From Software Dark Souls 3

[Machocruz]

I'm tired of the size queening too, but I'm not going to worry until Devil May Cry type games start going open world.

 

[keppj0nes]

They need to stop "letting the player decide" the story. If this is the last game in the series, then they should elaborate on the curse a bit and I'm guessing give the player a way to end the curse forever. One of the problems with DS2 was that it was too vague and there wasn't anything drawing you in. You're playing through 90% of the game and you have no idea why you're doing anything.

Yup this is pretty much summed up by the awful introduction provided by the old hag in DS2. She basically mocks your cycle of dying and provides no support to the story or setting at all. Theres a good video on youtube that summarizes how vague and pointless DS2 is. I'm still surprised by the fervent supporters of the game, I feel like they're easily pleased by suits of armor and swords like holdin something shiny in front of a baby, and don't expect any kind of standard for even a small story component to their game. It really makes the introduction video for DS1 look like a masterpiece. You get an explanation for your setting and a set up for many of the major characters.

 

[Trodat]

I'm tired of the size queening too, but I'm not going to worry until Devil May Cry type games start going open world.

MGS went "open" world so... the end is nigh.

 

[Alonebadman]

The problem is DS1 honestly set up a different direction than what Shibuya and Tanimura created. DS2 seemed to be moving in the direction of "The Gods Went West" storyline. Instead, DS2 story jumped ahead eighty fucking million years later long after the events of DS1. I actually don't mind it but to me DS2 feels like it should have been the final story chronologically given how much time has passed between 1 and 2. DS1 was all about the Gods and their downfall.

DS2 was all about humanity, the rise of great kings and kingdoms and humanity's dominance of the world. I actually like certain parts of DS2 more than DS1. However, DS1 was more interconnected lore wise due to the majority of the lore characters having relationships/existing in the same time period. DS2 is all about these old human kings, the eternal cycle, and the curse itself. SOTFS did a nice job reconnecting the DLCs to the main game that made me appreciate the lore of DS2 more. Still, I'm hoping the next game goes back to Lordran or at least the continent its on and deal with elements of DS1's side of the universe. Especially if this is not the last Dark Souls.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

They need to stop "letting the player decide" the story. If this is the last game in the series, then they should elaborate on the curse a bit and I'm guessing give the player a way to end the curse forever. One of the problems with DS2 was that it was too vague and there wasn't anything drawing you in. You're playing through 90% of the game and you have no idea why you're doing anything.

I'm still surprised by the fervent supporters of the game, I feel like they're easily pleased by suits of armor and swords like holdin something shiny in front of a baby, and don't expect any kind of standard for even a small story component to their game.

I know this might be difficult to understand for someone who thinks DaS1 has anything resembling a good story, but some people care about superior core gameplay systems, much better balanced character stats, vastly better online (and in spite of SM too!), and generally a level of challenge that isn't immediately trivialized by overpowered backstabs, parries, poise, Endurance stacking, Pyromancy, and many others.

And again, it's not about the very basic and barely relevant stories in either game. DaS1 simply has a much better realized theme, which makes the player's actions meaningful despite them not knowing why exactly they're doing any particular thing. DaS2 arguably has a more ambitious and complex theme, but also failed at realizing it properly, which is why the game feels purposeless in spite of explaining itself much more clearly than DaS1 did.

Personally, while I enjoyed my first playthrough of the first game more, I spent more time playing the second, simply because the "unfair" enemy and encounter design with aggressive groups of enemies and the much-maligned homing overhead attacks actually force you to pay attention even on subsequent playthroughs. In the first game you have to go straight to SL1 or speed runs to squeeze any kind of challenge out of the PvE once you've finished it once.

 

[Murk]

They need to stop "letting the player decide" the story. If this is the last game in the series, then they should elaborate on the curse a bit and I'm guessing give the player a way to end the curse forever. One of the problems with DS2 was that it was too vague and there wasn't anything drawing you in. You're playing through 90% of the game and you have no idea why you're doing anything.

Well, like 3 of the characters say you'll do it all "without ever knowing why". Also, when you merge the crowns, you become immune to the curse effectively making you the one true king who defeated the curse. The alternate ending to 2 effectively sets you up as an independent who forgoes the cycle (of light -> dark -> light -> dark -> ad infinitum) and frames it as... something new, similar to the LoK games' ending I suppose.

They'll never give a clean cut story -- and if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to. People love fapping about how deep DS games are but their 'depth' is entirely because of the guesswork done by fans.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I'm tired of the size queening too, but I'm not going to worry until Devil May Cry type games start going open world.

MGS went "open" world so... the end is nigh.

MGS always had elements of open endedness. Especially 3 and 4. MGS5 going fully open world just feels like the natural progression of the series.

 

[bminorkey]

https://twitter.com/Peeverson/status/610952543007432704

DkS3 details: DkS1 movement/combat (same parries/backstabs). Kick is back. Summon signs. Soul Level matchmaking (dedicated servers).

(same parries/backstabs)

backstabs

Noooooooooo.

After Dark Souls 2 improving the backstab mechanics and Bloodborne fixing them, we're back to instant backstabs?

Bravo From! Great.

you know nothing

das1 mechanics are way better

do you even pvp faggot? what mechanics? rollbackstabs,chainbackstabs and rolling in 4 directions with lock on?

I pvp and I found the pvp in das2 way worse. people who think das1 pvp is bad haven't played it at its prime. there are actually many people in the das pvp community who think this. (and yes I recognize that the pvp is a BS-fest, it's still better. there's so many mechanics to master that the skill ceiling and the depth are just way higher, even if it's much more unforgiving for newbies)

if you are interested and aren't going to turn this into an i-get-the-last-word argument i will explain in more detail why i think das1 pvp was (when people actually played the game) superior.

just for fun though, I'd like to clarify that even the 3 mechanics you are talking about, which i fully admit are annoying and don't add much to pvp, are actually much more complex than you think at high levels of pvp. In order to roll backstab you have to bait an attack from your opponent and correctly predict when she will attack so you can take precise advantage of the i-frames. If your opponent recognizes you are going for a roll BS she can punish this in multiple different ways. about chainstabs: there are about 6 different types of chainstab techniques and they all account for a different set of possibilities your opponent might do on wakeup (she might back away, roll away, roll towards you, stay in place and take a hit to nullify the chance of a chainstab, guard with her shield, try to counterstab), and so chainstabbing is actually a mindgame between you and your opponent where you try to predict how she will respond on the wakeup. from the perspective of the one being stabbed, it actually takes a lot of guts and self control to not reflexively roll away from your opponent after the BS. about rolling: i'm not sure what you're referring to but almost all rolls in pvp will be unlocked, and you have full control of the roll direction as well as the direction of the rolling R1.

also das2 is not visceral enough to have garo pvp videos & i feel sorry for those who have not witnessed them since someone took them off youtube :-c

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I pvp and I found the pvp in das2 way worse. people who think das1 pvp is bad haven't played it at its prime. there are actually many people in the das pvp community who think this. (and yes I recognize that the pvp is a BS-fest, it's still better. there's so many mechanics to master that the skill ceiling and the depth are just way higher, even if it's much more unforgiving for newbies)

This argument for why DkS1 PvP beats DkS2 PvP is crap because depth has never been the selling point of the Souls games. Even played at a high level of competition and skill, they pale in comparison to most adversarial multiplayer games. They are relatively shallow and require loads of "house rules" or other sorts of contortions to shape them into something resembling a good competition. Variety, novelty, and accessibility are the driving force behind the popularity of Souls PvP, and DkS2 blows the first game out of the water on all counts.

There's a far greater variety of builds that are viable in DkS2 PvP, many of which owe their existence to the fortuitous nerfing that backstabs received; that one mechanic pretty much warped the entire meta. Entire classes of weapons simply were unusable in any "serious" PvP because every single one of their attacks could easily be punished with a roll-BS for massive damage. Magic, aside from Dark Bead, some Pyros, WoG, and buffs was utterly worthless...and even many of these were easily punished by roll-BS.

More variety in builds means more variety in opponents, translating into an experience in which a player is more likely to see many divergent lines of play as they enter into successive PvP encounters. It's a more novel, more fun game to play.

And DkS2 was just more accessible in general. Technically it does away with DkS1's horrible netcode that led to the dreaded "fake invasions", ensuring swifter matchmaking. No more will you wait 10 minutes for what could be only a 40 second fight against someone. And mechanically, most of the different flavors of PvP actually work this time around; good luck getting the Gravelord Servant covenant to work outside of events where Reddit/GameFAQs organize. And enjoy signing onto the Forest Hunters only to get ganked endlessly when, in terms of flavor, you should have home turf advantage (Bellbros spawning in quick succession makes the covenant much more fun to be in).

Moreover, skills from the PvE content transferred over far more readily to the PvP component in DkS2; there wasn't an enormous disconnect between the two modes of play. Somebody well versed in PvE can stand a chance in DkS2 PvP; the same can't be said about DkS1, where great PvE players would be absolutely wrecked because of how warped and deformed the PvP meta was.

The proof is in where the players are; people aren't playing much DkS1 anymore because it offers nothing over DkS2 to most people. Both games are relatively "casual" as far as adversarial action games go, and DkS2 is simply better produced. Who cares about minutiae like GFB cancels, the Great Scythe moveset, and whatnot when DkS2 PvP is superior all around?

 

[Cadmus]

What a vapid statement.

Brianna Wu is art because she evokes anger in me

 

[Talby]

Damn it, wrong thread.

 

[bminorkey]

I pvp and I found the pvp in das2 way worse. people who think das1 pvp is bad haven't played it at its prime. there are actually many people in the das pvp community who think this. (and yes I recognize that the pvp is a BS-fest, it's still better. there's so many mechanics to master that the skill ceiling and the depth are just way higher, even if it's much more unforgiving for newbies)

This argument for why DkS1 PvP beats DkS2 PvP is crap because depth has never been the selling point of the Souls games. Even played at a high level of competition and skill, they pale in comparison to most adversarial multiplayer games. They are relatively shallow and require loads of "house rules" or other sorts of contortions to shape them into something resembling a good competition. Variety, novelty, and accessibility are the driving force behind the popularity of Souls PvP, and DkS2 blows the first game out of the water on all counts.

There's a far greater variety of builds that are viable in DkS2 PvP, many of which owe their existence to the fortuitous nerfing that backstabs received; that one mechanic pretty much warped the entire meta. Entire classes of weapons simply were unusable in any "serious" PvP because every single one of their attacks could easily be punished with a roll-BS for massive damage. Magic, aside from Dark Bead, some Pyros, WoG, and buffs was utterly worthless...and even many of these were easily punished by roll-BS.

Actually I think your post pretty much sums it up: as with PvE, Das2 has more variety, Das1 has more depth (well there are more differences but it doesn't matter). However, it's dumb to say that because other games have more depth, players shouldn't look for depth in Das1 pvp. What if they enjoy the Souls series more than other action games and prefer depth over variety?

In Das1 I felt like I could punish my opponent for every bad move he makes, and I felt like I was actually winning duels (or 3v1 invasions, which by the way are completely ruined in Das2) due to skill and cleverness. There was endless room for improvement with new techniques being constantly discovered years after the game came out. In Das2 it's basically up to the build.

Personally I prefer competitive games, and I enjoyed Das1's combat system, so it was very nice to learn that it also has a competitive PvP community and a high skill ceiling. I was hoping for an equally deep combat system coming into Das2, but instead I got awkward movement, even more unpredictable lag, imprecise and very poorly detailed animations, bad iframes, and multiple mechanics in place to hinder invaders from having a competitive PvP experience. Now yes, it was more accessible, it had much much more content, and it was more balanced, but the shallow mechanics and lack of room for punishments made all that meaningless for me.

There's also one more point to make. Depth and variety aren't separate metrics. Das1 had fewer viable builds than Das2, but it still had good variety. And every one of those builds required studying new techniques and tactics, and sometimes learning a completely new playstyle. Dex Builds vs. Quality builds vs. Strength builds vs. Magic builds vs. Miracle builds are completely different worlds. The depth actually makes the game have more variety, because the builds feel so different to each other.

The proof is in where the players are; people aren't playing much DkS1 anymore because it offers nothing over DkS2 to most people. Both games are relatively "casual" as far as adversarial action games go, and DkS2 is simply better produced. Who cares about minutiae like GFB cancels, the Great Scythe moveset, and whatnot when DkS2 PvP is superior all around?

People aren't playing Das1 anymore because it came out in 2011 and Das2 came out in 2014 and has received regular content updates/patches. Even I got sick of Das after 4 years. A lot of the Das1 PvP community (mostly on Twitch and /dsg/) quit entirely because they couldn't stand Das2 pvp.

But even if DkS1 did offer nothing to most people, that's not a good argument for which game is better.

 

[Phage]

They should just remove the multiplayer from these games to get rid of the infestation of MLG bass cannon faggots and jolly cooperation tards. These games are best played solo with the occasional invasion from some guy with nothing better to do. Co-op makes them trivially easy and if you want PVP play a game where that shit is actually good like Street Fighter. Souls PVP has always been and always will be a broken mess in one way or another.

 

[Karellen]

So, considering the online component, I think that duelling in Dark Souls 2 is broadly speaking better, at least for people just starting out. I never played it at a particularly high level, but I really liked how it was something that more or less worked throughout the game - at Belfry Luna, for instance, I consistently ran into enemies at a roughly comparable level. The guard break was a good addition particularly for low-level fights, since it worked as a counter against turtling, and obviously backstabs weren't such a huge issue in DS2. I think that four ring slots and the greater valid equipment range made it more fun in that sense as well. That said, I played Dark Souls 2 for something like 150 hours when it was new, and I could count on one hand the times I was invaded while just going about my business in the gameworld. I did a whole bunch of co-op, too, and I can't even remember if any of the parties I was in were ever invaded outside of the Belfry and Rat areas. What happened to the sense of risk and paranoia? It felt almost entirely like an opt-in extra that you only ran into while visiting proscribed combat grounds, which were all right, but a bit lacking in personality.

Dark Souls 1 had some major balance issues, and it had a number of covenant online elements that really, really didn't work (although the same is true of DS2 as well, to an extent - have fun waiting to get summoned by the Guardian's Seal). But what made the Dark Souls 1 PvP for me wasn't the duelling (although that was fun every once in a while) but all the other stuff that happened in the online component - the weird cosplay builds out to prank people, the guys wanting to trade, the guys who wanted to practice fist fighting, the Chameleon trolls in Anor Londo and Darkroot Garden, the hide-and-seekers, the guys who were clearly online for the first time and just want to summon some aid and get on their knees and beg for mercy when they see your glorious form appear before them, even the gank squads. I mean, getting ganked in Undead Parish by some Darkwraith twink with a +5 Lightning Shotel and Mask of the Child is a Dark Souls rite of passage, but even beyond that, as a Forest Hunter I had a ton of fun just skilfully avoiding and running away from all those spawn-camping All-Havel trios, messing around with them and then Black Crystaling out just as they were about to get to me. Sure, at the end of the day it's 90% trolls trolling trolls, but it was rich with a kind of human element, which made it really unpredictable and even played into the black humour of the setting.

As for DS3, it's hard to say what they should do exactly. The problem with an emergent phenomenon like the DS1 online community is that it's really hard to plan out - to a large extent it's something that happened because the online component was such a mess that it left people to their own devices to figure out what to do with it. Even so, I think that the key thing is to design it in such a way that it causes different online modes to intersect - this goes mostly for co-op groups running into invaders a lot more, but honestly, I think that in moderation, strictly asymmetrical encounters where you run into groups or clearly more powerful characters are interesting too. Balance is nice for competitive games, but for many other types of games, a lack of balance causes friction and gives the game character. So I'm not too broken up about DS1-style backstabs being back - in normal PvE gameplay they were always more fun to pull off than the DS2 style, and while they somewhat made a mess of duels, I don't really mind if most of the stuff happening online is something other than duelling.

 

[Kanedias]

My problem with Dark Souls 1 PvP is backstabs. When you talk about enemy moves being easier to punish in that game, you're talking about backstabbing them. They're the bread and butter of Dark Souls 1 PvP. Most of this high skill ceiling you speak of is knowing all the backstab and counter-backstab tech. Most Dark Souls 1 PvP fans I have spoken to compare backstabs to command grabs in fighting games, but command grabs don't warp the entire meta in the same way backstabs did. I have 1560 hours in Dark Souls 1, and most of that has been playing PvP, but my favorite fights were always those that I fought with house rules, an agreement not to backstab fish each other.

Instant backstabs worked better in Demon's Souls, because rolling cancelled the backstab damage (no need for buggy tech to avoid the backstab) and the lack of poise removed Poise Backstabs, by far the worst type of backstab in the game. Speaking about that, I hope Dark Souls 3 has a good poise/hyper armor system, because I think having Dark Souls 1-style poise without toggle escaping would be a disaster.

Anyways it turns out there's an Anor Londo Giant Sentinel in one of the first Dark Souls III screenshots. I had not seen it

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

turns out there's an Anor Londo Giant Sentinel in one of the first Dark Souls III screenshots

There's an entire Anor Londo location in DS3. Was too lazy to post it here when the screenshots with comparisons were posted somewhere else.

 

[Ivan]

I don't get the hard-on for Anor Londo. It was one of my least favorite areas particularly b/c its enemies weren't very interesting (gargoyles, red smaller gargoyles, giant slow knights). At least they threw Gwyn's Knights at you at the castle.

Something I wish to see more of in Dark Souls 3 are optional tough encounters. Remember the Red Eye Knights in Demon Souls' 1-1? They were badass. You have to go out of your way to even agro the guy and if you're good enough you can take him down.

 

[UndetectedButthurt]

Dark Souls 1 PvP? Oh hey... I watched PhantomEWGF's videos too. I am a very competitive player xxxxxDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

 

[Talby]

 

[UndetectedButthurt]

http://www.vg247.com/2015/06/17/dar...ark-souls-2-says-miyazaki-about-games-design/

In the interview, translated by Gematsu, he says that in terms of design, it follows closely from Dark Souls 2, and that they kept “the handy things,” presumably referring to the second game’s improved menus and the like.

“For instance, we adopted the concept of rapid fire for the short bow, and the animation between rolling and walking has been smoothed out. I don’t think we’re going to employ the idea of agility, otherwise the action would be stressful until you raise your stats.”

R.I.P. agility R.I.P. hitbox meme

 

[dunno lah]

Remember the Red Eye Knights in Demon Souls' 1-1? They were badass. You have to go out of your way to even agro the guy and if you're good enough you can take him down.

Only viable melee tactic at the start is to backstab it until it dies.

 

[toro]

Release Date: 31/03/2016

Edit: Damn. This was a placeholder date. There is no official one.

Edit 2: DS1 + DS2 sold 8 millions times.

 

[Ivan]

a thought: do you guys see the Bloodborne DLC releasing before DaS 3? Furthermore, do you think they're going to have DLCs for the game?

 

[praetor]

yes and yes

one other thought that occurred while watching some BB and Das1, and replaying Das2: i hope there will be a very, very small amount of "bighuge bosses" (best would be none at all, but from the trailer there'll be at least one) because Souls is not the game for them. unless they're some kind of puzzle boss, but even then it's better if they stick to small-medium ones and leave the huge ones to Dragon's Dogma and DMC-likes, since hacking at ankles (sometimes with camera problems) huge but pushover bosses is just not fun at all

 

[Jick Magger]

Remember the Red Eye Knights in Demon Souls' 1-1? They were badass. You have to go out of your way to even agro the guy and if you're good enough you can take him down.

Only viable melee tactic at the start is to backstab it until it dies.

First time I played I abused the AI and avoided breaking the barrels on that long staircase in the tower nearby, which 9/10 would cause it to try and charge me without touching the barrels and cause it to fall to its death.