Yeah, I haven't actually played Elden Ring but I have watched playthroughs of it and I watch the lore videos and it took me watching several lore videos before I even sort of understood what the Tarnished are. In Dark Souls you do get explained what you are and what your role in the story is. You're a chosen undead in the first game, part of some big prophecy. In the second you travelled to try and undo hollowing or something like that, and got caught up in some bigger thing. In the third you're a failed person who tried to link the shrine and you're being sent to kill people to link the fire now. And Sekiro is the one game of From's that I feel has a genuine narrative that moves forward as opposed to just stuff you do that happens+lots of lore.
I think in terms of mixing good environmental storytelling with actual narrative, the Pillars of Eternity games did a great job with those. There's an actual central narrative with events and stuff that you move along, but it's all set in a world that's very deep and has a lot of stuff going on.
Also for all the interesting lore present and the backstories at play, ultimately the only way you engage with it in FromSoft games is through combat and fighting. And that's why I've never found the idea of SoulsBourne games appealing, because combat's never the thing that's interesting to me about games. Like Congregants lore. For all that's interesting and cool there, ultimately what does it amount to? You killing them a bunch of times. In fact I've realized something as I type all this out. Blackheiffer noted a disdain for "exposition-style" storytelling, but exposition is a tool, and an important one. It's for when the audience really has to know something and there's just not a more elegant way to convey that knowledge. FromSoft games can get away with no exposition because all the player actually has to know is how to kill things. Every other piece of information in the game is secondary, pretty much.
