You're viewing a single thread.
Here's my experience:
Bloodborne: Get forced into playing a style I don't like because they took away shields and magic > get abducted to hard area > can't beat the boss or leave > quit playing
Elden: Play the character I want to > go where I want to > hit a hard boss > go somewhere else and come back to beat them when I'm stronger > finish the game and praise it as one of the best games ever made
Dark Souls 1 was near perfect in terms of game world. It operates like a Metroidvania. You have multiple options for where you can go from the start, but you have to complete certain tasks before being allowed into higher level areas. Basically all meat no filler (though some areas especially late game are pretty unfullfilling.)
DS2 was similar but the areas felt less connected or consistent. DS3, Bloodborne, and Sekiro were hallways by comparison. A lot of people feel like Elden Ring was an over correction. But I had fun with the open world.
Dark Souls 1 throws way too difficult of challenges at you literally right as the game starts.
DS1 shows you the idea that if something is actually too hard, you should probably go somewhere else.
Fighting the Asylum Demon with a broken sword is a nightmare, but there's an open gate in the arena you can run through. After the asylum, if you end up in the catacombs and the skeletons are too much, it's a sign that you're not ready for that area. Find another path. None of the challenges are that frustrating.
DS3 on the other hand drops Gundyr on you at the beginning of the game with no alternative, and he's harder than the Asylum Demon, and you don't get the plunging attack opportunity to take a quarter of his health out. You have to learn how to fight a proper boss right from the start.
However, both of them are trivial if you choose the firebombs as a starting gift.