Tried to evolve in the worst ways possible.
Hard disagree. More and more evolved in-game mechanics, more user control over difficulty with bonfires, power-stancing, various forms of arena-based PvP, sctual substantial changes based on NG+ cycle, the list goes on.
Is DS3 just doing what 1 did? Yes, but its still a great game to play.
Miyazaki phoned it in. Its a fun enough to play through once, but objectively has minimal revisit value. It also felt like a contractual obligation due to its utter lack of anything resembling a new or fresh idea. All its best stuff is either straight lifted from previous games or is so under-developed it has no real value. It flatters with ideas like the Pus-of-Man transforms at the start, but then completely forgets about it for the rest of the game.
DS2 is the only one in the entire trilogy that i don't want to replay at all.
I don't argue this to be contrarian; the proof of DS2's value should be evident by how much of its influence ended up in Elden Ring.
Not that think DS2 (especially the original release) is without fault. Its certainly the roughest-around-the-edges of all of the franchise. But. Its problems -imho- can largely be traced back to it being so ambitious while still targeting PS360 as its primary platform. The uneveness of the world-design particularly being a result of them having to radically restructure to get the thing to run, and again its not an issue that's exclusive to this one game. Plenty of FROM's titles have somewhat unfinished seeming areas, its just that in DS2 it pretty much hits you in the face with it straight from the off and improves greatly in later sections.