Dark Souls III Review Thread

I love how the "outlier" review people are discounting is fucking ONE point lower than sites like Gamespot. People decrying Polygon, implying they give controversial scores for clicks, when they gave the game literally 1 point lower then other sites and 2 lower then the metacritic average. I don't see how that's some sort of controversial statement. It's reasonably well written too.
 
That's what I was initially hoping for, that we'd get SOME warp points which, while I'm not that into it I would totally see as a nice compromise. The fact that you can warp from every single one and there not being main 'gateway' ones or so only at the beginning of a major area is what really burns me on the concept. I suppose that system wouldn't work with the Firelink hub, but then again we already had an incredibly slick solution for this...take care of all your deeds at a bonfire. I just see it as them fixing a problem that was already solved beautifully.

Often that's how it works here anyway where a major area has one bonfire and then multiple shortcuts that open up later.
 
They didn't overstate a lack of exploration. They stated that it wasn't necessary and that the areas don't have shortcuts that seem to make much sense. You need to go from point A to point B to progress, but if you want, you can visit points C, D and E in the meantime before getting back towards going to point B. I for one am going to explore every nook and cranny that I can, but it is a little disheartening to read that the world design is somewhat superfluous.

That's just not true though. Maybe they didn't realise that the stuff they did wasn't optional
 
I'm at the last boss on Xbox (with one optional boss left) and the game is fantastic. I'd give it a 9/10 and would rank it above DS2 and BB. Three or four of the bosses are easily some of my favorite in the series -
Abyss Watchers, Dancer, Pontiff, and Two Princes
- with a fluidity of movement, flourishes of color, and a good degree of challenge. Frame rate does suck on Xbox during boss fights which is frustrating but otherwise it basically runs like a souls game.
 
They didn't overstate a lack of exploration. They stated that it wasn't necessary and that the areas don't have shortcuts that seem to make much sense. You need to go from point A to point B to progress, but if you want, you can visit points C, D and E in the meantime before getting back towards going to point B. I for one am going to explore every nook and cranny that I can, but it is a little disheartening to read that the world design is somewhat superfluous.

All the Souls games have optional exploration areas though. For better or for worse, it's not any different from any of the other entries in the series in that you can speed through the game once you know where to go.
 
Oh? I must be confused as to what the reviews are saying then.

Are there shortcuts to find that connect various areas in the game?

No, the areas all have one connection point but you can traverse the world by foot (excluding one connection which is just a big gap where you can see the other side). There is also a sequence breaking secret that opens up a later area early but it's not via a shortcut
 
That Polygon review really pissed in my hype cereal. It's like they read my mind's worries about the game and decided to confirm all of them. I generally really appreciate their reviews which is what makes this tough to ignore for me.

I know a ton of impressions on here were very positive but the common criticism I see here is the world design which is #1 for me. You'd think they could've taken one more damn year of development instead of pumping everything out one after the other and actually made amends for Dark Souls 2's level design. Completely frustrating to read these criticisms and I knew that instant warping would be a crutch for faster development time and cheaper level design. Still buying the game but fuck...

Having played through the game twice now, the Polygon review is pretty much spot-on. The only thing I disagree with is the part where he said you never feel lost or overwhelmed. There is literally one moment in the game in which I felt overwhelmed with different paths to take. But then you whittle them down one by one and realize that it's really just two paths.

Also, there's really not a ton of variation in world design. There are probably more buildings that look like gothic cathedrals than buildings that don't look like gothic cathedrals.
 
Oh? I must be confused as to what the reviews are saying then.

Are there shortcuts to find that connect various areas in the game?

Not really no. The areas in this one are massive and are set on a linear path. Plenty of shortcuts that make traversing the areas after you've full explored them a lot easier.
 
No, the areas all have one connection point but you can traverse the world by foot (excluding one connection which is just a big gap where you can see the other side). There is also a sequence breaking secret that opens up a later area early but it's not via a shortcut

I assume the sequence breaking thing is killing
Dancer
early?
 
Oh? I must be confused as to what the reviews are saying then.

Are there shortcuts to find that connect various areas in the game?

Yes there are but not like dozens of them. The design choice here is large detailed areas with lots of internal shortcuts rather than between areas.
 
Having played through the game twice now, the Polygon review is pretty much spot-on. The only thing I disagree with is the part where he said you never feel lost or overwhelmed. There is literally one moment in the game in which I felt overwhelmed with different paths to take. But then you whittle them down one by one and realize that it's really just two paths.

You can do:

Abyss watchers, Wolnir, Sage, Deacons
Abyss watchers, Sage, Wolnir, Deacons
Abyss watchers, Sage, Deacons, Wolnir
Sage, Deacons, Abyss watchers, Wolnir
Sage, Abyss watchers, Deacons, Wolnir
Sage, Abyss watchers, Wolnir, Deacons

and

Pontiff, Aldritch, Yhorm
Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldritch
Yhorm, Pontiff, Aldtritch

and then there's also the secret
Dancer sequence break
as well
 
DLC doesn't magically fix all the fundamental design flaws in DkS2. DsK1 was nearly the perfect adventure

To hear Yoshichan describe it, Dark Souls was hot trash and easily the worst of any of the games under the Souls umbrella mostly because of the last "50%" of the game (1-2 areas). I completely disagree. But hey, he at least knows which game is the best out of all of these games, so there's that.

Also, I do agree that the Dark Souls 2 DLC doesn't retroactively make the vanilla game better. I like to consider the DLC trilogy as its own, seperate entity too in rankings.

That being said, I still greatly prefer it to Bloodborne (a game that *I liked quite a bit* but grew quickly bored with during replays for a great number of reasons). My biggest complaints with Dark Souls 2 were 1) agility requirement, 2) hitboxes, 3) a wildly inconsistent quality in area designs, and the obviously last-minute performance "fix" that left all of the completely unneeded braziers thanks to a seemingly global brightening of the world. I mean, why the fuck didn't they remove those? It made zero sense to leave them up and seemed vestigial.

The bosses could be very unimaginative too, but they didn't bother me that much, and they at least fit the world for the most part. Oh, and Sorcery was somewhat fucked until late game pre-DLC compared to both miracles and hexes unless you got super lucky with a Lizard Staff drop; which ironically I spent hours farming recently, only to see five drop on my next playthrough. The itemization was so screwy too that the Sunset Staff +5 (something you could grab extremely early too), infused with Dark actually did more damage with sorceries than the Staff of Wisdom +5 did at 60 INT!

I think DkS2s score compared to DkS1s shows how very little reviewers understand games and game design. The problem was very well put by MrBtongue; there's no academia for games journalism

This is too rich. Especially considering GAF was completely enamoured with Dark Souls 2 for the first few weeks, and wouldn't hear anyone on the obviously (to a select few it would seem) glaring flaws. Sure, there were a great many complaints before launch about the lighting and graphical downgrade, but once it launched, most people were too busy enjoying it, or playing in such a way where specific mechanical flaws were not so apparent.

Personally I'd go ds2>>demons>>>ds1>>>>>>>>>>bloodborne,

It's still a great game, but the lack of build variety, and the very linear order of progression compared to the other games really makes it the worse of the bunch for me.

Demon's <> Dark depending on what I'm in the mood for at the time, > Dark Souls 2 DLC > Dark Souls 2 > Bloodborne. No clue where this game is going to fit. It just depends on so many unknowns right now; although they do need to fix whatever is fundamentally broken with offensive miracles and sorceries, and the weapon arts need to justify the focus.
 
DLC doesn't magically fix all the fundamental design flaws in DkS2. DsK1 was nearly the perfect adventure

Dark Souls 1 having amazing DLC also doesn't fix the part, where the last 4th of the base game is the weakest out of any souls games (including Dark Souls 2).

If you could somehow remove everything between getting the lordvessel and fighting gwyn, and insert the DLC instead, it would be the best Souls game easily. But I really value an even experience, and Dark Souls 1 feels the most up and down in terms of quality to me. Dark Souls 2 doesn't reach the same highs, but I don't think it goes as low either, and that's why I like it better than 1 (though still less than DeS and Bloodborne).

I'm very optimistic about 3 though, it sounds awesome.
 
No. I mean how much detail do you want? I could tell you exactly how it's laid out

I don't want to be spoilered but I imagine it's more like a tree with some branches. I've heard the game's strength lies in the design of the areas themselves.
 
How are you going to forget about Dark Souls II with all the references that are in DS III?
including weapons, armour sets, phantoms, item descriptions, etc

If you're a crackpot, you can forget anything!

He's been shitting up every DS3 thread with his obstinacy.

For those who have played Bloodborne and the Dark Souls series which one is harder?About the same difficulty level?

I thought BB was the easiest, including the Platinum, but I realized very early that Vitality was wildly OP, so I put most of my points in it, past the soft caps, and wore most of the +HP runes.
 
Just want to remind you guys that there's an OT and a spoiler thread to talk about the game in more depth. It's a spoiler minefield in here right now.
 
DS2 was layed out like a...sun with paths in every direction but ultimately unsatisfying dead ends. Is it like this in DS3?

Basically it's a linear path that will occasionally have another path to take that eventually leads to a dead end. I found the paths that were not optional lead to dead ends that were quite satisfying because the areas were great and the bosses were fantastic.

If you're a crackpot, you can forget anything!

He's been shitting up every DS3 thread with his obstinacy.

The worst part of the Import thread was him desperately trying prove that DS2 has no connection in DS3.
 

I don't think that's accurate, you aren't warping onto separate paths except for the very first area past the hub, they are connected but for most of them it's just one way.

Here is my professionally drawn map of the overarching world.

The cutscene after Area 9 can occur at some other points too but I'm leaving it as the most basic path for now.

Anything with an arrow and without a text remark means you walk to it from the previous area, though it may be past a boss or some other kind of gatekeeper.
 
Considering this is supposed to be the last Dark Souls game (at least for a long time) I don't see why they would leave out references to the previous two games for all of the fans. It honestly sounds like Dark Souls 3 is taking elements from all of the previous Souls games (Bloodborne included) which to me, is a good thing.
 
Austin Walker decribed the layout in each game in comparison to DS3.

Dark Souls is like a tower, where you're going upwards and downwards with floors to explore.

Dark Souls 2 is flat, where you are going far out in every which way, and it just goes.

Dark Souls 3 is a line. But maybe it's more like a tree branch?
 
Bloodborne was hardest for me but it was my first one of these games

If you're a crackpot, you can forget anything!

He's been shitting up every DS3 thread with his obstinacy.



I thought BB was the easiest, including the Platinum, but I realized very early that Vitality was wildly OP, so I put most of my points in it, past the soft caps, and wore most of the +HP runes.

The required parts of Bloodborne are easier but some of the optional areas/bosses are the hardest in the series.

Thanks I have played BB only and looking forward to play DS3!
 
I don't want to be spoilered but I imagine it's more like a tree with some branches. I've heard the game's strength lies in the design of the areas themselves.

Yeah, kind of. What happens is you reach some areas where there are multiple paths. Both paths are necessary to progress but only one is physically connected to the progression.
 
Honestly I like hearing that they structured the environment in a new way instead of just trying to copy Dark Souls layout.
 
Dark Souls 1 having amazing DLC also doesn't fix the part, where the last 4th of the base game is the weakest out of any souls games (including Dark Souls 2).

People keep saying this but I never saw why. I enjoyed the last 4th of Dark Souls just as much as the rest of the game apart from one specific boss fight. In fact some of the best areas of the game are in the last 4th so this criticism truly confuses me.
 
Top Bottom