Also Austin's Sekiro take is boring.
It's really not that different from Souls games.
This feels like a much more boring take because for it to be true you would have to adopt a reductionist perspective of both games.
Such reductionist perspectives generally delivers really bad takes ala Horizon is just a bad version of Zelda Breath of the Wild.
By not acknowledging the differences of both and instead only squaring off any similarities I think you're also generally more likely to misidentify a given design intention of any given game. Such as basically devaluing Horizon's goal of placing more weight on delivering a narrative instead in that example you only measure it's worth by it's ability to deliver freedom of exploration to the player compared to botw.
Basically not sure how you would get more different or even interesting takes if you just operate under a perspective that seeks more to square off similarities than recognize differences between two given things. *shrug*
Of course I would disagree. Sekiro has been a very different experience for me than any of the Souls games. The same way that Hollow Knight or Nioh were different experiences to them despite adopting similar systems as frameworks.
Also playing Sekiro did nothing to sate my want for a Fromsoft Souls experience. I still want Bloodborne 2 pretty badly. While I enjoyed Sekiro the most out of anything this year so far I wouldn't be that wild personally about a sekiro 2.