So I've played Dark Souls III at good length now, and since From has signaled that it's the last one in the series, I figured I would give my thoughts on the series as a whole, as well as compare the individual titles. Spoilers ahead.
Demon's Souls What a brave experiment. Taking elements of what made old NES games hard (namely that they were poorly ported from Arcades with no real expectation that you could beat them without that system in place) and putting them into an expansive world. Hiding your story in places nobody would find on their own. Bathing an entire game in dreary, depressing colors, music and feelings and never breaking it. Any one of these decisions could and should have by all rights sunk this game, but the special way it was all composed together made something wonderful that nobody had remembered really seeing in a long, long time... and never quite like this. I brought it home for
many years ago at his request, knowing nothing about it and being disinterested. But the more I watched him play, the more entranced I was, and the more I wanted to overcome my own personal hurdles to be able to conquer it myself. This took me 7 years.
Dark Souls The absolutely unexpected gangbusters sales that Demon's brought in enabled this game in every way. And in every way, it sought to improve on the experience. While I will always hold that Demon's had the best story and atmosphere of any game in the series, Dark nailed the balance of accessibility. It was still emergent storytelling, but this time without really difficult, inconsistent hurdles in the way. They did away with horrible mechanics like World Tendency (I can explain in the comments if you really want but just trust me, it was garbage), and most amazingly, they introduced a robust polishing of the previous game's combat system that allowed... just, everything.
Dark Souls II This game missed the mark. I don't mean that as some pithy throwaway- I mean in every way that Dark Souls was brilliant, DkS2 showed us what would happen if those people involved maybe weren't so brilliant or innovative. The combat tweaked too many dials at once. Heavy armor meant little, except when it did. Huge weapons were useless, except when they weren't. Hitbox detection only got worse, but the worst sin of all? They messed up maps and enemy placement, which is the Souls' bread and butter. Enemies were just... there. They were in your way and you had to kill them, that was about it. The maps were far too open-ended. Large swaths of land are an extremely poor choice for any souls game- if you look at Demons and Dark, and you really focus on the map from a top down perspective, you'll start to notice how precarious everything is- how very little space there is anywhere, forcing you to take the game at its own pace. I knew the game had failed me when I reached the optional endboss and saw just an uber-gigantic dragon on a massive football field-sized flat platform, who would one-shot me nebulously. There was nothing to mull over, nothing to think about or engage- it was a matter of running in and out like some terrible cartoon skit. I was not impressed.
Bloodborne This game is simultaneously a beautiful work of art with an amazing aesthetic and a challenging style of play... and also the worst thing to happen to the Souls franchise. They were meant to be separate experiences, so I won't belabor the fact that it wasn't Dark Souls. Instead, I'll just explain that at one point during the game, I picked up a shield... and the game showed me why the shield wouldn't work. So I built for magic... and the game gave me no useful magic, ever. So I built for heavy melee... and the game really just kept nudging me to move faster, to put down those big weapons and start slicing quicker. These moments really bothered me, but I didn't understand fully why until I played-
Dark Souls III And here's where the discussion opens up, where I go back and forth between titles. Because only by understanding the holistic experience of all the games can you appreciate why Dark Souls III gave me such an ache of disappointment despite my very, very best efforts.
Back were the interesting maps! The claustrophobic hallways and tight winding roads! The asinine enemy placement dialed up to 11! The colorful characters and homage to previous entries and oh my god all the different armor and gear you could wear! On paper, you look at Dark Souls III and I should have loved it start to finish.
... But then I started noticing things. Things like linearity. Now, don't let anyone tell you that each title doesn't have some linear nature to it, because even the vaunted Dark Souls won't let you do everything you want out of sequence... but when I started wanting to do different builds, I realized that I'd have to get through so much of the game to even begin that playstyle that it got hard to want to even push that far in. But I probably wouldn't have even noticed that if not for my biggest beef with DkSIII: There is one correct playstyle, and many inferior, much harder ones. Let's compare experiences:
Demon's: Every different problem and boss requires you to use something different. Not the same build with a different approach, I mean the game practically pushes you to pick up a bow, or a spear, or if you're too far into a build, other people. There's a reason my Dragon Bone Smasher-lugging thug character (Carrie, ofc) got summoned almost exclusively by mages, and similarly I often summoned them! You can go through everything with the same approach but Demon's punishes this so heavily that it's practically written on the walls. But while the punishment is severe, the options are also very wide. More than a few bosses you can cheese from a distance with arrows, and it's obviously intended. Some of them have aspects that interact incredibly poorly with specific items. Others just have really specific gimmicks. Every problem is a puzzle, and with very few exceptions, 'getting good' will only help you so much because rigidity in gameplay style is an incredible handicap. Also, poise hasn't been invented yet.
Dark: Demon's Souls, but accessible. The amount of work that went into this is just astounding. There is a way to beat each and every boss and/or puzzle of this game with any given build you have made, as long as you can formulate a strategy to beat it. If you're not fast or accurate enough to roll around at the speed of sound, slap on half a truck worth of metal and tank those hits with all your shiny new poise. With the exception of just a few interactions like the Londo snipers that are difficult because they unfortunately do not behave consistently and therefore generate frustration, you can beat this game with whatever you've got. This disparity, by the way, is almost certainly why people who started with Dark Souls think summoning is 'cheaty,' whereas people who started with Demons do not- one game clearly expected it, while the other just made it an option.
Dark II: Poise doesn't work, but you know, neither does half of the combat system. Everything is so weird and wonky and unbalanced that it's almost balanced? It's not good per se, but you can jank your way to victory so at least you don't get stuck a lot??? Enjoy fumbling whatever your build is to the finish line!
Bloodborne: There is only one way to play this game: medium build, fast weapon. However, it was designed around that decision, and therefore it doesn't feel like as much of a trespass. Enemies are fast, and so are you. There is no room for innovation or exploration- reflexes are the beginning and the end of whether you are good at Bloodborne, full stop.
Dark III: There is only one way to play this game effectively- medium build, fast weapon. However, this game was not designed around that decision. Poise only works about 5% of the time. Armor doesn't really offer you much damage reduction past wearing just clothes. Ranged weapons are often very hard to use, and don't have the kind of power they once did. Magic is really fucky, and trust me that I'm explaining it as well as I can, because the entire concept is nebulous even after looking up guides. It was the worst combination: a really good game that told me I could play it like other Souls titles, when in fact I could not. Sure, I could play a way I didn't enjoy, or I could suffer through the consequences of what the game thought were wrong choices, but in the end I chose just to let it be.
In conclusion? The devs drank their own kool-aid. They got too caught up in the hyper-competitive dick waving about how difficult their games are supposed to be, and forgot about the carrot that's at the end of that stick- adventure. Innovation. Emergent gameplay and storytelling. The feeling of conquering something not because you got lucky, not because you managed to finally time your seven successive dodges correctly... but because you figured it out.
Which is kind of poetic. Like King Allant, they got distracted chasing after something intriguing, only to let it ruin who they were, hurting those who were loyal to them in the first place. They sold their kingdom for a taste of more.
A really ironic choice, considering that the PVP was only ever a very interesting sideshow in DeS. Like, you'd just. Get invaded sometimes. It was even mandatory in one boss, but you never knew what you'd get! It was fun!
A really ironic choice, considering that the PVP was only ever a very interesting sideshow in DeS. L
Never got to play Demon Souls but I'd imagine it played out the same way as the Looking Glass Knight in DarkSouls 2 ? Really enjoyed that fight, and even enjoyed being the one to be the invader for that boss.
Never got to play Demon Souls but I'd imagine it played out the same way as the Looking Glass Knight
You were essentially fighting a normal player with whatever build they had, but they got to automatically spam magic (Homing Soul Mass) at you in addition to whatever they had.
You were essentially fighting a normal player with whatever build they had, but they got to automati
I really don't see that. Perhaps a bit in Dark Souls 2, but that game had troubled development, so the focus on bettering the PvP there is not to blame. If they were pandering to PvP'ers in DS3, then they failed utterly.
I really don't see that. Perhaps a bit in Dark Souls 2, but that game had troubled development, so t
This is kinda the feeling I got when I was playing through 3 to be honest. I had planned to play through as my usual Pyromancer into medium/heavy knight, and really started to lose interest after I learned that poise did nothing and armor was... pointless. It left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth.
This is kinda the feeling I got when I was playing through 3 to be honest. I had planned to play thr
Poise is really odd in 3. Right after release it worked really nicely, I'd almost be willing to call it perfect. But then the... second? patch just up and switched it off.
If you poke around youtube some you can find people saying how it's literally a bit flip in cheat engine to make it functional again.
Poise is really odd in 3. Right after release it worked really nicely, I'd almost be willing to call
That would require me to both: Care after finishing the game; and be willing to risk being BANNED for doing it.
I have known about the fix for quite some time, it doesn't invalidate the fact that it was turned right the hell off for reasons we are left to speculate about, aside from "It is working as intended."
That would require me to both: Care after finishing the game; and be willing to risk being BANNED fo
Dark Souls 2 was always 2 steps forward, two steps back. It it worked, they broke it. If it was broke, they fixed it. It was the most innovative, which is why it's either loved or hated, no middle ground. And strangely, it's my favourite.
It's also one of the reasons I don't like DS3 so much. DS3 made no attempt to learn from DS3. Rather, it took everything it could from DS1, but the combat style of Bloodborne. Problem is, it failed to understand what made Bloodborne work: Speed.
DS3 was faster, but weapons where not. Enemies struck fast and hard, and made so many weapon classes so. Bad. Just pick a straight sword to turn DS3 into easy mode. Don't even think about using Ultra.
All the innovations of DS2 where lost. Replaced with fanservice of DS1, ruining one of the most sombre points of DS2: The Curse removes everything, even memory. All the heroes where forgotten. The lands. The losses. That's why DS2 is about fighting the curse, why Lucatiel is brilliant.
DS3? No no, they just went for a smoke break, here they all are.
Sorry to get all ranty, I'm really passionate about the Dark Souls series.
Dark Souls 2 was always 2 steps forward, two steps back. It it worked, they broke it. If it was brok
I feel like 2 should have been its own setting. So much of the plot reads like last minute additions of dark souls related stuff. It has to lean waaay to heavily on 'time is convoluted' to really fit in with the first game.
I feel like 2 should have been its own setting. So much of the plot reads like last minute additions
I like DS2 the most, and my time on steam shows it. I've literally played every build type, got every single magic, pyromancy, miracle, etc. DS2 suffers from a differing perspective, where it focuses upon small stories in dozens of lands, rather than the fluid movement between tales that DS1 had to offer. The combat system was amazing, and with a bit of learning, you could actually get to the point that using just a pair of cestus was the easiest way to fuck everyone up. Nothing was balanced, yet almost always there was a way to counter it. DS2 is the black sheep that deserves a lot more love, but due to how different it was, it gathered a lot of hate. DS2 was and is the best PvP experience in my opinion, but I know just how hard it is to get into it, I detested the game for the first 10 hours I played it...then it clicked, and while that is a long time to let the game try and show you what it can be, to me it can give you the most fun out of all the games.
I like DS2 the most, and my time on steam shows it. I've literally played every build type, got ever
I disagree. It had this cool concept that the curse kills everything, even history. Everything about the past was lost, even the heroes and the kingdom Dranglaic was built on. If anything, DS3 doesn't fit, as suddenly all these forgotten heroes are suddenly remembered.
I disagree. It had this cool concept that the curse kills everything, even history. Everything abou
Except you cure the curse in dks2. That's what beating all the dlcs get you, immunity to hollowing. Vendrick also managed that, and didn't go hollow until the intervention of his shard of manus.
Plot wise, dks2 probably comes after the lord of londor ending of 3, where the player has taken the flame and become a king.
Which doesn't really jive with the curse eating all things, since we have two or three examples of it getting resisted.
Except you cure the curse in dks2. That's what beating all the dlcs get you, immunity to hollowing.
I really didn't like dark souls 3. It just seemed rehashing old stuff and pandering to pvp with hey remember when we made this in old games? I just couldn't get excited about it at all playing it. It was all just meh. Tell whatever you want about dark souls 2 at least that one elevator at top of a windmill in middle of nowhere that goes up and takes you to a sunken fire lava palace made me go did anyone test this level design at all XD I just hope their next game turns out to be armored souls. People are saying we need sci fi version of it and armored core would be perfect since it's already a game of theirs.
I really didn't like dark souls 3. It just seemed rehashing old stuff and pandering to pvp with hey
Haven't played Bloodborne, but played and loved everything else. Ultra weapons in DS3 are pretty worthless aside from PVP. But I dislike pvp. Not so much pvp, but the invasions.
One pretty cheap way to beat most, if not all, bosses is to get the gravewarden's twinblades and use carthous rouge. The bleed effect hit really fast and hard.
Haven't played Bloodborne, but played and loved everything else. Ultra weapons in DS3 are pretty wor
Dark Souls 1 was my introduction to the franchise. I plated it so much I could probably play it blindfolded now.
Demons souls was great, could do any zone in any order after 1-1. All builds were viable and taking a different approach would make beating a challenging boss possible, no matter your build.
Dark Souls 2 took the flexibility too far. The PvE was a little lackluster but it nailed the PvP.
Dark Souls 3 got the pacing right but fucked everything else up.
Dark Souls 1 was my introduction to the franchise. I plated it so much I could probably play it blin
I've only ever played DeS. I'm usually not one for punishingly-hard games, but with that one, it just worked. It was tough but fair -- when you gameovered, you knew instantly what you did wrong. And the feeling of finally making your way through an area that stopped you cold before was so very satisfying. (I'm looking at you, skeleton stairway.)
And yeah, World Tendency sucked. There were those events during which things were pegged at one extreme or the other, but that wasn't exactly a fix.
I've only ever played DeS. I'm usually not one for punishingly-hard games, but with that one, it ju
Sorcery may as well not exist in dks3. There isn't a way to build a character where it will be better to use sorcery over pyromancy. It's really silly, and smacks to me of them looking at all the % buffs for magic and just tanking the base values so endgame pvp would be 'fair' - ignoring that magic has always been a terrible choice in pvp. Seriously, rings that boost your damage by a total of 60%, and still not allow you to out damage a raw straight sword. What even.
The Yhorm fight is really fun as a pure magic build tho. Really had to use every tool in the box for it.
I can't wait for some other developers to start taking a crack at the genre, now that they don't have to compete with the monolith of a new Fromsoft game.
Sorcery may as well not exist in dks3. There isn't a way to build a character where it will be bette
I tried the Dark Souls games. I did not have fun at the start, and did not feel like doing the grind to "Git Gud" no matter how promising the world looked.
I'm not a Masochist.
I tried the Dark Souls games. I did not have fun at the start, and did not feel like doing the grin
So, sounds like I was right with only having purchased Dark Souls (which I still need to play more), and desire to play Bloodborne (which I now have access to the proper system for). Dark Souls because it was the good one, and Bloodborne because super-twitch games are my most reliable favorites, even if they drive me nuts until I settle into the rhythm/get my reflexes back up to snuff.
Knowing that "gottagofast" is the proper way to play Dark Souls 3 I might enjoy it.
For all the mild anger it generated while I played it when visiting, I REALLY liked Bloodborne
So, sounds like I was right with only having purchased Dark Souls (which I still need to play more),
Yeah, you're better off free-aiming magic the best you can in Dark Souls III. I hate how the Pontiff's area is now pretty much known as Gank City though. I've had to switch to the Undead Arena when I do want to PVP because gank squads have been summoning me in instead of any fight clubs.
Heavy weapons are still viable, but you do have to somewhat bait people into them. Swing once a few times to make them think you don't have much stamina, then swing again when they try to run in. Either that or switch weapons as soon as you get a parry and slam them with the heavy weapon.
Yeah, you're better off free-aiming magic the best you can in Dark Souls III. I hate how the Pontiff
I agree about dark souls 3 being rigid in structure. I've reached a certian point and I'm considering jsut giving up as it's nto fun, but I have this compulsion to keep going. I guess I should ditch my heavy armor and get something more manageable, one I grind enough souls to get them.
I wish they'd kept the ability to run out the repawns on enemies to at least let those who are persistent chip away at the encounters. And yeah, I noticed that poise does nothing, in DS1 heavy armor could let you run through attacks and take damage but not stumble, here everything staggers you. I'm not so much determined to get my money's worth as I am to just finish the game so I don't feel the need to go back. and yeah it's super linear.
I agree about dark souls 3 being rigid in structure. I've reached a certian point and I'm considerin
I dunno how it could really work. The entire idea of punishing you for dying in a semi-permanent way kinda runs counter to the way the game works in general.
I dunno how it could really work. The entire idea of punishing you for dying in a semi-permanent way
I meant mostly how there were unique events that would trigger only during particular Tendencies. Making the game harder with Dark Tendency was part of the poorly executed part of it, as well as causing it by dying in Human form. If done better, it could be an awesome system to encourage further experimentation and exploration than most others.
On a side note, the reason DS2 is so vastly different from the other games, especially with fall damage, is that it was the Armored Core team, not the Souls team. :P
I meant mostly how there were unique events that would trigger only during particular Tendencies. M
Mm, I see what you mean. Yeah, if they'd have put more into changing the environment and changed the parameters that altered the landscape, that could've been cool!
Shit, really?? Man that's like. "Hey guys! We know you've been dying for Half Life 3, so here it is! ...... Made by the Peggle team."
Mm, I see what you mean. Yeah, if they'd have put more into changing the environment and changed the
Somehow I managed to get through DS3 playing the same "pick up a steel beam and strap a piano to your chest" strategy that I played in all four games, sans Bloodborne because that was actually literally impossible. I went against the one true build and somehow came out the other side thinking, "Boy this game was hard! Classic Souls!"
I am a naive gamer when it comes to the intricacies. Maybe I just accept things too blindly, but in almost every discussion I ever have with anyone ever, I find myself going, "Well, wait, I don't think it's as bad as you're saying." And this is, like, in every game ever. When people bitch about Overwatch, I shrug. Dark Souls, I shrug. Mass Effect, I shrug. I'm all too willing to pick up the new even when it kills the old. I distinctly remember Resident Evil 6 being the bane of everyone's existence and I was like, "I actually like this way more than the old games."
But I will admit one thing: I was ass garbage at PvP. That system was not built for a build like mine in mind. Having a giant, clunky weapon and lots of armor was wrong. I'd never hit anyone. Having no magic was wrong. I couldn't fall back on anything when my weapon didn't work, which it never did. I could give the PvE a total pass, as I enjoyed it start to finish. The PvP, however, was made totally inaccessible by my build. It was indeed the wrong way to play in that regard.
So I definitely concede to you that you're likely right. I may not be able to see it, I don't have an eye for such things... but I glanced it, amidst my enjoyment of the title and how much I loved being an edgy-looking grimdark with a big Buster Sword. I know the game's trying to tell me something when almost no one is using what I'm using.
Somehow I managed to get through DS3 playing the same "pick up a steel beam and strap a piano to you
as problematic 2 was it is the game of the Dark series i enjoyed the most. i played it on Steam so much i kinda got burned out on it. i also have the same problem with 3 where the game is so build-specific i find it a chore to go through unless i do what everyone else is doing. id go back to 1 but the online is nowhere near as good as 2 and its even worse on pc even trying to play offline. maybe i enjoy 2 the most cause i played it the longest and know what to do but i find it a chore to try and do the same with 1 and 3.
as problematic 2 was it is the game of the Dark series i enjoyed the most. i played it on Steam so m
I understand it's not the most popular choice, but my favorite is actually DS2. I realize enemy placement is a bit wonky in the original release (It got better in SotFS, but that doesn't excuse it) and the bosses in the vanilla version were very smaey for the most part (Though the DLC bosses were damn AWESOME!) but I feel it also did ome things better than Dark or DS3.
The weapon variety, together with the Power Stance system, brought some new fun to the battle system, I feel the hitbox detection is better than Dark (For the most part, PvP, given Latency, is iffy and fist weapons hitboxes can be wonky). The zones in DS2 seem to hold more natural beauty to me. DS3 seemed pretty heavy in the same sort of scenery (Castle, church, church-that-is-also -a-castle, castle-that-is-also-a-church) and while Dark had a lot of cool venues, I feel like nothing competes with Shrine of Amana, that the Undead Crypt beats out the Catacombs/Tomb of the giants, and so on.
Another thing I like more in DS2 is actually the NPC's. I just feel they are more likable in DS2 than in DS3, and some a bit more than their Dark equivalents. Though the Dark NPC's are, for the most part, less dreary, most of the DS2 NPCs are stil cool, likable and, honestly, fun characters, even if you see more of the end of the Dark NPC's. Yes, we may see more folks hollowed out in Dark, but it's Lucatiel's near-hollowed pleas for remembrance that get me. Dark NPC's like Larentius and Griggs may be friendly enough, but Rosabeth's cheery disposition in a dying world can brighten up your day.
Not to say Dark didn't have good NPC's, though, but I feel like the DS3 lot, for the most part, were just sorta meh and a lot more cardboardy.
I understand it's not the most popular choice, but my favorite is actually DS2. I realize enemy plac
I never cared for the series, having never played them, but only interested in watching Game Grumps letsplays. This wonderful review killed my desire to pick up any of the games ever, and I thank you for it. I can move on from that curiosity.
I never cared for the series, having never played them, but only interested in watching Game Grumps
DS3 was honestly my favorite of the franchise (I haven't finished Bloodborne or Demon's Souls). I thought it struck a good balance between challenge and fun. I certainly don't think the "one way to play" thing is true at all. I went through the entirety of my first run with the broadsword, but once I got to NG+, I focused more on building up my strength and intelligence and started using the Wolf Knight Greatsword and finally the Moonlight Greatsword, and those both went great once I got the hang of the swing speed. I'm on NG+7 on my PS4 file now and NG+3 on PC, I got the platinum trophy, and I know the game like the back of my hand, so I feel more comfortable talking about it than I do the others. For what it's worth, DS3 is also the only one of the 3 I've ever had any desire to go past NG+ on, so I might just be biased because it's my favorite. But chances are this will make half as much sense tomorrow as it does now because it's 5AM and I need to sleep.
DS3 was honestly my favorite of the franchise (I haven't finished Bloodborne or Demon's Souls). I th
I have to disagree with you a bit in Bloodborne because in most cases having anything with fire or bol makes you the destroyer of worlds and as far as magic the only things you need are the Auger of Ebrietas and A Call from Beyond. High enough Arcane and you'll basically nuke everything combine with the Old Hunter's DLCs Kos Parasite and you become a wiggly jiggly Tasmanian Devil made of tentacles!
I still agree with your main point though. The hack and slash and the simplification of weapons turned me off to the game at first.it's only recently I'v come to really enjoy it.
I have to disagree with you a bit in Bloodborne because in most cases having anything with fire or
Interestingly, I picked up Demon's Souls again a few days ago, because I was watching Game Grumps playing Dark Souls III, and for some reason that got me thinking, "you know, I've been enjoying my free time too much. Why not make me irrate for a while?"
Interestingly, I picked up Demon's Souls again a few days ago, because I was watching Game Grumps pl
Personally I'll still always love DS2 over DS3 more. It's flaws were clear and apparent, but there were so many of them it often amounted to an even break.Until some later game patches completely broke some things, you could make a character any way you want, and at least have it be functional. Meanwhile I've tried to make bleed builds, heavy armor builds, and magic builds in Dark Souls 3 and gotten so irrevocably infuriated about how badly the game doesn't want something as straight forward as a heavy armor tank or a straight mage to work, I deleted them and never bothered to go back to the game after my first play through.
Personally I'll still always love DS2 over DS3 more. It's flaws were clear and apparent, but there w
