From Software Dark Souls 3

[praetor]

Why are the kingdoms from DS1 forgotten in DS2 but seem to reappear in DS3?

because DS3 is a soulless cashgrab done to fulfil a contract, an incoherent "greatest hits" that misses the mark more often than not, it's "DS: Fanservice edition". and your "why is stuff in the second instalment so different from the first and third" just proves once again my first point: you're just dumb

 

[Lithium Flower]

Why are the kingdoms from DS1 forgotten in DS2 but seem to reappear in DS3?

because DS3 is a soulless cashgrab done to fulfil a contract, an incoherent "greatest hits" that misses the mark more often than not, it's "DS: Fanservice edition". and your "why is stuff in the second instalment so different from the first and third" just proves once again my first point: you're just dumb

Hey, do you have a PC version of Dark Souls 3? If so, PM me with an Undead Matches password to fukin 1v1 me rite no faget. Let's see who is the deadliest autist.

 

[Anthedon]

Finished the DLC, the bosses aren't that twitchy after all. They just have too much HP (in the range of 50-75%). The fights themselves are enjoyable were it not for their length. Overall I'd say the Artorias DLC for DSI remains the best of the series.

 

[sullynathan]

I will never understand the people who try to uncover "secrets" and try to draw up absurd conclusions in FromSoft games. It's almost as if they have no experience of any fiction other than D&D or Elder Scrolls and the like, where the whole history of the fictional world is nicely enclosed in some player's handbook or encyclopaedia. Whether you like it or not, From Software have always been in the business of creating a mysterious setting with a minimal plot where the focus is on killing things and getting Souls whilst enjoying a melancholy or nightmarish atmosphere. Though it may be fun to think about, there is no grand truth or great secret to uncover. Miyazaki is a video-game designer; he is not a Ford Madox Ford who from the outset plans a tetralogy of novels over the span of almost a decade where all the characters and their paths and interactions are meticulously planned. These are action-RPGs and not works of literature. I don't understand what it is that people are expecting.

I don't think that any of these lore people really think there is a grand secret, pretty much all of them agree that "Time is distorted in lordran/Drangleic/Lothric", they just really like to make these videos and uncover the lore. On the other hand, there are few that I found that are really butthurt that some secrets were left without conclusion like Kaath and all that stuff. It's also made a good amount of people copious amounts of cash

Hey, do you have a PC version of Dark Souls 3? If so, PM me with an Undead Matches password to fukin 1v1 me rite no faget. Let's see who is the deadliest autist.

praetor you should do it

 

[Lithium Flower]

He has been uncooperative so far

Spoiler

 

[sullynathan]

I also challenged some people here, probably praetor to a PvP match in DS1 or DS3 a long time ago and no one accepted.

 

[praetor]

I also challenged some people here, probably praetor to a PvP match in DS1 or DS3 a long time ago and no one accepted.

you never did. but unlike you, Lithium Moron here is at least eloquent. don't get me wrong, you're both monumental morons

challenging me in a game that has awful multiplayer... lol. plane tickets or nothing, bitches

 

[sullynathan]

I also challenged some people here, probably praetor to a PvP match in DS1 or DS3 a long time ago and no one accepted.

you never did. but unlike you, Lithium Moron here is at least eloquent. don't get me wrong, you're both monumental morons

challenging me in a game that has awful multiplayer... lol. plane tickets or nothing, bitches

alright, i'll send you my address

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Finally got around to beating the Ringed City a few days ago. I really enjoyed Gael but as others pointed out Midir starts out as and impossibly daunting foe and then turns into a tedious grind to reduce his HP once you figure out his moveset.

Re: complaints about lack of closure and comparisons to DS2. I actually think that the series would be much more coherent as a duology, without DS2 (judging DS2 by what it is, not by the DS2 we never got due to the B-team and development problems). Both DS3 and DS2 explore similar ideas but DS3 shows whereas DS2 tells. The result is that DS2 not only is more clumsy in the way it delivers its ideas but it also cheapens and spoils DS3. A great example of this is the idea of cycles. In Dark Souls 3, the cyclical nature of the world is hinted at when we visit Untended Graves. The player finds themselves in a strange place until they realize that it is the Firelink Shrine from a different time, a different place where the fire faded until Ludleth willed himself lord. Afterwards Ludleth refers to both the player character and the firekeeper as "prisoners kept to link the fire", implying that we are stuck in one hell of a groundhog day. How does DS2 break the idea of the cycles to us? Well two or three characters tell us straight up that "countless kingdoms have fallen and risen on this very spot" and of course, the entirety of Aldia's character and his long winded monologues that are so out of place in a Dark Souls game.

Don't get me wrong, I actually really liked Aldia's "there is no path" monologue, but once again 3 shows us the folly of light and dark and sets up a way to bypass the two and enter a new, uncertain age (through the death of fire or usurpation of fire endings, depending on your interpretation) without resorting to walls of text. Instead it shows the stagnation of order and the dying age of fire and effectively builds on the ideas from the first game, for instance by showing us the dying Demon race and how each time the fire is linked the world becomes more corrupt.

Characters in Dark Souls are best viewed as concepts or ideas they represent. Gael is DS3's "Aldia monologue" because he represents the absurdity and drive of man - he is a fairly minor character who takes up a daunting task which he knows full well will destroy or corrupt him ("And yet, we seek it, insatiably...such is our fate.") Patches is a representation of humanity in general: low, wretched, and greedy, yet somehow persevering through every hardship in its way. The despairing yet tenacious nature of men is shown in Rosaria's fingers, the pilgrims of Londor, and the Dragon worshipers, each attempting to be reborn into something more permanent, something that would allow them to transcend the cycles. Oceiros is obsession, Prince Lothric is resignation, the locust preachers are seduction to nihilism. While DS1 focused on Lords, in DS3 the lords/gods are dead, leaving only men and their follies.

Also I think that the painting burning/creation is a nice allegory for the development of the game. Miyazaki chose to kill the series at the 3rd game, thus "burning" the painting before the "rot" sets in and giving the series a dignified death as opposed to milking the franchise. Hopefully his new paintings are not going to be all console exclusives (haha, who am I kidding).

You're correct in the sense that DS2 actually has a different set of core themes than its predecessor, and would probably be better off ditching the DS1 connection completely; while DS3 is simply a regurgitation of DS1.

The reason you misinterpret DS2 is, ironically, that you're resolved to see it as part of the trilogy, and concerned with the same subject matter. It's not. Even the intro cinematics bear witness to this - 1 and 3 describe the history of the setting, and indeed, the cycle of light and dark; 2, on the other hand, is all about your character and his condition. The fact that DS2 characters talk about kingdoms rising and falling isn't because the game is interested in the cyclic metaphysics per se, but because it mirrors the affliction of hollowing, of losing one's memory and identity to the curse. As such, DS2 is about finding permanence and value in a world of constant aimless change.

On a similar note, the point of Aldia's monologues isn't to showcase the absurdity and drive of man, but rather to point out that the cycle renders all actions and pursuits meaningless. A beautiful lie, he calls it. Aldia would likely see Gael as a pitiful fool, but would approve of the Usurpation ending to DS3, as he's all for destroying the established order of the world.

In the end, these ideas sort of come together in that, for the DS2 hero, saving himself and breaking the curse is equivalent to taking responsibility for the world, becoming a true monarch, and leading towards some unknown future beyond the cycle.

The games also have a very different atmosphere, where DS3 is DS1 made more extreme, with a definite "end times" vibe and the state of the world truly and irrevocably fucked. Meanwhile, DS2 is nostalgic and dreamlike, with an almost gentle sense of irreparable loss. That's why you find Vendrick to be a hollowed husk, rather than a mighty badass ala Pontiff Sulyvahn or Yhorm.

Needless to say, I generally disagree that DS3 builds on DS1 in any real way; rather, it repeats the same ideas in a different coat of paint. There are some ideas in there that could've been developed into something new, but they're overshadowed by all the mindless regurgitation.

 

[Hyperion]

in a different coat of paint

 

[Lithium Flower]

You're correct in the sense that DS2 actually has a different set of core themes than its predecessor, and would probably be better off ditching the DS1 connection completely; while DS3 is simply a regurgitation of DS1.

The reason you misinterpret DS2 is, ironically, that you're resolved to see it as part of the trilogy, and concerned with the same subject matter.

I agree that DS2 would be better as a standalone game, divorced from the rest of the trilogy. I actually haven't made many qualitative statements about the game outside of it being less coherent when viewed as a part of the series (though I guess some people were too triggered to notice). DS2 is a fine game with a different theme and direction than the rest of the series.

I'm not -resolved- to see DS2 as anything, this is how From/NB positioned the game. If this was a discussion purely about DS2, without considering the rest of the series, I would probably have more good things to say about it.

It's not. Even the intro cinematics bear witness to this - 1 and 3 describe the history of the setting, and indeed, the cycle of light and dark; 2, on the other hand, is all about your character and his condition. The fact that DS2 characters talk about kingdoms rising and falling isn't because the game is interested in the cyclic metaphysics per se, but because it mirrors the affliction of hollowing, of losing one's memory and identity to the curse. As such, DS2 is about finding permanence and value in a world of constant aimless change.

On a similar note, the point of Aldia's monologues isn't to showcase the absurdity and drive of man, but rather to point out that the cycle renders all actions and pursuits meaningless. A beautiful lie, he calls it. Aldia would likely see Gael as a pitiful fool, but would approve of the Usurpation ending to DS3, as he's all for destroying the established order of the world.

In the end, these ideas sort of come together in that, for the DS2 hero, saving himself and breaking the curse is equivalent to taking responsibility for the world, becoming a true monarch, and leading towards some unknown future beyond the cycle.

The ultimate meaninglessness of achievement and the insatiable yet too often fruitless drive to overcome it is the absurd drive of man I meant. Both angles fit into the same broader existential theme. Gael is, of course, a pitiful fool - in the sense that all of us are. Gael does not push the same ideas as Aldia does directly, rather I think his storyline is supposed to provoke the contemplation of similar themes in the player. Similarly, there are many parallels between the Usurpation of Fire ending (and/or the End of Fire ending, depending on if you interpret that ending as breaking the cycle; I personally do not) and the DS2 true monarch ending, with the main character ushering in a new, uncertain age against all odds.

The games also have a very different atmosphere, where DS3 is DS1 made more extreme, with a definite "end times" vibe and the state of the world truly and irrevocably fucked. Meanwhile, DS2 is nostalgic and dreamlike, with an almost gentle sense of irreparable loss. That's why you find Vendrick to be a hollowed husk, rather than a mighty badass ala Pontiff Sulyvahn or Yhorm.

Again, completely agree that the two games have obvious thematic differences. Thank you for reminding me about Vendrick. One of the most powerful moments in the second game was seeing that wretched, hollow king, calling out for his dead guardsman in despair. I would argue that Yhorm, Oceiros, and even the Twin Princes are just as tragic, albeit in different ways.

As for DS3 being a rehash of the original story, I guess we can agree to disagree. Great post, though

 

[DragoFireheart]

I sorta want to buy the PS4 version of Dark Souls 2 and play it after reading some of these posts.

DS3 just... meh. I can't explain it, but it didn't give me the same level of excitement that DS1/DeS/DS2 gave me.

For all of it's flaws I still enjoyed DS2.

Course all of them pale in comparison to Bloodborne.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Finally bought DaS3 now that the GOTY version is out. I'm going to finish Persona 5 first before I have time to get into this though. Kinda excited that MP is back in. Theoretically I like Vancian more than MP, but the way it was handled in the Souls games was just bad.

 

[Fabulous Muscles]

Having MP is kinda good for casters, because limited casts were awfully executed in DS1 and DS2 (mostly the second one where you had to pump a ridiculous amount of stats into Attunement and grind Freya forever to get any good spells)
Except now it leaves all non-casters in a weird situation where you'll never have enough FP for anything, because raising attunement to get more FP is a dumb idea. I just want to do cool tricks with my big-ass weapons man.

 

[bataille]

Jeez, I never realized how DS3 spoiled me senseless in the way of clothes until I replayed DS2. The difference is like that of a third year design student (in DS2) and a person who's finished college and got a few years of practice under their belt. Some pretty shy and uncertain people seem to have designed all those mass-produced-looking, accessory-lacking (and in a few cases, brimming with them), edgy hunks of metal (with obligatory small patches of cloth disguising the fact that the artist's brush is quite timid indeed). The more confident works are probably the astrologist's set, the forlorn set (with a hood as its head piece, of course, ugh), the black leather set, the alva's set (bar its awful helmet), the lion mage's set and the gravewarden's set. There is a ton more of less than stellar (and still nice) sets, but the point I'm trying to make is that even the worst DS3 sets are on par with mediocre DS2 clothes. I mean, I'm quite sure that From have the same designers as they did back then, and it shows: the new (DS3), remixed versions of old (DS1 and DS2) sets are much more mature and confident in nature, barely anything lackluster, some of them look like they've been perfected.

In my opinion, an interesting aspect to pay attention to. Pretty exciting watching the design team grow and develop their own, effortless-looking style (when in reality, it's anything but).

 

[Hyperion]

Odd, I thought heavy armor looked like shit in DS3. It was almost impossible to wear it without looking like the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Medium leggings with heavy armor made you look like a barrel-chested old man who has been struggling with COPD for a decade.

 

[praetor]

Odd, I thought heavy armor looked like shit in DS3. It was almost impossible to wear it without looking like the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Trying to wear medium leggings with heavy armor made you look like a barrel-chested old man who has been struggling with COPD for a decade.

yup. not to mention the shitfuckery they did with helmets which are worn about 20cm too high so you always have your neck exposed

 

[bataille]

Odd, I thought heavy armor looked like shit in DS3. It was almost impossible to wear it without looking like the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man.

You're completely right, that aspect is more clear in DS2 than in DS3. I was talking more about intricacy of the designs, and how the sets in DS3 convey the timelessness of their owners in more vivid details, for example. DS2 sets are more natural, they occupy more historical space, while DS3 aimed to fill its design space. That's exactly the difference between the less experienced designer and the more experienced one. The former creates reality, the latter paints over the reality they've already created in the past.

 

[Lithium Flower]

Odd, I thought heavy armor looked like shit in DS3. It was almost impossible to wear it without looking like the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Medium leggings with heavy armor made you look like a barrel-chested old man who has been struggling with COPD for a decade.

I read that the reason for this and the helmet issue brought up by my internet boyfriend praetor above was due to the fact that armour used to be layered around your character model in DS1 (and 2 IIRC) whereas in DS3 it replaces parts of your character model outright. This is also why you can't see your eyes in most closed helmets, only grim darkness. The obvious exception to this are hats and open-faced helmets. Supposedly DS3's approach to armour models was done for the sake of optimization, but it is a disappointing step backwards regardless.

On the other hand, I found DS2 to be slightly lacking aesthetically. I have always appreciated that enemies near the begging of DS1/DS3 had historically-inspired armour sets and that things got more animu as you explored more exotic lands, so I was disappointed by the outlandish designs of royal soldiers and turtlebros from the forest of fallen giants in DS2. In DS2's defense, the same level has believable-looking infantrymen clad in gambesons, which is p. cool.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Enemies being faster and more aggressive vs casting being slower until you get dex up really makes casting a bit rougher in the beginning. Vordt took me a few tries before I could beat him. So far I think the game is fine, I guess. I can see the Bloodborne influences that lots of people were complaining about when the game came out, but I don't think they are so overpowering. Still feels like Dark Souls to me, albeit on a medium dosage of steroids.

 

[Arnust]

Enemies being faster and more aggressive vs casting being slower until you get dex up really makes casting a bit rougher in the beginning. Vordt took me a few tries before I could beat him. So far I think the game is fine, I guess. I can see the Bloodborne influences that lots of people were complaining about when the game came out, but I don't think they are so overpowering. Still feels like Dark Souls to me, albeit on a medium dosage of steroids.

Let's see if you can keep that feeling when you're done

 

[Hobo Elf]

Can't say I'm too impressed with what I've seen so far. Many bosses and enemies that fall into the "difficult" category are nearly all the same: they have some move that covers an incredible amount of range, their attacks have an arc of at least 180° and they do a shitload of damage, possibly have long comboes as well. It just feels sort of tiresome, like From is really scraping the barrel here since they aren't sure how else they can ramp up the difficulty due to the flawed combat system. I'm not even sure if I'll bother to finish this game in its entirety and it's probably going to be the last Souls game I buy from From. It's not necessarily a worse game than the previous entries, but it just feels like the milking of a franchise that has overstayed its welcome at this point. And I don't know why but the armor models look like dogshit in this game compared to the previous ones. Somehow everything makes my character look bulky / chubby.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS BOUGHT THIS LAST MONTH JYST STATED PLAYING

TONS OF FUN

COMBAT DOES FEEL WAY DIFFERINT

SEEMS LIKE LESS SKILL MORE STAB AND PRAY CAUSE SOMETIMES BEST STRATEGY IS JUST SAY FUCK IT AND BERSERKER ATTACK A MOTHERFUCKSF

 

[praetor]

yes, combat is much shallower. it's basically "spam roll because it's cheap and powerful to get away from attack, wait for enemy R1 spam to finish, spam R1 until enemy is dead". it's much much worse than DS1's "circle-strafe and backstab 50% of the enemies"

 

[Hobo Elf]

The more I play the worse the game feels. Not even trying to hate it, I really wanted to get sucked into Souls again, but this game repels me. Got into the Smoldering Lake and just lol the look of the place feels like they rehashed the resources straight outta Bloodborne's chalice dungeons. And that's the problem with the game in a nut shell. It just feels like it's an utter rehash that doesn't bring anything good and new to the table. It tries to fix the circle strafing combat but in doing so they opened up a pandora's box and somehow come out with even worse combat like praetor above said.