Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice

This essay is probably just a soapbox.

"Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice" (2019) is considered the holy grail of FromSoftware's post-"Dark Souls" (2011) releases. I think it's okay.

Well, no, that's not true, I think it's great. Since "Dark Souls", FromSoft was on a certain trajectory. What characterizes "Dark Souls" is its fantastic atmosphere; every level is very different in terms of feel and color, from the warm beige and greens of Firelink Shrine, the blacks and browns of Blighttown, the reds of Demon Ruins, the gold of Anor Londo and the dark blues of New Londo. The gameplay doesn't really hold up today, but it's still the most fairy-tale-like of the modern-era games.

"Dark Souls II" is the developer's first opportunity to tell a suitably epic story, and I think they succeeded; I actually think it has the best story of all of the games thus far, which may make me insane.

But the gameplay is terrible. I think the developer was in a weird spot, understanding that the action in "Dark Souls" was not expressive enough (as in, player choice was somewhat constrained) while unsure of how to leave that territory. I think Adaptability (the infamous ADP) was one of their moves towards expanding player expression, but for the most part their changes were statistical and not part of the actual flow of combat. You do see a glimmer of things to come in "Dark Souls II": the hyper-fast Fume Knight is a precursor for bosses to come.

From would figure it all out in "Bloodborne" (2015); they redesigned the game from the ground-up, making the flow of combat a lot faster. If players couldn't keep up, they were forced to; else, they wouldn't get through Gascoigne. The developer made subtle tweaks to dodge and attack animations and added the aggressive gun-parry to the game. "Bloodborne", furthermore, is level-wise designed more like "Dark Souls"; whereas "Dark Souls II" is very story / level-oriented, "Bloodborne" strikes one as being concept first, of taking conceptual locations as research halls and castles and building levels out of them. It's not as if this approach was lacking in "Dark Souls II" - Drangleic Castle I think is one of the best levels the developer has ever made - but it's hard to believe Black Gulch or No-man's Wharf belonged to a conceptual whole. Beside the DLCs, the levels of "Dark Souls II", while well-designed and vivid in themselves, do not belong to a coherent theme; the levels of "Dark Souls" and "Bloodborne" do, with the latter having a very strong vision.

The badness of the gameplay of "Dark Souls II" led From to develop the greatness of the gameplay of "Dark Souls III" ... at the expense of developing a coherent whole. I understand that the world of "Dark Souls III" is collapsing and worlds are being pushed into one another, but come on man, that's a pretty lame excuse. You enter a swamp to go into a catacombs to then go into a city to then enter the hollowed-out abode of the gods. It doesn't help too that the level design is awful, most levels having no obstacles except corridors and corridors of enemies.

But "Dark Souls III" is possibly the best dark fantasy game From has developed, even better than "Elden Ring" (2022). The combat is tight, the boss encounters are clear, and every weapon (except that of whips) is good. It is very easy to create a solid build in "Dark Souls III" (largely because of Raw Gems) and not feel like you're banging your head against the wall; furthermore, there are no builds that are heads-and-shoulders above the others, except probably Int-Faith builds. And though the levels themselves are poorly-designed from a gameplay perspective, I do think "Dark Souls III" has a solid story, although the story is largely confined to the endings. Really, the most interesting thing about "Dark Souls III" is its depiction of a way of life ending, and this really only comes to play Lothric Castle onward; but once the "story" gets going, it really gets going. You can also perceive From did eventually come up with some great levels in the "Ringed City" DLC; I know people hate the angel lasers of death but I actually like them a lot.

This is one of the consistent patterns with From: they actually do listen to the criticism and they do try to address them. They may not get the game right at the beginning, but at some point they're able to give the games the polish they deserve, which was shown beautifully with patch 1.07 in "Elden Ring" where they made many weapons feel right.

So here's the progression:

1. "Dark Souls" - beautifully crafted and well-designed levels, but boring gameplay
2. "Dark Souls II" - beautifully crafted and well-designed levels and the developer's first foray into storytelling, but terrible gameplay
3. "Bloodborne" - beautifully crafted and well-designed levels and amazing gameplay, but who cares about the story and (to a certain extent) replayability
4. "Dark Souls III" - forget the story and the levels, focus on the gameplay and the overall tone of the game

And so we arrive at "Sekiro", which pretty much perfected everything From had to discard in their previous games.

(Interesting how no one discusses "Déraciné" (2018). I will leave off discussion on it as I haven't played it, though it hangs high over our heads.)

Where "Bloodborne" is a dodging simulator, Sekiro is actually quite thoughtful on how players can approach the game. By the end of the game, you're smoothly transitioning between running, dodging, blocking and deflecting in your gameplay loop. And level design ... actually matters, largely because of the vertical nature of many of the levels in "Sekiro". Enemy placement and obstacles actually matter in the game, as compared to "Dark Souls III".

It's also difficult to discuss the aesthetics of "Sekiro" to someone who hasn't played it; it's the same as discussing the beauty of Monet to someone who hasn't seen one of his paintings. Mt. Kongo is breathtaking; the Hidden Forest is haunting; and Fountainhead Palace is ethereal. Ashina Castle isn't fantastical, and yet you immediately get the sense of how impenetrable the seat of Ashina's power is. The aesthetics of the game are done perfectly, even better than the aesthetics of "Bloodborne", which tends to be excessively dark and grey after a certain point. I would argue "Sekiro" resembles the original "Dark Souls" greatly in its thematic design.

I wouldn't call the story great, but a story isn't really measured by its drama. Every character is important and reflects a certain viewpoint in "Sekiro"; Kuro is the person who challenges the status quo, Wolf is the man who burdens his body to see Kuro's dream come true, Genchiro is the man - who is, importantly, not evil and may even be the most morally upright person in the story - who wants things to stay the same, Isshin is in-between, someone who has peered into the impermanence of mortality, and Emma and the Sculptor represent the civilians caught up in this eternal struggle. Obviously Wolf's role in this is kinda awkward as he does nothing, though the Return ending challenges this viewpoint of Wolf entirely. (Spoilers: you could argue Wolf is the one who ultimately decides to return the dragon's heritage to the west, as the Divine Child of Rejuventation, by no means, could do it on her own, and he doesn't consult Kuro whatsoever in this decision. This is why I personally think this is the "best" ending: in the other three endings, Wolf consistently shows no choice; he has to obey the Iron Code, he has to help Kuro, he has to sacrifice this or that life. At the end of Return, the Divine Child of Rejuvenation does not insist Wolf has to join her, but he says he will, out of his own volition. Even if this is not the happiest ending, it is clearly the ending with the most character development from Wolf's part; he is no longer a shinobi but a free man. And since every event that happens in the game - from the appearance of the Demon of Hatred, from Genichiro's descent into madness, from Owl's betrayal - is a reflection of the road Wolf himself is forced to go down, it's abundantly clear that Wolf is the main character, not just the character the player happens to be playing.)

I still think "Elden Ring", in comparison to "Sekiro", is a work of art. "Sekiro" is still a toy environment at the end of the day, a series of platforms the players are meant to go from point A to point B, while every facet of the world of "Elden Ring" has a serious question to it; it's hard to say, Oh, this is just a throwaway asset, for many of the details in the world of "Elden Ring". I think part of it is, FromSoft is not good with "human" stories, and the story framework provided by George R. R. Martin helped immensely, as George, clearly, is very good with the human side of storytelling. A lot of From's worlds tend to boil down to, Oh, that's cool, but "Elden Ring" has the feeling of being partially lived in or interacted with. There is, indeed, a historical feeling to Leyndell and Raya Lucaria and the Mountaintop of the Giants.

Okay, so let's get to the topic I wanted to bitch about.

"Sekiro" is great but the fandom is awful.

Another title of this article could be, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Block".

People say "Sekiro" is a dance or a rhythm game or whatever. This really messed me up as, for most of my first playthrough, I thought I had to get the deflects right.

This approach failed me entirely when it came to Sword Saint Isshin, who is considered the hardest boss of the game. Isshin is the most methodical and precise of the bosses in the game, and so he will try to attack you with unusual timing; furthermore, the white of his blade mixes with the white flowers of the field. It is a very difficult boss fight to perfectly deflect.

Then I realized these facts:

1. Deflects damage the enemy's posture.

2. Deflects still damage your posture, they just guarantee your posture doesn't break.

3. Deflect windows shrink if you rapidly press the block button, which punishes "block-spamming".

4. Deflects can change a boss's combo dramatically; for example, two successive deflects for Guardian Ape's second phase will force it into a very punishable slam attack. I think successive deflects also encourages Isshin into his very punishable thrust attack. Basically, deflects can open a boss up to great vulnerabilities.

5. And that's it.

This leads me to this conclusion: Deflects are not important. Deflects will never hurt the enemy's posture enough, because an undamaged enemy will recover posture too quickly for it to matter. It's nice to change a boss's combos to be better for you, but it's not necessary because the boss may do it of their own accord anyway; this is exactly how Genichiro and Shinobi Owl work, they don't give you many openings through deflects alone.

In contrast, these are the facts of blocking, which deflecting extends from:

1. Blocking blocks all damage. Blocking with your katana is basically the same as blocking with a greatshield in the "Dark Souls" games. The only things that pass your block are status effects, as Burn and Poison. The only other penalty is in posture.

2. If your posture bar overfills, you will enter a staggered animation for maybe a few seconds; the animation, I bet, increases all sources of damage. If you enter this animation at the end of an enemy combo, this does not matter at all.

3. Blocking is quick, maybe less than a second to start doing it. It is very easy to finish an attack and dodge animation and near-instantly begin blocking.

So for Isshin, who has unusual timings across all three phases, I just ... blocked. Didn't deflect, just kept a stiff guard up. And, besides needing to do some posture management in his wild and raging second phase (posture does not recover when running, but when walking or blocking), this worked way, way better than trying to get my deflect timings correct.

At the end of the day you still need to damage vitality; the lower vitality is, the lower the enemy's posture recovery. And the bosses of "Sekiro" - and this is a detriment to the game, as compared to the relatively fast boss fights of the "Dark Souls" series - have very high vitality, and they can block your attacks. You can be stuck on a boss for a million years and wonder whether you're doing the right thing because you don't get any feedback if a boss is hurting or not. (Except Guardian Ape. And Gyoubu and Lady Butterfly.)

Another title of this article could be, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Mortal Draw".

I was getting my butt handed to me by Owl (Father) until I learned the combat art Mortal Draw works perfectly fine without spirit emblems. I then beat him with Mortal Draw, first try.

Here are the facts about Mortal Draw:

1. Compared to Ichimonji Double, it has fantastic range. It doesn't have great range away from the player, but its side-sweeping motion means that even if you're not facing your opponent perfectly you are still likely to hit them.

2. It staggers all human enemies. Hell, the Empowered version staggers the first phase of Guardian Ape. It staggers the first phase of Corrupted Monk, such that she becomes an absolute joke. My winning run of Shura Isshin is somehow pinning him into a corner and spamming Mortal Draw against him, denying him any chance to retaliate with his truly awful moves.

3. As explained above, after using it, you can immediately transition into a block, which is perfect for Isshin and Owl's punishes.

4. The most important fact: it does damage past guards. Not even the Ichimonji Double does this. It is guaranteed to do posture and vitality damage. As explained above, posture and vitality have a relationship where lower vitality guarantees lower posture recovery, which means every use of Mortal Draw guarantees progression in the battle. This is not true of most attack options in the game. (You unlock Mortal Draw in the midpoint of the game, so you can't use it against Genichiro. You definitely notice how much slower it is to take him down without it.)

So yeah, even without Spirit Emblems, Mortal Draw is one of the best if not the best attack option in the game, next to the rightfully revered Ichimonji Double. This makes sense given its placement in the story.

I have defeated Isshin three times throughout all of the endings, and my tactic is to keep a stiff block going and Mortal Draw-ing him to death. It's not a cheese by any means - you have to know which combos the boss will and won't punish, and which combos the boss will have hyperarmor in, which Sword Saint absolutely has - but it felt pretty close to one to me.

With this in mind, the idea that "Sekiro" is some high-skilled game is a joke.

Don't get me wrong, it's a very hard game. It's comparable to "Bloodborne" where you have to know exactly what you want to do after a boss combo. (One of the nice things about "Bloodborne" is that the really hard bosses are optional, while "Sekiro" forces you to fight Isshin every, single, time, and he's such a huge pain-in-the-ass to fight (FOUR PHASES!!!).) But discussion of the game has gotten out of hand and, frankly, led me astray in my initial playthrough of the game. When I realized the game wasn't this intricately-crafted deflection simulator and just ... a game, I turned my attention to figuring out how to cheese it, which is the same thought process that players have for the "Souls" games, which is the most fun thought process. By the end of my run I was first-try-ing most of the bosses; I kinda hate Isshin, and on my final game it took me maybe ten tries to get him down. All from blocking, yo. Literally, Isshin's first phase is blocking and punishing his very simple combos.

I think Guardian Ape is officially my favorite boss of the game, because he's so transparent as to when you're playing well or poorly; I ended up throwing salvo after salvo of Ash at True Monk and cackling; and I found myself gleefully shouting at Owl, "DO YOUR JUMP, BITCH!" so I could Mortal Draw him. The game became a game and not some kind of divine, deflecting experience. In fact, I think the developers consciously gave players Mortal Draw for a very good reason: it is a much-needed offensive option to speed up the game; it's unfortunate they didn't explain that you weren't punished for using Combat Arts without Emblems, but that's FromSoft, they like to explain shit.

My analogy is, Going through the game without Mortal Draw is equivalent to using a Straight Sword in "Elden Ring" without a Weapon Art. Like, yes, you can do it, but the resulting battle is super slow and drawn-out.

This isn't revelatory information, but it's such a damn shame that discussion of the game goes around the deflection mechanic. I get it: it looks cool, and I have watched many Ongbal videos. But deflection really is not necessary. Listen, Isshin's opening slam is easy to deflect, but every other move in his combo is not. If you're going to watch Ongbal, the most important thing to take away is when he deems it safe to attack - which is usually at the end of a Mikiri counter or a combo, which you can absolutely absorb through blocking. It's pretty ironic that Isshin literally says "Just win your fights" and everyone says "It'S lIkE a DaNcE".

Well, anyway. The game is very fun to talk about, and so I talked about it. A fair criticism is that prothestic arts are kind of useless because of their Emblem limit; unlike Combat Arts, they have absolutely no use once you are out of Emblems and, again, boss vitality is so high that there's no way you can incorporate one consistently into a strategy except for muy favorita Guardian Ape and the Loaded Spear. It's also disappointing how useless most Combat Arts are; Floating Passage is cool but the enemy guard goes up way too fast; Ashina Cross is awesome in concept but it's slow and easily punishable; I haven't tried the Monk arts though they looked really good. Leveling up is pretty pointless in "Sekiro"; in every playthrough you're basically doing the same thing over and over again because so many combat options are ass (replayability is even worse than "Bloodborne", which has very well-balanced weapons).

"Sekiro" is very good for what it is. It's like "Dark Souls" on steroids: a fantastical adventure with a very simple gameplay loop (I personally think "Dark Souls" is significantly harder without shields). It's a culmination of FromSoft's many experiments, with "Elden Ring" being closer to a weird arty-farty statement and not the commercial juggernaut it's portrayed to be, the more I look at it. (I personally think "Elden Ring" is a mess of a game, combat-wise.) But it's not God's gift to the world. It's also not my jam. I like builds and I like player expression. I think it's an incredible story, but it's wanting in terms of gameplay. But who cares what I think, am I right?

I like to 100% the FromSoft games as, I've discovered, you pretty much learn the game inside out by the end of the process and understand how it's designed. If I did not 100% "Dark Souls II", I would not have understood it was complete ass (though I was getting an inkling of its badness from the DLC). This also isn't universally true; it wasn't until I tried doing different builds in the original "Dark Souls" that I realized how shield-oriented the game is.

The 100%-ing process is time-consuming and occasionally emotionally-exhausting because the games are sort-of designed to waste your time. I believe, to get the final trophies for "Dark Souls", you need to get through New Game++ (Sif, goddamn ye). Imagine playing Bed of Chaos three times in a row (though I learned recently, to my misfortune, that armor weight and shield do change that boss fight dramatically). Then of course there's the hide-and-seek of ring-finding in "Dark Souls II" and "III", which I actually think is kinda fun, though I had no appetite for fighting Nameless King again. I am deathly scared of "Armored Core 6" (2023), which looks really fun, but I have seen Balteus.

I would say the process of 100%-ing "Sekiro" was almost a chore because of how much I disliked Sword Saint Isshin. I don't hate Isshin, and he's very fun to play against when you get him, but four phases isn't a fun duel anymore, it's a chore. By the end of "Sekiro" I had every boss down almost to a near-science, but every time I stared at Isshin I knew he would take me at least an hour; a continuous hour, because I had a feeling I would need a few deaths to get into the rhythm of things. I know this is a dumb complaint, but there are other things I'd rather do in that hour. Again, I don't like Nameless King, but he is simple enough where I can set the controller down for a few minutes and my gameplay won't change dramatically. Isshin demands you get into the zone because of his quickness and intensity, and he really borders on that "gaming as a job and not a pastime" area. And you have to fight Isshin at least three times, more if you mess up one of the endings.

I would say the most fun game to 100% was "Dark Souls III", to the point where I was excited to get to New Game++ and I wanted to develop as many builds as possible. (I had tons of fun as a younger man 100%-ing "Bloodborne" but I was younger and possibly had more free time, though I love the Chalice Dungeons deeply.) "Dark Souls III" is, I think, one of the easier From games. Yes, I have died to Iudex Gundyr and, yes, "Dark Souls III" has tilted me, but once you know the game well it's very easy to progress through the game and even finish it in an afternoon. The game puts an NPC ally in almost every critical boss fight, and if you find your current build lacking then you can just switch to another one. It is the most forgiving of the games and so it is very tolerant of player expression, whether it's through builds or playstyle or what have you.

Anyway, that's that.