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.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dark Souls III DLC: Ashes of Ariandel - review thread
- Thread starter takoyaki
- Start date
Relaxed Muscle
Member
DS2 DLC were also 1 or 2 real new areas with 2 new bosses.
Is the same except the horrible optional areas that the DS2 DLC had, how is that such a massive step down?
Mr. Poolman
Member
So far, From has delievered very high quality DLC on the Souls saga.
I think nobody wants the DLC to be bad.
I'm honestly interested on the PvP arena.
Killer Queen
Banned
You mean the Sunken King that has two actual bosses and three NPC characters?
Or like Iron king which has two bosses and smelter demon 2.0 and IIRC Sunken King has like 3 areas anyway. Which part of this is a step down from any individual crown DLC and it actually adds more lore to the main story along with the next and final DLC. I haven't played it so I don't know how good or bad it is but all the impressions come across as it being good but short on the PVE side which isn't a bad thing. It adds more for PVPers and adds some apparently important lore to close off the series that will be continued in the next DLC.
I personally think they shouldve just waited and released it as one
How am I an apologist? Because I like something you don't? I guess by that definition you and everyone else who likes Dark Souls II are dark souls 2 apologists? How ironic. Are their nostalgic elements in dark souls 3? Of course, I didn't deny that. Does it rely on nostalgia? No and your examples don't convince me otherwise. Irithyll itself isn't Anor Londo, Anor Londo is Anor Londo which is also in the game and if you're only arguments that dark souls 3 is a rehash are side characters that in no way change the main story or the majority of the game then I've got news for you, and you're really going to use the fact that they replayed a theme from the first game in the third game as if that's any more egregious than ripping a character straight from the first game and implementing him in the second for no rhyme or reason then you've already lost this battle.
But please take five minutes to learn the meaning of "apologist" and "remake" before attempting to use them to belittle me in a shallow argument against me, it just makes you look silly
Adam_Vania
Banned
yeah i know, your character is going to be sliding everywhere, that makes it hard to backstab.
Ok, this is pretty awesome.
FF Seraphim
Member
Oh man can you imagine having to fight uncorrupted Abyssal Watchers? That would be so awesome.
Killer Queen
Banned
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.
Lighthouse
Member
This cannot be emphasised enough. Make informed decisions. Know what you're paying for. The industry will be better off for it. Souls DLC has always been a no brainer purchase with some of the best content in the game.
Shit happens.
JudgmentJay
Member
Yeah, I don't want to read any reviews as I'm on media blackout, but is the only complaint the length/number of bosses? I mean I guess that's important to people making a purchase decision, but to me length doesn't factor into whether a game/DLC is good or not. I mean what if the Painted World from Dark Souls 1 had been a standalone DLC; would people give it middling scores because it's short despite being a masterpiece of an area?
Lake Effect Kid
Banned
Do we have pictures of all the new weapons and armor sets yet? I saw the stuff Peeve messed around with at the event. Just want to get some fashion souls inspiration going.
What. Old Hunters added almost as much weapons as the base game, two new forms, five new bosses, three new areas. The comparison is ridicolous considering there's not a great difference in price.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
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+.
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.
DS3 is dumbed down compared to its predecessors. It has less locations, npcs, systems, gimmicks, and ideas generally.
Killer Queen said:
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.
Killer Queen said:
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.
Killer Queen said:
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.
Killer Queen said:
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.
Its hardly a grand finale.
Sounds meaty enough honestly, and it helps I went for a discount on the Deluxe Edition bundle. Basically as long as it is in the same ballpark as the DSII DLC (which it sounds like it is) I'm OK with it. What would actually piss me off is if they were just remixed versions of old areas with nothing new or even significant differences
Killer Queen
Banned
Don't personally consider any of this to be a big deal and it all comes down to preference. I wouldn't consider adding a literal handful of new enemies to be a "meaningful change" and if you want difficulty its unfair to say there aren't ways to augment that, like with the calamity ring. If you want to play NG+ then go through the game and play NG+, that's not to say these additions are poor additions, but they're really not revolutionary or game changing either.
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.
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.
I agree that this was a shortcoming of Dark Souls III, I don't think the game is perfect nor do I think Dark Souls 2 is terrible, I enjoyed each and defended Dark Souls 2 plenty when it had come out too. I'd strongly disagree that it bears really any resemblance in terms of design or layout but I agree that Dark Souls 2 had a level of interactivity that was sorely missed in the third game.
Locales aren't poorly designed, though maybe poorly arranged. The levels are, none of them outside of Sunken King are great, they're passable at best.
The thing is, Dark Souls III does plenty of new things with its lore and design, people just choose to ignore that to make the easy argument that "this is just a rehash of this" it's a shallow and tired argument. I don't know what you consider to be good level design, but for me Lothric Castle is stellar level design, Undead Settlement is a great way to do an open and sprawling level while staying intricate, Irithyll Dungeon is claustrophobic yet expansive. The only interesting level I can think of in base Dark Souls 2 is maybe the iron kingdom with its raised and lowered platforms.
Its hardly a grand finale.[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls 2 insinuates that it's a cycle that will go on and on because reasons and adds nothing to the seriea
Dark souls III shows you the effect that repeadedly linking the fire (big ol dark sign in the sky and the pilgrim butterflies) and that no matter how many times you try to preserve it it's still going to go out and that attempting to keep it going for so long is just destroying the world, in addition to that the idea of a third age is brought up, and age of "deep" or water, in contrast to the age of fire which again actually contributes something to the overarching story rather than saying "nothing you do matters because everything is a cycle" while introducing nothing new, that's lazy story telling. Dark Souls 1 can get away with it because it's the first game but Dark Souls III introduces and adds many more themes, ideas and characters into the lore using the original lore as a jumping off point to expand its world and what's gone on it it since the first game rather than as a crutch. Like the Pontiff taking over Irithyll, potentially being the one to stop the prince from linking the fire and eliminating the remnants of the old royal family by exiling it's descendants and feeding the only remaining god in the city to one of his pawns. That's new, that's substance and that's interesting rather than going the easy route and saying "this character is a reincarnation of so and so" that's a throwback for nostalgia, this is being a sequel and building upon and continuing working towards the conclusion to the story.
Anor Londo exists because it's more than just a callback, it's central to the story, Ash Lake exists to serve as a conclusion as to what happens to the demons without Chaos while also being loosely connected to the main story (Prince Florian)
Killer Queen
Banned
Doesn't Miyazaki say they're both connected?
I'm ready.
Tarkus
Member
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
KEEN. Couldn't give a shit about these reviews, cannot wait to play more Souls goodness.
EDIT: Boss numbers aren't an issue. As others have said, DS2 DLC had 2 bosses each and 1 rehash. IIRC Iron King DLC you only needed to kill Fume Knight to 'complete' the DLC and not Sir Alonne too. As long as the level design is on point and there's some nice new weapons and enemies, I'll be happy.
EDIT: Boss numbers aren't an issue. As others have said, DS2 DLC had 2 bosses each and 1 rehash. IIRC Iron King DLC you only needed to kill Fume Knight to 'complete' the DLC and not Sir Alonne too. As long as the level design is on point and there's some nice new weapons and enemies, I'll be happy.
Killer Queen
Banned
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
Tarkus
Member
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.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
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
Bloodborne won
Killer Queen
Banned
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.
Killer Queen
Banned
Why have Neogaf if not to argue over videogames?
Emperor_Uriel
Member
A bit disappointing, but initial impressions also mentioned that several minibosses felt like bosses (similar to the Stray Demon/Fire Demon from vanilla DkS3).
As long as the next DLC brings us to Londor and finally fucking wraps up the Primordial Serpents plot thread, I'm good.
As long as the next DLC brings us to Londor and finally fucking wraps up the Primordial Serpents plot thread, I'm good.
bobawesome
Member
Can't say I regret selling my copy of the game now.
Killer Queen
Banned
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.
Psychoward
Banned
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.
That said even DS2 is a good to great game overall. All of these games are really good, we are just nitpicking in terms of the goodness levels of each.
BB is the best though.
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.
Killer Queen
Banned
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
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.
..
Adam_Vania
Banned
i don't know about conflating quantity with quality or with "smartness". yes DS2 has more locations and most of them are forgettable and have dull texture work. imo DS2's sheer amount of stuff in it displays a lack of focus.
Ghost Ship was ok but really not all that impressive and certainly not on the level of New Londo. lighting the 3 Farron swamp pyres to access the Abyss Watchers required more exploration to open up imo, including an optional boss.
DS2 was a great game but DS3 is easily the peak of the series for me.
Of course this happens the one time I buy a season pass... Sounds underwhelming.
I don't mind the length all that much as I remember clearing some DkS2 DLC areas in 3-5 hours too, but impressions don't sound too hot either way.
Oh well I even enjoyed DkS2's so this can't be too bad, here's hoping I still enjoy it and the second DLC is more meaty.
I don't mind the length all that much as I remember clearing some DkS2 DLC areas in 3-5 hours too, but impressions don't sound too hot either way.
Oh well I even enjoyed DkS2's so this can't be too bad, here's hoping I still enjoy it and the second DLC is more meaty.
Killer Queen
Banned
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.
Fulminator
Member
damn, this does not seem to be up to snuff with from's usual stuff
i'll still play it and enjoy it, but i'm a little disappointed we only got two new bosses
i'll still play it and enjoy it, but i'm a little disappointed we only got two new bosses
CountAntonius
Member
I doubt it'll be bad, it's just with the main game being such a huge disappointment the DLC had to really be outstanding to turn it around and that doesn't seem to be the case.
Similar threads
- Poll