CountAntonius
Member
Why is everybody acting like this is gonna be bad? The only negative I see reported is the length which looks to be 5 hours or so.
Only 1-2 real new areas and only two new bosses?
What?
That's such a massive step down from II's "Crowns" DLCs.
How many DLCs total are planned for III? Is it another "DLC Trilogy?"
Why is everybody acting like this is gonna be bad? The only negative I see reported is the length which looks to be 5 hours or so.
You mean the Sunken King that has two actual bosses and three NPC characters?Only 1-2 real new areas and only two new bosses?
What?
That's such a massive step down from II's "Crowns" DLCs.
How many DLCs total are planned for III? Is it another "DLC Trilogy?"
I remember you, you are the DS3 apologist.
Yeah, let's ignore that DS3 relies on nostalgia.
Not Anor Londo! it's the city below! hahaha come on.
Onion Knight? check.
Gwyn theme? check.
While DS3 does in fact adds a few new things to the Souls formula, you can't deny that the amount of "fanservice" regarding DS1 is quite a lot.
Anecdotal evidence, so feel free to not believe me, but me and my group of friends have already droped DS3, but oddly enough still log onto SotFS for some old school PvP.
I hoped this DLC at least had some new ideas, but alas, a remake of an old DS1 area. But going so far, reviews are not so kind.
I judge DS3 harshly, because the souls saga is among my favorites ever, but DS3 dissapointed me on a very deep level.
When I saw that it takes place in a snowy area I was immediately worried.
This shot is great (area spoiler i guess)
http://assets.rpgsite.net/images/images/000/049/732/original/Map_Birch_Root_Path_CMYK.jpg
There are two DLCs, this has been known since the original reveal way back when.
Re boss numbers in DS2 DLC:
So yeah, they could've put in Neon Green Vordt as a boss or made you fight 4 Ricards and a Havel all at once, but I'm glad they didn't.
There's like 30 of them though and even if it was just 3 or 4 fighting them all at once with their op moveset would be impossible. 4 more traditional knights would be cool though.Oh man can you imagine having to fight uncorrupted Abyssal Watchers? That would be so awesome.
This shot is great (area spoiler i guess)
http://assets.rpgsite.net/images/images/000/049/732/original/Map_Birch_Root_Path_CMYK.jpg
Wow, what happened
Never preorder season passes
Why is everybody acting like this is gonna be bad? The only negative I see reported is the length which looks to be 5 hours or so.
Bloodbornes was the same, but for 4 and one of the areas was a reskin of an area. *shrugs* One rule for one, another for others.
I find this argument really funny. You're saying a game that's incredibly superficial and has little depth outside of build variety is better than a game that's well refined in nearly every area at the cost of entirely new locales.
Killer Queen said:There's like two areas from Dark Souls 1 in Dark Souls III and both serve a purpose, this isn't an area from Dark Souls 1, it's an area that's kind of similar to an area in Dark Souls 1 and either way, whether not it's an original idea or not isn't indicative of quality.
Killer Queen said:Sure Dark Souls 2 has a bunch of areas with new locales that are mostly poorly designed, but because it's different it's better?
Killer Queen said:It's like you guys didn't actually play Dark Souls 2.
Killer Queen said:But yes, Dark Souls III is the game with no story of its own and rehashes.
Completely untrue. One of DS3's most glaring flaws is its gameplay shallowness. Lets not forget this is the entry where the player has minimal control and granularity of control over the overall challenge difficulty. No Company of Champions to join, no Bonfire ascetics, no world/character tendency to manipulate, no meaningful changes even in NG+.
Weapon Degradation was a poor mechanic that ended up being more of an annoyance than anything that actually contributed to the game so I'm glad it's the way it is, opinions. Going to also disagree about stat changes.Not to mention weapon degradation nerfed to the point it might not exist, poise watered down, stat changes making very little difference to the way the character feels or moves whether you are SL1 or 100, no upgradable armour... the list goes on and on.
Going to disagree here too, it's base combat system makes improvements over both it's predecessors making it the most fluid and refined of the dark souls series with the addition of weapon arts and charged attacks. As for locations and NPCs, more doesn't=better, something that's well crafted is more valuable than 5 things that aren't which is how I feel about all the NPCs and areas in Dark Souls 2 aside from maybe Aldia and Vendrick, thats not to say they don't have some decent ideas and storylines, but I would never consider any of these to be great. That's the issue with all the Dark Souls 2 defenses. It's that more=better and that's simply not true. You can call things in Dark Souls III uninspired, i wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't automatically make them bad either, they're mostly very well executed which is why Dark Souls III is better than 2. There's no area in Dark Souls 2 that's anywhere near as well designed as Lothric or even most of the levels in Dark Souls III.DS3 is dumbed down compared to its predecessors. It has less locations, npcs, systems, gimmicks, and ideas generally.
The problem is most of the rest of the game bears a strong similarity in terms of design and layout to Bloodborne. The whole game-world just feels very familiar and honestly all a bit static. Where's the equivalent of the draining of New Londo Ruins, or calling in the ghost ship in No-Man's Wharf? Let alone all the dynamic stuff in the 3 Crowns DLC areas.
DS2 has so much more variety and is constantly switching things up with zone-specific gimmicks. I disagree strongly that the locales are poorly designed, particularly with the changes made for SOTFS switching the locations of NPC's and elaborating on a lot of the tricks with torches and enemy behaviours.
I've played every game in the series *a lot*, and I consider DS2 to have some of the very best level design and content in the series. Yes, DS3 is more consistent in its construction and layout, but as I've said since launch its all kinda rote and lacking in imagination and innovation. Its constant callbacks to previous games would be fine if there were interspersed with new and surprising stuff, but that's just not the case.
We got to pick between Gwynn and Kaathe at the end of DS1. It didn't mean a damn thing then, as does our allegiance/path in DS3 mean nothing now, because ultimately the game never ends, its cyclic. The end boss isn't even properly personified, its a prop rather than a character, and the aftermath cut-scene is brief and anti-climactic regardless of the story outcome.
Doesn't Miyazaki say they're both connected?In terms of lore, this dlc is supposed to stand on its own. The next and final one will tie up loose ends.
from the rpgsite review:
Here's a quote about them: "The theme of the DLC is actually independent from the main game. The theme of the main game is actually completed within the main game itself."Doesn't Miyazaki say they're both connected?
Someone posted something a few pages back with an interview that pretty much said that while this one is independent of the main story, it's connected to the following DLC which focuses more on wrapping up the story as a whole or something like that.Here's a quote about them: "The theme of the DLC is actually independent from the main game. The theme of the main game is actually completed within the main game itself."
Now I can't find what was said about the second one
Off topic - Just found this juicy bit while searching....from Polygon: "While not shying away from the potential for an inevitable resurrection of Dark Souls at some point in the distant future, Miyazaki went on to suggest that what were most likely to see are "HD remakes" of older games in the series on newer consoles. Its unclear if From Software would envision these as simple ports of the existing games to new hardware or more full-on remakes with new or revised content.Someone posted something a few pages back with an interview that pretty much said that while this one is independent of the main story, it's connected to the following DLC which focuses more on wrapping up the story as a whole or something like that.
-avatarquote-I like that "Dark Souls 3: Good or Not-Good Actually?" has now officially replaced "Dark Souls 2: Good or Not-Good Actually?" as the new inevitable conversation in every Dark Souls thread on NeoGAF
Bloodborne won
Off topic - Just found this juicy bit while searching....from Polygon: "While not shying away from the potential for an inevitable resurrection of Dark Souls at some point in the distant future, Miyazaki went on to suggest that what were most likely to see are "HD remakes" of older games in the series on newer consoles. Its unclear if From Software would envision these as simple ports of the existing games to new hardware or more full-on remakes with new or revised content.
I like that "Dark Souls 3: Good or Not-Good Actually?" has now officially replaced "Dark Souls 2: Good or Not-Good Actually?" as the new inevitable conversation in every Dark Souls thread on NeoGAF
Bloodborne won
Why have Neogaf if not to argue over videogames?Every single thread related to a Soulsbourne game always turned into a shitfest as to whether or not DS2 is a good game. Now they just turn into a shitfest of ranking the games. I don't understand why people bother. The games are so similar yet different in very important areas, so people's opinions will change depending on what they value more in a game (variety, PvP, boss fights, level design, etc). Not to mention your first Soulsbourne game will almost always be your personal most memorable game -- Demon's Souls was mine and I still consider it my favourite, or at least tied with Bloodborne.
Why have Neogaf if not to argue over videogames?
Never played Demons but DS3 and Bloodborne are my favorite even though people on this board think I'm a Bloodborne hater for not wanting a sequel............this is true.
Y'all are wrong, Demon's Souls & Bloodborne are GOAT.
Personally, I am always baffled when people consider DS2 to be superior to DS3. DS2 is far away the worst in the series for me. The PvP was the main appeal of DS2 for me and after this DLC I think DS3 will trump it in that category too.I like that "Dark Souls 3: Good or Not-Good Actually?" has now officially replaced "Dark Souls 2: Good or Not-Good Actually?" as the new inevitable conversation in every Dark Souls thread on NeoGAF
Bloodborne won
Never played Demons but DS3 and Bloodborne are my favorite even though people on this board think I'm a Bloodborne hater for not wanting a sequel.
At the very least Miyazaki said he's not interested in sequels right now and said there aren't any in the making back in july so any BB2 would be at least 3-4 years out. They're working on another souls spin-off right now though, I personally hope it's based off of really surreal and trippy artwork rather than sci fi, take the weirdness of Bloodborne to an entirely different level and do a game around that instead.I don't want a sequel to BB either, it ended perfectly. I think it's kind of inevitable though given the commercial & critical success it had. Given From are contracted to develop 2 or 3 more games for Sony, I'd be really surprised if BB2 wasn't one of them. I would rather another Soulsbourne style game in another setting/lore/genre. Just the thought of a dark & gloomy Sci-fi Souls makes me excited.
At the very least Miyazaki said he's not interested in sequels right now and said there aren't any in the making back in july so any BB2 would be at least 3-4 years out. They're working on another souls spin-off right now though, I personally hope it's based off of really surreal and trippy artwork rather than sci fi, take the weirdness of Bloodborne to an entirely different level and do a game around that instead.
Give me a game based off of this with more cosmic horror and more trick weapons and stuff like the amygdalin arm over more Dark Souls/Bloodborne any day
..This shot is great (area spoiler i guess)
http://assets.rpgsite.net/images/images/000/049/732/original/Map_Birch_Root_Path_CMYK.jpg
DS3 is dumbed down compared to its predecessors. It has less locations, npcs, systems, gimmicks, and ideas generally.
Where's the equivalent of the draining of New Londo Ruins, or calling in the ghost ship in No-Man's Wharf? Let alone all the dynamic stuff in the 3 Crowns DLC areas.
I expect them both at E3 tbh but I might be getting my hopes up too much. But we did get dark souls 2 then Bloodborne then 3 and they've already got an engine and resources so a two year turn around isn't too bad.I'd be fine with that too. I know it's not a very popular game but I LOVED the aesthetic of the DmC reboot's Limbo, trippy with shit being ripped apart etc. Take away the edginess & modern setting and add some more horror elements to that kind of theme and it could be a pretty amazing setting.
Or just go straight to Hell. I didn't really like Dante's Inferno but I enjoyed going through the circles of Hell. But it doesn't seem creative enough for From. The cosmic horror elements of Bloodborne really were amazing, after killing Romm and later exploring the Nightmare Frontier etc. it solidified itself as a much more interesting setting than Dark Souls for me.
With that all said, I'm pretty positive Armored Core will be their next announcement, with the Soulsbourne spin-off thereafter.
Why is everybody acting like this is gonna be bad? The only negative I see reported is the length which looks to be 5 hours or so.