Where is this revisionist history DS3 hate coming from all of a sudden...?
Dark Souls 3 was a great game the day it was released. DS2 required 3 DLC packs before it even approached the volume of intricate multi-layered dungeons that defined the series up to that point.
Revisionist? DS3 is the worst souls so far imo. Blasting DS2 for not having intricate dungeons is silly when DS3 suffers from the same thing. Guess I'll be waiting for all the DLC before sinking my teeth into it again, this one alone doesn't seem to add much to the overall game.
Is this post-game DLC or does finishing the game make you forced to replay it to access it? I haven't played DS3 yet, and I wanna make sure I don't lock myself out of this DLC during my playthrough.
Huge fan of the series but I was pretty cold on DS3 and can see this been the first content in the series I skip out on due to interest in other games at the moment. Series definitely needs a break
Every level in ds3 on its own is probably more well designed than any singular level in the prior two dark souls games. Lothric especially though both are great heights above Dark Souls 2 in terms of level design. Good level design is definitely not something DS3 suffers from
Is this post-game DLC or does finishing the game make you forced to replay it to access it? I haven't played DS3 yet, and I wanna make sure I don't lock myself out of this DLC during my playthrough.
You access it after a certain point in the game but you can still play it post game. The only games in the series you can't play dlc post game are dark souls 1 and Bloodborne.
Revisionist? DS3 is the worst souls so far imo. Blasting DS2 for not having intricate dungeons is silly when DS3 suffers from the same thing. Guess I'll be waiting for all the DLC before sinking my teeth into it again, this one alone doesn't seem to add much to the overall game.
Lower scores than I would've expected. Sounds like the DLC is relatively slight, like one of the DS2 DLCs minus the crappy "challenge" area. Or with PVP arenas instead. Oh well; I'm still in.
Revisionist? DS3 is the worst souls so far imo. Blasting DS2 for not having intricate dungeons is silly when DS3 suffers from the same thing. Guess I'll be waiting for all the DLC before sinking my teeth into it again, this one alone doesn't seem to add much to the overall game.
There are only a few areas in DS3 (Road of Sacrifices, Carthus, Profaned Capital) that are on the level of DS2. Road of Sacrifices in particular would fit right in with most of DS2; it's not very good. Most of DS3's level design is much stronger.
total package considered, it's not crazy. for some, the things that DS2 gets right are more important than the things that DS3 gets right, and vice versa. it's controvertible.
As of now, no this isn't the place to start a DS2 war, and now I'm regretting even replying to that first post. If you truly want to know I'm sure you could find the multitude of other DS threads where this point has been brought up tons of times before.
As of now, no this isn't the place to start a DS2 war, and now I'm regretting even replying to that first post. If you truly want to know I'm sure you could find the multitude of other DS threads where this point has been brought up tons of times before.
2 bosses sounds low, but Dark Souls 2 DLC bosses generally had one I wouldn't mind leaving out.
1st DLC - Elana, Sinh, then """"""gank squad"""""" which I would have been fine without.
2nd - Fume Knight, Sir Alonne, rehashed Smelter Demon
3rd - Giant Cat, Ivory King, TWO Giant Cats
Every level in ds3 on its own is probably more well designed than any singular level in the prior two dark souls games. Lothric especially though both are great heights above Dark Souls 2 in terms of level design. Good level design is definitely not something DS3 suffers from
You access it after a certain point in the game but you can still play it post game. The only games in the series you can't play dlc post game are dark souls 1 and Bloodborne.
Revisionist? DS3 is the worst souls so far imo. Blasting DS2 for not having intricate dungeons is silly when DS3 suffers from the same thing. Guess I'll be waiting for all the DLC before sinking my teeth into it again, this one alone doesn't seem to add much to the overall game.
Gameplay wise, DS3 iterated in a lot of good ways. Simplifying armor and accessory upgrades, better dual wielding, special moves. It regressed in others, such as its linearity, the amount of gimmick boss fights, boring covenants, some stats/weapons being unbalanced or broken, and not knowing whether to tell its own story or to rely on callbacks. These are the things this DLC needs to address.
Saying it's the worst in the series seems extreme when mechanically it is so superior to its predecessors. I can see an argument for being the worst in terms of level design or with its story, but those seem a little more subjective. Personally I still exalt DS1 and Bloodborne as the best of Miyazaki's work.
Where is this revisionist history DS3 hate coming from all of a sudden...?
Dark Souls 3 was a great game the day it was released. DS2 required 3 DLC packs before it even approached the volume of intricate multi-layered dungeons that defined the series up to that point.
lmao.
People dont play souls games once, souls games develop over time without updates....
Peoples thoughts will change on each play through, certain things get frustrating, lore is either interesting enough to keep you engaged or not, speed running might be shit, challenging running might be shit etc.
I've appreciated everything DS2 got right, more each time theres a new souls game.
All the DLCs were roughly the same size save for Bloodborne (which makes sense since it's two DLCs). Only bringing up DS2 is kinda disingenuous especially because I consider 1's dlc really boring to explore. If you're just counting bosses, no shit it's larger, but that's not the only factor.
Still day one for me but think with people finally getting more experienced with the games, they can be more critical of certain nuances.
I'll probably wait for all the dlc to come out then. PVP was always more of a nuisance that I had to deal with in Souls games rather than a selling point.
"Ariandel is one such a place, it is a very large place to explore but the shortcuts help bridge it together in brilliant ways. Those "ah hah!" moments when you end up back at an earlier section of a level are one of the most satisfying things about these games, and Ashes of Ariandel does not disappoint in this regard."
if I were to attribute a time to how long it will take you to finish Ashes of Ariandel, I would say somewhere between 6-8 hours. I spent around 12 hours on the DLC before I felt that everything that could be explored had been properly.
Where is this revisionist history DS3 hate coming from all of a sudden...?
Dark Souls 3 was a great game the day it was released. DS2 required 3 DLC packs before it even approached the volume of intricate multi-layered dungeons that defined the series up to that point.
I said it at release, and I still say it now. Dark Souls III is fairly hated by the Souls community. I don't get why people don't see that. I'm certain that Dark Souls II is considered a better game by most gaffers.
And IMO I disagree. DS3 is From's best game except for BB and even then, it's debatable.
I said it at release, and I still say it now. Dark Souls III is fairly hated by the Souls community. I don't get why people don't see that. I'm certain that Dark Souls II is considered a better game by most gaffers.
And IMO I disagree. DS3 is From's best game except for BB and even then, it's debatable.
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. 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. 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?
The catacombs in ds3 aren't the catacombs from DS1 nor are they similar outside of being Catacombs
Lothric isn't undead burg
Irithyll itself isn't even
Anor Londo
, it's the city below.
Such a lazy argument.
As for doing something different and not retreading, I wouldn't consider piggybacking off the story of Dark Souls 1 doing something different. "Here are four beings with great souls that are really just reincarnations of the previous four Lords and the final boss is a reincarnation of the boss from Artorias of the Abyss! Enjoy! Oh yeah, here's literally Ornstien in this decrepit castle with dirty armor because reasons! Enjoy, also your desicion to link the fire doesn't matter because this shits just gunna repeat like next week anyway"
In addition to just about everyone and everything sans DLC serving no significant purpose. It's like you guys didn't actually play Dark Souls 2.
Opposed to: "Okay, we're at the end of the story here, Gwyn started a tradition of linking the fire which has kept the age of dark at bay, but the current Lords refuse to continue that cycle so bring them back, and on your way back,
One is a glutton that eats gods, one is a misunderstood giant, one is a group that misunderstand a legend and one is a child of royal blood that was born specifically for the purpose of being a Lord but has decided to not take his throne due to being led astray by a scholar.
here are the conclusions to some plot lines from the first game and enjoy exploring new takes on old ideas!
But yes, Dark Souls III is the game with no story of its own and rehashes.
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. 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. 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?
The catacombs in ds3 aren't the catacombs from DS1 nor are they similar outside of being Catacombs
Lothric isn't undead burg
Irithyll itself isn't even
Anor Londo
, it's the city below.
Such a lazy argument.
As for doing something different and not retreading, I wouldn't consider piggybacking off the story of Dark Souls 1 doing something different. "Here are four beings with great souls that are really just reincarnations of the previous four Lords and the final boss is a reincarnation of the boss from Artorias of the Abyss! Enjoy! Oh yeah, here's literally Ornstien in this decrepit castle with dirty armor because reasons! Enjoy, also your desicion to link the fire doesn't matter because this shits just gunna repeat like next week anyway"
In addition to just about everyone and everything sans DLC serving no significant purpose. It's like you guys didn't actually play Dark Souls 2.
Opposed to: "Okay, we're at the end of the story here, Gwyn started a tradition of linking the fire which has kept the age of dark at bay, but the current Lords refuse to continue that cycle so bring them back, and on your way back,
One is a glutton that eats gods, one is a misunderstood giant, one is a group that misunderstand a legend and one is a child of royal blood that was born specifically for the purpose of being a Lord but has decided to not take his throne due to being led astray by a scholar.
here are the conclusions to some plot lines from the first game and enjoy exploring new takes on old ideas!
But yes, Dark Souls III is the game with no story of its own and rehashes.
2 bosses sounds low, but Dark Souls 2 DLC bosses generally had one I wouldn't mind leaving out.
1st DLC - Elana, Sinh, then """"""gank squad"""""" which I would have been fine without.
2nd - Fume Knight, Sir Alonne, rehashed Smelter Demon
3rd - Giant Cat, Ivory King, TWO Giant Cats
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. 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. 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?
The catacombs in ds3 aren't the catacombs from DS1 nor are they similar outside of being Catacombs
Lothric isn't undead burg
Irithyll itself isn't even
Anor Londo
, it's the city below.
Such a lazy argument.
As for doing something different and not retreading, I wouldn't consider piggybacking off the story of Dark Souls 1 doing something different. "Here are four beings with great souls that are really just reincarnations of the previous four Lords and the final boss is a reincarnation of the boss from Artorias of the Abyss! Enjoy! Oh yeah, here's literally Ornstien in this decrepit castle with dirty armor because reasons! Enjoy, also your desicion to link the fire doesn't matter because this shits just gunna repeat like next week anyway"
In addition to just about everyone and everything sans DLC serving no significant purpose. It's like you guys didn't actually play Dark Souls 2.
Opposed to: "Okay, we're at the end of the story here, Gwyn started a tradition of linking the fire which has kept the age of dark at bay, but the current Lords refuse to continue that cycle so bring them back, and on your way back,
One is a glutton that eats gods, one is a misunderstood giant, one is a group that misunderstand a legend and one is a child of royal blood that was born specifically for the purpose of being a Lord but has decided to not take his throne due to being led astray by a scholar.
here are the conclusions to some plot lines from the first game and enjoy exploring new takes on old ideas!
But yes, Dark Souls III is the game with no story of its own and rehashes.
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.