That's right, it's better to admit they dropped the ball a bit with DS2 and 3, which are clearly
inferior.
Well, compared to Dark Souls, Bloodborne and Elden Ring,
sure. But they're still good and great games, respectively. DS3 in particular was a big critical and commercial success that helped solidify the series as a mainstream franchise, not just those popular games among weirdos, an important precursor to Elden Ring unexpectedly taking the world by storm. Let's keep talking about DS3!?
ds 3 slander cannot stand! Haha, but I get it. I’m sure a lot of FromSoft fans wouldn’t like what I have to say about Bloodborne.
Joe Biden: "Skill issue!"
And DS3 is pretty much directly retrofitted from BB to be more like Dark Souls, so I guess they fixed what you didn't like about it.
Heh. Just kidding. Blaspheme away. I like that people have different responses to the FromSoft repertoire. It speaks for the diversity of these games despite them sharing a core formula.
I'm not so sure, to me they're pretty damn similar, with Sekiro being the most unique despite sharing essentially the same modified engine as the rest, but with a completely different emphasis and combat mechanics, and less so for Bloodborne (though Bloodborne's style did seep back into DS3). What's interesting is it's not just a linear evolution and some feel more like each other than others, for instance Demon's Souls, Bloodborne and DS3 feel more similar to each other to me than DS1, DS2 and Elden Ring, which feel more similar to one another than the previous cluster. I'm not exactly sure what accounts for all that, but a lot of it is probably some pretty subtle tweaks to physics, iframes, hitboxes and hurtboxes, etc, even something as simple, but fundamental, as camera movement and how close it generally is to the player character. Like I said, it's a "feel" issue rather than all the practical ways the Souls are designed to be similar and Bloodborne, Sekiro and Elden Ring to be different.