Sekiro feels much more approachable but it doesn’t have the replayability of other Souls games.
Interesting perspective; I actually have double the hours in Sekiro (164) compared to Elden Ring (86) and DS1 (88). And I also didn’t really like Elden Ring (though I really wanted to).
Honestly, I disliked Souls-like games until I played Hollow Knight (at that point, I tried Dark Souls but didn’t get very far). It isn’t a Souls-like game (2D Metroidvania), but as it shares some of their themes and elements, after finishing it I was motivated to try Dark Souls again (and ended up doing a full playthrough).
They didn’t close Campo Sango though, and haven’t closed other studios they bought historically (like Turtle Rock, which eventually became independent of Valve again and released Back 4 Blood).
It’s Phil Spencer’s fault that they released Redfall at 70$. It is his fault that he promised the game will be polished. It is his fault people who paid for the DLC will never get it.
He also closed Tango, which made a critically acclaimed game.
They list something that every single large game company does: buy studios, move talent around, close the old studios.
Not every large game company acts this way. This is also not what he did at all - he didn’t restructure the studios after buying them, he closed them and laid off their employees.
They also talk about how he claims to champion preservation and emulation, something we all agree with.
He’s a known liar (just a year ago he claimed Arkane will continue to polish Redfall, now Arkane Austin has closed before giving people DLC they already paid for)
Phil Spencer has been the head of Xbox for a decade, a decade where Xbox consistently got worse. The only smart decision they made this entire time is Game Pass IMO.
Four prominent members left at once, including the lead designer and the game’s artist. They claimed the studio was acquired through a fraudulent purchase and went to court (and the suit was dismissed). There are many more details, look it up if you want to know more.
The studio has since laid off 25% and cancelled a standalone expansion to Disco Elysium and and its sequel.
It’s a good game, but you should know ZA/UM (the studio behind the game) was sold under suspicious cirucmstances; the lead designer and other major memebrs are no longer part of the studio (they sued, but it didn’t go anywhere). Personally I wouldn’t give them any money.
In Sekiro, while it is not made clear that the decision will end the game (after a boss fight), it is obviously a very important decision, so I don’t think making the stakes actually high is bad design - the stakes being high is one of the reasons I like souls games.
I didn’t like Nier Automata and didn’t play it much, so I don’t know about its abrupt endings, and how they are presented and handled.
Edit: I didn’t mean to be rude in my last comment, I was being genuine - souls games are known for this stuff (not specifically abrupt endings, but rather abrupt meaningful choices).
Your reply made me realize however that it might just be Nier’s implementation of the idea which you dislike, not the idea in general.
Fallout New Vegas - You can literally help a gang take over the starting town like 5 minutes into the game.
Souls games - The games constantly autosave in the background and (sometimes out of nowhere) present you with some very unclear choices. In Sekiro you have a choice around two thirds into the game which causes the game to end immediately (with a very bad ending); since the game autosaves all the time, once you make that choice you have to start the entire game over and get to that point again to make a different choice.
Most CRPGs I played had meaningful choices (sometimes having extreme effects on the game world):
Planescape: Torment - Best CRPG ever IMO.
Tyranny, Pillars of Eternity - Modern CRPGs by Obsidian, both amazing. I haven’t played Pillars of Eternity 2 yet.