Yeeah. I knew about the more linear nature of the world, but I didn't want to know the exact amount of areas the game has.. Not cool.
Dark Souls III Review Thread
- Thread starter HoJu
- Start date
Yeeah. I knew about the more linear nature of the world, but I didn't want to know the exact amount of areas the game has.. Not cool.
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
*Shrug.* I enjoyed all those areas and bosses except Bed of Chaos.
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Whilst this is true these areas wrap around like a circle, and are actually very close physically too each other. You can constantly see each area from another, it just isnt interconnected.
+ whilst we are playing the ms paint game, this is what an area looks pathway map looks like in ds3
. said:
StrawberryKikwi
Member
Guys, you need to withhold judgement until you play the game yourself.
http://i.imgur.com/xbnOPJy.png?1
This is my interpretation of the map. Definitely not as linear as the one previously posted leads you to believe. It's not dark souls 1 levels of world design, but I find it less linear than Bloodborne (Aside from the forest back to Yharnam shortcut), and with the exception of Dark Souls 2 allowing you 4 paths at the start of the game, it is definitely less linear than Dark Souls 2 over all.
EDIT: Changed to link because spoilers
http://i.imgur.com/xbnOPJy.png?1
This is my interpretation of the map. Definitely not as linear as the one previously posted leads you to believe. It's not dark souls 1 levels of world design, but I find it less linear than Bloodborne (Aside from the forest back to Yharnam shortcut), and with the exception of Dark Souls 2 allowing you 4 paths at the start of the game, it is definitely less linear than Dark Souls 2 over all.
EDIT: Changed to link because spoilers
The notion that lack of development time of all things, is responsible for the game not being interconnected like DS1 is hilarious. As if there was any objectively superior way to design the game world. They obviously meant for it to look the way it does. That goes for all the other souls games as well. So depair, it's linear in comparison. You can go back and play "interconnectivity tourist guide" now while the rest of us play the souls games themselves.
DS1 and 2 were laid out like this:
DS3's world basically looks like this:
I'm curious what Bloodborne's map looks like in comparison. I have a feeling it would be closer to DS3's but I could be wrong.
No, it really isn't. There's
one time
avoidable
doing the other way firs
I mean the shit you guys are trying to sell as nonlinearity is about the same as me saying DS1 is wildly more nonlinear than it is because technically I could stop halfway through Lost Izalith, do a quarter of Duke's, do half of New londo, then finish the catacombs, do another quarter of Duke's, do a quarter of LI, finish New Londo, get to to boss of Dukes then decide I'm tired of that so randomly homeward bone at the boss door and go back to LI and finish that, then go back to Duke's and beat the boss, and then go beat the game.
Do you really not see how asinine that is?
Urgh, no, no, no I did not want to see this, shit shit shit.
Hype deflated. Got damnit from whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
You care far too much.
It's similar design to Bloodborne, DS2 design was horribad and so you end up with either DS1 or BB. They chose the latter, it's fine.
If you hated BB, don't buy it.
Sanctuary
Member
Why is that shocking? IGN wants to remain "hip" and "relevant", so of course they jumped onto the Souls bandwagon once Demon's Souls became a minor hit. They also did the same thing that they do with every majorly anticipated, "high profile" game. They give it nearly a perfect score, whether or not that score is actually completely justified (I have no idea yet).
The irony is also not lost on me that anyone is actually complaining about the Polygon review. Especially those who haven't even played the game yet. I already know that you remember how Dark Souls 2 was received by the general public for the first few months...
Exactly the same thing I was worried about before reading the review. Bloodborne's world just grew very boring to me after my initial playthrough. Yep, it sure was "consistent" as many love to spout as some kind of virtue; consistently the same throughout the majority of areas.
Oh please. If you play Bloodborne twice, you've played literally every playstyle. It's not about the number of weapons you can carry in your inventory, it's about the number of options you have throughout the game. Even if you cut the amount of redundant weapons in Dak Souls 2 down to 30% of what it had, it would still have vastly more options regarding melee alone. Then of course there was using a shield or going two-handed (that wasn't an option in Bloodborne) as well as the complete lack of anything resembling a "caster" build in Bloodborne until the DLC (which means you slogged through the majority of the game as melee again), and even then it was severely limited due to the bullet quantity and cost of tools. Bloodborne was wholly melee centric, and for what it had, it did extremely well. It just didn't have much beyond that.
Also, trick weapons were for the most part a gimmick. Typically it wasn't even worth shifting them mid-swing and it was better leaving them in one form over another for the majority of the game. The main difference being bosses.
That is kind of how I play these games, lol
Frozenprince
Banned
DS1 and 2 were laid out like this:
DS3's world basically looks like this:
I'm not seeing significant difference here. Other than that they aren't technically "connected" even though they are all geographically connected anyway you just quickly TP between them in transitions. It reminds me of the "THIS IS A REAL SHOOTERS MAP" thing with COD.
So game is more linear in terms of the conection bewteen different areas BUT a lot of people that completed the game said that it has the best level design of the entire series, those areas seems to be like giante mazes.
Am i right? If this is true, even my favourite kind of design is the conection between areas like in DS1, if those areas are incredibly designed, then i don't have any problem with this change.
Am i right? If this is true, even my favourite kind of design is the conection between areas like in DS1, if those areas are incredibly designed, then i don't have any problem with this change.
Yeah, still trying to work that one out
Fancy Clown
Member
I really don't care that much about world design like most of you folks. Sure it can be really cool, but it's not nearly as important as, ya know, the actual level design. A big reason why Dark Souls 2 was dissapointing wasn't because the levels are linearly strung together, but because the levels themselves were dissapointingly designed. So I don't even care if DS3 is the MOST linear as long as the levels themselves match up to the quality of Bloodborne.
Honestly, the individual areas are mostly straightforward. Yes, there's verticality and there's interconnecting, but they rarely had me really confused. A few areas are so wide-open that they feel overwhelming at first, but you figure them out before too long.
brickarts295
Member
Like this
Yeah it definitely feels closer to BB than DS1. No complains here since I prefer BB world design more than DS1/2.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Urgh, no, no, no I did not want to see this, shit shit shit.
Hype deflated. Got damnit from whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
The only thing missing between DS1 and DS3 is elevatord connecting levels and places. And that's not a bad thing seeing how much well rounded is the level design, there are also several levels layered in a very intrincate way that we didn't see since demon's.
The result is an incredible well designed and coherent world. Yeah you don't have a 290m elevator that takes you to a totally unrelated level in your progression.
Otherwise the result is a better designed game than DS1.
Instead of spoiling yourself up, wait to play it, that diagram dosn't make it justice.
No, it's not gone.
A lot of people play the game that way, bruh. Chill. I gave you as good an answer as I could without spoiling because this isn't the thread for it, but it has nothing to do with progression being blocked but more to do with going, "Eh, I'm not feelin' this area. Time to go somewhere else." Just because you play the game with MLG precision doesn't mean everyone does.
I didn't even get to the boss doors of some areas before deciding to go somewhere else, and on the occasion I did it was because I didn't feel like fighting that boss at the time. It's how I've played every Souls game. It's how I'll continue to play the Souls games.
JudgmentJay
Member
All this concern is hilarious. Dark Souls 1 is (was?) my favorite game of all time, and I think Dark Souls 3 is a masterpiece. Yeah, the world is more linear and not as interconnected, but the individual areas are far more complex and interesting. To me that's much more important than a handful of "oh neat, I'm back at this area that I completed previously" moments. If early game build options/variety is your concern, it shouldn't be. The game goes out of its way to shower you with lots of different weapon types early on. And the big sequence break, while challenging, leads to some really awesome gear if obtained early in the game.
Snake eater was playing in my head at the end of Demon's Ruins as that massive ladder just randomly swung me back around to the tri-crossbow thing back in Smouldering lake, hahaha
Pretty much all the late game areas in Dark Souls were lacking in level design.
Robot Pants
Member
Oh if it's like Bloodborne then I'm not worried at all. Awesome, hype restored.
StrawberryKikwi
Member
Teleportation is in, but the bullshit is gone
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Same lol
Bloodborne is probably a bit closer to DS2 actually, with the 'chapel' acting a bit like Majula(a hub that seeds several linear pathways in different directions). Though the big difference from DS2 is that many of those extensions have some really novel shortcuts that makes progression feel a bit less linear despite (they circle back in various ways on themselves) whereas DS2 feels a bit more rigid and straightforward outside of a few zones. So it exists somewhere between DS1 and DS2.
Also BB does a better job at allowing you to gaze into the distance and get your bearings from landmarks, whereas you can't often do the same in DS2.
Pretty much. The first half of Dark Souls is my favourite segment of the whole series, but I still don't get the interconnected world obsession; in DS1's case even in the first half most of the best design came from the brilliance of individual levels rather than the connections between them.
Robot Pants
Member
Praise
About that Dark Souls 3 chart,
I'd be fine if the dots represent actual areas that have their own clever little shortcuts
For example, you could say Bloodborne is
Shouldn't Oedon Chapel be inside Yahrnam? ;p
Jeronimo Jones
Member
I will play this eventually, probably. I never finished Dark Souls or even touched DS2, so I have some catching up to do.
I'm a fan of Demon's Souls and Bloodborne but managed to miss out.
I'm a fan of Demon's Souls and Bloodborne but managed to miss out.
About that Dark Souls 3 chart,
I'd be fine if the dots represent actual areas that have their own clever little shortcuts
For example, you could say Bloodborne is
or
There's no where to really shortcut to. All of the branches are basically spokes that dead end from the extension from the core hub, and there's at most two "base" hub points in the entire game.
DS3's world basically looks like this:
hmm. A few areas are missing and overall this is not an appropriate representation of the world imho.
This really simplifies and dumbs it down. Same can be done for DS1 and 2.
I have 100+ hours in the JP version btw.
A version of it. Doesn't look exactly like this. The snake thing is completely gone.
I'd say the stakes are definitely not as dramatic as they seem in the picture.
I'd say the stakes are definitely not as dramatic as they seem in the picture.
DS3 and Hyper Light Drifter are killing it right now.
But.. but leave it to the verified experts to draw the maps
Also people willing to to just spoiler themselves on stuff?
I guess the real media-black-out-kings aren't coming back until the game hits for real.
Orochinagis
Member
You cant go back in some of the Dark Souls 2 routes so is better to use fast traveling while in Dark Souls 1 you can go back on foot in any zone except Ariamis.
About that Dark Souls 3 chart,
I'd be fine if the dots represent actual areas that have their own clever little shortcuts
For example, you could say Bloodborne is
The main hub on Yharman is actually Cathedral ward then is spreads to those zones adding upper cathedral ward and the starting point on the DLC.
He also needs to cancel Dark Souls III for Xbox 360.
disappointment, at least the
bleeding sun is still a thing?
the best part of bloodborne if when they change all the world after beating rom and the insight's stuff
the best part of bloodborne if when they change all the world after beating rom and the insight's stuff
Yes.
Okay, so people are saying the world is somewhat linear like BB, you can still see other areas in the distance to help it feel more cohesive, and that the individual areas are well designed and complex? As someone who loves DeS, DS1, BB, and was somewhat disappointed by DS2 (though I still like it), this all sounds GREAT.
OK, so unimportant shortcut to other zones aside, how is the actual level design in this game? You know, like the level design of the zones.
I love how some of you are abstracting it into one node. "Look at this boring map." Yeah, when you make every area represented by a damn circle it looks super dull, people.
I love how some of you are abstracting it into one node. "Look at this boring map." Yeah, when you make every area represented by a damn circle it looks super dull, people.