored core game ever released and I thoroughly enjoyed it since it shook up the formula slightly rather than being a carbon copy and paste like all the braindead oldheads wanted to see. Do I wish we had access to overed and ultimate weapons? Sure, but the game’s core mechanics and gameplay wouldn’t benefit from having them in the game anyways. People need to learn to appreciate change where it is needed, there are plenty of other video game franchises that have completely gone in the wrong direction.
@@z43u they literally say in the first minute that AC6 was their introduction to the series. Watch the video before you rant
On one hand I totally agree with this video's points in that ACVI is an easier game with less consequences for failure, on the other hand I love the feel of the combat and the cinematic world and missions. I also disagree that the story is shallow, even if it's presented obtusely. I love ACVi and it makes playing any other mech game feel boring in comparison. Ultimately I just don't mind that the game is easy (even though several bosses did give me a lot of trouble, especially the NG++ final boss). ACVI is still an extremely cinematic, well polished action game that is really fun to play and a delight for giant mecha fans like myself!
On one hand I consider all numbered AC entries to be easier... I still think that point still holds true for the most part, but until we get something else expansion or major overhaul DLC then that is something to consider
I was kinda curious to hear a different opinion about a game I loved, but you just totally lost me at "Despite what you may have heard from people on UA-cam paid by Fromsoft to tell you otherwise".
Are we still going on with these UA-cam conspiracies in 2024? Come on bro
Lighten up its a joke bub (the conspiracy thing)
@@curbthepainExcept they said it in the SotE critique too about paying shills to make lore. Makes me doubt it's a joke for them and instead using joke as cover.
It's unfortunate that you didn't get to experience Balteus before the nerfs because I think you would have loved it. Getting through OG Balteus required me to dodge several attacks in 3D space, not just left and right, but up and down, which is a significant step up in complexity from Dark Souls. A few weeks later, the nerfs dropped and were harsh to a point where you can now stunlock the boss to death without learning anything, which I think is a shame because Balteus single-handedly made a 7/10 game feel like a 9/10.
The nerf was not harsh at all, only his missile tracking got reduced, people were already stun-locking him long before the patch was released.
@@nathwcx8299 Nerfs to speed and tracking for missiles... on a boss whose main thing is missiles...
I do agree that it was always possible to stun-lock the boss, but the response online shows that it was far more common after the patch, especially from new players with potentially unoptimized builds.
@ianmurphy7460 Speed was not nerfed, only tracking. The missiles aren't even the most threatening aspect of his arsenal by far. The bazooka, shotgun and flamethrower are much more dangerous and they remained untouched.
>The response online shows that it was far more common after the patch,
Responses where?
>especially new players with potentially unoptimized builds.
Everyone had an unoptimized build when they reached him the first time, that doesn't really prove anything.
@@nathwcx8299 You’re right that only tracking was nerfed, not speed. I’ll take the L on that.
>the missiles aren’t even the most threatening aspect by far.
The purpose of the missiles is to put pressure on the player rather than be outright damaging. In 1.0 the missiles require a lot of energy and attention to dodge, but in 1.02 they can be easily strafed while still attacking Balteus. Aside from using its core expansion, 1.02 Balteus can’t stop your aggression effectively. Its high damage moves aren’t useful if it consistently gets staggered out of them.
>response where?
Kinda everywhere? It was the dominant conversation point around the game.
>Everyone had an unoptimized build.
What I meant was that players new to AC would have less capable builds than veterans at that stage, yet would still defeat Balteus painlessly. I was highlighting that you don’t need deep game knowledge or an effective build to trounce the boss in 1.02.
Yeah I agree, the simplification of the financial management aspect of the game was certainly a downgrade from previous titles, especially not being able to fail a mission or "game over" per se. But, I would disagree over all that game is B Tier or Meh. I still enjoyed the combat and mech building aspect quite a bit, and the story was engaging enough I thought as well. Playing through it was a lot of fun, and it is one of the few recent games I have enjoyed enough to get the Platinum Trophy.
And while I wouldn't describe the game as Hard, it can certainly be challenging. I actually landed on a similar general build as demonstrated here, but there were plenty of times I had to mix things up to achieve specific objectives or for certain fights. I died quite a few times on the final boss before downing her, and there was a certain mission on an abandoned manufacturing facility that required massive change ups to my build multiple times to finally complete the bonus objective.
Would the game have been better if it kept the older style of mission/money management? Undoubtedly. Is the game still a lot of fun and well worth picking up? At least for me, Absolutely.
The game gives the player so many different and unique parts that you just refuse to use because you have found your "perfect strategy", and this is somehow the games fault? Do we not play games to have fun? And then you complain that money is meaningless, but that dosn't even effect you because you only use the one build the entire game!
Yes, it is the game's fault. If the developers want the player to experiment with different builds and options, then they need to design the game in a way that motivates (or forces) the player to do so. I gave an example of this in the video, when the low ceilings of one room forced me to replace my vertical missiles - but this is the only time that happened during my playthrough. You are making my point for me: yes, part of the reason money is meaningless is because you don't need to buy anything once you've settled into a dominant build.
We may disagree, but I appreciate the comment regardless.
@@Erumore My point is they DO motivate the player. They incentivise the player to use them, rather than deter the player not to. They use the carrot not the stick, which is absolutely the smarter choice.
Personally, I would try out every other AC part I got as I went because they looked fun. If I got a weapon I thought was cool I would change my build to fit with it.
There is very little skill in making an OP build, whether it be dumping every level into damage in Souls or using the OP weapons in this game, both pale in comparison to the satisfaction of learning a boss. Achieving victory because of your own skill then your ability to fiddle with numbers.
@@Erumore Freedom is key word. I would have hated it if Fromsoft forced me to change my build. I love that I'm able to choose; which is the whole game philosophy: the liberty of making choices.
@@Erumore the freedom guy has it right imo. Winning is cool, but having fun and challenging oneself with different builds is why many of us return to Fromsoftware games.
--or, baltheus was nerfed two times since release.
I agree a lot with this video, but i find strange the comparison to 1 and not 3, 4 or even 5
Hm, fair enough - I should have considered that might be the case with Balteus. After finishing 6, I played 1 and then 3, but felt that both were pretty much the same. For the sake of consistency, I stuck with footage of just one game in the video.
Thanks for watching and I'm glad you enjoyed!
@@Erumore np man. I suggest you to check 2, it has a comback mechanic if you go too much in debt. it's very intresting lorewise
@@KusanajiKei If you mean H+ it's in gen 1 as well.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on AC4/A.
Atm I have 228 mil in AC6 with all parts. It feels demeaning to be able to buy anything I could ever want but with nothing to buy anymore it’s just less thrilling. I wish they stuck with a stingy amount of money for us to earn like AC1, V or even Verdict Day. AC6 is also super easy so there’s little incentive to spend 1000+ hours in it even with multiplayer
Speaking of "half a game", how many endings did you get? Cause 15 hours to get all 3 endings sounds very low, and let's be real here, if you have only beaten the game once, you haven't really beaten it
he showed footage of the allmind boss
I haven't played 6 myself, but it it's anything like From's other recent releases I'm pretty sure bosses were just nerfed post-release.
My ears perked up when I heard you say your opinion was mixed and then had to stop the video the second you said other people were being paid by Fromsoft to like the game.
That is beyond disingenuous and reveals a lot about you. Sad to have given you that chance but glad you telegraphed that you're not a serious person pretty early.
I play on day 1 and if you wanna experience it search for mod for first difficulty, Balteus spam more missile and the bazooka is used more compare to current patch
Hey, could you make a Bloodborne critique some time? There´s currently an emulator being made for it and I think you could capitalize a little on it (I also really just want to hear what you thoughts on it)
Nice vid btw:)
I'll think about it if Bloodborne ever gets a full PC release. I was finally able to play it on a PS4 last year, but honestly... I didn't love it. That might be because I'm so finished with stamina-based combat after Elden Ring that I just can't enjoy it any more, but here are some very brief and off-the-cuff thoughts just for you:
Healing vials being an item that you have to farm was a huge step backwards from estus - no idea what they were thinking with that.
I hated the random chalice dungeons. Knowing that a dungeon was created procedurally rather than purposefully made by a designer sucked all the enjoyment out of the Souls format for me, and after trying a few I had zero interest in going back.
I liked the Lovecraftian setting, but the environments were a bit too samey - way too many Victorian streets and manors, not enough variety.
The focus on dodging over blocking was a great bit of experimentation that was sorely needed in the Souls space... but Sekiro blows it out of the water with the focus on deflecting because it isn't purely defensive - it's both defensive AND offensive at the same time, which I think is one of Sekiro's main innovations.
A smaller number of weapon choices with multiple uses for each was another good idea that gave the game some focus... but once again, Sekiro refined this even further by reducing that number to one.
Thanks for the comment and I'm glad you enjoyed the video! I hope I'm correct in assuming that FromSoft is as tired of the stale Souls formula as I am, because if they are then I'm very much looking forward to what they do next.
@@Erumore Thanks alot!!, I understand how you didn´t enjoy it since you played all the other souls-games beforehand.
I sometimes think fromsoft should have just used their expirience and resources with the chalice dungeons on Elden Rings caves to "perfect" the procedural generation, like that they would´ve spent more time on the legacy dungeons and less on caves that no one´s gonna go through on replays. Think they could´ve took advantage of that
And yes, I´m also kind of tired of the same souls formula, I wish they´d do something new like sekiro again or at least try.
As someone who (having played no other From games) really enjoyed AC6, particularly the linear level structure as a palette cleanser from open-world "exploration", this really brings into perspective a lot of the nagging concerns I had on my playthrough (or playthroughs, ng+ and ++ included). It brings to mind Hbomb's deus ex video, specifically the point about choosing upgrades in the original vs the sequel - while I still liked the mech customisation, the satisfaction of making a call on a part swap that pays off would clearly be greatly increased if there were real consequences for choosing unwisely.
I think a lot of modern games (not necessary AC6 in particular) have focused so hard on checklist-type gameplay that difficult, playthrough-altering decisions are kinda out of the question. There's this culture that expects that every game should let you see all the content and get all the shiny upgrades without complications, which causes developers to sand away some of the friction that keeps older games engaging. Deus Ex and AC6 are great examples of this effect in action, as their upgrade economies both discourage the critical decision-making that was present in their older titles.
I haven’t played since AC IV. Just got AC VI a month ago and I’m addicted. I play it daily. I have multiple builds now and I’m grinding my way toward S rank in pvp. Only regret have is not getting it on launch day.
I agree that the game is too easy overall. I do not agree that playing 2 AC games and then saying From is going in the wrong direction with the series is a valid complaint. I'm not sure why you would even play a game like this if you aren't interested in customizing your AC for its own sake. Saying "well I wasn't forced to change my AC after a certain point in the story" is more likely that you fulfilled the build/playstyle that you wanted and stopped experimenting.
No AC game forces you to paint the thing or change the emblem either but people still do it. Your build is super standard, and it looks like you painted your ONE mech ONE time then never again. That's half the fun!
And then to say you don't care about S ranking missions, that means you also don't care about collecting parts and finding secrets. I'm not trying to be an A hole but I really don't get why you would publish a critique like this when there is clearly zero passion.
Fair play if you don't care about getting S ranks but when you say you could surmount every challenge the game threw at you using the same basic strategy, was that enough to be consistently getting you S ranks?
I found that pushing for S ranks made me experiment with different mechs and strategies, unlocking more potential from the game. I also think the game explicitly recommends that you do this to get more out of your experience (in the menus or loading screens maybe?). I found it impossible to get S ranks by relying on the exact same strategy as some missions require different approaches in order to be carried out efficiently. So I had a lot more fun tinkering with different strategies and mastering my approach to certain missions.
Then again, if you don't care about S ranks, the game is mid at best maybe?
You could probably say the same thing about DMC5: spam the same attacks again and again and you'll probably win but get a low rank and miss out on the game's potential which is all about experimenting and trying out different combos and approaches. It's not a 1:1 comparison as they're both different kinds of action game but this is what you got me thinking about with this critique. I do think you've been a bit too harsh with it but you do you. I enjoy your content.
Personally I'm not particularly motivated by scores and rankings, so it was unlikely I was ever going to get pulled into replaying missions in AC6. It wasn't exactly clear to me what the criteria was for getting an S-rank on each mission, which I don't think is a great move. But anyway, what this comes all down to is how the game motivates the player to experiment with different features; if the main game is allowing me to beat every level with the exact same build, then it has failed to motivate me to engage with the build system. I finished the game with several million in unspent currency, because I just stopped buying anything - that never happened in the older games that I played. If I'm "not supposed to" stick to one build, then it's the developer's responsibility to stop me... and they didn't.
seeing AC6 didn't make me hopeful for king's field 5, if it ever gets made it's probably going to be the same actiony stuff fromsoft seems obsessed with.
If you find the controls annoying just rebind the look keys to the face buttons and turn them intp a pseudo 2nd stick. Every AC game has customizable controls for a reason
Also the games offer more freedom then you might think because you can always sell parts for the same amount you bought them so if you dont like a part you suffer no loss
I agree with a lot of what you say but also disagree with a lot too. AC6 feels like an action game dressed up in the clothes of an AC game. For better and for worse.
I dont agree that reusing different areas more than once is bad whether the mission is 5 minutes or 50. Firstly, because its efficient game design. Second, because the levels you return to have narrative reasons for returning and new gameplay gimmicks. Lastly, because I think it helps gives you a sense of existing in the world. Since its mission based it would be very easy for the world to feel like a sequential checklist. In one ear and out the other.
I dont think the characters are shallow. Im fact I think the criticism doesnt make sense. They're exactly what they're supposed to be. This isnt a movie-game like Uncharted or something. Most characters you encounter are just names and flavors to the enemy. Your mercenaries out doing a job not making friends. Pater for example. Can you remember even one line? Or what his build looked like? And the characters that do matter are quite deep. But like their souls games it requires you to investigate and pay attention. Walter for example has a history, has motivations, and is a sort of tragic hero when you understand his story. He thinks hes saving the world by burning the coral. And honoring the sacrifices of his dead friends. He sends vegetables like you off to die for a "greater good".
Its absolutely not a "b game". While I resent it for not being a true AC game it feels like you're being hyperbolic and contrarian. It has a compelling plot, great action, plenty of spectacle. Id say it's a solid 8/10.
The answer to why people found the game hard is quite simple. Knowledge deficit. The game is won in the garage as they say. If you dont understand the stats and run a bad build you can have a rough time. And the controls take a minute to get a handle on. For example I struggled with Balteus for like 3 hours. Changed my build and then beat him in like 3 tries. It was night and day.
Erumore, I hope you review Lies of P at some point. To see how another studio tries to tackle the "Souls" formula.
i think this was done cuz armored core is a story game even if you dont like the story. so you cant "fail" missions. like story says you are supposed to use the launcher in chapter 2 to reach the other half of the lake what were you supposed to do if you died? just not continue the story? I understand the criticisim and probably from took the wrong approach but this approach makes failable missons probably impossible
Have you done any PvP?
While i do agree that infinite money does remove a lot from the "mercenary" experience of the game, i think it was a good decision to be able to replay missions to get a better rank and experiment more builds. Old AC games seemed to narrow your build choices while the new one throw more mechanical demanding bosses to give the player a reason to experiment and find what works against them. But i agree that dilute your immersion as a mercenary and i dont really know what the right answer might be.
Still, AC6 has great bosses, enough mission variety and a solid and more cinematic narrative than its predecessors so i wouldnt say it ruins their legacy. Its the good'ol 2 step forward, one step backward that From Soft seems to have which enable them to experiment enough on each serie to justify new games
Flawless victory !
Bro they nerf Balteus 2 patch ago. Yes Balteus WAS hard for the end of chapter because everyone AC have not enough OS upgrade to deal enough damage yet to overcome Balteus. People also get stuck on IBIS the most compare to final boss. It's not the final boss that frustrate people it's the journey to get there and get used to with dodging more instead just using the biggest and strongest weapons.
The only valid point you make, and the only one I agree with, is that AC6 gives you too much money. Replaying missions should be available so we can strive for S ranks and collect logs and items that players miss, instead of having to start the game from the very beginning just to complete everything the player wishes too.
Fromsoft understands that the old formula of AC wouldn't work in the current state of the gaming industry, we either get AC6 the way it is, or we wouldn't have gotten one at all.
There's always a chance of us getting DLC or spin off sequels that are more difficult like we have in the past.
If you compare AC6 to 4 and 5 You'll see that this was the trajectory the series was heading.
This is not what I was expecting when you said you were planning on covering ACVI. Especially not the commentaries you made that honestly make it seem as if you think the evolution of the franchise has been strictly linear.
The truth is, AC stopped caring about the economy for the most part after AC4 on the 7th gen consoles era, but before that (And even after that) the franchise constantly changed mechanics and gameplay dynamics with each entry, even during the PS2 era, where it could be argued the games didn't really changed that much due to the yearly release schedule.
If anything during this era, they played around with the economy quite a lot, and introduced new mechanics or stats that changed things and showcased a lot of creativity on their part. Once again the evolution of the franchise has branched out in many directions over the years rather than in a straight line of constant "improvements".
Quite ironically, one of the more heated discussions around the game leading to, and after release was the inclusion of a more aggressive lock-on system and the stagger system (Clearly taken from Sekiro, given the shared director of the games). If you really want to experience AC, go play the following games after AC1, and see for yourself the evolution in mechanics, ideas and narratives the franchise has experienced over the years. AC1 is the most basic of the AC games superficially, and its partly because it was the studio's 2nd actual game.
To finish, I must add that I DO agree, the franchise shouldn't have gone away with limiting the player's freedom or punishing them for bad management and lack of skill or thoughtfulness when approaching the missions. Just like old racing games, a good progression used to do a lot of the heavy lifting to keep players engaged with the game. Don't give up with the controls, as you can always emulate the game or resort to mods that add analogue support for the games that lacked it. That last platform section you gave up was the last level in AC1, and arguably the worst level of the game and franchise.
Good analysis. However i don't get why you compared the first and the last installment in the series as if the changes present in 6 have happened momentarily. The AC series has both evolved and regressed a lot over the years. Seeing that 6 hasn't learned much from many of the pitfalls the older games fell in when they experimented with the formula really dissapointed me when i played it for the first time.
AC series is not for everyone. I do agree with your point about the repetitiveness of the mission (also NG+) but... The game is supposed to be somewhat repetitive, so you experiment with different loadout and challenge yourself. If you're just interested in clear the game and have some fun then forget about it, AC series might just not be the game for you.
It's more like a super hardcore game those E-sports level fighting game / RTS / FPS games. It's a CS not a CoD.
I've been a fan of the games for years and I agree with the sentiment. I personally liked ACIV well enough but it felt more like the Fromsoft of the past decade's attempt at using their new experience to make an action game wearing AC's skin rather than a revival. It's a shame From dropped so much of what was in AC Verdict Day to make something that feels like a hybrid between a souls game and Rachet and Clank, only retaining the mission-based mech building aspect.
It's interesting that you mentioned the target locking. This is one of the key criticisms that most old players have of the gameplay of ACIV since all past AC games were balanced around the player's ability to manage their limited turn speed and positioning. Now you instantly whip around and never lose your target and so the core gameplay falls apart. The shallowness of the new gameplay system is highlighted in multiplayer. I highly suggest you take a look at what PvP looked like in AC Last Raven, for Answer, and Verdict Day. It makes ACIV look like a joke.
Despite some weird ideas you floated, you have many good points to make up for the odd ones. Replaying missions for easy money really does defeat the purpose of making some serious choices if you can just replay a mission to get a different part. Unable to affect the story kinda grinded my gears after hearing so much about how the franchise began allowing for branches of how a story may go based on your decisions. If missions are able to be done with the same loadout without much difficulty, it kinda defeats why an AC is an AC and not a Gundam that can get around with the same loadout in their respective series. Hopefully they rethink the Arena, because it was unfortunate to fight certain characters before their actual reveal in a mission. Hopefully, From may work on the actual framework of Armored Core since they basically have "most" of the combat system down, and work on making the story more compelling with limited resources per playthrough instead of being able to find a way to buy all the parts offered per Chapter. Hope you are willing to cover whatever Armored Core expansion/DLC comes around.
I hate how gen 4 forward kinda more streamline (head have no more weird quirk like NV or bio) and the missing of Hover leg since everything can hover now and how you are feel like protagonist compare to Gne 1 to 3 where you just 1 raven who screw up bigger picture by being actual manace
Balteus was severely nerfed he is no where near as hard as he was on release. This game has had several patches since release. In fact you are using chain guns that weren’t even available when the game came out. If you are finding the game “easy” then these reasons would be why.
I see it, but the one thing i have to say, on new game+ and new game++ i had to do some real menu reading inbetween super hard missions. The first playtrough is a deceptive lowball. on my second one as soon as i got to the alt dam mission it was clear i was out of my depth
I get where you're coming from, one of main reasons I prefer Darkest Dungeon over the sequel is the long-term management of both your base and your team, but broadly speaking your critique misses the mark.
First off, if replaying missions for money is so immersion-breaking, then just don't do it. Treat the game like AC1 and only play each mission once. You'll still end up with plenty of money for parts because the financial side of AC6 is overly generous, but it gets you closer to feel of the older games. And the flip side of the excess cash is room for way more build experimentation.
Sure you can settle on a build that's fairly simple buts gets the job done, or you can build something more unique with more complexity and room to fail. Because the financial stakes are lower (assuming you forego replays to avoid grinding and making them nonexistent) you have more room to try and find a setup that is the most fun for you, rather than one that works but bores you to tears. The combat is only stale if you decide to let it be, the easy finances of AC6 give you the freedom to pursue a build and style of combat all your own, that you can enjoy without it being "optimal" or safe. That's where all the improvement to mech mobility and such really shines. AC6 is still easy compared to other From games, no question, but if you find approaching all the missions with the same build boring, use that extra cash to try something different. It's not the game's fault if you deliberately don't engage with the options it gives you; if you make a build that ends up OP and makes you bored, you have the financial flexibility to change your build. Use it.
Secondly, your complaint about the ludonarrative is just flat out wrong. AC6 is explicity not telling the same type of story as AC1. It begins with the same framing, of a merc just doing jobs for cash without a greater goal, but that is a facade for a another story underneath. You said the story was shallow (I highly disagree) but even if we take your opinion as given, the critique stills misses the mark because AC6 is not just about being a merc hunting for your next paycheck - its about Coral, how it affects humanity, how you decide to handle it and what sacrifices your decision entails. Not to mention the game goes through significant changes on NG+ and NG++, with new missions that expand the story - which have a sufficient bump in difficulty given your better gear - and a 3rd ending that is only possible in NG++. I usually hate NG+ cycles in From games, the only other game where I bothered with them was Sekiro, to do a Charmless run. But I loved the first two NG+ cycles in AC 6.
You should checkout the video the AC fandom made with full thoughts on the game from lots of veteran players. It's really interesting how you noticed how disappointing 6 was with only playing gen 1.
I was on board with this video until I realized he either glazed over or never even played the other armored core games besides 1. Yikes man.
idk, i personally dont think "welp, got scammed by an item that wasn't as good as it says it was on the tin, time to restart the entire game" is a good mechanic, but ok bro 😒
You don't need to restart the entire game - you just need to reload a save from five minutes ago, before you bought the part. The point I'm making is that a limited amount of currency forces you to make tradeoffs that are actually meaningful and have lasting consequences. You can easily undo mistakes or regrets by reloading - but you'll still never be able to buy everything because currency isn't infinite.
@Erumore you do know your parts sell for as much as you buy them for right? The shop is just a second inventory that you can easily make use of
@@Erumore All parts have full resale value what do you mean
What a well-done video. Bravo.
And I totally disagree lol. The biggest question is whether stakes are enforced or optional. It's "choose your own adventure" -- do you want to grind currency or not?
Even with Elden Ring -- my first From game (yes I'm one of those) -- you'd bump into the Tree Sentinel and have to decide whether you wanted to "git gud" or level up first. Choose your own adventure. My first play through was in maximum easy mode, cause I'm not that good lol. But my second was done without summons or grinding. I tried a third run at level one, but that's way above my skill set.
Anyway: I really agree with the "optional stakes" formula. If I had hit a true wall with the Tree Sentinel, I'd have put the game down forever.
I'm midway through AC6 and loving it. I haven't replayed any mission or arena battle. I experiment with builds because it's more fun than finding an I-WIN button.
That doesn't negate your point that failing a mission is temporary, not permanent. But that's just the way all video games are designed now. What game treats death as permanent?
The bosses got nerfed pretty hard, i think theyre too easy now. Also you gotta take into account this is probably most players first mech game. Youve got some valid criticism, but personally I still love the game. One last thing is that the shoulder mounted gun you breezed through the game with came out post launch which would have probably forced some degree of variation in play style.
This is a really stupid critique considering the main complaint about the game from first timers is that there are consequences for bad builds.
Not gonna lie my response was also meh when I bought and finished everything in the game. I just prefer the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen mechanics and gameplay. But I did enjoy armored core 6
You can't earn every part by grinding the first mission. There are parts to be earned through further missions and secrets. It sounds to me that you're more or less upset that you can't budget like in the first game.
Also, did you even play the other paths of the game? You called THAT boss the final boss when it's really only the first final boss you can get to. There are three final bosses.
Armored Core VI was the first ever AC game I ever played, same as you. Being curious, I decided to play AC4 and FA. Even though I still prefer AC6, they have amazing identity and mechanics, but I never thought to myself that AC6 "didn't fit the legacy". As far as I can tell, AC4 was WAY DIFFERENT from the previous games and so was AC5 (I haven't seen as many things from the older gens).
Whether we're talking about Armored Core or their soulsborne games, Fromsoft's identity has always been about making something different and interesting. By doing new things, they're sticking to their own legacy to a tee.
Fromsoft manage to scam everyone into thinking they are good, when in reality they were just lucky and did good things by accident or mjstake 😂
Regarding the castration of consequences in AC6 - very interesting observation and yet another evidence that Fromsoftware's current aprroach seems to be focused around cutting off more and more of the unique and potentialy controversial mechanics in favor of creating products that cater to bigger audiences. I know it's natural that the bigger a company gets the more money it has to generate but there's still this little naive part of my soul that feels extremely dissapointed and frustrated thinking about all the wasted potential.
Literally all they have right know is spectacular art direction and presentation (that includes the combat, I'm almost confident if it wasn't for the amazing choreography and spectacle of bosses people would get sick of the simplistic fighting very quickly). I'm a sucker for they're taste in art myself so I get the appeal but I wonder if the general fanbase will ever start to notice the gameplay stagnation and voice their discontent in future years. I feel like a bot every time I bring up Matthewmatosis's famous video but it's still just depressingly true - Formsoft is shackled by the expectations of a narrowminded fanbase. From my observation majority of fans quite literally don't have enough imagination to look past the pretty art and think what a game like Elden Ring could've been if it wasn't satisfied with being only an action game with exploration that's only good on the first playthrough.
At this point I've spent more time and energy ranting about Elden Ring than playing it lmao. At least it's a proof to me that From still has enough spark to make me interested in their games regardless of my gripes wich is nice.
I'm expecting From to release their own "Starfield" soonish. A game that results in public opinion doing a sudden 180 because it accumulated and failed to address various glaring issues with their design that have been suppressed by a loyal fanbase for too long.
@Nipah.Auauau This is ridiculous. Stanfield happened because Bethesda only made one type of single-player game they stopped making for about a decade. FromSoftware is nowhere near as decrepit as that, they put out different types of single-player games regularly.
"cutting off more and more of the unique and potentialy controversial mechanics in favor of creating products that cater to bigger audiences"
People complain about the ACS "stance" breaking constantly. Also AC is like the final fantasy of FromSoft. The series is constantly experimenting with new mechanics from Heat to Primal Armor to Quick Boosting. If anything, Armored Core the mecha shooter is more preferable to AC the melee.
@@carlschrappen9712 They put out different versions of Demons' Souls with minor gameplay and aesthetic tweaks.
@Nipah.Auauau That was Bluepoint and Sony who made the Demon's Souls remake. Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP, FromSoftware had no bearing on its development at all.
Great video
Cool critiques.
Alright, the gutting of the metagame happened in 4/For Answer (though arguably it happened in Last Raven), the very same game(s) that was designed around the twin stick control scheme. So AC6 isn't really new in that regard.
As for the controls of old gen games, I think that they add a lot more than you think. As with heavy restrictions on the player in controlling their machine they now have to actually think about how they approach combat and just can't go in head first like any run of the mill action game. As now they have to learn to master their machine in order to earn the right to smash head first into danger. The same sorta thing goes for MGS3, the controls do feel clunky, but I would argue that it's intentional to force the player into not being spotted in the first place so they don't try to go in guns blazing.
Imho, controls are a core part of game design. Regardless of what anyone tells you.
Also, go play AC3 and Silent Line (AC:SL is the 'sequel' to 3)
Pre twinstick AC controls allowed for snappy and responsive change of your direction of travel. Even more than modern twin stick controls, since with the stick you have physical travel time between directions and unwanted intermediate directions you could input. I hate how often people call them "restrictive" when, in fact, they're surprisingly liberating for an early 3d 3rd person shooter
Alternatively you can just rebind the controls into something better. AC was one of the first games i could remembwr where you could do that on console
Don't let the haters get to ya, these are wholly valid criticisms. AC6 isnt bad, it's just what classic fans were worried about. A stripping down and streamlining of the basic management. They need to find something better to replace the old tuning and add more parts to make money more meaningful. Also I personally think the ACS overload system could use tweaking. But with more parts the ACS overload mechanic could become more tenable.
a b game? 15 hours? i've gotten at least 150 hours so far, and im still obsessed with it because of the skill ceiling that certain types of builds alow for, i will easily get 250 hours on ac6 and who knows how much further i'll take it
and that's not to say i disagree with alot of the critiques at all, i do think that the economy and the inability to fail missions is a hinderance, i just find the action gameplay to be the most fun i've had in a video game
ngl, if i played the same way you did that i think i'd hate it too
This video interested me, so I thought I’d leave my thoughts. I have played and beaten Armored Core 2, Armored Core 3, Armored Core 4, Armored Core For Answer, and Armored Core 6.
First things first, “it very much feels like a B game, despite what you may have heard from people on UA-cam paid by FromSoftware to tell you otherwise.” Not cool. Accusing people of stuff like that without proof, even if only in a UA-cam video, is extremely disingenuous and distasteful. It’s basic decency. You did this in your Shadow of the Erdtree critique as well, where you implicitly called VaatiVidya a paid shill.
From my experience, the metagame around the losses and penalties you take from missions doesn't really exist in practice. This is because you can save scum to your hearts content, meaning you can always just try again or attempt a different mission each time you’re not satisfied with your earnings on a mission. When I played AC2 and AC3, it got to the point where I treated my first attempt at each mission as scouting for when I would actually try later. First I would try the mission with my energy weapon tank (it’s weapons have no ammunition cost to fire), and if that didn’t work out, I would then try something more specialized. Using this strategy, costs and debt were never a notable concern when selecting which parts I used in a mission. You can’t really fail a mission in the older games either.
To add on to that, Armored Cores lets you sell your parts for 100% of their value. This means that you don’t have to select which parts you buy carefully, because the credits you spend on buying parts is value you still have. So you if want to make a different build, you can just sell all the parts you don’t need and buy the ones you do for no downside. As long as you make more money on missions than you lose on average (which you will, using the save scum techniques mentioned above), the net value of credits you possess will only increase. You don’t have to make real tradeoffs.
The older games didn’t really force you to change your build that much either. You were more than capable of just running in with a machine gun and clearing most missions without too much sweat. There were more specialized missions that encouraged you to change things up, but the same is true of AC6 as well.
Overall, I didn’t find this video compelling. The management metagame you mentioned doesn't really exist in practice, and you could beat most missions without experimenting with your build in the older games as well. Last, but certainly not least, accusing other people of being paid off without proof is completely tasteless.
Never clicked this fast before!
Weird review..
You managed to play some of the oldest AC games.
But you didn't went through the 4 endings.
You didn't did the S rank.
Looks like you played on easy mode and rushed through the game.
Your point of view is interesting, and your point on the menu management is valid.
But that's all- not valid as a solid review.
These are consistently great
Nice vid overall. and i really think you should try other games too (especially ps3 era games)
grading games is ridiculous, how can you call it a B game when it was better than the last 10 AAA games released by other publishers?
Yeah… definitely a hot take for sure.
You talk about legacy and show a moment when the first game pissed you off so much you had to stop playing. Bro. Thats a legacy WORTH forgetting.
6 onlys malding in the replies lol
I wonder how many people who played it had the feeling that something is wrong but can't verbalize it. I skipped it cause elden ring soured me on from.
Good vid.
Paid by fromsoft? Are you that dense
First!
opinion so shit i have to leave a comment
Real
Excellent critique
If I have to critique AC6 is that for better or for worst AC6 being made from the ashes of 5th gen AC with a bit of 4th gen AC is to its own demerits, granted 5th gen AC is easily the most "easy to control" AC game that came out it doesnt have obscure controls nor does it rely on specific hardware to take full advantage of it unlike say 4th gen AC "2nd staging Quick Boost anyone?", a lot of mechanics that came from AC have been "stapled" as normal in the souls games, the Stagger mechanics of Sekiro? Refined from 5th gen AC if you didnt know stagger system existed in 5th gen, getting more damaged when staggered ala sekiro? Armor break from 5th gen but contextualized similarly to the PA system of 4th gen, but comparing it to Sekiro just over simplifies on how the system works yet the point makes sense in context.
The 3 damage system? Chromehounds then 5th gen AC, energy weapons costing money? 4th gen, yet at the same time charging weapons slow down energy regen? Pretty much almost the entire series as a whole.
What I liked about AC6 is that its basically the distillation of all the ideas across the 5 generations before it, Ocean Crossing? Its an indirect reference to defend Lawdas factory in Silent Line, the opening sequence? Basically an homage to both Silent Line and AC2, Institute City? An entire easter egg's worth of reference to the entire series about living underground AC1-MoA, AC3, AC2:AA, lore of 5th gen. AIs masterminding the entire events of the game? Literally also the series crux 1st gen, AC3-Silent Line, 5th gen (kinda)
The last AC game I've played was Last Raven and the 6 gameplay felt so unappealing. The first mission in, and there's that stagger rigmarole, boss pattern memorization I guess, something about camera control which feels weird and clunky, it felt just like, if the whole game is like this, why bother?
@@Dizerfullpower its because AC6 was built with a lot of assets from Elden Ring I mean this is from software anyway so its kinda expected, they basically made Elden Ring with an AC skin "kinda", to its detriment turn speed for most legs are absent as turn speed is just tacked on to the tank legs since now turn speed and camera control is different by not tieing the 2
While different go try 5th gen sure the servers are dead so you lose some stuff but 60-70% of the content should still be accessible
@@lesslighter The engine they've used for everything I believe actually goes back to AC4, which predates Demon's Souls. So that interestingly just brings the point you were making earlier full circle as AC forms the bedrock of everything that AC6 supposedly copies to its detriment according to this awful video.
I don't hold it against them for using Elden Ring or Dark Souls as a building block for basic little things though. If you go back and play King's Field and early Armored Core you'll find that the movement controls are identical. From Software has secretly always been making "the same game over and over" since long before they started getting really successful for better or worse.
@@lesslighter oh so that's what it was huh, camera control not being tied to actual turning. felt like a huge turn off