Actually, I'll just use this awkward analogy. If SotC was meant to be a simple and elegant car, they got the simple part down but botched hard on the elegance. It's probably got a gas leak or something. Maybe the breaks are cut.
What part of SotC do you think is lackluster?
I've already addressed this in about five different posts, but since you're so conveniently forgetful, and I'd rather not see the whole "hurr better just insult the opponent because I don't know what to say" act again, I'll summarize it; SotC is lackluster not because it's mechanically simple, but because the mechanics are utilized in a completely predictable and repetitive manner. You know you're going straight to the next boss after beating the last one, and you know you're gonna climb and stab it. It completely undermines the excellent visual design when these otherwise creative designs are reduced down to slightly varying climbing grounds. There's like, two? bosses that try to break the formula a bit, but for a game that's mechanically so simple, they needed to do much more than that. Compare that to a game like Journey, which is even more simple than SotC but it paces itself and varies its emotional impact on the player throughout the game effectively.
That doesn't make it a PvP game. Try again.
Did you actually not know that the game had PvP? That's hilarious.
This is the part where you forget difficulty versus effectiveness again. An effective strategy should never be artificially difficult. Dark Souls feels difficult because it punishes you for thinking. It would rather you pummel away at a boss over and over again. It's more like a memory game than an RPG.
Then it must not be very effective. Did you just admit to having been wrong this entire time?
Well, that's convenient. Also, stat checks are still not strategy. Please stop being Blizzard.