Freeman76
Member
It looks aesthetically very similar as well, you may just feel like you've been there before lol
Dark Souls III Review Thread
- Thread starter HoJu
- Start date
It looks aesthetically very similar as well, you may just feel like you've been there before lol
Leona Lewis
Banned
No spoilers, unlike that Easy Allies video review :-(Are there many spoilers in the GWC review? Want to watch it so bad.
KillerDark
Member
I agree completely. I just played and beat DeS last month (I've played all of the other souls games and bloodborne already)... it was fun and a good game but I do not think it belongs on any pedestal. I would easily rank it as the weakest of the souls games.
after actually playing and finishing the game, I can honestly only have a genuine laugh at whatever fanfiction Philip Kollar (Polygon guy*) wrote. "few surprises / lack of variety or interesting locations / something something bad world and level design, pacing (??)'' seems like he barely finished the game, missing every single optional area or hidden path along the way. I do have complaints about the game myself but that review just reads as ''look&click at me, I didn't like the game as much as the others, here all my (inaccurate) reasons!"
uh- no, I suspect hardly anyone will join you.
To your point though, that review would be a little absurd considering all the people who have played the game are citing numerous side areas and bosses that are easy to miss.
Bernardo says to grab a copy from Canada.
It deserves a lot of credit for proving the template. It's hard to see with fresh eyes after all of it has been revisited and revised across the other four games. I played it right after DS1 and even then it's impact was diminished.
It has its brevity going for it. Very solid atmosphere and other than the awkwardness of world tendency, it doesn't overreach. I adore the game, but it's my third or fourth favorite in the series.
I never watched it, just heard it and it was pretty fine..
I don't know what they included in that footage, but holy shit at those sound effects and OST.
opticalmace
Member
Really? That is great. Thanks.
edit: referring to the former here, sucks about the latter...
BotoxAgent
Member
I still need to finish Bloodborne. So I actually cancelled my preorder for Dark Souls 3. I am looking forward to Ratchet and Clank instead just so I have something less stressful and a more light-hearted romp for a change.
No it's not.
It doesn't matter, how good it is compared to other games.
It was levels below Demon's and Dark Souls and a huge disappointment.
I hope with Dark Souls 3 we'll get the final entry this series deserves so that we can forget once and for all about Dark 2.
Goldfishking
Member
To you. To alot of people (myself included), it was the best one. It's ok when people like games you dont.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Where @?
I thought it was harder than Bloodborne, but quite a bit easier than the previous Dark Souls games. It has a relatively good difficulty curve, at least, but it is also more linear and doesn't have a Company of Champions.
There's a giant stat and build imbalance that didn't/doesn't exist in Dark Souls 2, so there's bound to be a lot of different opinions. However, be aware that there are some people that are intentionally playing the game with builds they know are wildly sub-optimal and then trying to convince people that the game is wildly harder than Dark Souls 2. The few key balance caveats:
(Very vague spoilers regarding builds and stats. No spell names or gear names, etc.)
-
Early Vigor (Max HP) is wildly out of line and great compared to other stats).
Heavy Armor does virtually nothing of value due to resistance soft caps.
Spells, especially Sorcery and Miracles, are really awful for most of the game.
Half of the classes start with enough strength to use awesome 100% resistance shields that don't weight much, so you sacrifice almost nothing to have great blocks).
umm.. this might not apply to me then, for me DkS games are a lot easier than Bloodborne..
but if you say it is more difficult than bloodborne, it intrigues me... seems a lot are saying that
Bloodborne was another case of people just playing the game poorly or not making simple decisions that remove most of the game's difficulty. Vitality was by far the best stat there, to the point where getting past multiple soft caps early was highly recommended. And also, parrying was easier and less risky, so as long as your L2 button wasn't broken you basically couldn't die to a bunch of bosses.
People that think Bloodborne was really difficult probably weren't treating Vitality like their main stat, or weren't changing equipment based on the encounter. You can get by treating Bloodborne as if it only has two stats. Seriously. There's Vitality. There's your main offensive stat. And then there's a bunch traps (though a few in Endurance can be useful, depending on which weapon you are using).
it's more or less what you would expect, so (more or less) as difficult as the other games. with the knights being probably the hardest iteration of the series, or the hardest mobs even.
some people claim it's much easier but it's just them being used to the series and its gimmicks.
Polygon guy* stealth edit
but yeah, there are tons of things you can easily miss, as you would expect. I'm close to getting the platinum and started my NG++ run yesterday, meaning I tried to look everywhere and get everything (wiki/reddit were surprisingly helpful), yet I'm still finding hidden paths or items I never noticed or picked up before. not to mention that it's still unclear how to fully complete some quests in the game.
I will never understand this point of view. Never ever. DS2 is an amazing game.
I did treat vitality as my main stat...
Parrying is more difficult in dark souls, of course, that is true, but it is also true that the dependency on evading also rises the stakes more than just upping your shield.
reposting is also absent from BB while in DkS it was as easy as getting behind the enemy and slash away.
I'm not saying DkS is easy, hell no, but I found the combat nature of BB to be more... risky? more prone to errors, and in a lot of circumstances it made the game more difficult, specially when nervous (I hate you Bloodstarved Beast)
Bosses are about what you would expect in a souls game difficulty wise. Regular enemies are the hardest they have been I think. They hit hard, especially a specific few, can wreck your day in seconds.
hydrophilic attack
Member
How are the covenants? They were my favourite aspect of DaS II. So good. Especially rat bros (being on any side), bell bros (being on any side) and the rivalry between bloodbros and brolice (fuck the brolice)
Worse than Dark Souls 2 seems to be majority view at this point. Closer to Dark Souls 1, plus an absurd amount of grinding required for the Platinum. No Bell Bros equivalent (IMO, they are all closer to the Forest covenant from DS1), and no Company of Champions equivalent. Those are the two that I particularly liked.
HOWEVER, they are a separate equip slot, like Bloodborne, which is effing great. You can just hop around. Really good in that regard.
See and I think Bloodborne was a lot easier than Souls (save for a few instances). I think it's mostly the defense differences. In BB, you've got your rolling endurance, which you can really pump up early and dodge a lot. DS is more about timing blocks and attacks, while BB is more twitch,at least for me. Makes sense that one is easier for others.
Pretty much like DSII. You won't miss anything.
What DeS lacks in mechanics refinement and user friendly features, it makes up for with some of the strongest level, character, and art design in the series. I would rather play DeS all day than have to play DS2 again.
DS is another story. DS is a classic. It hit all the right notes.
Raven117
Member
Yeah, DeS, IMO has the strongest actual level design (and I don't mean clever short cuts . . . I mean, each encounter needed to be thought out) of the series. Since I never was a big boss fight guy, DeS is my number 1. Dark 1 is right behind it though. But DS2 (while a solid game) completely lost why the levels themselves were special.
There's two different auto-invading defense covenants that can summon you to the defense area from anywhere provided you are wearing the covenant item though...
But they aren't really separate zones. They're more kind of sandwiched into main areas with actual, meaty enemies, so they feel a hell of a lot more like ganking than the out-of-way Belfry Lune. They feel much more like Rat Bros (or the Forest from DS1) than the Bell Bros as a result.
And, because of the different invasion mechanics, the rate of getting summoned is much lower than it was for the Bros covenant, because the Ember mechanic is a "hard" opt-out & opt-in mechanic, whereas the Hollowing mechanic was more subtle.
This is a weird complaint. Having them in main areas means you will always get hits, like forest bros.
one has an elephant avatar and the other a primordial serpent avatar...
which should I believe.. hmmmmmmm
it also looks like kaathe
um, that's not really true.
from what I remember ''Bell Bros'' was just the typical ''invading the trespassers'' covenant. no idea how many covenants you found but there are like 3 equivalents, which means more variety than just invading in the same tiny tower.
*this game actually has a much better covenant / online system, easily the best in the series. not only you can have clusterfuck fights with 5 different colors of phantoms but you can also do stuff like this. and keep in mind the game just came out
edit-
I don't really see any difference, ''feels like ganking'' to who, the host can summon phantoms and the covenant invaders can receive help (or not) from red phantoms/invaders when everything works properly. the rate of getting summoned isn't lower at all, stay in the forest as Watchdogs of Farron and as soon as you get there in a fresh run you'll get invasions every 10 seconds. at the same time, stay there as a host with the boss still alive and you'll get invaded every 10 seconds.
Ember mechanic works like the Humanity one and I don't see any issues with it.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Covenants sound promising. Thanks guys!
Praisingintensifies.gif
Praisingintensifies.gif
Freeman76
Member
Im with you there, played hundreds of hours across all the games, platinum trophies etc, and BB kicked my arse when compared to Souls. Some of those Chalice Dungeons especially, but also a few of the bosses were damn tricky!
Read through the thread from the start. It's been beaten into the ground, and leads to arguments.
Meh. Mostly posts from folks parroting what an other, small, group of people are saying and then keeping it going.
Bloodborne. The levels themselves have shortcuts, in a way that Dark Souls 2 was missing, but it's not even close to Dark Souls 1 levels.
Nobody at all is saying that there's no replayability, nor are they saying there aren't optional areas. You're constructing a straw-man to worry yourself.
There were absolutely people saying this.
They are saying that they are both less than the other games, which is true, not that there are straight no extra areas or that there is no replayability.
The Artisan
Member
critical acclaim. the souls series and bloodborne pretty much are just that.
So you have to max out the Covenants again in order to get all the achievements? In Dark Souls II they had a vendor in NG++ that would sell those items.
Well, the vendor sold some, but not all of the needed items. You had to do at least some Sun Bros and Bell Bros, which helped funnel players into those two covenants.
The Platinum here is messy, but that could change in patches (Welleger changed with patches in Dark Souls 2, I believe). I think you need to Max out 3 covenants to get the spells and rings for trophies. I could be wrong on that; I have no interest in getting this Platinum, unlike DS2 and BB.
I'm already all in on The Dark Soul Achievements, have to go 3/3 on my profile.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Grief_exe/
DeS and DS2 might be kind of a freshness versus refinement situation. DeS had a lot of design calls that were novel and unique, while also doing a lot of stuff modern games weren't so gutsy about or even just... weren't really doing like solid set in stone action RPGs with set loot. DSII worked off of two iterations of that design and with developers experienced at working with that, yet were more holding the fort while Miyazaki and his core crew focused on Bloodborne before they returned for more Souls.
I feel that similar to Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime versus Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3, in that the former two games are generally preferred for being fresher and more open, but I really, REALLY enjoyed the latter two anyway so it's not a huge drop like Lords of the Fallen or whatever that was more akin to a lower tier Zelda clone in the 8-bit days.
Bosses as hard as Ludwig, Orphan of Kos, Loran Darkbeast or Abhorrent Beast just don't exist in any of the Souls games. It's mostly just people who are mad that it's an exclusive the ones saying the game is easy when they're not using "lol build variety" to shit on it.
Loran Darkbeast in particular is the hardest boss in the entire series for me, by far.
BB > DaS > DS = DaS2DLC >>>>>> DaS2 in terms of boss difficulty.