While I think the poster was exaggerating how bad it is, the part where you pull the lever after unpetrifying that girl is literally like that. Lothric Castle had a room like that too iirc.Literally does not happen a single time
While I think the poster was exaggerating how bad it is, the part where you pull the lever after unpetrifying that girl is literally like that. Lothric Castle had a room like that too iirc.Literally does not happen a single time
Souls fanbase is truly the worst.
The hyperbole is strong with this post...
Not to mention DS1 loves the placing an enemy around a blind corner for you trick.
Must be interesting to loathe design that only exists on your mind.
Utter bollocks.
While I think the poster was exaggerating how bad it is, the part where you pull the lever after unpetrifying that girl is literally like that. Lothric Castle had a room like that too iirc.
Well I ordered DS2:SotFS. Hope you guys are right. Given what's been said it seems I'll enjoy it.
So I didn't like Dark Souls 3 at all. I thought the story was nonsensical,
the gameplay too fast and reminiscent of Bloodborne without thinking why that game's lightning fast pace worked,.
Sorcery was just awful and not worth the investment,
...and a lot of the bosses felt pretty bad, especially the Lords of Cinder (Abyss Watchers aside).
Weiss said:I like Dark Souls because it's slow and methodical. I have to think about every attack I make and suffer the consequences, and Dark Souls 3 didn't really have that. It was too fast and ruined that thoughtful waltz of attacking and blocking, instead feeling like a random smattering of dodging waiting for your chance to attack.
Thank you, you summed up perfectly why Dark Souls 3 is shit. It's literally just a bunch of random concept and mechanics mesh together without any real thoughtful design to it.
Amazing game I say, fucking amazing.
Why would you play Demon's Souls or Dark Souls or Bloodborne when you can just play the all-in-one discount package, Dark Souls 3?
Have you guys played recently? The entrance towards shaded woods where the door literally closes behind you and have about 4 enemies jump from out of nowhere and doors open where even more enemies show up and a basalisk to ambush you too? Speaking of shaded woods, the entire area is meant to ambush you and then don't get me started on Earthern peak/Harvest Valley where enemies literally jump from lower levels to ambush you at all angles. How are you going to see those headless enemies jump literally from a lower level?
And yeah I exagerrated a bit but it happens way more in 2 than in any souls game. Makes me wonder if they added the mechanic of permanently removing enemies as a measure to counter it. It's the only souls game where you can kill an enemy a number of times to prevent them from respawning until NG+ or burning an ember.
Probably not OP. I have tried multiple times to get into D2. Can't do it. It's a shit game.
I'm glad OP didn't listen to people with driveby shit posts like this. At least other people actually explain what bothers them about the games.
Yes, the lore and the story def. flew over your head..
...That doesn't mean the problem is the game . Perhaps do some research and read the descriptions of items and you'll understand just why BB's story is actually really good.
I don't know if this will help but after playing Nioh, I wouldn't play any Dark Souls anymore.
It lacks the correct sense of dread in the world atmosphere. The world building is off. The entire beginning of the game with bosses and areas drags at a crawl and is dull as hell. Pacing is piss poor.
That enough for you? Or do you need more reasons why B team game is D tier quality ?
DS2 is the worst of the franchise (gfx, floaty feeling of the engine, glitches, a lot of boring dudes in armor bosses, cheap group ganks, bad/nonsensical geography), enemies vanishing over time, Soul Memory for PvP).
But it has really, really good PvP except for the soul memory thing, and sorcery/miracles/hexes are worthwhile builds and have some fun variety. A lot of interesting weapons too that are worthwhile.
Makes for a lot of variety in playthrough style. I had a lot of fun with it despite its flaws.
But I thought DS3 was great, minus PvP being turned into a rollfest, and a lack of the fun variety of spells and weapons that DS2 had.
Well said.
As a Dota and Overwatch player, would you say Dark Souls is worse than both?
Play Bloodborne first.
It eases you into the souls series.
Wow, I can't believe people are seriously calling DS3 trash with a straight face. Ranks among the most immature hyperbole I've read on GAF.
Sounds like you'll enjoy the pace of DS2 more OP, good luck.
My god the b team shit is like a parody at this point lol, I'm actually embarrassed for you if you think half your criticism is actually objectively correct lol.
Atmosphere: aside from being incredibly subjective in most games, the hell is "correct sense of dread"? The entire game's themes revolve around passing away quietly, it's the entire reason Majula is designed to be forever in sunset with incredibly soft gentle music reminiscent of a luliby. So it sounds to me your complaint is actually "the atmosphere wasn't the same as the first so it's automatically shit".
The world building is "off"? Again wow great explanation, I assume you mean that the world geometry doesn't fit properly like in ds1? Well yeah because I'm DS2 your essentially travelling across an entire continent. Not to mention that the area transitions fit the overall themes as well, being dreamlike.
And especially the "pacing" for the starting areas? Do tell because ds2 has more options for where to go than any other souls game aside from arguably DS1.
Not to mention that you can burn through the starter areas just as fast as any of the other souls games, on top branching out, so how exactly does it slow to a crawl?
Any time I run into the usual Souls narrative praise I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. And if you dare to criticize any of it you get the same tired "you want to be spoon fed exposition in 1 hour cutscenes?" rebuttal which pretty much entirely misses the point of the criticism. I think the way Souls games deliver lore and narrative is amazing, but the actual execution of it leaves much to be desired.
Seriously, if there is one tiring aspect to all of the adoration with these games it is most definitely shit tier storytelling.
Yes, the lore is cool. But none of it really matters. Yes, there are some cool parts, but in no way really am I really attracted to my character. I feel nothing for them. I never have. Ever. No Souls game has ever made me cry. The closest I ever had to an emotional punch was the girl in the prison in Demon's Souls. I thought that was beautiful.
Bloodborne is cool and all but it makes no sense. At all. And it's a big step down from what I want out of a cohesive and worthy storyline that does all the lore justice.
I can understand that. To me the lore for the games made sense and I had fun with them, but for me the gameplay is what I always cared about the most. I also would prefer if the lore was more clear cut in certain parts, because most agreed upon theories are still just theories for the nkist part to a certain extent.
It's like another poster said, the lore in general is good, but the story of your character is literally "person trying to achieve thing" and doesn't really go beyond that concept. Which imo suits the gameplay just fine as there isn't a way I can see to fit a more traditional narrative.
Of all Souls games, Sorcery is probably at its best in Dark Souls 2.
Huh, I didn't feel like Sorcery was trash at all in DS3. Great Heavy Soul Arrow is your main workhorse, the most cost-efficient damage-dealing spell, while you have Soul Spear for bosses or higher alpha damage. Then Soulstream is fantastic for opening up tanky enemies (for instance, I was regularly one-shotting the shield-wielding Ringed City Knights from afar because the spell would break their guard and deal tremendous counter damage).
Yeah, you have to invest a lot in INT to see favorable returns (I think I capped out at 60), and I don't like that the higher-tier spells like Crystal Soul Spear gobble up a ton of FP while dealing proportionally less damage than something like GHSA, but as a whole package, Sorcery is perfectly serviceable in Dark Souls III.
That said, I would encourage you to try out DS2, it sounds like you'll probably enjoy it. Nice variety of sorceries in that game, and magic classes can use herbs to refill their spell charges without compromising their healing abilities.
No, it was the best in Demon's Souls. Magic in general though is probably the best in Dark Souls 2, but it was even better at launch prior to the massive nerfs. Sorcery itself though was rather weak at launch until the later half of the game. Hexes and Miracles on the other hand (and a few Pryo spells) were extremely powerful.
I think sorcery in Demon's souls was a bit overpowered; I remember killing most bosses fairly easily with firestorm
Really though, I really like the way how the world is presented in the Souls and you're just thrown in there. The lore in general (especially BB, DeS, and DS1) is very interesting, although some aspects could be a bit more clear. There are are plenty of other games with a traditional presentation which I have greatly enjoyed, but this is one of the few rpg's with this particular style.
I think sorcery in Demon's souls was a bit overpowered; I remember killing most bosses fairly easily with firestorm
The world building is "off"? Again wow great explanation, I assume you mean that the world geometry doesn't fit properly like in ds1? Well yeah because I'm DS2 your essentially travelling across an entire continent. Not to mention that the area transitions fit the overall themes as well, being dreamlike.
I think sorcery in Demon's souls was a bit overpowered; I remember killing most bosses fairly easily with firestorm
Did you actually play 1 and 3 after one another, because they're nowhere near the same combatwise IMO. Dark Souls 3 combat is about three or four times faster than the first game's. Both are faster than 2, though.Thought 1 and 3 had very similar combat. 2 is slow as molasses.
Weird bump
So OP, did you end up playing Dark Souls 2? If you're still on the fence, it does have the best sorcery and the more methodical combat. I think you'd like it.
Sorcery is even more overpowered in Demon's Souls, though, so you should play that one too
Weird seeing this bumped.
Anyway I gave it a shot and found it really lacking. Attacks felt weightless and all of my enemies felt like damage sponges. Gave up after I beat the Pursuer, which was all of my problems with the game wrapped into one package.
My first attempt was as a sorcerer, and the game didn't even start me off with a shield, or the stats to wield one. Kinda soured me on the whole experience.
I'll probably try again sometime.
This is probably my most controversial opinion on the game, but I also felt Dark Souls 2's story and characters (at least in Scholar of the First Sin) were the most compelling in the series.
I agree. I liked Dark Souls 2 a lot, but I think Shrine of Amana is one of the worst location in a game ever. How the hell did that ever get through testing? I get Dark Souls is supposed to be hard, but that shit was just unfair.The only real negative i have with 2, is with some of its locations being really bad. I mean Forest of Fallen Giants, how this ever made the cut...
I feel like DS3 kind of screwed up the story of the Dark Souls franchise. I really enjoyed how Dark Souls 2 was all about how the world kind of moves in cycles. The fire might've been rekindled or not, it doesn't matter. In the end someone rekindled it, Lordran and all the old gods became forgotten and people build new stuff on top of the old stuff. Things that were common knowledge in Dark Souls 1 were (almost) completely forgotten in Dark Souls 2 because Dark Souls 2 is set thousands of years after that time. And in comes Dark Souls 3, which is again set years after 2, but for some reason everybody suddenly remembers names like Gwyn and The Witch of Izalith again.
It's interesting because Dark Souls 2 got/gets a lot of flak for Ornstein kind of showing up again, but Dark Souls 3 is almost always excused for the blatant winks and nods to Dark Souls 1.
I feel like DS3 kind of screwed up the story of the Dark Souls franchise. I really enjoyed how Dark Souls 2 was all about how the world kind of moves in cycles. The fire might've been rekindled or not, it doesn't matter. In the end someone rekindled it and everything started over again, Lordran and all the old gods became forgotten and people build new stuff on top of the old stuff. Things that were common knowledge in Dark Souls 1 were (almost) completely forgotten in Dark Souls 2 because Dark Souls 2 is set thousands of years after that time. And in comes Dark Souls 3, which is again set years after 2, but for some reason everybody suddenly remembers names like Gwyn and The Witch of Izalith again.
It's interesting because Dark Souls 2 got/gets a lot of flak for Ornstein kind of showing up again, but Dark Souls 3 is almost always excused for the blatant winks and nods to Dark Souls 1.
I think it shouldn't be forgotten. DS2 wanted it to be this way, added it as a side effect of Hollowing (?), but it's a tiresome theme and concept in general. The fact that these cycles exist doesn't mean everything should be forgotten during the next iteration.
What DS3 did was to finally bring this endless cycle to a close (not without leaving the hope that it might begin anew).
And regarding Ornstein: What did DS2 do exactly? It put a grey Ornstein model in a small church connected by a ridiculously large drawbridge, and let you fight it in a bossfight that plays out like fighting Ornstein in DS1 without Smough and without a second phase. Then it proceeds to never really mention this guy again. Everything about this encounter - hell, his entire existence in this game - was forgettable and meaningless.
Compare this to the Nameless King in DS3 and realize the immense difference in substance in terms of fanservice for this character.