Hmm not really like either of them...though there be dragons. It is a third-person RPG in the classic sense but DS games are just...different. I don't really know what else to liken them to.
The best way I can explain is they are the root of modern games, even though they are modern them selfs.
The game doesn't care for polishing like other RPG's, it cares for the level of detail in the story, even though it's totally absent. If you search for it, you can find a story much deeper than that in TES!
The level design is something they thrive on, you can see an open field, but to a skilled player, they will see multiple routes that are shortcuts, tricks and little hidden paths to get to an area quicker or give an advantage.
You might think "huh, if I jump off this ledge with a roll, I can reach that over there and skip that area entirely!"... This is intentional, 99% of the game is like that and it's all intentional.
Your hand is NOT held, there is no tutorial so to speak, it's all classic gaming, trial and error. Walk into a room and be beaten down by an enemy with a HUGE axe. You die, ah you think, 'he is slow', take off your gear and roll around him, kill him. It's all tactile, you don't simply kill enemies, you out smart them. The entire game is like this, you evolve as a player the further you play.
There is a real sense of achievement here. If you have patience and the will to explore and stick to it to find out just what is round the corner, what might happen if you kill that boss, where that path might lead despite it being covered in dragons... Then this game is for you.
Gameplay wise, it's basic yet incredibly in depth. It starts out as basic timing and learning the enemy movement and attacks. But then you start to get into effects, stuns, advanced timings for parrys etc etc.
It's just a indepth game without clean polish but stunning in it's own way.
Gameplay > Level design > Story
That's how it went I think it went in terms of priority with the devs.
