• 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

F

Ferrio

Banned
Aurongel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
V

Vinc

Member
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.
 
A

AngryMoth

Member
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
 
K

Killer Queen

Banned
Ferrio said:
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.
Click to expand...
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


Vinc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

Already Torn

Banned
Ferrio said:
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.
Click to expand...
We're not even considering DS2 a Souls game now?
 
Z

zashga

Member
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.

Ferrio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F

Ferrio

Banned
Killer Queen said:
Would you like to back that up with some actual reasoning.
Click to expand...

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.
 
N

Nags

Banned
When I saw that it takes place in a snowy area I was immediately worried.
DSIII continues to be the weakest game out of them all.
 
K

Killer Queen

Banned
Ferrio said:
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.
Click to expand...
Im asking for your reasoning though, not everyone else's. But you're right, not the place.
 
P

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
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
 
V

Vinc

Member
Killer Queen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gooood. Very good. So I can play it without worrying about it and access the DLC afterwards if I miss it in my initial playthrough. Awesome!
 
Hikami

Hikami

Member
it doesn't really go anywhere we haven't seen before
Click to expand...

Well that doesn't sound good. This is exactly what I didn't want because the main game was already so similar to the previous games.
 
A

Arkeband

Banned
Ferrio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G

GwyndolinCinder

Member
Aurongel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

toddhunter

Member
Come on guys. You can argue all day about which is better, but at the end of the day all the games are like 99.5% exactly the same thing.

Which seems to be the problem here.

I think I'll pass until the full set of DLC is out and then get it cheaper. It might make things feel a bit more interesting to get back into.
 
Z

Zocano

Member
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.
 
RiccochetJ

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
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.
 
Lux R7

Lux R7

Member
from the rpgsite review:
"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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
N

Neoweee

Member
Aurongel said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was a backlash against the game's linearity and very poor build variety between the JP and US releases. It isn't remotely new.
 
S

sappyday

Member
I'm not surprised. Everything about the trailer was underwhelming and the game itself is sort of underwhelming in general.
 
M

Mr. Poolman

Member
Ferrio said:
DS2 is an overall better game than DS3 in it's current state imo.
Click to expand...

Not a popular opinion on these sides, but a correct one.

DS2 has a far superior PvP build variety and convenants, and at least attemps to do something different instead of being Dark Souls 1.5

Even this DLC is guess what... an area from DS1 again -_-
 
F0rneus

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
Ferr986 said:
No.Just no. There has been way more DS2 hate threads than DS3.

This thread is not really indicative.
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

JudgmentJay

Member
F0rneus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Make a thread with a poll for worst Souls game. I guarantee you DS2 would be the leader by a large margin.
 
K

Killer Queen

Banned
Mr. Poolman said:
Not a popular opinion on these sides, but a correct one.

DS2 has a far superior PvP build variety and convenants, and at least attemps to do something different instead of being Dark Souls 1.5

Even this DLC is guess what... an area from DS1 again -_-
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lux R7

Lux R7

Member
Killer Queen said:
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.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
SoulUnison

SoulUnison

Banned
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?"
 
R

Red Liquorice

Member
SoulUnison said:
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?"
Click to expand...
There are two DLCs, this has been known since the original reveal way back when.

Re boss numbers in DS2 DLC:
ponpo said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

Mr. Poolman

Member
Killer Queen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alone in the Dark | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
136
7K
Alan Wake replied
  • Poll
Will Elden Ring get a proper DLC campaign? What do you want to see from it?
2
53
3K
HYDE replied
Star Wars: Dark Forces Remaster | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
57
4K
The Pleasure replied
Aliens: Dark Descent | Review Thread
Analysis Review
35
4K
Darkmakaimura replied
Dragon Quest Monsters: The Dark Prince Review Thread
Analysis Review
6
1K
Toots replied
Top Bottom