I ended up going crazy on the keyboard, so this is a very long one LMAO:

Guilty Gear Strive is a game I used to think I hated and wasn't fit for me, but after coming back to it for a bit, I actually think it's cool!

Strive marries the high damage, over the top action and characters of previous games, with modern quality of life and polish, though it does tone some stuff down at the same time.

Gonna be using some fighting game lingo, so if you're confused by it, you might try googling "infil glossary" (https://glossary.infil.net/)

Easy stuff out of the way first:

I actually like a solid amount of the soundtrack. Call it a "guilty" pleasure if you want, but I don't mind leaving "Find your one way" on loop, or hearing some of the others.

Graphically: Compared to Xrd, I would say Strive is less sharp and less saturated, but has more detail... Both in animation and in still images. I like it, but I understand why you might prefer Xrd's aesthetic and animation. I think I do too.

Strive's tutorials and training mode functions are also excellent. The training mode functions a little behind the newer games, but not by much, and there should be mods out there to add stuff like frame data displays.

I have not tried the single player content much. It seems not worthwhile. I like the characters of Guilty Gear more for their aesthetic and interactions in fights... So I don't find myself caring much for what's happening to them in this chapter of the visual novel specifically. Not much else to do when I'm playing alone other than training and combo challenges.

Now on to gameplay (from my perspective as a not-so-good floor 10 Sol player):

Strive has slowed down air movement a bit. It's clear the game has added some lag at the start of a forward air dash, and probably shortened the travel distance a bit. The same for air momentum in general, like after dashing and doing a super jump.

Yet it's also allowed us to block out of dashes without FD, and also given us a dedicated Faultless Defense macro (not just one that presses two attack buttons for you) which makes FD braking more consistent and easy. The dash macro also benefits grounded dashing more than aerial dashing IMO.

When combined with more limited gatlings and attack cancel options, and all of the character being toned down in general, this leads to the game feeling more focused on whiff punishes, grounded footsies, and short stagger pressure. (Note: this has always been in Guilty Gear, I simply feel it's even more important now than it already was.)

When you don't have roman cancels to back up your neutral skips, you'll be relying on dash block/FD braking, and dashing into a neutral jump while you are distant from the opponent (holding FD on the way down) to gauge how your opponent keeps you away, checking any reactable whiffs using Far Slash, or using Sol's 6HS (Forward Heavy Slash).

Your best bet to catch jumping opponents is often to just stay grounded and hit them on the way down. You can't Air Dash from long range to intercept them, nor use it to jumpscare people when you play neutral.

Jumping defensively, and doing instant air dashes, is still an important part of the game though, you'll just be doing it more carefully, and it won't be as hard for opponents to catch.

Once you do get in, you can't go from your punches to your far slash or sweep, nor from kicks to far slash. your slash attacks in general also can't go into as many things... So the button you start your blockstring with is a more commital decision.

It also means you have less opportunities in your blockstring where you can threaten to stop and restart your pressure.

I think the nice way to put it is that Strive feels more "intentional". Character/Game tools can still have many uses, but it feels like those uses were all ones intended by developers, and there's less room to experiment and create your own new tricks. This is likely how the game has managed to feel a little more balanced, and polished... I do think we lost something along the way though, as previous Gear games felt like a canvas where the player could paint whatever they wanted. You might consider that a worthwhile sacrifice though depending on your preference.

Either way, the damage you can do is big, the roman cancels can do a lot for you, and offense is still the name of the game. in my opinion, character gimmicks are still present and unique, even if not as crazy as before. And the game still wears it's rock/metal influence on it's sleeve. A lot of what i associate Guilty Gear with is present. I consider Strive to still be a Guilty Gear game.

Dark Souls II's greatest strength and weakness is being a sequel to one of the most influential games of all time. The original Dark Souls is a classic that I've grown to respect more than love. I like Dark Souls. I love Dark Souls II.

Development of Dark Souls II was, to put it bluntly, hell. Like a lot of major projects in the video game industry, Dark Souls II suffered from mismanagement; it was a project that fell apart midway into its development, with key members of the team having to leave/join in order to salvage the follow-up to the 2011 hit.

If I'm being vague on the details, it's partially to save time, but mainly because it is hard to find details on what went down between the release of Dark Souls 1 and 2. All we know is what's available publicly, with the key detail that every Souls fan latches onto being this: Hidetaka Miyazaki, director of the original game, was not involved in Dark Souls II's development in any major capacity. The reason being he was making Bloodborne (his magnum opus imo).

I've spent two paragraphs describing all this history because it plays a key role into people's perception of Dark Souls II. In short, a little bit after release and for years afterwards, Dark Souls II was seen as the black sheep of the series (both the Souls series and the Soulsborne/Souls-like genre that spawned as a result of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls). Even before touching the game, people I follow on Twitter talk about Dark Souls II with little nuance: either it's an underrated gem that deserves its spot in the sunlight or a maligned mess that only contrarians would enjoy.

Well, one of my friends routinely calls me a hater for disliking a lot of mainstream art. Since I think Dark Souls II is a lot better than the first game, I guess I know where I stand in all this.

Yeah, the game isn't as polished as it could be. It can run like ass on an Xbox 360 sometimes, the loss of an interconnected map was something I initially missed, and the additions made as a result of the Scholar of the First Sin update are not that good (I think I like that DS2 originally had the one ending, and Vendrick is such a pain in the ass it dissuaded me from pursuing the alternate ending).

Where I disagree on are the biggest criticisms this game got at launch and over the years. "The game is sluggish and plays worse than the original" is only half-true. The game is a little bit worse to play and a little bit slower than Dark Souls 1. BUT, hear me out, the game compensates that (most of the time) by being a lot more balanced and fair compared to DS1. DS1 starts hard but turns into a cakewalk about halfway into the game, not to mention that its level design falls off a cliff towards the end. Dark Souls 2, for all its development troubles, sacrifices the non-linearity of Dark Souls 1 in order to provide the player with a much more intentional experience. Perhaps more out of necessity than original intent, Dark Souls II's linearity is not a fault but a strength. You know exactly what you need to do and where you need to go, with some areas providing just enough wiggle room to maintain the sense of exploration and wonder from the first game.

Where Dark Souls II shines the most in a way Dark Souls 1 did not is its narrative. Dark Souls 1 may be about the cycle of life and death, inherently interesting themes, but I wasn't motivated by the world itself. What few characters were present, with some exceptions, were whatever. As the game rolled credits, I was happy to be done with my journey, though any sense of closure or satisfaction was non-present. Mainly, who cares?

Dark Souls II is about answering that question. Why should I care about what's going on in the world? In Dark Souls 1, you were merely a vessel to be persuaded or manipulated by different forces in order to accomplish said forces objectives. In Dark Souls 2, the game is about you, the player, rather than the world and its few inhabitants.

Yet, I cared way more about the lives of these poor souls. Most characters you meet have their own little tales; they're trying their hardest to get by in this decaying husk of a kingdom. And as you progress you come to learn and/or understand that Dark Souls II is as much as a sequel to Dark Souls as it is a response to the reception of Dark Souls. For every right the game could've taken, it takes a left. The game knows that you've probably played the first game, so why not make things feel different? Why not get a little risky? A statement that's been lodged into my brain is this: a good game bounces away from the original work and produces something new while a bad sequel wallows in the original's shadow. I don't fully agree with the quote, especially when it applies to video games, but I believe it's apt for Dark Souls II.

I get that plenty of people still don't like Dark Souls II and that's fine. What I hope is that those people at least tried to meet the game on its own terms. Because I think Dark Souls II, even if you find it unenjoyable, is at least fascinating. And I also think it's one of the best games I've ever played. May update this later after I beat the DLC.

Well... I can see why people like this Game BUT It is not for me. I'm going back to Dark Souls. And will not buy Elden Ring 2 when it comes out.
The open world (as revolutionary as it may be) killed many things I loved in Dark Souls and Bloodborne.
All those Bosses where either too easy or some of them even are recycled. Almost every dungeon looks the same, every merchant looks the same, most of the bosses had identical move patterns.
Is it a bad game because of these things? No. But is it the masterpiece so many people think it is? Not for me.
DS always felt rewarding. In almost every way.
But Elden Ring does not. Al least not in every way.
And all those flaws have their origin in Elden Ring being this large open world. Quality over quantity would have helped this game in so many ways.