[Megathread] Dark Souls 3

[Verdugo]

Indeed ! I am pretty sure the DLCS will improve and fix some of the base game problems just like how the DLCS in DS2 were super awesome way much better than the main game.

Maybe we can get poise DLC even.

[Velshin]

Maybe we can get poise DLC even.

Haha yeah I agree that poise is totally broken in DS3 :P

I think the DLC most likely will be about Londor and the three sisters of the sable church (One of them is Yuria the npc you find in Firelink Shrine), and maybe something about the queen of Lothric since we already meet the king and his children but not the queen herself.

[ThatsOurEric]

So yeah guys which area do you think was the worst?

I have yet to play DS3, so my only experience thus far is in DS1 & 2.

In DS1, without question, its Blight Town. Dark Souls as a series is many things, a platformer
is not one of them. Every section in the Soulsborne series that was platforming pisses me off
more than anything, because its so goddamn obvious that the game was not designed for this
kind of thing. An entire level dedicated to it? Oh fuck the fuck off with that nonsense. Everything
about it is terrible.

DS2 is difficult, as several areas gave me trouble. The longest one was Frozen Eleum Loyce.
It took my HOURS to beat that goddamn stage. The enemies are all clumped together and they
were way too strong (especially a certain human NPC invader, which was BULLSHIT levels of
cheap and unfair). I had to eventually ask for help from others to help me with this area, but
good god almighty, fuck that area.

[Velshin]

I have yet to play DS3, so my only experience thus far is in DS1 & 2.

In DS1, without question, its Blight Town. Dark Souls as a series is many things, a platformer
is not one of them. Every section in the Soulsborne series that was platforming pisses me off
more than anything, because its so goddamn obvious that the game was not designed for this
kind of thing. An entire level dedicated to it? Oh fuck the fuck off with that nonsense. Everything
about it is terrible.

DS2 is difficult, as several areas gave me trouble. The longest one was Frozen Eleum Loyce.
It took my HOURS to beat that goddamn stage. The enemies are all clumped together and they
were way too strong (especially a certain human NPC invader, which was BULLSHIT levels of
cheap and unfair). I had to eventually ask for help from others to help me with this area, but
good god almighty, fuck that area.

Oh yeah the DLCS of DS2 is definitely a step up in difficulty of the game. I remember I was facerolling everything in the main game until I fought Fume knight that bastard is no joke in NG+7 he was definitely the hardest boss in DS2 imo.

[Djriff]

I don't think it's a great game. It's a decent game, and maybe even good, but especially after having months to observe and analyze it, DS3 comes across as nothing short of half-assed compared to Bloodborne, DS1, and even DS2. Maybe that's the problem with setting the bar so high with previous titles.

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. I do have to say that the PvP system is leaps and bounds better than it use to be. Although I really wish they would have kept the bloodborne summoning system. Much prefer it to summon signs.

[Baconeggcheese]

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. I do have to say that the PvP system is leaps and bounds better than it use to be. Although I really wish they would have kept the bloodborne summoning system. Much prefer it to summon signs.

I'm trying to imagine that when the pvp system in ds3 is... archaic at best.

Definitely a fun game, though they cut corners all over the place and use it as selling points. Though that seems to just be a feature of the series.

[Poppincaps]

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. I do have to say that the PvP system is leaps and bounds better than it use to be. Although I really wish they would have kept the bloodborne summoning system. Much prefer it to summon signs.

Leaps and bounds better than DS1? Sure. Leaps and bounds better than DS2? Not even close.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to imagine that when the pvp system in ds3 is... archaic at best.

Definitely a fun game, though they cut corners all over the place and use it as selling points. Though that seems to just be a feature of the series.

How do they "cut corners?"

[Baconeggcheese]

How do they "cut corners?"

The story basically doesn't exist, they just put bits and pieces and leave you to fill in the gaps. Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in. The pvp system is another obvious one, where the one they have is again archaic at best. Not doing anything besides scaling mob hp up on repeat playthroughs is again cutting corners. Off the top of my head, I'm sure if one sat here and analyzed every bit of the game one could think of more... but at the end of the day its not exactly a fully fleshed out experience.

They basically just made the core of the game and left it at that. Which is fine because the core of the game (the combat) is a lot of fun and all it really needs, but it could be a much stronger experience. Really if it weren't one of the only games on the market that offers some semblance of difficulty it'd be... lacking.

[Djriff]

That's been how the souls series has told it's story though. I thought DS3 was actually a lot more clear than previous iterations.

How is the PvP system archaic? If it works and isn't broken don't fix it IMO.

I wasn't a huge fan of DS2 pvp personally.

[Velshin]

The story basically doesn't exist, they just put bits and pieces and leave you to fill in the gaps. Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in. The pvp system is another obvious one, where the one they have is again archaic at best. Not doing anything besides scaling mob hp up on repeat playthroughs is again cutting corners. Off the top of my head, I'm sure if one sat here and analyzed every bit of the game one could think of more... but at the end of the day its not exactly a fully fleshed out experience.

They basically just made the core of the game and left it at that. Which is fine because the core of the game (the combat) is a lot of fun and all it really needs, but it could be a much stronger experience. Really if it weren't one of the only games on the market that offers some semblance of difficulty it'd be... lacking.

The storytelling is always been like this man in the Souls series it's always been vague like that this is in fact what I love and I am sure a lot of players love it too that they don't spoon feed you the storyline or treat you the story in a silver plate man it's always been like that. Demon's Souls is the most informative compare to the other Souls series the rest of the series are always been super vague and let you discover the story by yourself from reading bits of the items descriptions and some npcs from time to time and that's it.

[Baconeggcheese]

@Velshin hence me saying "though they cut corners all over the place and use it as selling points" and "Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in"

[Tech614]

Might be worst in the series, but still a great game. Sure Farron Keep was annoying, but it's a small part of them game.

Good game mechanically, definitely not a great game. The lore is lacking and mostly fan service, and way too many assets copy pasted right out of bloodborne for me to ever consider it great.

[Velshin]

@Velshin hence me saying "though they cut corners all over the place and use it as selling points" and "Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in"

Yeah I know but sorry to ask you this are you new to the souls series? because if you are? then I don't blame you at all for finding the storytelling not satisfying or not enough or too vague for your taste I completely understand but if you are not new to the souls series and played all of them then you should get used to it by now. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Good game mechanically, definitely not a great game. The lore is lacking and mostly fan service, and way too many assets copy pasted right out of bloodborne for me to ever consider it great.

Lorewise Dark Souls storytelling always been very hidden and vague in fact DS3 is more informative than DS1 in my opinion hell finally we meet the elder son of Gwyn the one we heard banished since DS1 and we thought and speculate that it was Solaire of Astora.

[RobertoCarlos]

@Velshin hence me saying "though they cut corners all over the place and use it as selling points" and "Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in"

I would argue creating story and backgrounds for each character and leaving areas blank for people to put their own spin on it while still providing enough info to paint a picture is harder than just saying the story. You have to do the work anyway creating the world and their backgrounds even if you dont spell out every word on the page otherwise they will be weak characters.

[Poppincaps]

The story basically doesn't exist, they just put bits and pieces and leave you to fill in the gaps. Which is fun for the audience who's into that, but its absolutely a way for them to reduce the work they have to put in. The pvp system is another obvious one, where the one they have is again archaic at best. Not doing anything besides scaling mob hp up on repeat playthroughs is again cutting corners. Off the top of my head, I'm sure if one sat here and analyzed every bit of the game one could think of more... but at the end of the day its not exactly a fully fleshed out experience.

They basically just made the core of the game and left it at that. Which is fine because the core of the game (the combat) is a lot of fun and all it really needs, but it could be a much stronger experience. Really if it weren't one of the only games on the market that offers some semblance of difficulty it'd be... lacking.

It's not cutting corners. Miyazaki said he used to read Western books when he was younger but he wasn't completely fluent so he'd understand parts of it and have to imagine and fill in the rest. That's why Dark Souls is cryptic with enough information to keep you enticed but not enough that you get the full story. You have to speculate. You have to fill in the blanks yourself.

How is the pvp archaic? It's a completely new form of immersive multiplayer where players can enter and leave your world seamlessly. You don't have to enter a lobby or que for matchmaking. It just happens fluidly. Same with messages and Co Op. The matchmaking is baked into the world in a way that feels natural. It's quite ingenious really.

As for the difficulty... most games don't even feature a NG+ mode. Dark Souls at least includes new items and spells on subsequent playthroughs and DS2 does more than just simply scale the HP and damage of mobs.

Even if there were a million other games like it were on the market, Dark Souls would still likely be at the top. Even without subsequent playthroughs you're still looking at a 30+ hour deep Action RPG that features the best combat in the genre. Play a game like Lords of the Fallen that tries to imitate Dark Souls and you'll see just how masterful From Software truly is.

- - - Updated - - -

Good game mechanically, definitely not a great game. The lore is lacking and mostly fan service, and way too many assets copy pasted right out of bloodborne for me to ever consider it great.

This complaint is ridiculous. It's like when people got pissed when they found out the lock picking sound effect in Fallout 4 is the same as the one in Skyrim. If you have an asset that works and isn't outdated (which Bloodborne's aren't since it's a year old game) then why would you go to the trouble of creating completely new assets just because when it's going to look similar anyways?

If I made a rock a year ago and I need to place a rock in my new game, then I'm not going to make another rock. I'm just going to use the rock I already created, because it works. I might put different textures on it depending on the environment the rock is going to be placed in, but it's not lazy design to use assets you've already used before. It's efficient.

What would be lazy is designing an environment so that you can reuse a bunch of assets.

[Baconeggcheese]

It's not cutting corners. Miyazaki said he used to read Western books when he was younger but he wasn't completely fluent so he'd understand parts of it and have to imagine and fill in the rest. That's why Dark Souls is cryptic with enough information to keep you enticed but not enough that you get the full story. You have to speculate. You have to fill in the blanks yourself.

Which is a really convenient way to sell people on having to create minimal story and the content that would have come with that.

As much as I love monster hunter you don't see people praising its lack of story in basically everything except 4u. The games are very similar in that regard, except in dark souls its sold as a feature where in MH its just forgiven because people enjoy the gameplay which is what matters at the end of the day. But both are still very much just cutting corners in that regard.

What kept me playing the game had nothing to do with the story, which was again virtually non-existent. It was entirely the combat and exploration. Basically the most fundamental things that drive you through an rpg, just with barely any semblance of why you're doing any of it.

How is the pvp archaic? It's a completely new form of immersive multiplayer where players can enter and leave your world seamlessly. You don't have to enter a lobby or que for matchmaking. It just happens fluidly. Same with messages and Co Op. The matchmaking is baked into the world in a way that feels natural. It's quite ingenious really.

Because its design / systems are dated as all hell. Hence archaic.

If I may be hyperbolic, its honestly the shittiest most contrived pvp system I've ever seen. People having separate instances and them creating a way to allow people to join your instance isn't exactly new or revolutionary tech. And the entire pvp (and grouping for that matter) experience feels very shoehorned into what is very clearly a single player game.

As for the difficulty... most games don't even feature a NG+ mode. Dark Souls at least includes new items and spells on subsequent playthroughs and DS2 does more than just simply scale the HP and damage of mobs.

ARPG's tend to do things to create replay ability, that's pretty standard for the genre unless its really story heavy and even then they'll just have manual difficulties and achievement hunting etc etc.

I'm fully aware they did it in ds2, which is the point. It wasn't in ds3, hence them cutting corners. If anything they should have been expanding on the game in that regard, especially with it supposedly being the last installment in the series. Instead they cut corners and just scaled the numbers.

Even if there were a million other games like it were on the market, Dark Souls would still likely be at the top. Even without subsequent playthroughs you're still looking at a 30+ hour deep Action RPG that features the best combat in the genre. Play a game like Lords of the Fallen that tries to imitate Dark Souls and you'll see just how masterful From Software truly is.

That's debatable, I mean the combat's definitely fun and thee major selling point, but for instance I found vindictus's combat to be flat out superior / more engaging than dark souls (unfortunately nexon). Not even to mention significantly more challenging.

Try and imagine a world where dark souls isn't famous for its difficulty because other games have similar difficulty / lack of hand holding or it itself didn't have its difficulty. What does it really have going for it? The graphics are ok, the animations are pretty awkward, the combats just standard vanilla arpg, the story is basically non-existent, the replayability is weak, the pvp is... well you know how I feel about that. If it weren't a somewhat difficult game at a time where the industry swore off any tiny amount of difficulty the game likely would have never gotten its cult following in the first place.

Despite all my shitting on it I still think its a fun game that I'll definitely play through again when I've had enough time to disconnect from my initial experience. The game has its fundamentals down, which is unfortunately something other games tend to forgo in favor of fluff. But that doesn't mean the game doesn't have its flaws.

[PizzaSHARK]

The main problem that some people compare it to previous games which causing the issues it seems hell I am not saying DS3 is perfect far from it. But usually the main that problem some players compare it with their first souls game experience. For example, like some people played Bloodborne as their first souls game then played DS3 next they will feel disappointed because it didn't get that same feel which natural nothing will bring back that feeling the feeling of first soul game you ever played where you didn't have any experience on how the game mechanics work and stuff like that.

A lot of players who are playing DS3 after playing so many games of the souls series they got familiar with the system and how it works so the feeling of new stuff or surprise is kinda very rare.

This is in the end of course your opinion and I respect it.

I think it's important that it be compared to previous entries, because the developer SHOULD be learning from mistakes made in each entry, yet FromSoft repeated many of the same mistakes with DS3. I don't think that can be excused.

- - - Updated - - -

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. I do have to say that the PvP system is leaps and bounds better than it use to be. Although I really wish they would have kept the bloodborne summoning system. Much prefer it to summon signs.

The PvP system is still crap, and probably will remain crap. They'd have to make a frankly staggering number of core mechanics adjustments to make it a respectable system.

[Tech614]

This complaint is ridiculous. It's like when people got pissed when they found out the lock picking sound effect in Fallout 4 is the same as the one in Skyrim. If you have an asset that works and isn't outdated (which Bloodborne's aren't since it's a year old game) then why would you go to the trouble of creating completely new assets just because when it's going to look similar anyways?

If I made a rock a year ago and I need to place a rock in my new game, then I'm not going to make another rock. I'm just going to use the rock I already created, because it works. I might put different textures on it depending on the environment the rock is going to be placed in, but it's not lazy design to use assets you've already used before. It's efficient.

What would be lazy is designing an environment so that you can reuse a bunch of assets.

Sounds like you enjoy shit being shoveled out on a coveyer belt to you, to each their own.

There are literal bridges, buildings and pretty much all forms of clutter taken straight out of bloodborne and thrown into the game. To the point where in some areas the game looks more like Bloodborne then it does Dark Souls 3.

That is a clear product of rushing a game out the door to try and milk profits from people like you that will blindly defend anything From Software does like they're God Like.

Stay defensive, it's literally no surprise this is the worst received game in the Souls franchise it was a literal rush job. It's still a good game and fun because Souls mechanics stay solid but that is where it ends, everything else about the game screams "we had to rush to get this done in 1 year after bloodborne".

[Velshin]

I think it's important that it be compared to previous entries, because the developer SHOULD be learning from mistakes made in each entry, yet FromSoft repeated many of the same mistakes with DS3. I don't think that can be excused.

Which they did learn from their mistakes for the most part at least. I know DS3 is not perfect and has it's own flaw like you can't invade players who already killed the boss but let us not forget that they learned from their past mistakes like the horrible Souls memory system in DS2 don't tell me it was a good system please no because I can assure you 99.9% of the players who played the souls series hated the souls memories system and how it was super bad and horrible idea which I am glad it's gone in DS3 and prove that they learned from their mistakes. Another thing they learned from their mistakes from Bloodborne where you can't change your build spec unlike in DS2 where you can use the soul vessel item or in DS3 where you can change it by talking to rosaria and give her at least one pale tongue this is another fix they did from their previous games (the respec build change didn't exist in Demon's Souls or DS1 or Bloodborne). It's like they took the good parts of DS2 and reused it again in DS3 which is good idea shame they didn't get from DS2 the replaybility value though.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like you enjoy shit being shoveled out on a coveyer belt to you, to each their own.

There are literal bridges, buildings and pretty much all forms of clutter taken straight out of bloodborne and thrown into the game. To the point where in some areas the game looks more like Bloodborne then it does Dark Souls 3.

That is a clear product of rushing a game out the door to try and milk profits from people like you that will blindly defend anything From Software does like they're God Like.

Stay defensive, it's literally no surprise this is the worst received game in the Souls franchise it was a literal rush job. It's still a good game and fun because Souls mechanics stay solid but that is where it ends, everything else about the game screams "we had to rush to get this done in 1 year after bloodborne".

I think the worst tbh was vanilla DS2 (not the scholar of the first sin edition). I missed the days when players just enjoy the gameplay and storyline instead of focusing too much on building or rehashing stuff no offense sorry but yeah as you said to each his own and I respect your opinion. BTW the thing you said about same building or stuff like that they are doing it in purpose as you saw there are a lot of easter eggs from all of the souls series from Demon's Souls to Bloodborne sooo many easter eggs.

[Djriff]

I think it's important that it be compared to previous entries, because the developer SHOULD be learning from mistakes made in each entry, yet FromSoft repeated many of the same mistakes with DS3. I don't think that can be excused.

What mistakes are those? I think they made quite a few steps in the right direction.

The PvP system is still crap, and probably will remain crap. They'd have to make a frankly staggering number of core mechanics adjustments to make it a respectable system.

Can you explain that a bit more? I much prefer the PvP system in DS3 than I do in say DS2 (even if they are extremely similar).