@texasgoldrush Holy crap you're still waging that one-man war defending DkSII? Haven't gotten over the fact most of us aside from you think it sucks compared to the rest?
Dark Souls 2 is better than Dark Souls 3? (potential spoilers for both games)
@Juub1990 said:
@texasgoldrush Holy crap you're still waging that one-man war defending DkSII? Haven't gotten over the fact most of us aside from you think it sucks compared to the rest?
Yet others here on this thread also liked DS2 better, pay more attention. And I didn't even start the topic.
@texasgoldrush said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
DS3 is an objectively better game overall. You have to rely on the DS2 DLC to even make an argument otherwise. Soul memory was awful and the level design was a huge step back. DS3 bosses absolutely destroy the DS2 bosses (overall, DS2 had some stand out fights but most were filler).
No, it isn't.
Lets analyze here. The PvP in DS3 is busted, it is completely broken. And here is what Soul Memory actually did, prevent twinking. DS3, with its removal, is now a twinkers paradise. Soul memory prevented twinking for the most part because every soul you get counts. Nevermind that invaders will always be lower in soul memory than the host, people want to ignore this.
DS3's level design was crap and really lacks the "theming" that DS2 levels had, which altered how the game was played. And really, outside of that craptacular level Farron's Keep, and maybe the Grand Archives, the levels lack the themes of the first two games that made them unique. And DS3 is far worse with the ganks than Scholar of the First Sin.
And DS3 bosses.......its flame sword fest. Its ridiculous.
Twinking wasn't a problem for people who aren't garbage (forgetting they scale invasions with weapon upgrades now too, which does a better job of preventing it...). Get invaded and killed, great now you have a 10 minute time before you can be invaded again, that's the worst case scenario.
But the bolded: This is why everyone thinks your opinions on games are absolutely hog wash. The level design in DS3 is far better. High wall, Undead settlement, Cathedral of the deep....first three areas of the game which DS2 might be able to touch only with Lost Bastille or the DLC (Vanilla DS2 is hopeless in comparison). The fact that you can refer to the Grand Archives and Farron's Keep as 'crap' and tell me that DS2 had anything above 'OK' level design is astonishing. If you want to rip on DS3 level design as being bad why not pick the actual bad levels like Catacombs of Carthus or false Izalith catacombs? You've gone on the record praising Aldia's Keep as great level design and spent years of your life actually defending Dragon Age 2. lol and don't even talk about a gank squad with the boss of the first DS2 DLC. Second only to dual kitty boss in Frozen Throne DLC for worst souls boss ever (seems to be a theme with DS2 DLC requiring one trash boss).
You must get off to having terrible taste in video games or just going against the grain for the sake of it.
But it isn't fun being invaded at level 10-20 with a guy that has a +10 boss weapon (DS1) or awesome late game accessories (DS3) in the first two areas of the game. That's twinking, and its cheap and unfair. And in DS3, phantoms can be twinks as well. its poor game design. And talk about crappy PvP, DS3 is horrendous. Players are going back to DS2 to PvP, and I see far more workable builds in PvP in DS2 than DS3. In DS3, a long sword with a great shield and you get to win most fights. Nevermind invaders constantly invade into a gank. Oh, and PvP are chug fests now.
DS3 levels are boring. They are a step back in the level design department. This is a fact. They are far less unique in gameplay mechanics, in level mechanics, in originality, and are far more linear than DS2 as well. DS2 also has good levels like Forest of the Fallen Giant, Dragon's Aerie, Shaded Woods, Lost Bastille, No Mans Wharf. Brightstone Cove (outside bonfire placement), Undead Crypt, and the DX11 version of Shrine of Amana. Hell, even the Gutter is decent. Aldia's Keep works because it is a level of switches and changes, with choices that impact not only the level, but the game. It also has a unique theme to it, as no other souls game has a zoological laboratory. DS3 on the other hand, fails the "Looking Glass" test. Nothing you do in the level matters, the levels never change from your actions (well outside ringing the bell for Nameless King, but that's brief). It was a game rushed out the door to cash grab.
And that gank fight in the DLC and those twin tigers, they are designed as co-op bosses. They are meant to be co-op.
And NG+ in DS3 is flat out, lazy. There goes the replay value.
And really, DS3 is everything you hate about DS2, but worse. It does more things wrong than DS2 ever did, and flat out goes away from what DS2 did right.
DS3 is FLAT OUT, the worst Soulsborne game, busted PvP, boring PvE, no heart, no real identity, a cash grab that takes from everything else.
There is one thing bothering me here. How can you possibly say DS3 is a step back in the level design department... ? It doesn't make sense no matter how you spin it. Yeah DS2 had some high notes in level design expecially in the DLC later on. But DS3 absolutely crushes DS2 and it's obvious af. Just because a level has "ze mechanicz" that you seem to need so bloddy damn much for it to make it better... You are forgetting that level design in Souls isn't much of + in the sense of it's mechanics.. This isn't a platformer game. The level design focuses on atmosphere, the enemies/NPC's in context with the area and how it correlates with the other areas, instead of adding mechanics other than classic Soulsborne traps. Yes new level mechanics are welcome but don't exaggerate when one level has ' teh mechanics' and the next doesn't. DS2 overall fails in level design. It might have your beloved 'switches' and 'changes' and your stupid zoological laboratory that tipped the scales for you but DS2's level design is average and slightly breaks the immersion in terms of it's atmosphere and lore.. and it's very clear compared to DS3. Just because levels don't change in DS3 you went and called it lazy.. wtf?
You can spin your "it has no heart" all you want.
@texasgoldrush: I liked DS2 way better. I took DS3 back to GameSpot and traded it for MGSV before I beat it. The game was downright terrible. The worst was the no clipping on the multiple charging enemies, nothing less fun than getting stabbed by a sword going through an enemy's torso.
I also agree it was a step back on level design. It was the most linear of the series, it was just a dreadful game in every respect. It was as if they were just making up levels as they went along.
@texasgoldrush said:
@Juub1990 said:
@texasgoldrush Holy crap you're still waging that one-man war defending DkSII? Haven't gotten over the fact most of us aside from you think it sucks compared to the rest?
Yet others here on this thread also liked DS2 better, pay more attention. And I didn't even start the topic.
There are literally dozens of people that think DS2 is better.
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
DS3 is an objectively better game overall. You have to rely on the DS2 DLC to even make an argument otherwise. Soul memory was awful and the level design was a huge step back. DS3 bosses absolutely destroy the DS2 bosses (overall, DS2 had some stand out fights but most were filler).
No, it isn't.
Lets analyze here. The PvP in DS3 is busted, it is completely broken. And here is what Soul Memory actually did, prevent twinking. DS3, with its removal, is now a twinkers paradise. Soul memory prevented twinking for the most part because every soul you get counts. Nevermind that invaders will always be lower in soul memory than the host, people want to ignore this.
DS3's level design was crap and really lacks the "theming" that DS2 levels had, which altered how the game was played. And really, outside of that craptacular level Farron's Keep, and maybe the Grand Archives, the levels lack the themes of the first two games that made them unique. And DS3 is far worse with the ganks than Scholar of the First Sin.
And DS3 bosses.......its flame sword fest. Its ridiculous.
Twinking wasn't a problem for people who aren't garbage (forgetting they scale invasions with weapon upgrades now too, which does a better job of preventing it...). Get invaded and killed, great now you have a 10 minute time before you can be invaded again, that's the worst case scenario.
But the bolded: This is why everyone thinks your opinions on games are absolutely hog wash. The level design in DS3 is far better. High wall, Undead settlement, Cathedral of the deep....first three areas of the game which DS2 might be able to touch only with Lost Bastille or the DLC (Vanilla DS2 is hopeless in comparison). The fact that you can refer to the Grand Archives and Farron's Keep as 'crap' and tell me that DS2 had anything above 'OK' level design is astonishing. If you want to rip on DS3 level design as being bad why not pick the actual bad levels like Catacombs of Carthus or false Izalith catacombs? You've gone on the record praising Aldia's Keep as great level design and spent years of your life actually defending Dragon Age 2. lol and don't even talk about a gank squad with the boss of the first DS2 DLC. Second only to dual kitty boss in Frozen Throne DLC for worst souls boss ever (seems to be a theme with DS2 DLC requiring one trash boss).
You must get off to having terrible taste in video games or just going against the grain for the sake of it.
But it isn't fun being invaded at level 10-20 with a guy that has a +10 boss weapon (DS1) or awesome late game accessories (DS3) in the first two areas of the game. That's twinking, and its cheap and unfair. And in DS3, phantoms can be twinks as well. its poor game design. And talk about crappy PvP, DS3 is horrendous. Players are going back to DS2 to PvP, and I see far more workable builds in PvP in DS2 than DS3. In DS3, a long sword with a great shield and you get to win most fights. Nevermind invaders constantly invade into a gank. Oh, and PvP are chug fests now.
DS3 levels are boring. They are a step back in the level design department. This is a fact. They are far less unique in gameplay mechanics, in level mechanics, in originality, and are far more linear than DS2 as well. DS2 also has good levels like Forest of the Fallen Giant, Dragon's Aerie, Shaded Woods, Lost Bastille, No Mans Wharf. Brightstone Cove (outside bonfire placement), Undead Crypt, and the DX11 version of Shrine of Amana. Hell, even the Gutter is decent. Aldia's Keep works because it is a level of switches and changes, with choices that impact not only the level, but the game. It also has a unique theme to it, as no other souls game has a zoological laboratory. DS3 on the other hand, fails the "Looking Glass" test. Nothing you do in the level matters, the levels never change from your actions (well outside ringing the bell for Nameless King, but that's brief). It was a game rushed out the door to cash grab.
And that gank fight in the DLC and those twin tigers, they are designed as co-op bosses. They are meant to be co-op.
And NG+ in DS3 is flat out, lazy. There goes the replay value.
And really, DS3 is everything you hate about DS2, but worse. It does more things wrong than DS2 ever did, and flat out goes away from what DS2 did right.
DS3 is FLAT OUT, the worst Soulsborne game, busted PvP, boring PvE, no heart, no real identity, a cash grab that takes from everything else.
There is one thing bothering me here. How can you possibly say DS3 is a step back in the level design department... ? It doesn't make sense no matter how you spin it. Yeah DS2 had some high notes in level design expecially in the DLC later on. But DS3 absolutely crushes DS2 and it's obvious af. Just because a level has "ze mechanicz" that you seem to need so bloddy damn much for it to make it better... You are forgetting that level design in Souls isn't much of + in the sense of it's mechanics.. This isn't a platformer game. The level design focuses on atmosphere, the enemies/NPC's in context with the area and how it correlates with the other areas, instead of adding mechanics other than classic Soulsborne traps. Yes new level mechanics are welcome but don't exaggerate when one level has ' teh mechanics' and the next doesn't. DS2 overall fails in level design. It might have your beloved 'switches' and 'changes' and your stupid zoological laboratory that tipped the scales for you but DS2's level design is average and slightly breaks the immersion in terms of it's atmosphere and lore.. and it's very clear compared to DS3. Just because levels don't change in DS3 you went and called it lazy.. wtf?
You can spin your "it has no heart" all you want.
Because it is boring and basic, that's why DS3 is a step back in the level department. Its derivative and stupidly linear, with loop back shortcuts trying to hide its linearity. And the only level dynamics DS3 truly relies on are raining arrows (not fun) and dragon on the tower (clichéd and boring).
Lets talk about DS2 now. The levels and the environments can change based on your actions. For example in No Mans Wharf, if I use a Pharros Lockstone, I can light up the level, not only making it easier to see, but make a dangerous enemy type go hide in the shadows. Hiede's Tower has enemies that only activate (unless attacked) after defeating the boss, the dragons in Dragon Aerie can kill you on the bridge if you break too many eggs, Undead Crypt adds enemies if you light up the level, etc. Aldia's Keep is a level where choices impact the level. It isn't an average level. You can make it as hard as you want it or easy as you want it. Nevermind a choice here can impact your entire playthrough in regards to the prisoner. Levels should be more than just atmosphere and enemies, which DS3 fails to understand. Sure, the level transitions in DS2 are wonky, but the atmosphere is consistent with the tone it wants to present, a barren unforgiving wasteland.
DS3's level design is boring and basic on the other hand. The only true level with multiple paths is Undead Settlement, all the other levels play linear, play predictable and do not do anything truly new. DS3 shows signs of clearly being rushed out the door to cash grab. Instead of building of DS2's DLC, it sputters into mediocrity.
I was thinking about this today and I agree with DS2 being the better game, DS3 is missing power stancing and new NG+ enemies. NG+ in DS3 is just not as satisfying as DS2. Also the framerate in DS2 made it feel smoother (on ps4). We'll see how DS3 holds up once the dlc releases but so far DeS > DS1 > BB > DS2 > DS3.
Dark Souls 2 is so bad...it almost made me quit the franchise.
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
@texasgoldrush said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
Pontiff can be parried. :P
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
They are cheap, they have very little windows to attack them. Its like they put Bloodborne bosses into Dark Souls. It just doesn't work.
However, the first form of Soul of Cinder is a great fight, its the Gwyn form that is cheap.
Lothric can be cheap as well, but its more of the camera that kills the fight.
Nameless King is more on how to make a difficult but not cheap boss (although the camera ruins the dragon phase).
Oh, wow......and it looks like DS2 will have better DLC as well than DS3.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
Dark Souls 2 has major issues. But overall that didn't stop me from putting 90 hours into the scholar of the first sin edition. I beat every boss, finished all the DLC, and did all there was to do without new game plus entering into the equation. I had many moments where I hated the game, the bosses, the enemies, and the games' overall philosophy toward difficulty. The II in the title means you'll be facing lots of double or triple boss fights, multiple enemies, and endless aggravation toward it all.
And yet...I triumphed even in the face of the dreaded II in Dark Souls II. My memories of it...are mostly positive, but don't kid yourself, it's an evil game at heart, designed to rip you to shreds without remorse.
DS3's philosophy towards difficulty is worse. it challenges by bludgeoning the player to death, and it too, has its gank squads. At least in Scholar of the First Sin, when you have to face a huge mob, there are alternate ways of taking them out.
DS3 is wacky in that its by far the easiest Souls game, until you fight an enemy or boss that just bludgeons you mercilessly. Pontiff is a huge offender.
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
I enjoyed every boss in the game except Oceiros.. but that was because I got him glitched in between the vines that grow in the corner of the level... and now whenever I NG+ I keep doing that.-_-
This guy keeps bashing things about DS3 and tries very hard to make them sound bad when it's not really a problem for the next person.
I found DS3 to be harder btw.. DS2 was mostly a breeze. I only struggled with those 2 black tigers in the snow levels which was the DLC. But once again that's how I experienced it. This guy will shove "DS2 is muuuuchhhh better, harder, faster, more mechaniczzzz, much very change in levelzz..." down my throat.... and say DS3 is linear which equals unforgivably bad.
@acp_45 said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
I enjoyed every boss in the game except Oceiros.. but that was because I got him glitched in between the vines that grow in the corner of the level... and now whenever I NG+ I keep doing that.-_-
This guy keeps bashing things about DS3 and tries very hard to make them sound bad when it's not really a problem for the next person.
I found DS3 to be harder btw.. DS2 was mostly a breeze. I only struggled with those 2 black tigers in the snow levels which was the DLC. But once again that's how I experienced it. This guy will shove "DS2 is muuuuchhhh better, harder, faster, more mechaniczzzz, much very change in levelzz..." down my throat.... and say DS3 is linear which equals unforgivably bad.
So people do not have problem with the linearity? The PvP? How its overly formulaic and familiar? How NG+ is lazy and a step back form DS2? How covenants suck?
Sorry, but the criticisms are widespread in DS3.
Miyazaki fanboys need to understand that its simply put not the step up from the game they like to bash, and is actually in many ways, step backwards.
And the more I see this new DLC, the more I realize it shows that its no where near the greatness of the Ivory King DLC.
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
Except they weren't. The Blue Sentinels were quite active, I always got in to protect people (people just do not get they have to be full human to get summoned, they thinks it broke, its not), and the arena was always active. Cannot speak much for the atrocious Blood guys, but they do invade and people do fight in that arena . But the Rats and the Bell Ends were quite active, so was the Dragon guys (on Iron Keep Bridge). The Sunbros of course, were the most popular.
They did work, its that people who whine do not know the rules.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
Except they weren't. The Blue Sentinels were quite active, I always got in to protect people (people just do not get they have to be full human to get summoned, they thinks it broke, its not), and the arena was always active. Cannot speak much for the atrocious Blood guys, but they do invade and people do fight in that arena . But the Rats and the Bell Ends were quite active, so was the Dragon guys (on Iron Keep Bridge). The Sunbros of course, were the most popular.
They did work, its that people who whine do not know the rules.
Not on PC. The arena was always dead when I tried to play it. So, no, your "except they weren't." is not applicable here.
Maybe they were active on console, but they definitely weren't on PC. Maybe it's different now with Scholar of the First Sin, but I haven't tried it. This was back in the hey-day when Dark Souls 2 was a couple months old.
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
Pontiff can be parried. :P
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
I enjoyed every boss in the game except Oceiros.. but that was because I got him glitched in between the vines that grow in the corner of the level... and now whenever I NG+ I keep doing that.-_-
This guy keeps bashing things about DS3 and tries very hard to make them sound bad when it's not really a problem for the next person.
I found DS3 to be harder btw.. DS2 was mostly a breeze. I only struggled with those 2 black tigers in the snow levels which was the DLC. But once again that's how I experienced it. This guy will shove "DS2 is muuuuchhhh better, harder, faster, more mechaniczzzz, much very change in levelzz..." down my throat.... and say DS3 is linear which equals unforgivably bad.
So people do not have problem with the linearity? The PvP? How its overly formulaic and familiar? How NG+ is lazy and a step back form DS2? How covenants suck?
Sorry, but the criticisms are widespread in DS3.
Miyazaki fanboys need to understand that its simply put not the step up from the game they like to bash, and is actually in many ways, step backwards.
And the more I see this new DLC, the more I realize it shows that its no where near the greatness of the Ivory King DLC.
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
Doesn't change the fact that he can bludgeon players to death in a cheap manner. The boss he rips off (Fume Knight) didn't do this.
Champion Gundyr and Soul of Cinder are also guilty. As are those weird possessed enemies in the Consumed King's Garden.
Nah, I don't agree that they are cheap. I found them rather fun to fight.
I enjoyed every boss in the game except Oceiros.. but that was because I got him glitched in between the vines that grow in the corner of the level... and now whenever I NG+ I keep doing that.-_-
This guy keeps bashing things about DS3 and tries very hard to make them sound bad when it's not really a problem for the next person.
I found DS3 to be harder btw.. DS2 was mostly a breeze. I only struggled with those 2 black tigers in the snow levels which was the DLC. But once again that's how I experienced it. This guy will shove "DS2 is muuuuchhhh better, harder, faster, more mechaniczzzz, much very change in levelzz..." down my throat.... and say DS3 is linear which equals unforgivably bad.
So people do not have problem with the linearity? The PvP? How its overly formulaic and familiar? How NG+ is lazy and a step back form DS2? How covenants suck?
Sorry, but the criticisms are widespread in DS3.
Miyazaki fanboys need to understand that its simply put not the step up from the game they like to bash, and is actually in many ways, step backwards.
And the more I see this new DLC, the more I realize it shows that its no where near the greatness of the Ivory King DLC.
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Darksouls 2 is ok.
Darksouls 2 expansion content is da bomb.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
Except they weren't. The Blue Sentinels were quite active, I always got in to protect people (people just do not get they have to be full human to get summoned, they thinks it broke, its not), and the arena was always active. Cannot speak much for the atrocious Blood guys, but they do invade and people do fight in that arena . But the Rats and the Bell Ends were quite active, so was the Dragon guys (on Iron Keep Bridge). The Sunbros of course, were the most popular.
They did work, its that people who whine do not know the rules.
Not on PC. The arena was always dead when I tried to play it. So, no, your "except they weren't." is not applicable here.
Maybe they were active on console, but they definitely weren't on PC. Maybe it's different now with Scholar of the First Sin, but I haven't tried it. This was back in the hey-day when Dark Souls 2 was a couple months old.
Then that's just you than, because I had many fights in the Blue arena (and the Blood arena was more popular), and I am on PC.
I was also summoned all the time in Rat areas, entering a Belfry was a sure invasion, saw a bunch of Dragon signs on the Iron Keep bridge, and was summoned quite a bit as a Sentinel. The covenants were alive and well.
DS3 though, PVPers are leaving in droves.
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
I enjoyed every boss in the game except Oceiros.. but that was because I got him glitched in between the vines that grow in the corner of the level... and now whenever I NG+ I keep doing that.-_-
This guy keeps bashing things about DS3 and tries very hard to make them sound bad when it's not really a problem for the next person.
I found DS3 to be harder btw.. DS2 was mostly a breeze. I only struggled with those 2 black tigers in the snow levels which was the DLC. But once again that's how I experienced it. This guy will shove "DS2 is muuuuchhhh better, harder, faster, more mechaniczzzz, much very change in levelzz..." down my throat.... and say DS3 is linear which equals unforgivably bad.
So people do not have problem with the linearity? The PvP? How its overly formulaic and familiar? How NG+ is lazy and a step back form DS2? How covenants suck?
Sorry, but the criticisms are widespread in DS3.
Miyazaki fanboys need to understand that its simply put not the step up from the game they like to bash, and is actually in many ways, step backwards.
And the more I see this new DLC, the more I realize it shows that its no where near the greatness of the Ivory King DLC.
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
Except they weren't. The Blue Sentinels were quite active, I always got in to protect people (people just do not get they have to be full human to get summoned, they thinks it broke, its not), and the arena was always active. Cannot speak much for the atrocious Blood guys, but they do invade and people do fight in that arena . But the Rats and the Bell Ends were quite active, so was the Dragon guys (on Iron Keep Bridge). The Sunbros of course, were the most popular.
They did work, its that people who whine do not know the rules.
Not on PC. The arena was always dead when I tried to play it. So, no, your "except they weren't." is not applicable here.
Maybe they were active on console, but they definitely weren't on PC. Maybe it's different now with Scholar of the First Sin, but I haven't tried it. This was back in the hey-day when Dark Souls 2 was a couple months old.
Then that's just you than, because I had many fights in the Blue arena (and the Blood arena was more popular), and I am on PC.
I was also summoned all the time in Rat areas, entering a Belfry was a sure invasion, saw a bunch of Dragon signs on the Iron Keep bridge, and was summoned quite a bit as a Sentinel. The covenants were alive and well.
DS3 though, PVPers are leaving in droves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSwDApU9970
Apparently, I'm not alone.
"+chucky949494 What about the PC ? I'm on PC, I'm waiting for like 5 mins but no match or whatsoever from Blue Sentinels duel area."
"Wow Wow3 months ago (edited)
Arenas in dark souls 2 are dead 5 hours for 1 fight"
But you know what, it might have been that awful soul memory idea. That was such a shitty thing.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
Except they weren't. The Blue Sentinels were quite active, I always got in to protect people (people just do not get they have to be full human to get summoned, they thinks it broke, its not), and the arena was always active. Cannot speak much for the atrocious Blood guys, but they do invade and people do fight in that arena . But the Rats and the Bell Ends were quite active, so was the Dragon guys (on Iron Keep Bridge). The Sunbros of course, were the most popular.
They did work, its that people who whine do not know the rules.
Not on PC. The arena was always dead when I tried to play it. So, no, your "except they weren't." is not applicable here.
Maybe they were active on console, but they definitely weren't on PC. Maybe it's different now with Scholar of the First Sin, but I haven't tried it. This was back in the hey-day when Dark Souls 2 was a couple months old.
Then that's just you than, because I had many fights in the Blue arena (and the Blood arena was more popular), and I am on PC.
I was also summoned all the time in Rat areas, entering a Belfry was a sure invasion, saw a bunch of Dragon signs on the Iron Keep bridge, and was summoned quite a bit as a Sentinel. The covenants were alive and well.
DS3 though, PVPers are leaving in droves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSwDApU9970
Apparently, I'm not alone.
"+chucky949494 What about the PC ? I'm on PC, I'm waiting for like 5 mins but no match or whatsoever from Blue Sentinels duel area."
"Wow Wow3 months ago (edited)
Arenas in dark souls 2 are dead 5 hours for 1 fight"
But you know what, it might have been that awful soul memory idea. That was such a shitty thing.
Yet, I have gotten matches in the Blue arena. Its not as popular as the blood arena, but there is matches there. Could their be less matches there after DS3 was released when this comment is published? Possibly, but it was active before it was released. Nevermind that people may have moved on to the Scholar version of the game, which I got matches there as well.
And Soul Memory is better than the twink fest, gank fest of DS3. Soul Memory actually let you connect to more people, not less.
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
So people do not have problem with the linearity? The PvP? How its overly formulaic and familiar? How NG+ is lazy and a step back form DS2? How covenants suck?
Sorry, but the criticisms are widespread in DS3.
Miyazaki fanboys need to understand that its simply put not the step up from the game they like to bash, and is actually in many ways, step backwards.
And the more I see this new DLC, the more I realize it shows that its no where near the greatness of the Ivory King DLC.
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
Nah it's not ME. I don't want it to be anything else than what I experienced. You jump between your own subjective experience and every now and then you pull the" other people said this" card... Yeah I don't care what they say...it's still subjective. Look I'm telling you that all Souls games are linear and then you bring it up again. Spiral design... ? Spiral>Triangular or whatever the hell you'll come up with for DS3? Wtf? It was NOT open-world. It just wasn't. Look I don't know how to explain this to you. So I'm giving up.
You can't understand that everything you've been bashing about DS3 has never negated my experience of the game.. Yet you go on as if everything you say is true. You also pick up as much flak you can get along the way even if it wasn't your direct experience I'm sure. Don't correct me here IDC. I stand by my very first post in this thread on the first page.. If you read that you'll see that I'm quite neutral about all the games in the Souls series.. I liked them all.
Trying to decide if i should come back to the game and begin playing it like a mad man. Its just annoying seeing how nothing was done to Cartus Curved, Gargoyle Flame Shit Spear, straight swords phantom range etc. Not to mention that they aren't fixing the host/phantoms sliding all over the place when some1 joins or leaves the host's world. Annoyances like that are truly annoying. At least they've fixed the Astora's GS roll+r1 spam... only took em 6 months wtf FROM!!!
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
I couldn't care less about Miyazaki... I'm simply talking about my experience with the two games. I've never been a big pvp player after DS2. I simply come to the Souls series for what all the games offer. And quite frankly, none of them has failed me. I enjoyed each one immensely. I want it to be familiar and linearity isn't a bloddy problem ffs. I never once felt like it was brining down the game. Covenants ? Yeah sure. Dark Souls 2 had better ones. So now Dark Souls 3 is deep in the **** because DS2 has better covenants. NG+ is simply fulfilling the definition of what NG+ is. It's starting a new with all my gear. That is what I expect it to be. What Ds2 did was nice yes but you are adding way too much weight to the fact that DS3 didn't add new enemies to the game in NG+. Wtf.
Oh gosh . Stfu. Seriously. What you realize is just to dumb down anything that's not DS2 and ofc everything that Miyazaki is making. Yeah we get it. You like going against trends and point your finger at sheep. Everything you've said has been subjective... The greatness of the Ivory King DLC? The DLC was good, yes.... And yes You wouldn't want a bloddy DS3 DLC to come out on top... You're just being childish.
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
Nah it's not ME. I don't want it to be anything else than what I experienced. You jump between your own subjective experience and every now and then you pull the" other people said this" card... Yeah I don't care what they say...it's still subjective. Look I'm telling you that all Souls games are linear and then you bring it up again. Spiral design... ? Spiral>Triangular or whatever the hell you'll come up with for DS3? Wtf? It was NOT open-world. It just wasn't. Look I don't know how to explain this to you. So I'm giving up.
You can't understand that everything you've been bashing about DS3 has never negated my experience of the game.. Yet you go on as if everything you say is true. You also pick up as much flak you can get along the way even if it wasn't your direct experience I'm sure. Don't correct me here IDC. I stand by my very first post in this thread on the first page.. If you read that you'll see that I'm quite neutral about all the games in the Souls series.. I liked them all.
Its not about being open world, its about giving the player options and have a sense of exploration. DS3 fails to do this, unlike the other Soulsborne games. For example, in the first dark Souls, a good beginning strategy is to suicide run New Londo Ruins at the beginning to get a Fire Keeper Soul so you can have a more powerful Estus in the beginning. You can sequence break DS1 and DS2 for the most part. DS3 doesn't give you options, it shuts the door, one way only.
You once again, simply put, ignore legitimate criticism against DS3.
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
Isn't a sequel supposed to build off the last game? Sorry, but Dark Souls III fails in this task Instead of building off the last game, it goes backwards and it shows. It also shows that it was rushed out the door so From Soft can milk success because their franchise got hot. That shows too with the linear level design and world design, a smaller overall game, and complete lack of balance. Instead of trying new things, it feeds of nostalgia. It is a run of the mill From Soft game.
Instead of building covenants like they did in the last game, they screw it up. They lack the distinctness of the last game. Things should be better in the sequel and covenants weren't and it has hurt the online experience. Nevermind that Sin is gone and so are arbiter invasions, as well as optional invasion areas, or any type of dueling covenant.
NG+ is lazy, it simply put, fails to live up to the past game. To say otherwise is ignorance. DS3 goes BACKWARDS, not forwards here, and it kills replay value. And they actually said that Ds3's NG+ was going to be like DS2's, which is downright false. Goes to show that the game was rushed out the door.
I don't bash DS3 for not being DS2, I bash DS3 because it failed to build of off DS2 (and DS1 as well!!!!!) and instead, broke many things and failed to find its own identity.
The reviews of the new DLC for DS3 are out, and simply put, people find it underwhelming. It didn't come out on top
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
Nah it's not ME. I don't want it to be anything else than what I experienced. You jump between your own subjective experience and every now and then you pull the" other people said this" card... Yeah I don't care what they say...it's still subjective. Look I'm telling you that all Souls games are linear and then you bring it up again. Spiral design... ? Spiral>Triangular or whatever the hell you'll come up with for DS3? Wtf? It was NOT open-world. It just wasn't. Look I don't know how to explain this to you. So I'm giving up.
You can't understand that everything you've been bashing about DS3 has never negated my experience of the game.. Yet you go on as if everything you say is true. You also pick up as much flak you can get along the way even if it wasn't your direct experience I'm sure. Don't correct me here IDC. I stand by my very first post in this thread on the first page.. If you read that you'll see that I'm quite neutral about all the games in the Souls series.. I liked them all.
Its not about being open world, its about giving the player options and have a sense of exploration. DS3 fails to do this, unlike the other Soulsborne games. For example, in the first dark Souls, a good beginning strategy is to suicide run New Londo Ruins at the beginning to get a Fire Keeper Soul so you can have a more powerful Estus in the beginning. You can sequence break DS1 and DS2 for the most part. DS3 doesn't give you options, it shuts the door, one way only.
You once again, simply put, ignore legitimate criticism against DS3.
Uhh look you're smashing yourself over the head here. A sense of exploration comes from your first playthrough and it usually means you have never been to the areas.. Why are referring to a good beginning strategy here? Look normally when people start playing a Souls game they don't go and check online for an easy way out.. The first time I played Dark Souls I ended up going to New Londo and when I reached the bottom of the elevator I was too scared to continue and decided to go back.. That's how a sense of exploration is preserved instead of spoiling everything with a guide on the internet. You are coming at me with flimsy reasons and you are killing them off all by yourself. The exploration is done as soon as you complete your first playthrough. You talk about "sense of exploration" and then say "for example" only to use something that obviously breaks exploration. No player knows that stuff in their first playthrough. You are exposing the way you probably played each of these games and if that is true then we are done.
Look I get that you are praising Dark Souls' interconnectivity and I by no means ever said anything against it.. but DS3 has interconnectivity... albeit less than in DS1. DS2 barely has interconnectivity. So I don't see why you are brining this up? I never said anything against this. Are you just grabbing at stuff out of desperation? Well, what you said is true.. so.. yeah.
Just to give you perspective: Demon Souls/Dark Souls >Bloodborne > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2.
This is how it stands for me. Out of my experience with these games. Dark Souls is my most played and Dark Souls 2 is close second. I loved all of them. I really did. I enjoyed Dark Souls 3 more than Dark Souls 2 yes.... but deal with it.
I'm not ignoring criticism.. ??? Where did I ignore it? You are ignoring all my questions. Wtf is spiral level design and why is it better? Why are you constantly going on about DS2's NG+ as if I didn't like it? I did. I already told you this. Why are you using open-world in one post and saying "it's not about open-world" in the next? You say these games are about a sense of exploration, while saying DS3 fails by using interconnectivity which DS2 lacks even more.. You seem to be confusing yourself. If anything DS3 falls somewhere in between DS1 and DS2 in levels of interconnectivity. Why are you trying to use this against me? ffs.. Your entire reply that you just posted doesn't make sense.. I feel like you lied and barely played Dark Souls 3 if at all. Did you Youtube it or something?
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
Well, it being tanky and slow actually provides better PvP and better gameplay, instead of the roll fest that is DS3.
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
Ok so firstly... The entire idea of having a game build off it's sequel here is kind of dispersed between two games that came before. They were obviously not trying to build off of DS2. And you clearly can't see that since you are constantly using that as a reason. They returned to a DS1 approach and incorporated some ideas from Bloodborne. The art design is very similar to the stellar designs in Bloodborne. This intensified the atmosphere by a big margin and honestly that is more than enough to pull me in. Smaller game? I don't know. Probably. But it's still relative to the other games. It does not bring the game down once again...even if it is smaller. Linearity by definition has always been in any Souls game.. and using it now to say that DS2 is less linear is dumb.. The games are all linear and if one deviates even a fraction because it has x amount of areas that are marginally larger then you use that as ammunition to bash DS3. It's just stupid. These games are all relative to linearity. I don't get it when you say linear level design and world design.. You are talking about a Souls game here ffs. Linearity IS NOT A BAD TRAIT. Trying to find new things? So now that it didn't find a new thing whatever tf that would be...it's so bad. Don't say smaller overall game... it's dumb. A complete lack of balance? uhh yeah.. ok in what sense? PVP.. ? IDGAF. Honeslty, if it's balance issues it can be fixed. I bet you are gonna spin a reason why it won't get fixed? k.
I like how you make feeding off nostalgia sound bad.. I don't know where you drew the line between references and actual continuations from the first Dark Souls game? But I guess you wrote everything off as feeding off nostalgia. Oh and if you found the aftermath of DS1 as not finding any identity then I don't know.. you'll probably come with a reason like " it is just lazy" or "but Dark Souls 2 had this and that and so much character development omg omg". I don't get how building off of DS1 would look like in your eyes. How about applying for a job at From?
Look we can agree on covenants. Distinctness is a nice word... but no. Keep it modest please.
Ok so after using so many adjectives to describe NG+ in DS3.. I still don't see what they did wrong or how tf they went 'backwards'. It's NG+ for crying out loud. No it's not ignorance... how and why are you using this word here? To not agree with all the subjective bull you've been posting about DS3's NG+ is ignorance? Simply put. gosh yes that's simple. Fails? Ok. Past game? Yeah keep dreaming.. The past game is not Dark Souls 2. I hope you get it by now. Live up to the past game? What was there to live up to ? Cause it seems like they simply had to add new enemies in NG+ to make it go a step forward as a Souls game New Game Plus mode. Oh yes indeed.. it kills the replay value.. NG+ is NG+ get that into your skull. It's playing the game over again...
Uhm so what i'm getting from all this is that you are bashing DS3 because it does not build off of DS2 at all? Yeah it doesn't. heh. Love how you worded it: "failed to build off of" Yeah you see.. It does not build off of DS2 at all. You can wave that flag to your heart's content.
Sorry but it built off of DS1 pretty well. So much for those "!!!!!!". Broke many things... Failed to find it's own identity.. blah blah blah. I can also write a descriptive post and even add some rhymes if you want. You are just saying stuff..
Experience the DLC's for yourself before you gather your ammunition again.. it makes you look desperate.. and proves my point.
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
Nah it's not ME. I don't want it to be anything else than what I experienced. You jump between your own subjective experience and every now and then you pull the" other people said this" card... Yeah I don't care what they say...it's still subjective. Look I'm telling you that all Souls games are linear and then you bring it up again. Spiral design... ? Spiral>Triangular or whatever the hell you'll come up with for DS3? Wtf? It was NOT open-world. It just wasn't. Look I don't know how to explain this to you. So I'm giving up.
You can't understand that everything you've been bashing about DS3 has never negated my experience of the game.. Yet you go on as if everything you say is true. You also pick up as much flak you can get along the way even if it wasn't your direct experience I'm sure. Don't correct me here IDC. I stand by my very first post in this thread on the first page.. If you read that you'll see that I'm quite neutral about all the games in the Souls series.. I liked them all.
Its not about being open world, its about giving the player options and have a sense of exploration. DS3 fails to do this, unlike the other Soulsborne games. For example, in the first dark Souls, a good beginning strategy is to suicide run New Londo Ruins at the beginning to get a Fire Keeper Soul so you can have a more powerful Estus in the beginning. You can sequence break DS1 and DS2 for the most part. DS3 doesn't give you options, it shuts the door, one way only.
You once again, simply put, ignore legitimate criticism against DS3.
Uhh look you're smashing yourself over the head here. A sense of exploration comes from your first playthrough and it usually means you have never been to the areas.. Why are referring to a good beginning strategy here? Look normally when people start playing a Souls game they don't go and check online for an easy way out.. The first time I played Dark Souls I ended up going to New Londo and when I reached the bottom of the elevator I was too scared to continue and decided to go back.. That's how a sense of exploration is preserved instead of spoiling everything with a guide on the internet. You are coming at me with flimsy reasons and you are killing them off all by yourself. The exploration is done as soon as you complete your first playthrough. You talk about "sense of exploration" and then say "for example" only to use something that obviously breaks exploration. No player knows that stuff in their first playthrough. You are exposing the way you probably played each of these games and if that is true then we are done.
Look I get that you are praising Dark Souls' interconnectivity and I by no means ever said anything against it.. but DS3 has interconnectivity... albeit less than in DS1. DS2 barely has interconnectivity. So I don't see why you are brining this up? I never said anything against this. Are you just grabbing at stuff out of desperation? Well, what you said is true.. so.. yeah.
Just to give you perspective: Demon Souls/Dark Souls >Bloodborne > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2.
This is how it stands for me. Out of my experience with these games. Dark Souls is my most played and Dark Souls 2 is close second. I loved all of them. I really did. I enjoyed Dark Souls 3 more than Dark Souls 2 yes.... but deal with it.
I'm not ignoring criticism.. ??? Where did I ignore it? You are ignoring all my questions. Wtf is spiral level design and why is it better? Why are you constantly going on about DS2's NG+ as if I didn't like it? I did. I already told you this. Why are you using open-world in one post and saying "it's not about open-world" in the next? You say these games are about a sense of exploration, while saying DS3 fails by using interconnectivity which DS2 lacks even more.. You seem to be confusing yourself. If anything DS3 falls somewhere in between DS1 and DS2 in levels of interconnectivity. Why are you trying to use this against me? ffs.. Your entire reply that you just posted doesn't make sense.. I feel like you lied and barely played Dark Souls 3 if at all. Did you Youtube it or something?
DS2 has options however, its not about just interconnectedness. You can choose your own path and at the start you can go three places, like the first game, and the game is actually more open than the first game in the first two thirds of the game. DS3 lacks this, its one way ahead and it will remind you if you get ideas.
Just because you enjoy it better does not mean it is better. And gaming history has shown that games like DS3, the processed manufactured sequel, start declines of franchises, when new ideas no longer come and they concentrate on past glory.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
Well, it being tanky and slow actually provides better PvP and better gameplay, instead of the roll fest that is DS3.
Nice job trying to tell me what I like more.
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
It is YOU, that cannot accept that DS3 may not be as good as you want it to be.
If it returned to the DS1 approach, why is the game so linear? The first game had a spiral design and a more open world. DS3 instead herds you from level to level in a linear fashion. Hell, Miyazaki himself admitted that the game was too linear. DS1 and DS2 lets you go into areas in different orders, DS3 does not outside of killing Dancer early, but you can only go so far before they stop you and force you back on the line.
And the art style rips from Bloodborne instead of trying to form its own identity. Once again, showing how much of a cash grab DS3 is. Instead of making the world unique, it borrows from past games the whole way through. And really, the Soulsborne series was built on making things surprising and unique. DS3 fails to do this. It goes through the motions instead. Even DS2 had unique and surprising level design and environments.
As for balance....no, it cannot be fixed with patches because the games mechanics are far too flawed. The stat system is busted and unbalanced, the 70% equip load rule is ridiculous and balance breaking (add to that, the VIT stat has no diminishing returns), straight swords and dex weapons are OP (and not just stats but mechanics), adding back poise will not fix the game and would make people even more OP with that 70% rule, etc. DS2's balance problems were fixed because they weren't so much mechanics but just stat unbalance, DS3's balance issues come from its mechanics itself.
And yet once again, NG+ is a step backwards, you want to excuse this. Quit making excuses. From Soft dropped the ball here and actually did not deliver on its promises. DS2's NG+ was PRAISED by players for adding to the game, to go back on that either shows stupidity, or more likely, that they "ran out of time" and rushed the game out. And DS3 looks like a game that was rushed out to capitalize on past success.
You simply put, want to ignore the issues that many players have with DS3, and really its people like you, should the developer listen to, would absolutely kill the franchise.
Nah it's not ME. I don't want it to be anything else than what I experienced. You jump between your own subjective experience and every now and then you pull the" other people said this" card... Yeah I don't care what they say...it's still subjective. Look I'm telling you that all Souls games are linear and then you bring it up again. Spiral design... ? Spiral>Triangular or whatever the hell you'll come up with for DS3? Wtf? It was NOT open-world. It just wasn't. Look I don't know how to explain this to you. So I'm giving up.
You can't understand that everything you've been bashing about DS3 has never negated my experience of the game.. Yet you go on as if everything you say is true. You also pick up as much flak you can get along the way even if it wasn't your direct experience I'm sure. Don't correct me here IDC. I stand by my very first post in this thread on the first page.. If you read that you'll see that I'm quite neutral about all the games in the Souls series.. I liked them all.
Its not about being open world, its about giving the player options and have a sense of exploration. DS3 fails to do this, unlike the other Soulsborne games. For example, in the first dark Souls, a good beginning strategy is to suicide run New Londo Ruins at the beginning to get a Fire Keeper Soul so you can have a more powerful Estus in the beginning. You can sequence break DS1 and DS2 for the most part. DS3 doesn't give you options, it shuts the door, one way only.
You once again, simply put, ignore legitimate criticism against DS3.
Uhh look you're smashing yourself over the head here. A sense of exploration comes from your first playthrough and it usually means you have never been to the areas.. Why are referring to a good beginning strategy here? Look normally when people start playing a Souls game they don't go and check online for an easy way out.. The first time I played Dark Souls I ended up going to New Londo and when I reached the bottom of the elevator I was too scared to continue and decided to go back.. That's how a sense of exploration is preserved instead of spoiling everything with a guide on the internet. You are coming at me with flimsy reasons and you are killing them off all by yourself. The exploration is done as soon as you complete your first playthrough. You talk about "sense of exploration" and then say "for example" only to use something that obviously breaks exploration. No player knows that stuff in their first playthrough. You are exposing the way you probably played each of these games and if that is true then we are done.
Look I get that you are praising Dark Souls' interconnectivity and I by no means ever said anything against it.. but DS3 has interconnectivity... albeit less than in DS1. DS2 barely has interconnectivity. So I don't see why you are brining this up? I never said anything against this. Are you just grabbing at stuff out of desperation? Well, what you said is true.. so.. yeah.
Just to give you perspective: Demon Souls/Dark Souls >Bloodborne > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2.
This is how it stands for me. Out of my experience with these games. Dark Souls is my most played and Dark Souls 2 is close second. I loved all of them. I really did. I enjoyed Dark Souls 3 more than Dark Souls 2 yes.... but deal with it.
I'm not ignoring criticism.. ??? Where did I ignore it? You are ignoring all my questions. Wtf is spiral level design and why is it better? Why are you constantly going on about DS2's NG+ as if I didn't like it? I did. I already told you this. Why are you using open-world in one post and saying "it's not about open-world" in the next? You say these games are about a sense of exploration, while saying DS3 fails by using interconnectivity which DS2 lacks even more.. You seem to be confusing yourself. If anything DS3 falls somewhere in between DS1 and DS2 in levels of interconnectivity. Why are you trying to use this against me? ffs.. Your entire reply that you just posted doesn't make sense.. I feel like you lied and barely played Dark Souls 3 if at all. Did you Youtube it or something?
DS2 has options however, its not about just interconnectedness. You can choose your own path and at the start you can go three places, like the first game, and the game is actually more open than the first game in the first two thirds of the game. DS3 lacks this, its one way ahead and it will remind you if you get ideas.
Just because you enjoy it better does not mean it is better. And gaming history has shown that games like DS3, the processed manufactured sequel, start declines of franchises, when new ideas no longer come and they concentrate on past glory.
Look at all your posts up until now... You are telling me what I should like. I have been telling you why I liked one game more than the other. And you know what I have proved my points damn well.. but they are still bloddy subjective.. and I'm not telling you which one is better but which one I enjoyed better... Don't twist this.
You dodged my questions once again.
Why are you even mentioning "Just because you enjoy it better does not mean it is better" ? This proves that you don't like it that I don't like the things the way you want me to like them.. Grow the hell up.
Gaming history is what you are hiding behind now.. gosh.. ok. You win.
Just one thing... If you are bringing up a rule of "where new ideas no longer come is where a franchise starts to decline" then you missed the whole genre that Souls games fall into.
I leave it at that.
We are done. You failed
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
Well, it being tanky and slow actually provides better PvP and better gameplay, instead of the roll fest that is DS3.
Nice job trying to tell me what I like more.
Well maybe something you like is actually the root of the game's problems. The game's problems, especially in regards to PvP, come from the games mechanics and how its faster than other Souls games.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@thehig1 said:
@texasgoldrush: the PvP arena looks pretty good I think.
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
The real descriptors you're looking for are methodical, strategic, deliberate etc.
"Tanky and slow" are poor criticisms of the refine this iteration has. 3 has haphazardly combined elements from BB and Dks1, creating fundamental problems that cannot be fixed with patches e.g. low cost rolls, being disadvantaged after landing an R2 (seriously why use R2 in pvp) etc.
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
The real descriptors you're looking for are methodical, strategic, deliberate etc.
"Tanky and slow" are poor criticisms of the refine this iteration has. 3 has haphazardly combined elements from BB and Dks1, creating fundamental problems that cannot be fixed with patches e.g. low cost rolls, being disadvantaged after landing an R2 (seriously why use R2 in pvp) etc.
K, have fun with your adjectives. I don't really care what your opinions are.
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
But in DS2, they were there at launch and tied to covenants.
Except they were dead, and they didn't work 80% the time. They were useless, because no one played the damn game.
No. They were never dead. They're not dead right now. I can get more quality matches out of 10 minutes of requesting matches at the red and blue arenas than I have ever got during my entire time playing Dks3, because dks3 pvp is dripping with major problems.
You're right, I was able to get a match. But it was the same damn guy like 6 times in a row. His name was Sunshine. I just tried it at the blue arena.
Also, going back to this game, it controls like complete garbage. It's all tanky and slow compared to Dark Souls 3. I don't like it.
The real descriptors you're looking for are methodical, strategic, deliberate etc.
"Tanky and slow" are poor criticisms of the refine this iteration has. 3 has haphazardly combined elements from BB and Dks1, creating fundamental problems that cannot be fixed with patches e.g. low cost rolls, being disadvantaged after landing an R2 (seriously why use R2 in pvp) etc.
This, Nevermind the twinking and the ganking, as well as the chugging. Greatswords are useless in PvP, unlike in DS2. Poison is useless as well, in both PvP and PvE. Bleed is OP. There is so many fundamental problems with it.
The DLC is nothing to write home about either.
Just wanted to put my humble opinion about DS3 atmosphere here.
I always enjoyed atmosphere in those games, right until DS3 came out. And i can easily say why. Because DS3 is not dark fantasy anymore, it is the power fantasy.
Now, listen to menu music of the first two installations. Feeling lost, lonely, afraid? And now to the third. Epic shit is going on, so what? It's not even fits the title screen, look no further than to TESIV Oblivion to see the right mix of theme and visuals.
Now to the bosses. Literally every boss in the first game was in it's weakened state when we fought them. What this fact accomplishes? Makes them retain their badasseness, while making you badass to. Also it made their stories much more tragic. Artorias was the royal knight, but was consumed and broken, and then some little fucker put him out of his misery. The only one boss in 3, that follows the same rule is Gyndir. But after we kill him in his true form, so this again doesn't counts. And when we face the Lords, they are even more powerful, than they were ever in their life.
And i don't know, how are you feeling about it, but i can't relate to the new characters, when they are imposing as old characters. This really puts me out of the world and makes me feel, like I'm playing the game right now. And this is not the feeling, that i bought this game for.
Also I'm kinda confused, why nobody talks about it, but if you doesn't suit the requirements to wield the weapon, there are no specific animation, in which you character tries to attack, but fails miserably.
Sorry for my Engrish.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment