From Software Dark Souls 3

[sullynathan]

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"

It's actually not, at all.

 

[sullynathan]

It just feels like it's an utter rehash that doesn't bring anything good

it brought better bosses on average than the previous games and no bad levels

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.

It didn't. You should adjust to the game, you just came from Bloodborne after all. You have more than enough to tools to properly dodge and block every single enemies attack in this game.

 

[Hobo Elf]

it brought better bosses on average than the previous games and no bad levels

None of the levels feel memorable at all. Not only because everything looks and feels of rehashed art assets, but also because the level design itself is cheap trash. There are hardly any interesting environmental obstacles to overcome or explore, it feels like a straight up hack and slash, like From completely gave up on the level design. For example Catacombs of Carthus is an incredibly poor attempt at making an area equivalent to the original Catacombs from DaS1 and Tomb of Giants.

It didn't. You should adjust to the game, you just came from Bloodborne after all. You have more than enough to tools to properly dodge and block every single enemies attack in this game.

There's nothing to adjust to. I played Bloodborne nearly a year ago. I'm coming at this with a fresh mind set. I have no idea what having the tools to dodge and block has to do with anything that has been discussed here.

 

[Hyperion]

Coolest area in the game is Irithyll Dungeon by a pretty large margin. Stick with it until at least there and The Profaned Capital. Sounds like you might be close already. It's a nice throwback to Demon's Souls 3-1 with equally frustrating enemies.

Some of the Dragon areas are cool too, but the game gets unbearably boring by the time you reach them. The game has far too many large, open areas that require you to just zigzag through to ensure you get all the items.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I've killed the Deacon of the Deep, bum rushed my way into the dungeon within the Smoldering Lake and now I need to kill Wolnir. Hopefully the good parts are not far.

 

[sullynathan]

There's nothing to adjust to. I played Bloodborne nearly a year ago. I'm coming at this with a fresh mind set. I have no idea what having the tools to dodge and block has to do with anything that has been discussed here.

It should feel familiar because you just came from bloodborne. I'm saying that you have more than enough tools to deal with enemies with wide attacks and combos. Plus it's far better than exploiting circle strafing like dark souls, bad combat like demons souls or obscene amounts of tracking like souls 2.

None of the levels feel memorable at all. Not only because everything looks and feels of rehashed art assets, but also because the level design itself is cheap trash. There are hardly any interesting environmental obstacles to overcome or explore, it feels like a straight up hack and slash, like From completely gave up on the level design. For example Catacombs of Carthus is an incredibly poor attempt at making an area equivalent to the original Catacombs from DaS1 and Tomb of Giants

The best areas on the game are

• Cathedral of the Deep
• Profaned Capital / Irithyll Dungeon
• Grand Archives
• Anor Londo
• Lothric Castle

Catacombs isn't one of my favorites but it's a low level area. I especially liked how it connected from top to bottom in certain areas with smouldering lake and it also has the best large boss in the series, old demon king.

The catacombs had the giant arrow thing but it can be an annoyance to traverse the area while that thing keeps shooting at you.
You can tell by dark souls 2 that from ditched the idea of having many straight up environmental obstacles. That's why souls 2, 3 and bloodborne don't have many.

 

[Orma]

I've killed the Deacon of the Deep, bum rushed my way into the dungeon within the Smoldering Lake and now I need to kill Wolnir. Hopefully the good parts are not far.

There are none, every map is a boring straight corridor.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

DS3 actually has a pretty good endgame. Not amazing, but better than any other game in the series, especially when it comes to bosses. I find the final boss underwhelming, but a lot of people feel otherwise so ymmv.

In the more immediate future, Irithyll Dungeon is a good level, and you'll wish the Profane Capital was longer than it is.

 

[Silva]

Hobo Elf , the truth is that DS3 is pretty derivative, and no matter how competent some levels or bosses are, there is too little novelty here as the formula was milked dry. You have one burg level, a forest a swamp, a cathacombs, a church/parish, etc... all over again. Ie: Sister Elfriede would be AMAZING on a DS1 DLC but at this point Gehrman and Maria already hapenned so it's just ... good... a sober, tepid, forgetable good. Nothing will be OMGZ AMAZING!!!@Z# anymore at this point. For good and ill, Bloodborne was the true step forward in evolving the formula and exploring new environments and landscapes, it's the real sequel to Dark Souls 1. But it's also done.

That's the reason I hope From close up the soulsbourne series for good and try completely new waters.

*Edit*: this will sound herectial but Dark Souls 2, for all it's shitiness , was much more memorable for me than DS3.

 

[HoboForEternity]

this will sound herectial but Dark Souls 2, for all it's shitiness , was much more memorable for me than DS3.

i actually agree. the locations were more interesting thematically, while dark souls 3 seems like a reiteration of dark souls 1. hell they even have the same characters in some parts. shame about dark souls 2's shitty level design and enemy placements and some other shit

 

[Silva]

Curiously, the Kotaku review says exactly that:

[Gael's] fight is easily the highlight of the Ringed City for me, and so it is slightly disappointing that it’s a better version of fights we’ve already had. But this goes for the DLC and indeed Dark Souls 3 as a whole .... One of Dark Souls’ great themes was the futility of repetition, about how trying to keep something alive beyond its natural course could never end well. Each repetition grows fainter until, when we enter these worlds, scarcely anyone remembers where they began or why it matters. How ironic that, in finding mainstream success, Dark Souls proved its own point.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Hobo Elf , the truth is that DS3 is pretty derivative, and no matter how competent some levels or bosses are, there is too little novelty here as the formula was milked dry. You have one burg level, a forest a swamp, a cathacombs, a church/parish, etc... all over again. Ie: Sister Elfriede would be AMAZING on a DS1 DLC but at this point Gehrman and Maria already hapenned so it's just ... good... a sober, tepid, forgetable good. Nothing will be OMGZ AMAZING!!!@Z# anymore at this point. For good and ill, Bloodborne was the true step forward in evolving the formula and exploring new environments and landscapes, it's the real sequel to Dark Souls 1. But it's also done.

That's the reason I hope From close up the soulsbourne series for good and try completely new waters.

*Edit*: this will sound herectial but Dark Souls 2, for all it's shitiness , was much more memorable for me than DS3.

I finished Irithryll dungeon yesterday and got to the profaned capital bonfire. Profaned capital looks kinda neat at least, but the dungeon was pathetic. It was a diet version of Latria but lacked in atmosphere, the level was too short and there wasn't anything memorable happening in there. I, too, hope that From will permanently bury Souls and let it lie. The series is done. Time to move forward.

 

[cvv]

Hobo Elf , the truth is that DS3 is pretty derivative, and no matter how competent some levels or bosses are, there is too little novelty here as the formula was milked dry.

*Edit*: this will sound herectial but Dark Souls 2, for all it's shitiness , was much more memorable for me than DS3.

Absolutely agree with both.

Tho the Kotaku quote you posted is misleading. It suggests the decline is inevitable and I don't buy it. DS2 is not as brilliant as D1 but in its SotfS incarnation it's pretty damn close. And it absolutely doesn't feel like drab, disinterested, by-the-numbers milking of the Des/DS1 template. It still managed to be fresh, exciting and surprising. The respec, the NG+, the amount of viable builds, weapons and playstyles, dual wielding and many more brought so much innovation and ideas to the table. You play the game now it feels joyous, as if the devs knew they're not as good as Miyazaki and their level design sucks but tried to compensate with love, joy, passion and attention to detail.

DS3 is nothing like that. The body still moves fine but the Soul is gone. It feels like an outsource job of someone who didn't understand what makes Souls games what they are, who just followed the checklist and in the end slapped Miyazaki's name on the box and pushed it out the door. And whoever is not seeing that has never really "got" Souls games either.

 

[Damned Registrations]

DS3 wasn't THAT bad. It lacks the excellent interconnected world design and the atmosphere suffered a lot, but it also improves in several areas like the mechanics (DS1 and 2 poise were both retarded, Pyro was broken as fuck in 1, and tying magic to estus flasks was an excellent way of balancing it, along with some other stuff like 2H weapons breaking parries and other subtle things regarding weapon animations or casting) and DS3 easily has the most subtle easter egg type things in it, which is great for the lore junkies.

2 had the best DLC and NG+ mechanic, but honestly feels the most empty to me, it's just too gamey. Lava castles on top of windmills, ladder salesman to open stupid video game paths (or the retarded statues 'blocking' doorways), and a bunch of PvP things that felt way too shoehorned in, like the dwarf area or the bell towers. And gameplay wise neither 2 nor 3 gave me that excited feeling when I went exploring and found a secret. Wolf ring or a suit of stone plate armour or a lightning weapon were huge finds in DS1 that made you feel way more powerful right away. Every time I find a weapon in DS3 or 2 I just think 'well fuck, theres no way this is worth upgrading, it'll do like 5% better damage at the most and I only ever use 1 attack with my current weapon anyways so the moveset is irrelevant.'

Altogether though, any game in the series is still leagues above anything else close to the genre released in the last decade. DMC series is a paint by numbers joke by comparison.

 

[Raghar]

DS3 has very nice graphics.

This was my win on DS3. Nice detail on rags and shield.

Other than that. People wanted Bloodborne on PC, and they did kinda mix between Bloodborne and DS. I like that witch town with these people with forks.

I think DS3 problem was it was too condensed. You better scourged each corner for a weapon and stuff, without exploring further, or you might miss important stuff, perhaps even permanently. But DS combat felt more tactical. DS3 is too much flashy and weapons have too little impact on opponent. In DS standing under Manus and stabbing him into his anus by a bastard sword repeatedly until he gave up, was a viable option. I tried that on two brothers, and it was bad idea.

 

[Arnust]

I tried that on two brothers, and it was bad idea.

 

[Mozg]

DS1 and 2 poise were both retarded.

What's wrong with poise in 2? At least in the final SOTFS patch I feel like they did the mechanic right, maybe aside from the stone ring.

 

[cvv]

DS3 wasn't THAT bad. It lacks the excellent interconnected world design and the atmosphere suffered a lot, but it also improves in several areas like the mechanics (DS1 and 2 poise were both retarded, Pyro was broken as fuck in 1, and tying magic to estus flasks was an excellent way of balancing it, along with some other stuff like 2H weapons breaking parries and other subtle things regarding weapon animations or casting) and DS3 easily has the most subtle easter egg type things in it, which is great for the lore junkies.

2 had the best DLC and NG+ mechanic, but honestly feels the most empty to me, it's just too gamey.

We're worlds apart then. DS3 feels like skillfully animated soulless corpse.

Yes DS2 level design sucks, noone's disputing that. But DS3 having the best secrets/quirks/easter eggs? What. The only spark of the old playfulness I can think of is Siegfried hiding in a well outside the cathedral - and I'm being generous here. Other than that it's all outsourced keyboard jockeys somewhere in China robotically adding features from a "what a DS game should have" list supplied by From.

 

[Damned Registrations]

What about stuff like being able to trick the priest girl into thinking you're her knight by killing him and wearing his gauntlets, the different endings, or the clues about the identity of the hag she gives up depending on what ash you give her and how you talk to her (and the descriptions of the ashes themselves?) DS3 felt like it had the most thought put into the characters and their background to me, while DS2 felt like 'LOL, lets put lion headed guys in instead of snake headed guys!' Each character was basically disconnected from everything else and you got everything you needed to know about them by dragging them into a boss battle and getting lucky enough to not have them suicide in it.

A good example of the difference in the games and why I think DS3 did things better is what happens if you attack people. In DS2, you can go so far as to kill npcs with no real consequence, you can simply revive them for a pittance of souls at your convenience. In DS3, if you even hit the blacksmith, he'll refuse to do business with you for the rest of the game. He's the only way to upgrade your weapons, but they stuck with that reaction because it lends credibility to the world. The item hag isn't quite as vindictive, but she'll raise her prices for the rest of the game. She also comments on the ash you've given her if you got it by killing someone rather than finding it. The shape changing oily black monsters never appear in places where the fat cultist hags appear because they're exterminating them. It's that kind of attention to detail DS2 lacked. The secrets in DS2 were all crude things you couldn't possibly miss, like the lockstones, ladders and statues, or incredibly conspicuous explosive barrels at the top of staircases. Well, aside from that bizarre secret passage opened by hammering on the 'use' button against random walls for no reason.

 

[Socur Toxanarosa]

Absolutely agree with both.

Tho the Kotaku quote you posted is misleading. It suggests the decline is inevitable and I don't buy it. DS2 is not as brilliant as D1 but in its SotfS incarnation it's pretty damn close. And it absolutely doesn't feel like drab, disinterested, by-the-numbers milking of the Des/DS1 template. It still managed to be fresh, exciting and surprising. The respec, the NG+, the amount of viable builds, weapons and playstyles, dual wielding and many more brought so much innovation and ideas to the table. You play the game now it feels joyous, as if the devs knew they're not as good as Miyazaki and their level design sucks but tried to compensate with love, joy, passion and attention to detail.

DS3 is nothing like that. The body still moves fine but the Soul is gone. It feels like an outsource job of someone who didn't understand what makes Souls games what they are, who just followed the checklist and in the end slapped Miyazaki's name on the box and pushed it out the door. And whoever is not seeing that has never really "got" Souls games either.

Only disagree with DS2 being close to DS1 in any incarnation, but agree with the overall point. I already was thinking something wasn't quite right in the first third of the game, but the straight up copypasted boss gimmick from Demon's Souls was the point when it confirmed for me that they deliberately went 100% this path.

 

[Talby]

Andre in DS3 will talk to you again if you absolve your sins at the statue of Velka or whatever it is.

 

[Raghar]

Only disagree with DS2 being close to DS1 in any incarnation, but agree with the overall point. I already was thinking something wasn't quite right in the first third of the game, but the straight up copypasted boss gimmick from Demon's Souls was the point when it confirmed for me that they deliberately went 100% this path.

You know you can defeat the giant without that sword right? And if you don't let him kill "I'm in a pickle." in an accident, he would make it much more bearable.
Even when you do it alone, you can do it without that sword.

 

[Socur Toxanarosa]

You know you can defeat the giant without that sword right? And if you don't let him kill "I'm in a pickle." in an accident, he would make it much more bearable.
Even when you do it alone, you can do it without that sword.

So? You can kill the boss in DeS without the sword too, but that's not the point.

 

[Silva]

The point is that DeS, DaS and BB are the only masterpieces of the series. BUT a bold and inspiring shit like DaS2 sometimes is better than a competent but ultimately forgettable crap like DaS3, which makes the later the worst in the series.

 

[Socur Toxanarosa]

The point is that DeS, DaS and BB are the only masterpieces of the series. BUT a bold and inspiring shit like DaS2 sometimes is better than a competent but ultimately forgettable crap like DaS3, which makes the later the worst in the series.

While i don't think DS3 is "shit", more like extremely disappointing, i agree with you, you can see the Miyazaki pedigree in those 3, i don't really think he "directed" Dark Souls 3, probably had more of a supervisor role.