Dark Souls 2 is better than Dark Souls 3? (potential spoilers for both games)

Avatar image for silversix_
silversix_

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#251  Edited By silversix_
Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:

Arguing with texas is like arguing with a wall. When you said that Greatswords are bad in pvp, i knew you weren't even playing the game. Go back to your DS2 to do pvp on the bridge with 11 other people that still log in to play DS2.

They are bad in PvP. An experienced player will telegraph their attacks and counter it easy. Its far easier to counter greatswords in DS3 than it is DS2 due to the faster gameplay. And DS3 lacks some of the mechanics in DS2 that can make greatswords more unpredictable.

Loading Video...

learn. you don't play this game, you don't know anything but what was present at release... the last time you played DS3.

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#252  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:

They are bad in PvP. An experienced player will telegraph their attacks and counter it easy. Its far easier to counter greatswords in DS3 than it is DS2 due to the faster gameplay. And DS3 lacks some of the mechanics in DS2 that can make greatswords more unpredictable.

Loading Video...

learn. you don't play this game, you don't know anything but what was present at release... the last time you played DS3.

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Yet a good R1 spammer (one that thinks tactically and anticipates moves) outright butcher ultra greatsword users as their moves are very predictable. They are easily backstabbed and countered. In fact, fights with UGS users were my easiest fights in PvP. Ultra weapons are great until the opponent figures them out, then the UGS user is dead.

Greatshields are more godly than they should be. Why? Because due to equip load rules, they don't slow down a character if he stays below 70%. That means a guy with Havel's and medium armor can roll like a naked woman with a dagger. That is simply balance breaking and its how I absolutely butcher everyone in PvP. In DS2, a build like that will slow me down considerably and make me weak against backstabs and fast weapons with bleed or poison (which absolutely sucks in DS3). The Havel Greatshield and Dark Sword combo is downright broken.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#253 deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@silversix_: actually Katana swings are pretty bread and butter. If someone is really trying to win based upon katana counter damage, you can pretty easily predict what's coming next. They play in a particular way... I am willing to show you what I mean.

I am not saying 3 is a bad game. The gameplay just isn't as polished as 2, and it really shows in the quality of the pvp.

@mazuiface: Also, note how I pointed out flaws in the design of 3, while silver mostly complained about strategies he lost to.

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

What the hell dude?

It's not a pvp game. Its feature has just been comepletely over-blown into oblivion. It's a fun feature nonetheless and that's why it's getting the attention it's getting. But it becoming the central focus of Souls games is wrong... because it's not.. The game is a PvE game. I'm not moving goalposts. I'm telling you to keep dreaming. Of course I play PvP from time to time... but it's not where even half of my time is spent in the game.

If you want to talk about polish then both 2 and 3 are mediocre in pvp terms.

Of course I can defend DS3 from numerous standpoints.. Dude what are you on? How do you decide these things ?

Also for that last line of yours..

My argument is all there. Wtf?

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#254 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

You should've made a poll.

I like DS3 most of all the soulsbornes.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#255  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@mazuiface said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@silversix_: actually Katana swings are pretty bread and butter. If someone is really trying to win based upon katana counter damage, you can pretty easily predict what's coming next. They play in a particular way... I am willing to show you what I mean.

I am not saying 3 is a bad game. The gameplay just isn't as polished as 2, and it really shows in the quality of the pvp.

@mazuiface: Also, note how I pointed out flaws in the design of 3, while silver mostly complained about strategies he lost to.

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

To the last point: insults in place of a well thought out argument are an indication that the person arguing is just wrong and cannot conform to reality.

Also seconded about the competitive play part. Sure, Dark Souls is not as well rounded as the best fighting games, but if Smash Bros fans can whine to get their game at EVO of all places, then Dark Souls can be played competitively, because Smash sure as hell is less competitive and well rounded than any souls game.

Thanks for pointing that out but um... I pretty much had an argument right there. Thanks for reading my post properly. It's a short one too. Well done.

It can be played competitively, but that's all in the player's mind though. As I said in a previous post.. Souls pvp's seriousness is mostly exaggerated and just too overblown. Smash is more competitive. Easily. It's all about skill ceiling.. Souls games' pvp are just a bunch of rock-paper-scissors showdowns. A lot of the times, a player loses because of the result of game design and not them actually being outplayed. If any Dark Souls game has a meta it will always fricken destroy and it has always been that way. Of course, there isn't one game out there that doesn't fall victim to this... but Smash is definitely more refined in this regard. You can see it, clearly.

It comes down to design..and Souls games aren't pvp games. That says enough.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#256 deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@silversix_: actually Katana swings are pretty bread and butter. If someone is really trying to win based upon katana counter damage, you can pretty easily predict what's coming next. They play in a particular way... I am willing to show you what I mean.

I am not saying 3 is a bad game. The gameplay just isn't as polished as 2, and it really shows in the quality of the pvp.

@mazuiface: Also, note how I pointed out flaws in the design of 3, while silver mostly complained about strategies he lost to.

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

But the PvE sucks too. DS3 has very boring level design where every level outside a couple plays like 1-1 from Demon Souls, and Miyazaki just doesn't understand that 5-2 in Demon Souls just isn't fun and yet he keeps copying that level. And enough with dragons on towers.

There is no creativity that DS1 and DS2 had. No interesting tricks. Its by the numbers. There is nothing like that frightening ghost woods from DS2 in DS3 or the time travel of the Forest of the Fallen Giants. Archdragon's Peak is no Dragon Aerie either.

Look you say " PvE" but here you are moaning about the level design. Seriously ?

Archdragon's Peak was a cool area... I found Irithyll Dungeon to be scary af... Yeh, if they brought in a ghost woods area then you would have gone on and on about how they copied DS2.. You don't even realize how delusional you are. You are asking for interesting tricks yet you want rehashes of certain areas. How dumb af is this going to get ?

Go away.

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Avatar image for silversix_
silversix_

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#257 silversix_
Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:

They are bad in PvP. An experienced player will telegraph their attacks and counter it easy. Its far easier to counter greatswords in DS3 than it is DS2 due to the faster gameplay. And DS3 lacks some of the mechanics in DS2 that can make greatswords more unpredictable.

Loading Video...

learn. you don't play this game, you don't know anything but what was present at release... the last time you played DS3.

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Yet a good R1 spammer (one that thinks tactically and anticipates moves) outright butcher ultra greatsword users as their moves are very predictable. They are easily backstabbed and countered. In fact, fights with UGS users were my easiest fights in PvP. Ultra weapons are great until the opponent figures them out, then the UGS user is dead.

Greatshields are more godly than they should be. Why? Because due to equip load rules, they don't slow down a character if he stays below 70%. That means a guy with Havel's and medium armor can roll like a naked woman with a dagger. That is simply balance breaking and its how I absolutely butcher everyone in PvP. In DS2, a build like that will slow me down considerably and make me weak against backstabs and fast weapons with bleed or poison (which absolutely sucks in DS3). The Havel Greatshield and Dark Sword combo is downright broken.

Dark Sword? lol you sure haven't played the game in 6+ months. No reason to have a discussion with some1 that isn't only riding the DS3 hate train but also hasn't played the game in half a year. You have never learned how to deal with X weapon or greatshields because you've probably played the game through its campaign and that's it. Don't call something broken or op when you haven't even spent the time to learn the damn game.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#258 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

But the PvE sucks too. DS3 has very boring level design where every level outside a couple plays like 1-1 from Demon Souls, and Miyazaki just doesn't understand that 5-2 in Demon Souls just isn't fun and yet he keeps copying that level. And enough with dragons on towers.

There is no creativity that DS1 and DS2 had. No interesting tricks. Its by the numbers. There is nothing like that frightening ghost woods from DS2 in DS3 or the time travel of the Forest of the Fallen Giants. Archdragon's Peak is no Dragon Aerie either.

Look you say " PvE" but here you are moaning about the level design. Seriously ?

Archdragon's Peak was a cool area... I found Irithyll Dungeon to be scary af... Yeh, if they brought in a ghost woods area then you would have gone on and on about how they copied DS2.. You don't even realize how delusional you are. You are asking for interesting tricks yet you want rehashes of certain areas. How dumb af is this going to get ?

Go away.

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#259 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
Loading Video...

learn. you don't play this game, you don't know anything but what was present at release... the last time you played DS3.

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Yet a good R1 spammer (one that thinks tactically and anticipates moves) outright butcher ultra greatsword users as their moves are very predictable. They are easily backstabbed and countered. In fact, fights with UGS users were my easiest fights in PvP. Ultra weapons are great until the opponent figures them out, then the UGS user is dead.

Greatshields are more godly than they should be. Why? Because due to equip load rules, they don't slow down a character if he stays below 70%. That means a guy with Havel's and medium armor can roll like a naked woman with a dagger. That is simply balance breaking and its how I absolutely butcher everyone in PvP. In DS2, a build like that will slow me down considerably and make me weak against backstabs and fast weapons with bleed or poison (which absolutely sucks in DS3). The Havel Greatshield and Dark Sword combo is downright broken.

Dark Sword? lol you sure haven't played the game in 6+ months. No reason to have a discussion with some1 that isn't only riding the DS3 hate train but also hasn't played the game in half a year. You have never learned how to deal with X weapon or greatshields because you've probably played the game through its campaign and that's it. Don't call something broken or op when you haven't even spent the time to learn the damn game.

I still play and beat the lackluster DLC pack it had.

The Dark Sword is still a great PvP weapon, however, the way I win is I wear the other player out and force him to run out of estus with strong defensive play and opportunistic counterattack. It works because Havel's Greatshield and a stupidly generous equip load system allows me to both block and roll effectively.

You just do not want to admit that DS3 PvP sucks, it does. People are moving back to DS2 for PvP.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#260 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:

But the PvE sucks too. DS3 has very boring level design where every level outside a couple plays like 1-1 from Demon Souls, and Miyazaki just doesn't understand that 5-2 in Demon Souls just isn't fun and yet he keeps copying that level. And enough with dragons on towers.

There is no creativity that DS1 and DS2 had. No interesting tricks. Its by the numbers. There is nothing like that frightening ghost woods from DS2 in DS3 or the time travel of the Forest of the Fallen Giants. Archdragon's Peak is no Dragon Aerie either.

Look you say " PvE" but here you are moaning about the level design. Seriously ?

Archdragon's Peak was a cool area... I found Irithyll Dungeon to be scary af... Yeh, if they brought in a ghost woods area then you would have gone on and on about how they copied DS2.. You don't even realize how delusional you are. You are asking for interesting tricks yet you want rehashes of certain areas. How dumb af is this going to get ?

Go away.

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#261  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

They do regress....in level design, NG+, stat system, magic system, and online play, and when they do improve one thing, they break another thing. and they no longer punish you for bad healing.

More speed means more problems and more balance issues, and it is showing in PvP.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#262 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

They do regress....in level design, NG+, stat system, magic system, and online play, and when they do improve one thing, they break another thing. and they no longer punish you for bad healing.

More speed means more problems and more balance issues, and it is showing in PvP.

Too bad you didn't like it. I think the level is better and i found it to be the most enjoyable in DS series.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#263 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

They do regress....in level design, NG+, stat system, magic system, and online play, and when they do improve one thing, they break another thing. and they no longer punish you for bad healing.

More speed means more problems and more balance issues, and it is showing in PvP.

Too bad you didn't like it. I think the level is better and i found it to be the most enjoyable in DS series.

The level design is very basic and unoriginal. Even Demon Souls had more variety to its levels. The level "theme-ing" is barely existent in DS3. There is nothing like say New Londo Ruins, where the level itself or the enemies change how you play.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#264  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:

Look you say " PvE" but here you are moaning about the level design. Seriously ?

Archdragon's Peak was a cool area... I found Irithyll Dungeon to be scary af... Yeh, if they brought in a ghost woods area then you would have gone on and on about how they copied DS2.. You don't even realize how delusional you are. You are asking for interesting tricks yet you want rehashes of certain areas. How dumb af is this going to get ?

Go away.

But Archdragon Peak isn't good level design. Its linear until the end and doesn't have the level interactivity that Dragon Aerie had. Instead of being a unique level, it plays just like another Wall of Lothric, Undead Berg, 1-1 area.

And if the brought the ghost woods in DS3, I would still complain, because its no longer unique. DS3 brings things back but they are no longer original. And read my argument again. I didn't ask for DS2 rehashes. Stop making up my arguments.

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

What exactly made the series great then ? Because to me, there was and still is absolutely no chance that any upcoming Souls game wil top my first Souls experience. I'm going to say some pretty similar stuff to what I said previously in my millions of post exchanges, in this particular thread, with you...

This series of Souls games have always just been relying on mixes of designs used since Demon's Souls time... Of course, there has been refinement on the creativity, level design and mechanics, but the core still remains.. The fights with any enemy in any of these games will always be like playing rock-paper-scissors. After playing RPS for the hundredth time, you will be able to predict whether it will be rock, paper or scissors and because of this the devs have intentionally added a joker move or more to every enemy/boss's moveset to extend the time you learn the movesets of the enemies and ultimately letting the player die a few more times. This is what the Souls games will always consist of. Even in PvP, it's just a simple RPS-type showdown between you and the other players. You can hide behind as many numbers or intricate balance issues you want to make this game's combat sound extremely deep and what not... but it's not... The devs basically just gave the player and the enemies numerous movesets, RPS that doesn't just stop at rock, paper and scissors but adds a few hundred more signs to the game.. That's all there is to this. Of course I don't look at the game like this when I'm playing... I'm not some obnoxious **** with something shoved up their ***.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that to some people there is too much familiarity (spanning across all the games from Demon's Souls to Dark Souls 3) and this can only result in the disregarding some of the designs or just being contemptful with a new entry in the series. They are just disappointed, imo. Especially now with Dark Souls 3, it can be seen clearly since it also relies on nostalgia... People can mistake every similar feeling they have experienced with the other Souls games in this one and just write it off as " The game lacks a sense of originality" which is one of the dumbest things you can say to any game in this series...because that's exactly what each and every Souls game lacks to an extent.. While lacking originality has a negative connotation, I don't have a problem with it since I just want more of the same, really. This does not take away from the experience or at least not from mine. I can still feel a sense of my insignificance and dread in areas of DS3.. These games have a unique aesthetic potential that becomes better and better with each release... although I still find Bloodborne's to be the best yet.

These games all together add character to the whole Souls formula and feel.. Take that away and these games are flawed af compared to other games with higher production values. While the Souls series has a nice enjoyable PvP feature, it's balance has never been praiseworthy whatsoever. On a note of authenticity, the PvP part of the game is far from being a high note.

Now back to what you said in your reply:

Comparing levels again. Brume Tower ? Yes, they are completely different levels.. Thanks for pointing that out.. What do you mean by that though ? It's not bad is it ? Ok so Brume Tower has obstacles and 'teh dynamics' ahh of course.. yes. Never before seen obstacles.. Ok got it. On to High Lothric Wall: does same old Souls series routine... Explain please ? Should it have had a gaint floating whale crash into the side of the wall opening an entire new area for the player...? yeah sound cool. Yeah nice reference you got there... but it's kind of dumb to think it you can apply it to this game and not to the others... Just because DS3 tries to have more nostalgia embedded into it....now it sucks. Great. Hey, you know there is still something to be said for nostalgia....stop making it a negative.

Ok building off, hey? Yeah you see, this does not make sense at all. So you want them to build off of Lost Crown's and Bloodborne's level design and you dislike them building off of the earlier 2 games' level design ? Your post is drenched in subjectivity. All I can say is that it sounds like a 'open-world' Souls game would make you happy regardless of how good it actually would be because it would quench your unbelievable thrist for 'teh uniquez no numbers designz' you want so badly.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#265 deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:

You are making direct comparisons to other levels and then use the word "original". These are subjective terms whenever anyone is dealing with someone like you. Because you have already made up your mind. How does linearty = bad level design ? How does less interactivity make it a BAD level ? It does not play like Undead Burg or Wall of Lothric... Just because a level has verticality doesn't mean that it's copying another level with verticality.

I'm not making up your arguments... Those aren't arguments.. You are spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

They do regress....in level design, NG+, stat system, magic system, and online play, and when they do improve one thing, they break another thing. and they no longer punish you for bad healing.

More speed means more problems and more balance issues, and it is showing in PvP.

Too bad you didn't like it. I think the level is better and i found it to be the most enjoyable in DS series.

Yeah this is what it comes down to.

But prepare to be thrown with a bunch of arguments that barely make sense or have enough ground to be considered objectively correct.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#266 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@acp_45 said:
@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@groowagon said:
@texasgoldrush said:

Wrong

Its a bad level design because it lacks imagination and it actually lacks what made the series great. Its just a run of the mill, by the numbers level design with no evolution in the formula and no risks taken. That's what DS3 is? No risk, no real reward, a bland by the numbers cash in. Its the "Call of Dutification" of Dark Souls.

Lets compare levels that do have verticality, such was High Wall of Lothric and Brume Tower. they are completely different levels. But Brume Tower has dynamic level design and obstacles simply put, not seen in the rest of the series that change how the game plays in that area. High Wall of Lothric on the other hand, does the same old Souls series routine without differentiating itself from past games. Its Member Berries, and it sucks.

Instead of building off the level design of the Lost Crowns and even Bloodborne, they take huge step backwards and play it safe so the idiot fanbase doesn't whine and the series went from innovating and unique, to by the numbers and rehashed.

True, DS3 is not exactly forward-thinking, but it's not regressive either. It improves upon the little things, making it the best one, even though it's obviously not ground breaking in comparison.

It has more speed and less grind than the previous ones, which already make it better in my book.

I GOT TO ADMIT THOUGH that i'm glad it's the last in the series, if they don't plan to truly innovate with the gameplay further than this. I'm with you on that one.

They do regress....in level design, NG+, stat system, magic system, and online play, and when they do improve one thing, they break another thing. and they no longer punish you for bad healing.

More speed means more problems and more balance issues, and it is showing in PvP.

Too bad you didn't like it. I think the level is better and i found it to be the most enjoyable in DS series.

Yeah this is what it comes down to.

But prepare to be thrown with a bunch of arguments that barely make sense or have enough ground to be considered objectively correct.

Yeah i kind of got that impression too.

Avatar image for mazuiface
mazuiface

933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#267  Edited By mazuiface
Member since 2016 • 933 Posts

@acp_45 said:
@mazuiface said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

To the last point: insults in place of a well thought out argument are an indication that the person arguing is just wrong and cannot conform to reality.

Also seconded about the competitive play part. Sure, Dark Souls is not as well rounded as the best fighting games, but if Smash Bros fans can whine to get their game at EVO of all places, then Dark Souls can be played competitively, because Smash sure as hell is less competitive and well rounded than any souls game.

Thanks for pointing that out but um... I pretty much had an argument right there. Thanks for reading my post properly. It's a short one too. Well done.

It can be played competitively, but that's all in the player's mind though. As I said in a previous post.. Souls pvp's seriousness is mostly exaggerated and just too overblown. Smash is more competitive. Easily. It's all about skill ceiling.. Souls games' pvp are just a bunch of rock-paper-scissors showdowns. A lot of the times, a player loses because of the result of game design and not them actually being outplayed. If any Dark Souls game has a meta it will always fricken destroy and it has always been that way. Of course, there isn't one game out there that doesn't fall victim to this... but Smash is definitely more refined in this regard. You can see it, clearly.

It comes down to design..and Souls games aren't pvp games. That says enough.

Smash Bros, a game that, in order to be played "competitively" people had to mess with the options to almost turn the rules into another game, and in fact, people have hacked the newest versions of the game so they can move the way they want. One stage only, no items, tamper with the time limit, hacking to add dashing. Why don't these players just make a new game? They might as well.

You are lying to yourself if you think Smash Bros is competitive. Even Sakurai himself said the game is not meant to be competitive! Talk about "It's all in your head." You haven't even cited what you think makes it more competitive, because it is not there.

Additionally, you say the player loses "a lot of the times" because of the engine, but haven't explained anything about the engine -- just empty declarations.

The whole Smash Bros as a "fighting game" has been long hammered away by fighting game players. If options select and resorting to hacking the game is your thing, those games are not as the dev intended.

Last, and most important, this whole maneuver around Dark Souls 3 pvp claiming it's not meant to be pvp is meant to dodge the landslide of legitimate criticism of the games flaws, especially compared to Dark Souls 2 SotFS.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
X_CAPCOM_X

8734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#268 X_CAPCOM_X
Member since 2004 • 8734 Posts

@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@silversix_: actually Katana swings are pretty bread and butter. If someone is really trying to win based upon katana counter damage, you can pretty easily predict what's coming next. They play in a particular way... I am willing to show you what I mean.

I am not saying 3 is a bad game. The gameplay just isn't as polished as 2, and it really shows in the quality of the pvp.

@mazuiface: Also, note how I pointed out flaws in the design of 3, while silver mostly complained about strategies he lost to.

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

What the hell dude?

It's not a pvp game. Its feature has just been comepletely over-blown into oblivion. It's a fun feature nonetheless and that's why it's getting the attention it's getting. But it becoming the central focus of Souls games is wrong... because it's not.. The game is a PvE game. I'm not moving goalposts. I'm telling you to keep dreaming. Of course I play PvP from time to time... but it's not where even half of my time is spent in the game.

If you want to talk about polish then both 2 and 3 are mediocre in pvp terms.

Of course I can defend DS3 from numerous standpoints.. Dude what are you on? How do you decide these things ?

Also for that last line of yours..

My argument is all there. Wtf?

No it's not. You just declare a bunch of things, then drop an insult. Don't be like that.

It's similar to what you did in this previous post. People use the claim that "it is pve focused" to ignore the criticisms of 3 -- just as you have done here. It's an argument that only appeared when 3 released and the criticisms started flowing. When 2 was being patched/worked on, the biggest component of people's criticisms were issues with game play mechanics. People voicing those criticisms were right to do so, because it's now a very polished game.

The games have a constant multiplayer component. People can play them competitively, or "play to win" if they desire to take it up a notch.

3 even makes backwards strides in its pve. NG+ being virtually the same is a leap backwards (as well as the difficulty in this mode). The removal of ascetics exacerbates the problem. Also, the fact that you can no longer engage in co-op or pvp after a boss has been defeated was very deleterious to people wishing to play with others. It forced players to abstain from defeating certain bosses to play with others -- this is very related to the pve. They can't enjoy the game's features in parallel.

I gotta say one last thing: the points I am making assume that there is no one way the games are supposed to be. A lot of people criticize games in a series because they believe they aren't "sticking to a formula" or other substitutes for following a set of guidelines set by the player. I think this is restrictive in game design, and it prevents developers from improving upon games with novel ideas and design improvements.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
X_CAPCOM_X

8734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#269 X_CAPCOM_X
Member since 2004 • 8734 Posts

@mazuiface said:
@acp_45 said:

Thanks for pointing that out but um... I pretty much had an argument right there. Thanks for reading my post properly. It's a short one too. Well done.

It can be played competitively, but that's all in the player's mind though. As I said in a previous post.. Souls pvp's seriousness is mostly exaggerated and just too overblown. Smash is more competitive. Easily. It's all about skill ceiling.. Souls games' pvp are just a bunch of rock-paper-scissors showdowns. A lot of the times, a player loses because of the result of game design and not them actually being outplayed. If any Dark Souls game has a meta it will always fricken destroy and it has always been that way. Of course, there isn't one game out there that doesn't fall victim to this... but Smash is definitely more refined in this regard. You can see it, clearly.

It comes down to design..and Souls games aren't pvp games. That says enough.

Smash Bros, a game that, in order to be played "competitively" people had to mess with the options to almost turn the rules into another game, and in fact, people have hacked the newest versions of the game so they can move the way they want. One stage only, no items, tamper with the time limit, hacking to add dashing. Why don't these players just make a new game? They might as well.

You are lying to yourself if you think Smash Bros is competitive. Even Sakurai himself said the game is not meant to be competitive! Talk about "It's all in your head." You haven't even cited what you think makes it more competitive, because it is not there.

Additionally, you say the player loses "a lot of the times" because of the engine, but haven't explained anything about the engine -- just empty declarations.

The whole Smash Bros as a "fighting game" has been long hammered away by fighting game players. If options select and resorting to hacking the game is your thing, those games are not as the dev intended.

Last, and most important, this whole maneuver around Dark Souls 3 pvp claiming it's not meant to be pvp is meant to dodge the landslide of legitimate criticism of the games flaws, especially compared to Dark Souls 2 SotFS.

Smash is head-to-head though. Even when the developer tries to sabotage the competitive scene, people still play the game competitively, because they can. That's the point I made.

Avatar image for mazuiface
mazuiface

933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#270  Edited By mazuiface
Member since 2016 • 933 Posts

@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@mazuiface said:
@acp_45 said:

Thanks for pointing that out but um... I pretty much had an argument right there. Thanks for reading my post properly. It's a short one too. Well done.

It can be played competitively, but that's all in the player's mind though. As I said in a previous post.. Souls pvp's seriousness is mostly exaggerated and just too overblown. Smash is more competitive. Easily. It's all about skill ceiling.. Souls games' pvp are just a bunch of rock-paper-scissors showdowns. A lot of the times, a player loses because of the result of game design and not them actually being outplayed. If any Dark Souls game has a meta it will always fricken destroy and it has always been that way. Of course, there isn't one game out there that doesn't fall victim to this... but Smash is definitely more refined in this regard. You can see it, clearly.

It comes down to design..and Souls games aren't pvp games. That says enough.

Smash Bros, a game that, in order to be played "competitively" people had to mess with the options to almost turn the rules into another game, and in fact, people have hacked the newest versions of the game so they can move the way they want. One stage only, no items, tamper with the time limit, hacking to add dashing. Why don't these players just make a new game? They might as well.

You are lying to yourself if you think Smash Bros is competitive. Even Sakurai himself said the game is not meant to be competitive! Talk about "It's all in your head." You haven't even cited what you think makes it more competitive, because it is not there.

Additionally, you say the player loses "a lot of the times" because of the engine, but haven't explained anything about the engine -- just empty declarations.

The whole Smash Bros as a "fighting game" has been long hammered away by fighting game players. If options select and resorting to hacking the game is your thing, those games are not as the dev intended.

Last, and most important, this whole maneuver around Dark Souls 3 pvp claiming it's not meant to be pvp is meant to dodge the landslide of legitimate criticism of the games flaws, especially compared to Dark Souls 2 SotFS.

Smash is head-to-head though. Even when the developer tries to sabotage the competitive scene, people still play the game competitively, because they can. That's the point I made.

You have a point. Since it is head to head, sure, you want to win. Here's how to play: go for the items. Competitive gambling: I got the hammer first, I win, bitch! It's all fun though because this is a party game.

On to souls: There are parts in the souls games where the game forces you to be invaded. In Bloodborne in the Nightmare Frontier, Demon's Souls Old Monk, Dark Souls 2 Looking Glass Night, Dark Souls /3 Forest, etc, when the game forces you to be invaded by other players, these people saying the game doesn't have a focus on pvp think that FROM Software had no incentive to make these parts balanced when your progression depends on whether or not you get past these. This is a blatant exercise in delusion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#271 deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@mazuiface said:
@acp_45 said:
@mazuiface said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

To the last point: insults in place of a well thought out argument are an indication that the person arguing is just wrong and cannot conform to reality.

Also seconded about the competitive play part. Sure, Dark Souls is not as well rounded as the best fighting games, but if Smash Bros fans can whine to get their game at EVO of all places, then Dark Souls can be played competitively, because Smash sure as hell is less competitive and well rounded than any souls game.

Thanks for pointing that out but um... I pretty much had an argument right there. Thanks for reading my post properly. It's a short one too. Well done.

It can be played competitively, but that's all in the player's mind though. As I said in a previous post.. Souls pvp's seriousness is mostly exaggerated and just too overblown. Smash is more competitive. Easily. It's all about skill ceiling.. Souls games' pvp are just a bunch of rock-paper-scissors showdowns. A lot of the times, a player loses because of the result of game design and not them actually being outplayed. If any Dark Souls game has a meta it will always fricken destroy and it has always been that way. Of course, there isn't one game out there that doesn't fall victim to this... but Smash is definitely more refined in this regard. You can see it, clearly.

It comes down to design..and Souls games aren't pvp games. That says enough.

Smash Bros, a game that, in order to be played "competitively" people had to mess with the options to almost turn the rules into another game, and in fact, people have hacked the newest versions of the game so they can move the way they want. One stage only, no items, tamper with the time limit, hacking to add dashing. Why don't these players just make a new game? They might as well.

You are lying to yourself if you think Smash Bros is competitive. Even Sakurai himself said the game is not meant to be competitive! Talk about "It's all in your head." You haven't even cited what you think makes it more competitive, because it is not there.

Additionally, you say the player loses "a lot of the times" because of the engine, but haven't explained anything about the engine -- just empty declarations.

The whole Smash Bros as a "fighting game" has been long hammered away by fighting game players. If options select and resorting to hacking the game is your thing, those games are not as the dev intended.

Last, and most important, this whole maneuver around Dark Souls 3 pvp claiming it's not meant to be pvp is meant to dodge the landslide of legitimate criticism of the games flaws, especially compared to Dark Souls 2 SotFS.

I said Smash is more viable at being competitive than the Souls games...regardless of intentional or ignorant design. What I meant through "it's all in the players head" can be applied to any game... Thanks for understanding that I was referring to subjectivity here. Talk about having a thick skull. I stated my reasons in my post... The limitations and how badly people wanted or still wants the game to change is irrelevant really... It's not like Smash is the best example of a competitive game. I was just using it because you used it in your argument.

Engine? Wtf dude? Game design = game engine ? Nah. Look I thought you would understand what I meant through that and the fact that I mentioned how a meta in these games will always obliterate anything that is not... that in itself is proof. If that's an empty declaration then go read the millions of pvp arguments in this thread. It's all there... I don't feel like pulling out numbers and proving it to you. So be my guest and scroll up. I have played these games though and experienced it firsthand.

Honestly, I don't care how terrible the pvp is... You can let that landslide down.. I don't care. My problem with Souls pvp lies in how overblown it is... I said that in my post and that's all that I meant. I don't care which one is worse or better. So your "last and most important part" is kind of wasted on me.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#272  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@acp_45 said:

The dumbest thing here is that anything from the Souls series isn't even remotely good enough to have a competitive scene.. It's not a PvP game, definitely not... It just has it as a feature, and mechanically and balance-wise it's terrible. You lot are trying to tear 2 games apart that are absolutely atrocious at being competitive. Stop being brain-dead.

For one, I mainly criticized the mechanics of the gameplay, which display their worst symptoms in pvp.

To continue, It's a game with head-to-head modes; it can be competitive. That doesn't mean it's Tekken-level competitive depth. It just means that you can play the game competitively.

If Smash bros can be competitive, then Dark Souls surely can be competitive. Don't be absurd.

Also, if you say this, you can no longer defend 3 from any standpoint. I've seen the same people who readily employ all sorts of tired slanders of 2's combat (that aren't even relevant anymore) move their goalposts by stating "the series isn't pvp focused." Excuse me, why is a huge component of the series being susceptible to pvp for your entire time playing then? It's a bogus absurdity used to ignore the mountains of valid criticisms of the latest game.

Also, don't try to use insults in place of an argument.

What the hell dude?

It's not a pvp game. Its feature has just been comepletely over-blown into oblivion. It's a fun feature nonetheless and that's why it's getting the attention it's getting. But it becoming the central focus of Souls games is wrong... because it's not.. The game is a PvE game. I'm not moving goalposts. I'm telling you to keep dreaming. Of course I play PvP from time to time... but it's not where even half of my time is spent in the game.

If you want to talk about polish then both 2 and 3 are mediocre in pvp terms.

Of course I can defend DS3 from numerous standpoints.. Dude what are you on? How do you decide these things ?

Also for that last line of yours..

My argument is all there. Wtf?

No it's not. You just declare a bunch of things, then drop an insult. Don't be like that.

It's similar to what you did in this previous post. People use the claim that "it is pve focused" to ignore the criticisms of 3 -- just as you have done here. It's an argument that only appeared when 3 released and the criticisms started flowing. When 2 was being patched/worked on, the biggest component of people's criticisms were issues with game play mechanics. People voicing those criticisms were right to do so, because it's now a very polished game.

The games have a constant multiplayer component. People can play them competitively, or "play to win" if they desire to take it up a notch.

3 even makes backwards strides in its pve. NG+ being virtually the same is a leap backwards (as well as the difficulty in this mode). The removal of ascetics exacerbates the problem. Also, the fact that you can no longer engage in co-op or pvp after a boss has been defeated was very deleterious to people wishing to play with others. It forced players to abstain from defeating certain bosses to play with others -- this is very related to the pve. They can't enjoy the game's features in parallel.

I gotta say one last thing: the points I am making assume that there is no one way the games are supposed to be. A lot of people criticize games in a series because they believe they aren't "sticking to a formula" or other substitutes for following a set of guidelines set by the player. I think this is restrictive in game design, and it prevents developers from improving upon games with novel ideas and design improvements.

Thing is I'm not ignoring criticisms of 3.. Where exactly did you get that from ?

I don't really see the problem with having a NG+ mode by definition with no extra bonuses attached... It's a NG+ mode. A removal of ascetics too. Like what exactly do you mean by this... these games barely have anything close to requiring something as intense as ascetics. I think I might have misunderstood this part... As for the co-op in terms of boss fights is a shame.. I wasn't aware of this though since I barely co-op in these games. I guess it's related to pve yes.. Ok.

Your last paragraph is well-put and I absolutely agree.

Avatar image for silversix_
silversix_

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#273 silversix_
Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts

So i decided to bump this thread because the Souls Drama must continue. PS DKS3>DKS2.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#274  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@silversix_ said:

So i decided to bump this thread because the Souls Drama must continue. PS DKS3>DKS2.

bump

DSIII > DSII

Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

24476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#275 Litchie
Member since 2003 • 24476 Posts

I care very little about if it's the best or worst DS game. I care though that it's definitely one of the best games of 2016. All DS games are awesome, let's all get along. :P

Avatar image for silversix_
silversix_

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#276 silversix_
Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts

@Litchie said:

I care very little about if it's the best or worst DS game. I care though that it's definitely one of the best games of 2016. All DS games are awesome, let's all get along. :P

everyone will get along but texasgoldrush

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#277  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@silversix_ said:
@Litchie said:

I care very little about if it's the best or worst DS game. I care though that it's definitely one of the best games of 2016. All DS games are awesome, let's all get along. :P

everyone will get along but texasgoldrush

b..bu...but 'teh regressionz' and 'teh scum fanbase'

Avatar image for mccoyca112
mccoyca112

5434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#278 mccoyca112
Member since 2007 • 5434 Posts

I'm fairly certain that fast rolls are in the game. The equip load just has to be much lower. The covenant issue is a personal issue. Hardly anyone used the artificial covenants that were in ds2. I'll admit that there was a hefty amount of homage to ds1, but it didn't ignore ds2. It simply did not; There just so happen to be more nods to ds1.

Pvp is a hit/miss situation with ds3. Near its end, the pvp in ds2 was better, but for the longest time, it was straight up garbage. On that note, and recalling ds2 covs, it was even worse with the ludicrous requirements for leveling up. The only real problem I can see is that invaders are heavily punished. A problem that has been there since demon's souls, but much more apparent in ds3. That's unfortunate for pvp enthusiasts, but take what you get or don't; people who enjoy pvp will duel, and people who like invading will get a raw deal. Thats just an issue that has consistently been rising. That's simply, well...for them, Unfortunate.

Aside from that, the layout of the landscape is much more consistent and appealing in it's design. It's not better than ds1, but it doesn't feel so unnatural as it does in ds2. The story is, imo, much more engaging and the characters are a delight. Also, quickly, let's also remember how many damn healing items were in the game. Yuck, (demon's souls all over again). Let us also not forget how many bosses were simply multiple targets instead one one decently designed boss. Ds2 was a good try... that's the best credit I can give it. It was bold in what it did, but fell flat. Its only real redemption came from the dlcs, but by then, it was a bit too late. If anything my complaints of ds3 rise from it's messy npc story quest fulfillments, it's decision to be more like BB with its speed modifier, the reapplied luck stat, the pvp invaders being screwed (even though I don't care for it), and the disgusting amount of swamp areas, many of which are filled with poisons of some sort. Overall, it brought me back from a series that I saw as pretty much dead in the water.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#279  Edited By deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
Member since 2013 • 2638 Posts

@mccoyca112 said:

I'm fairly certain that fast rolls are in the game. The equip load just has to be much lower. The covenant issue is a personal issue. Hardly anyone used the artificial covenants that were in ds2. I'll admit that there was a hefty amount of homage to ds1, but it didn't ignore ds2. It simply did not; There just so happen to be more nods to ds1.

Pvp is a hit/miss situation with ds3. Near its end, the pvp in ds2 was better, but for the longest time, it was straight up garbage. On that note, and recalling ds2 covs, it was even worse with the ludicrous requirements for leveling up. The only real problem I can see is that invaders are heavily punished. A problem that has been there since demon's souls, but much more apparent in ds3. That's unfortunate for pvp enthusiasts, but take what you get or don't; people who enjoy pvp will duel, and people who like invading will get a raw deal. Thats just an issue that has consistently been rising. That's simply, well...for them, Unfortunate.

Aside from that, the layout of the landscape is much more consistent and appealing in it's design. It's not better than ds1, but it doesn't feel so unnatural as it does in ds2. The story is, imo, much more engaging and the characters are a delight. Also, quickly, let's also remember how many damn healing items were in the game. Yuck, (demon's souls all over again). Let us also not forget how many bosses were simply multiple targets instead one one decently designed boss. Ds2 was a good try... that's the best credit I can give it. It was bold in what it did, but fell flat. Its only real redemption came from the dlcs, but by then, it was a bit too late. If anything my complaints of ds3 rise from it's messy npc story quest fulfillments, it's decision to be more like BB with its speed modifier, the reapplied luck stat, the pvp invaders being screwed (even though I don't care for it), and the disgusting amount of swamp areas, many of which are filled with poisons of some sort. Overall, it brought me back from a series that I saw as pretty much dead in the water.

Valid points here. I feel very similar to what you have described.

One thing I want to say is that these games are by no mean bad games so even if one is better than the rest... they are still very enjoyable to play.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

25579

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#283 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 25579 Posts

Wasn't a fan of the way 2 played after coming from both DS1 and DS3 back to DS2. It was just so sluggish.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
X_CAPCOM_X

8734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#284 X_CAPCOM_X
Member since 2004 • 8734 Posts

Hey it's this thread again. I see my points are still here, untouched.

This leads to the obvious conclusion: DkS II (SotFS) is better than III could hope to be. Doesn't mean III is bad though. Even reviewers agree with me!

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

25579

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#285 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 25579 Posts

@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
Loading Video...

learn. you don't play this game, you don't know anything but what was present at release... the last time you played DS3.

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Yet a good R1 spammer (one that thinks tactically and anticipates moves) outright butcher ultra greatsword users as their moves are very predictable. They are easily backstabbed and countered. In fact, fights with UGS users were my easiest fights in PvP. Ultra weapons are great until the opponent figures them out, then the UGS user is dead.

Greatshields are more godly than they should be. Why? Because due to equip load rules, they don't slow down a character if he stays below 70%. That means a guy with Havel's and medium armor can roll like a naked woman with a dagger. That is simply balance breaking and its how I absolutely butcher everyone in PvP. In DS2, a build like that will slow me down considerably and make me weak against backstabs and fast weapons with bleed or poison (which absolutely sucks in DS3). The Havel Greatshield and Dark Sword combo is downright broken.

Dark Sword? lol you sure haven't played the game in 6+ months. No reason to have a discussion with some1 that isn't only riding the DS3 hate train but also hasn't played the game in half a year. You have never learned how to deal with X weapon or greatshields because you've probably played the game through its campaign and that's it. Don't call something broken or op when you haven't even spent the time to learn the damn game.

Straight swords can be fairly easy to parry... I usually keep both an UGS and a straight sword on my character. Mostly end up using UGS in PVP because every damn Tom, Dick, and Harry have a parry shield.

And the Dark Sword is no longer the cheese weapon as it once was. Lol

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

13948

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#286 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 13948 Posts

Oh goodie a necro thread and a stupid one at that. DS2 is still the weakest one friendos.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#287 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@X_CAPCOM_X said:

Hey it's this thread again. I see my points are still here, untouched.

This leads to the obvious conclusion: DkS II (SotFS) is better than III could hope to be. Doesn't mean III is bad though. Even reviewers agree with me!

And the DLC sucks. The Ringed City is subpar.

@Vaasman said:

Oh goodie a necro thread and a stupid one at that. DS2 is still the weakest one friendos.

No, its DS3. No great NG+, still unbalanced gameplay, bad PvP, and lackluster DLC.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#288 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:

Yet its still easier to counter them and parry them. Also, greatshields can take greatswords out of the game. It does nothing against an under 70% equip load Havel monster.

The video guy doesn't take into account that greatswords also weigh more, which makes greatshield use less viable. So straight swords are better for many builds.

And Ultra Greatswords, which were very good in DS2 PvP, absolutely suck in DS3.

greatshields can be a hard counter to every build in the game but hollow bleed builds, so that's a dumb thing to say. Its not difficult to parry them, no, but if you're playing unpredictably, you won't be parried much. Greatswords weight ~7-10 lol that isn't much at all, what are you on about... Have you even tried DS3 or you've just seen some youtube videos? Ultra GS's were amazing and the most used weapons (with straight swords) from the release of the game to the October's patch. They're still good and arguably the best ultra weps in the game (i personally prefer greataxes move set for pvp, tho).

And don't even bring me the 'if an experienced player uses the carthus curved sword, the guy with the ultra GS has a higher chance of losing'. No shit, there's a reason why curved swords, washing pole running R1's and Gargoyle Flame Spear are known to be cheese tactics. Any weapons in the game is in disadvantage against these. Does it mean they're bad? No... obviously.

Yet a good R1 spammer (one that thinks tactically and anticipates moves) outright butcher ultra greatsword users as their moves are very predictable. They are easily backstabbed and countered. In fact, fights with UGS users were my easiest fights in PvP. Ultra weapons are great until the opponent figures them out, then the UGS user is dead.

Greatshields are more godly than they should be. Why? Because due to equip load rules, they don't slow down a character if he stays below 70%. That means a guy with Havel's and medium armor can roll like a naked woman with a dagger. That is simply balance breaking and its how I absolutely butcher everyone in PvP. In DS2, a build like that will slow me down considerably and make me weak against backstabs and fast weapons with bleed or poison (which absolutely sucks in DS3). The Havel Greatshield and Dark Sword combo is downright broken.

Dark Sword? lol you sure haven't played the game in 6+ months. No reason to have a discussion with some1 that isn't only riding the DS3 hate train but also hasn't played the game in half a year. You have never learned how to deal with X weapon or greatshields because you've probably played the game through its campaign and that's it. Don't call something broken or op when you haven't even spent the time to learn the damn game.

Straight swords can be fairly easy to parry... I usually keep both an UGS and a straight sword on my character. Mostly end up using UGS in PVP because every damn Tom, Dick, and Harry have a parry shield.

And the Dark Sword is no longer the cheese weapon as it once was. Lol

Dark Sword is still a cheese weapon. Yes, it doesn't do as much damage but that's not why it was overall good. And Havel Greatshields are still far too good in this game.

UGS suck in PvP, unlike in DS2.

Avatar image for drummerdave9099
drummerdave9099

4164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#289 drummerdave9099
Member since 2010 • 4164 Posts

Dark Souls 2>Dark Souls>Dark Souls 3 :P

Playing Demon's Souls for the first time now so I'll letcha know where that goes when I'm done. (So far it's either after Dark Souls or after 3)

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#290 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

dark souls 2 is fucking trash lol

dark souls 3 is the perfect sequel to dark souls 1

Avatar image for commander
commander

15381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#291  Edited By commander
Member since 2010 • 15381 Posts

Avatar image for jaydan
jaydan

2533

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#292 jaydan
Member since 2015 • 2533 Posts

I always feel like there's some sort of trade-off for all the Soulsborne games which give each of them strengths in different ways.

I personally find Demon's Souls to be the hardest game of the pack, and for a number of mechanics that were present only in this game and never came back. There's actually a mechanic I loved in this game that made it that much tougher and I can understand others might have been infuriated by and don't miss it at all. I'm talking about the carry burdens.
In Demon's Souls we weren't able to carry an endless inventory, and in fact if you carried too much equipment it will contribute to the weight of the player that can affect physical movement in the world to the point you couldn't move at all (unless, of course, you start dropping items).

In Dark Souls it easily has the best world design of all the games. I just marvel every single time I play this game just how intricate the entire world really is. I don't think I should have to go in complete detail about this one, as its world design is a well-known praise and staple withing the franchise and gaming in general. Despite all these newer games, I'm happiest to go back and replay Dark Souls. It is a real masterpiece in gaming.

Dark Souls 2 took various steps backwards in terms of world but it's undeniable it introduced some new mechanics for the better. Being able to fast-travel from any bonfire was welcome and its need to the player becomes very relevant as the mass scale of the game opens up. PVP might have just been the best and most aggressive in this game.

Bloodborne might have the most fierce gameplay of all. I think it hits a lot closer to the original Dark Souls world structure as it too have a very good one that's dynamic. Its gameplay is what gave it a nail-biting experience and I think the best part of this game is it might have the best lore of any game, and one inspired off of H.P. Lovecraft is a huge win in my book.

Lastly, I have not played Dark Souls 3 yet...as much as I am obsessed with these games, Dark Souls 3 kinda just came out and passed my window of interest. I'll get to it eventually.

My rankings?

Dark Souls>>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls>>>>>>>>Dark Souls 2

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#293 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@princeofshapeir said:

dark souls 2 is fucking trash lol

dark souls 3 is the perfect sequel to dark souls 1

No it isn't. It was a cash grab. DS3 is the ultimate Bloodborne discard bin.

Unlike DS2, which was tweaked for the better in SOTFS, DS3 is fundamentally broken and relies on member berries and rehashes instead of actual unique design.

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#294 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:
@princeofshapeir said:

dark souls 2 is fucking trash lol

dark souls 3 is the perfect sequel to dark souls 1

No it isn't. It was a cash grab. DS3 is the ultimate Bloodborne discard bin.

Unlike DS2, which was tweaked for the better in SOTFS, DS3 is fundamentally broken and relies on member berries and rehashes instead of actual unique design.

shut up

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#295  Edited By Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29307 Posts

I feel like I always benefit from waiting about a year to play a soulsborne game. This worked out especially with the scholar of the first sin edition. Which I feel is probably the purest way to play the true and complete dark souls 2 experience.

That said, the game is riddled with many BS moments. If I had a penny for every time I yelled, "Well that's complete bullshit," I would have quite a few pennies. BUT...despite all my frustrations I enjoyed the armor/weapon enemies more than all the weird bloodborne/dark souls 3 enemies. Nothing more honorable than a fight between two knights or taking down dragons. I love each soulsborne game for whatever it brings to the table. I know DS2 gets all the complaints thrown at it but it stands out amongst the group. It was bold and tried new things.

I'm currently at the sister Friede fight in DS3. I keep thinking, so this is all they could muster? A three phase fight? That's all that's left in their imaginations? It's a good game, with some great moments, but the fan service is lackluster (Anor Londo....yay...wait its mostly empty and its a short run to the boss fight...OKAY.) I've enjoyed my time with DS3 but I keep thinking, when it's all over I don't think I'll mind if they take a while to get to the next souls borne game. Take a break From Software, you earned it and so have we.

Avatar image for Ant_17
Ant_17

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#296  Edited By Ant_17
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

You are a Madman.

DS3 is better, but not by much.

Avatar image for poe13
poe13

728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#297  Edited By poe13
Member since 2005 • 728 Posts

My two cents: I have played all of the SoulsBorne games and have put in at least 60 hours into every one of them (except Demon's Souls, put 35 into that one), and while I will have to disagree with the OP, Dark Souls 3 is better than 2, DS2 felt longer to me though. I don't know what it was about 3, but every new area felt short compared to the levels in 2. Now I agree that the level design in 2 was silly to have a volcano at the end of an elevator, I still loved the variety of 2's environments that I kinda felt was missing in 3. I love all of the Souls games to death but it was a little disappointing to keep going into castles or chapels for the levels rather than forests, fortress sunken in lava, Heide's Tower of Flame with its narrow walkways over water and the starry night sky, Majula having that peaceful music and the waves beating against the shore (wayyyyyyy better than the boring hub of 3), the fucking level where dragons and wyverns are flying around ready to attack as you navigate the bridges, and the dlc was overall cooler than 3's (Ringed City was awesome and the Gael boss battle was fantastic though).

All of that taken into consideration whenever I think about comparing 2 and 3 and I feel like 2 just had cooler environments and it didn't have that piss yellowish tint covering the game that the devs decided was a good idea for the third entry. However, 3 plays better and has way better bosses (with the Soul of Cinder and the music reminiscent of the fight with Gwyn) so I think overall I enjoy 3 a little bit better. Just wish it was longer like 2 was (with the dlc).

This being said, I enjoy Bloodborne the most (despite the lower framerate).

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#298 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12963 Posts

@poe13 said:

My two cents: I have played all of the SoulsBorne games and have put in at least 60 hours into every one of them (except Demon's Souls, put 35 into that one), and while I will have to disagree with the OP, Dark Souls 3 is better than 2, DS2 felt longer to me though. I don't know what it was about 3, but every new area felt short compared to the levels in 2. Now I agree that the level design in 2 was silly to have a volcano at the end of an elevator, I still loved the variety of 2's environments that I kinda felt was missing in 3. I love all of the Souls games to death but it was a little disappointing to keep going into castles or chapels for the levels rather than forests, fortress sunken in lava, Heide's Tower of Flame with its narrow walkways over water and the starry night sky, Majula having that peaceful music and the waves beating against the shore (wayyyyyyy better than the boring hub of 3), the fucking level where dragons and wyverns are flying around ready to attack as you navigate the bridges, and the dlc was overall cooler than 3's (Ringed City was awesome and the Gael boss battle was fantastic though).

All of that taken into consideration whenever I think about comparing 2 and 3 and I feel like 2 just had cooler environments and it didn't have that piss yellowish tint covering the game that the devs decided was a good idea for the third entry. However, 3 plays better and has way better bosses (with the Soul of Cinder and the music reminiscent of the fight with Gwyn) so I think overall I enjoy 3 a little bit better. Just wish it was longer like 2 was (with the dlc).

This being said, I enjoy Bloodborne the most (despite the lower framerate).

The Ringed City is probably the worst Soulsborne DLC. Sorry, it sucks. It shows the problem with DS3 as a whole, lack of originality, mixed it with crappy level design. The DLC recycles boss fights, throws in cheap "sniper" moments, and hell, you barely go into the city itself and you end up mostly in the swamp. DS3 is like a dog that only knows one trick.

DS2 is overall far better than DS3. Lets count the ways. Better PvP, better covenants, better online rules, better level design, less linear world design, more balanced gameplay systems, it actually has system based gameplay that DS3 discards, far better lore and writing (DS2 with SOTFS is probably the best written Souls game), and a far better NG+. The only thing DS3 really does better is crafting to a point and maybe highlight bosses, that's it. DS3 does not play better once you get balance into the equation.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

8753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#299 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 8753 Posts

@princeofshapeir said:
@texasgoldrush said:

No it isn't. It was a cash grab. DS3 is the ultimate Bloodborne discard bin.

Unlike DS2, which was tweaked for the better in SOTFS, DS3 is fundamentally broken and relies on member berries and rehashes instead of actual unique design.

shut up

This. Shut up @texasgoldrush

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

13948

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#300  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 13948 Posts

@texasgoldrush said:

And the DLC sucks. The Ringed City is subpar.

@Vaasman said:

Oh goodie a necro thread and a stupid one at that. DS2 is still the weakest one friendos.

No, its DS3. No great NG+, still unbalanced gameplay, bad PvP, and lackluster DLC.

Post porn and get banned already.