Dark Souls III - better than Bloodborne?

From Software is something like a seal of quality at this point to me.

Demon's Souls was the the first game of this concept that truly blew me away, and then Dark Souls was the game of my dreams that I had always desired. While Dark Souls 2 is definitely the black sheep in the pack, it's still way better than so many games in the market. Bloodborne was like a Lovecraft loveletter, and I absolutely loved its design as much as I loved Dark Souls.

I have yet to play Dark Souls 3 but so far with everything I've ever heard people say so far it definitely lives up to their best efforts, and it excites me for when I'll eventually get to playing it.

No its not.

Lets count the ways

1) Poor balance.....the game favors quick weapon builds with the useless poise stat, hard equip load tier of 70% allowing quick medium armor builds with greatshields the ability to roll like a light thief like character, making the game easy. Lack of poise makes tank builds useless and punishes them in PvP.

2) Covenants - boy do they play it safe, outside the Mound Makers, which is a stupid covenant anyway, and the Blue Sentinels are useless. No imagination. They make the Warriors of Sunlight a dueling covenant as well...wut? And putting Bell like covenant areas in main areas....lame. In DS2, the Bell and Rat areas were optional.

3) Story and Lore - Wow does DS2 wipe the floor with DS3. Not only does DS3 lack good memorable characters such as Aldia, Vendrick, Shanolotte, Straid, Nashandra, Lucatiel, and Alsanna, it lacks a good player drive unlike DS2 where the player journey matters and there is a debate on what you really want once Aldia shows up, leading to the ending choice. DS3 also lacks a key central figure, unlike Gwyn in DS1 and Vendrick in DS2. Then there is the DS1 circle jerk which causes DS3 to lack identity of its own.

4) Level Design - highly overrated. The Lose Crowns trilogy is the gold standard in level design for the entire series. DS3 fails to reach that bar badly. And really it does the same things that fans whine about DS2 doing. And putting shortcuts all over the levels doesn't make the level less linear. Nevermind the levels and bosses rip heavily on earlier entries and even Bloodborne. DS3 rips from past games more than DS2 does.

5) New Game Plus - while DS2 throws so many surprises in NG+ mode along with upgraded and new loot, DS3 goes back to DS1 style NG+, only with pathetic new rings to mark the difference.

And DS3 is basically rushed out the door to meet a deadline. So many reused assets, so much wasted potential. Easily the worst Soulsborne game, dumbed down and rushed out the door.

Dark Souls III boss originality

Here is Fume Knight, now here is Pontiff Spamlyvn

Basically a near copy of a boss design from a past game.....and not unabashed like how DS2 used Ornstein.

Dark souls 1 is certainly the best dark souls game, dark souls 3 is just a rolling simulator.

If you call any character "good" in a Souls game you must be high or something. All the characters are amibiguously presented in all of the games. Memorable ? That probably comes down to personal taste.

NG+ was never about the new stuff it was about replaying the game with enemies that hit harder.... simple stuff.

Reused assets ? The same engine is used as in Bloodborne and I don't see the problem with that. How in the world does that make it dumbed down.

DSIII losing it's lack of identity because it references to it's predecessors...isn't it ok to reference and not only that but DSIII is clearly overlapping with DSI's world. It's basically a part of it but after a long period of time....I mean there are so many obvious hints at it too.

The fact that you don't like "bell" like covenants in main areas is subjective and entirely irrelevant to me.

On the note of the poise stat...I don't what they were thinking honestly... it's my main problem with the game.

Dark Souls II wasn't a bad game by any means.... I don't get why people dislike it so much.... but Dark Souls III is beter IMO.

Played 50+ hours of dark souls 3 now, dark souls 2 is still my favorite.

Reading the posts in this thread I get the impression peoples favorite game of he series is the first game they played (with most it's dark souls or demons souls) that's probably the case with me although I started at 2. Its my favourite because it was my first souls experience.

The people declaring bloodbourne the best are split between cows who say it's the best because it's a ps4 exclusive, and people who genuinely like the game the best.

@thehig1: Atleast, dark souls 1 had working hitboxes unlike dark souls 2, still a fun game though.

I just disagree on all fronts here.

Not with DSII not being as good as the other Souls game but just the gibberish opinions as to why it is what it is. A rushed cash grab ? It was so bad that you didn't want to play a From Soft game again ? What bloddy games did you play in 2012-2014 that was so exponentially better than DSII... Destiny ? DSII is a top tier game even if it is below its predecessors.

These games are pretty much stale in terms of the formula being used...but that is how it should be. Bloodborne was already amazing just because of the gothic victorian london feel. People constantly moaning about how this X Souls game and Z Souls game aren't original like this Y Souls game are just a bunch of hipsters...So unique in taste, so much gaming experience, real hardcore gamerz above the rest.

Pathetic.

@thepclovingguy: because I played through 2 before playing 1 I couldn't adjust to the less fluent control and shit fps.

The game nearly comes to a stand still at times.

Coming from scholar of first sin to that, I couldn't adjust.

If it got remastered and got given the scholar I'm first sin treatment id give it another go

nope. 9>8.

Dark souls 1 runs fine on pc, well if you use the ds fix mod and a controller. Honestly, I cant imaging why anyone would play dark souls with mouse and keyboard.

Lol! On topic, I think I prefer Dark Souls 3 more so far, but I really enjoyed Bloodborne, too.

@thepclovingguy: Yeah your right dark souls is really not ment for mouse and keyboard.

Yeah I might get the prepare to die edition on steam and apply the Ds fix.

I still think I'll like 2 better, with souls games your first love is the strongest.

Just beat it last night and I'd say it's the worst in the series. That doesn't mean it's bad though. Truth is every game in the series has been good.

Demons Souls is objectively the best game by quite a bit. Everything people love about Dark souls and Bloodborne started with Demons Souls. The solid combat mechanics, the messaging system, the online coop and PVP, invasions, awesome boss battles, the macabre dark fantasy atmosphere, the soul system, the crafting system, the esoteric storyline, the satisfying difficulty. Anyone saying that Demons Souls is overrated is obviously a stupid **** who likely didn't even play it until years after it was released well after they had finished Dark Souls. 95% of all weapons, armor, spells, items, even objects and animations in every Dark Souls game was taken straight out of Demons Souls.

Overrated....Pfffff. Only a Microsoft nuthugger would say that. Unable to give credit where credit is due because they don't have the balls to admit that their favorite series exists only because of a Sony funded and co-developed PS3 exclusive. Stay butt hurt Lermits.

Bloodborne was a really cool sidetake of Souls, but it just isn't very substantial and doesn't have the NPC/sidequest stuff I look for in Souls. Also the weapon/armor selection is very limited.

I like DS3 better. I still lean to Dark Souls 1 being the best game, but we'll see over time if DS3 holds up.

Aldia and Vendrick are "good" characters, made better the fact that the game revolves around them. There are also less ambiguous because they are prominent NPCs.

Well NG+ in DS3 is boring and easy, with no real reason to play it. Its a clear step down from DS2 in which in DS2, NG+ changes how the game is played.

Assets and environment ideas are ripped straight from Bloodborne, not just engine. It is a lazy slapped together rush job.

DS3 has no real identity because it fails to be unique unlike the past games. All it does is rip from the first two games and Bloodborne. DS2 on the other hand, mostly use ideas and areas that DS1 did not use.

Putting "Bell" or "Forest" covenant areas in main, non-optional areas is frustrating and cheap, and where the players invade is ridiculous. DS1 and DS2 put these areas in optional spots. You can bypass the Forest invasion area in DS1

And the poise problem and the dumbed down equip load unbalance the game totally. I can run builds that I could never use in DS1 and DS2 without slogging.

DS3 is everything people complain about DS2 and more.

Its funny how bashers call DS2 a rushed cash grab when DS3 fits this even better.

DS3 is the rushed cash grab. It need six more months of development. It was the shortest, most unoriginal game reliant on nostalgia instead of surprises that made the series great in the first place.

You simply don't get it. They are supposed to be ambiguous. Being a less vague character in a Souls game doesn't make them better.. in fact it makes them feel out of place in terms of how they are presented compared to all the other dozens of NPC's in DSI and Demon Souls.

A step down from DS2 because it doesn't include new weapons ? I'm sorry but to me DSII is the easiest entry in the entire series, simply because of the kitchen sink playstyle it forces the players into. I have never found NG+ boring in any of these games but I know that DSII is the one I got through with less frustration and "You died" 's.

You're forgetting that From made both Bloodborne and DSIII. If they feel like they don't have to change assets or the engine a year after the predecessor's release then I can't see the problem... From Software isn't a dev with high budget...and I honestly never played these games for their graphical flare...That being said...DSIII looks better than Bloodborne.

It rips form the first two games and Bloodborne ? Ok so I get that there may be a few bosses that are similar but that is obviously intentional... and some of it is justified through the fact that DSIII is partly the "after" of DSI's world.

When I complain about DS2 it's because I found it too easy compared to DSI.. but at first I thought that it was because I've been playing DSI a lot before DS2's release...Bloodborne proved me wrong. Bloodborne was a tougher cookie than DS2 was, easily. Actually I might even blame DS2 for making it too easy and perhaps that's what made Bloodborne a tad more difficult.

Covenant invasions can be countered by either simply going offline or just getting a certain item to send them back... Honestly.

Poise perhaps is a mistake but um... it probably only makes the pvp unbalanced to a certain extent and that depends on what builds are being used.

No..DS3 has other problems that I feel can still be fixed...like adding a poise stat..etc.

One little thing i noticed in Dark Souls 3 that isn't present in any other Soulsborne titles. In every other Souls game, you used to find a bunch of locked doors that you couldn't access for a very long time (a key for X door may be at the last levels of the game etc). In Dark Souls 3, there's no such thing. Everything is unlocked or you must unlock it from the other side which is mostly accessed from the same level. No more keys to collect and then search what they may unlock. A minor thing but a thing i liked and now its gone...

Instead now you get armors etc in old areas that spawn after you do something in 3 areas ahead...

You don't get it. The game has to have a consistent theme. DS3 does not. Its a mess. Its by far the worst FromSoft game lore and story wise and I am not a fan of Bloodborne's. DS2's cast accomplished what they were meant to do thematically while DS3 does not. And DS3 lacking a central figure really hurts it. It lacks an Allant, a Gwyn, a Vendrick, or Gerhman.

No its a step down because its lazy and boring. NG+ sucks in DS3. Its EASIER than the first NG. Things are easier to kill. There is no real challenge with a good build. DS2 on the other hand adds harder enemies and deadlier surprises. In fact, in NG+ in DS2, a boss attacks you earlier. You have none of these suprises in DS3 and From basically lied about the NG+ being more like DS2. Its not.

This is WHY DS3 is lacking. They rushed it out the door. Its a cash grab. Miyazaki spread himself to thin. DS3 needed more development time and it shows.

They can get away with a Gwyn or an Atorias rip, they can not get away with a Fume Knight rip.

If DS2 is so easy, then play it on Champions Covenant. Hint: its not easy. I dare to try NG+ Crown of the Old Iron King in Champions mode.

That's beside the point. I crush covenant invasions with my cheap plainly OP build. Doesn't mean its good. DS1 and DS2 made these areas optional. And the covenants are no where near as well thought out or suprising as DS2's covenants, Nevermind they are less consistent as well. Where is the covenant culture?

Its not only poise, its the equip load that's broken as well. Why am I so good at PvP right now? Because I am rolling quickly with medium armor and Havel's Shield. That does not happen in DS2.

I'm sorry but the fact that it doesn't have a central figure has no negative impact on the game from my experience...this is entirely subjective to yourself.. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm not gonna accept the immense weight you add to your own opinions as if they were universally objective...

I'm finding DSIII quite enjoyable right now too. I haven't tried Champions covenant no... I was also just talking about the game played with default conditions throughout the playthroughs played...regardless of what weapons used. DS2 was easier.

While I see the resemblance between Pontiff and Fume Knight....I really liked the battle against Pontiff and it's one of the bosses with the coolest looking movesets imo. The walk up to Pontiff in the cathedral looked so amazing too.. I don't know what it looks like on X1 or PS4 but the reflecting floor and lighting in the cathedral was just amazing aesthetically. I don't have a problem with Pontiff being a close hybrid of Fume Knight.

"The game has to have a consistent theme. DS3 does not. Its a mess. Its by far the worst FromSoft game lore and story wise and I am not a fan of Bloodborne's. DS2's cast accomplished what they were meant to do thematically while DS3 does not. And DS3 lacking a central figure really hurts it. It lacks an Allant, a Gwyn, a Vendrick, or Gerhman."

"No its a step down because its lazy and boring. NG+ sucks in DS3. Its EASIER than the first NG. Things are easier to kill. There is no real challenge with a good build. DS2 on the other hand adds harder enemies and deadlier surprises. In fact, in NG+ in DS2, a boss attacks you earlier. You have none of these suprises in DS3 and From basically lied about the NG+ being more like DS2. Its not."

"This is WHY DS3 is lacking. They rushed it out the door. Its a cash grab. Miyazaki spread himself to thin. DS3 needed more development time and it shows."

Is that it ? Because it doesn't HAVE a central figure it means it doesn't have a consistent theme.. what the hell ? The central figures in DSIII are clearly the Lords of Cinder... but since they aren't a single entity it doesn't count ? Story wise, this one is probably my favourite...because it's more of a continuation. It's basically you finding the Lords of Cinder that are running away from their fate....Which is to restart the Age of Fire. The plot is the same as in all previous Dark Souls games but it added DSI's legacy to it. After what ever happened in DSI at the end (most likey not igniting the flame) DSIII is what came after... DSIII's world is most likely the result of the bad ending chosen in DSI or it can be considered as the good ending too since the Age of Fire is temporary and requires Lords to burn to keep it going. DSIII has identity because its basically DSI's sequel and it builds upon it... That doesn't make it worse than DS2 because DS2 has an entirely different setting and gives DS2 a new identity... That's just dumb.

I think I have said enough on the flawed mechanics in DSIII... it can still be fixed.

"That's beside the point. I crush covenant invasions with my cheap plainly OP build. Doesn't mean its good. DS1 and DS2 made these areas optional. And the covenants are no where near as well thought out or suprising as DS2's covenants, Nevermind they are less consistent as well. Where is the covenant culture?"

Beside the point ? No, it's not. You moaned about how you'll get invaded in main areas as opposed to optional in DSI and DSII... yet you get items that help you send them back and you get a bloody option to log out... Problem solved. I don't care about your OP build. Doesn't mean what's good ? ???? Yes DSI and DS2 made those areas optional. So what ? I just gave you two solutions that are simple and easy to do. Well, I don't know what you mean by well thought out...do you mean like how some DS2 covenants are quest related or something...? I guess you're right...But it doesn't have such an extremely horrible impact on my experience of the game.

The covenants are less consistent ? What does that even mean ? Do you mean that the covenants don't have as much culture as they did in DS2 ? Isn't that something that develops instead of just happening overnight ? I believe it's a gradual process and DS2 certainly didn't have this said "culture" a month from it's release... It does now.

From Software has managed to exceed all expectations in technical department once again. Since the release of Dark Souls 3 people have been complaining how the covenant summons work poorly or simply not at all(never had darkmoon summon work myself f.e). Lately it has been discovered that the system is somehow tied to the age of your steam/psn/xboxlive account, the older your account is the more screwed you are. I personally went and tested this by creating a new steam account and using the steam family share to play Dark Souls 3 and well I gathered 30x concords in less than 2hours, brilliant. The technical prowess of From never ceases to surprise me.

Are you kiddin' yerself???

BB is head and shoulder above DS3, no contest here!!!

hue

The Lords of Cinder are simply put, less compelling, and less deep than a Allant or a Vendrick. And the final boss has no real connection to them. Its more scattershot than other Souls games. And DS3 wasn't a good continuation. It lacked its own identity, it was a rip of the first game. There are ways to continue the story without outright imitating it. DS3 should have been about the Furmitive Pygmy and the Dark Soul, that would have given it its own identity. And it wasn't a good continuation anyway as it seemingly wants to ignore DS2 and the "third way" that Scholar of the First Sin presents.

The ending to DS1 doesn't matter, many have linked the fire since then and the DS2 protagonist could do so as well. DS2 was more about the cycle itself than about linking or not linking the fire, as well about the curse of want.

Champions Covenant in DS2 makes enemies 50% stronger and take 50% less damage and bars you for summoning co-op help.

The equip load unbalance cannot be really fixed. Sorry, but the game is unbalanced completely. Some builds are OP and some builds are useless. I can't say this in DS2.

So how are the Lords of Cinder less compelling.... less "deep" than Allant or Vendrick.

To me Aldrich has quite the build up as one of the Lords of Cinder...He is basically someone who interacted with the abyss found in DSI... of course over the course of time the name changed to "the deep"....The entire area around the Cathedral of the Deep hints at his endeavors to run away from relinking the fire. The white zombie like enemies in the cemetery prove that he not only devoured humans but as the fire began to fade...he had to resort to devouring undead too. The game hints that he clearly did link the fire which means the Age of Fire would restart/continue which means more Gods to devour hence the name Devourer of Gods which shows that he was trying to devour gods to bring the abyss back or rather let it take over the world or perhaps be strong enough to link the fire again and survive to wait until the abyss eventually overtakes everything....this might be pure speculation but to me it really added weight to the game. Is this what you call "deep" ? I really liked this area and what it meant as a whole and how it connected to DSI in terms of the abyss and the descendants/followers of the Knight Artorias..The Abysswatchers are clearly linked to Artorias and him fighting against the Abyss. You mentioning the Furtive Pygmy is funny since the Abyss is directly linked to Manus which then is directly linked to the Dark Soul found by the Pygmy. The abyss is very present in DSIII. High Lord Wolnir seemed to be trapped inside it and was given a holy sword and bracelets to keep him from being trapped...that's why when fighting him you break the bracelets causing him to be pulled back into to the goblet.

DSIII also let's you play as an unkindled which is different from the previous games.

Also I personally got so psyched when I fought the Nameless King....I immediately remembered Gwyn's son that sided with the dragons..... who also trained Dragonslayer Ornstein hence the similar moveset.

I really like this game...and it's lore...I don't get it when you say it has no identity. It's areas are entirely linked with it's lore. How is it scattershot?

Outright imitating it ? What the hell ? I don't know what to say here... because this clearly proves that you either misunderstood half of the game's lore or you're just saying that with strict defintions aside. Honestly you're talking nonsense.

Ok perhaps there is little reference to DS2's setting but maybe that's because far away from the Lothric/Lordran area or perhaps it's long after...like really long after.

Uhm...the ending to DSI probably doesn't matter to that extent but it hints at the fact that the cycle has been repeated numerous times. Yes, DS2 was more about the cycle itself than about linking the fire. What ? Does this mean you think: About cyclez >>>>>>>>>About linking tehhh fire ?

I told you I was talking about the games in their default state. DS 2 was easier. The covenant is irrelevant...since DSIII doesn't have it.

So good.

Aldrich has the most build up of any Lord of Cinder, but he is nowhere near as deep as Allant or Vendrick, in which the lore of the entire game revolves around them. In fact, Vendrick plays a role in the Lost Crowns DLC just as much as the main game. And really DS3 throws around DS2 references without any real meaning. Karla, for instance is a child of Manus, in which the other children play HUGE roles in DS2. Here she is just a mage shop without any real lore. Why is there a picture of Nashadra and the Throne of Want in Irithyll? How is there a dead "giant" tree at Firelink? Miyazaki threw random references without actually connecting anything. DS2 had a character break his own curse. They should have been a point in the sequel. And The Pilgrims of the Dark (a DS2 covenant) storyline here in DS3 is idiotic.

Being unkindled is very similar to Demon Souls and DS2, not much difference.

Nameless King is by far the best boss. No other DS3 boss comes close. And he never fights much like Ornstein. He is not an imitation boss like Deacons of the Deep and Pontiff are. And I will excuse the Artorias and Gwyn references, they fit. But ripping off the Fume Knight, who has very little relationship with Londo, is lazy.

Yes, we have returned to Lordran, but that doesn't excuse it from ignoring the events of the second game. The second game didn't ignore events from the first game despite setting it in a different locale. DS3 doesn't have an excuse to ignore DS2.

DS3 is easier. Why? Because its more unbalanced. I ran a build that trivializes the game and it really cannot be fixed with a patch. DS2 unbalanced builds got patched out because they could have been easily tweaked. DS3 will have to break builds to fix them. Making the game go almost as fast as Bloodborne broke the game balance. Hell, my build destroys invaders on PvP because there are very little answers for it.

@jg4xchamp: That was an awesome video, learned a lot, thx.

Recently just got the platinum in Dark Souls 3. Favorite game of the year so far but I didn't enjoy it as much as Bloodborne. It's a lot better than Dark Souls 2 but that's not saying much.

It still amazes me that people think DkS3 is any bit better than 2. 2 was a refreshing experience filled with improvements to the core system (cancelling, offhand weapon use, diversity of viable playstyles and weapon choices, WORKING POISE, POWERSTANCE, animations balanced to gameplay in terms of frame advantages and punishable attacks etc.).

3 is filled with lukewarm fanservice to the point where they glossed over game design aspects. They opted to reintroduce many of dks1's animations while haphazardly throwing bloodborne-style enemies into the game, making the lack of attention to detail all the more obvious. You get punished for landing and staggering an opponent with anything that isn't an r1 or fully charged r2. Still, if the weapon isn't fast, you can be punished for staggering an opponent with r1 in some occasions. Who makes these mistakes in game development anymore? The player-player interactions are terrible this time around because of these as well.

Another thing: replayability. I find little reason to revisit 3 due to the fact that NG+ is not even really fun. The game is so linear, it punishes changing your playstyle from anything that isn't melee (AND only physical damage because hybrid damage sucks ass in 3), and NG+ no longer adds anything new to the point where it's not even close to 2 in terms of the diversity of what it offers. This isn't even considering the pvp, which 2 is just flat out better in.

About "lore" and world design used as subjective preference of Dks3: those don't even play the game for you; beautiful looking games can have shit gameplay as well e.g. RYSE and The Order. Overall, your experience should bode on the game design itself, and 3 isn't looking so hot in that respect.

I've played all the souls games.

Demons Souls, Dark Souls legendary. Plenty of build variety and gameplay potential.

Dark Souls 2; too many grouped mobs, bad boss design bad level design, bad multiplayer, bad hit detection

Dark Souls 3; bad level design, little build variety, terrible factions, reused assets, unfinished game mechanics, bad hit detection, bad multiplayer. I've got nothing good to say about 3, it's bad, really bad. I may not even finish it I hate the freaking game so much. I'm done with these games forever, 3 was just so god awful I'm out for good. Wish I could get my money back for 3 I despise this game.

To add.....

Dark Souls II has far more unique areas as well while DS3 recycles areas (and DS2 only really takes Blighttown from DS1 for the Gutter). DS2 has more original areas like a Japanese fog horror ghost forest, seaside locations including a Wharf, a steampunk tower, a mine and a quarry, a frozen city, a sunken Mayan style kingdom, a giant reflection pool shrine, a biological research laboratory, and a dragon peak. How about time travel back to a battle that stories the first major area? DS3 has none of that, rehashing and recycling levels from past games.

NG+ is so lazy and From lied about it being more like DS2.

I will tell you how I broke PvP. My build is very tough to beat, I win 90% of the time and only lose due to numbers or other factors such as giant crabs coming into the fight. Basically, I spec a Knight as of level 110 to 30-35 Vigor, 42 Strength 35-40 Dex, 40 Vitality and 40 Endurance. I then have Knight Armor I wore throughout, a Havels Shield (before that I used Black Iron Greatshield), a Refined Dark Sword +10, and I wreck invaders because I can roll quickly because I am under 70% Equip Load. My defense is so good as all options work, I can stand a parry, and my sword is so deceptively quick that I believe my opponents misjudge the weapon.

In DS2, I would never be able to dominate with a build like that. I would lug against faster opponents. The game balance in DS3 is extremely broken.

DS2 has DS1 beat in build variety. And DS1 has bad boss and level design as well, and DS1's worst bosses are worse than DS2's worst bosses.

I agree. Dark Souls 2 was still a well put together game, even if it is the weakest of the series. I had fun with it for quite a while; more so than most games.

@texasgoldrush: Dark Sword is obviously broken at this point. I'm guessing they will nerf it soon. It does more damage than ultra greatswords in some instances. The best way to counter the R1 spam of the dark sword is to parry.

Which they try, doesn't do much damage to my build and its easily missable. Its not the damage that's broken, its the speed as well. And when I spam, its a counterattack, which is even tougher to parry. I had great success with longsword as well.

All straightswords are that fast, not just the dark sword. They've mostly chalked up to an r1 spam, which can be deadly, but can be countered if you know what you're doing. I've killed more than a few dark sword users, but I also study up on how to counter the stuff. Many users either have lag when trying to parry or just don't have parry timing down. It's a tough thing to do, and even I haven't perfected it. However, with a large weapon, you can bait dark sword users into r1 spamming for the punish. But, some dark sword users are better than most, and don't r1 spam.

It's been mostly chalked up to a scummy weapon by the DS community. Welcome to the scumsville. :D

. You like dark souls 2, good for you but a lot of people agree with me, read some user reviews and you will see what I mean.

Dark souls II did improve on the co op and invasion mechanics but it's quite obvious that they put a lot less time in the artwork, that is also the reason why it gets so much criticism.

dark souls 2 released in 2014, and there were indeed not a lot of good games around that time period, not for me anyway but that has nothing to do with it.

My dark sword isn't even the most broken thing. Its my defense. It my ability to use a Havel shield without serious speed penalties. I outlast my opponents because I take less damage than my opponent. I fight defensively actually, wait for the right time to strike and force the invader to use all his estus. With the ability to block with the heaviest shield available AND the ability to roll when my stamina gets below half, I am very hard to kill. I have been slaughtering PvP opponents in ways I never could in DS2. In fact, I find player invaders less dangerous than NPC ones sometimes. The equip load is the culprit. By not punishing heavier armor builds harshly, they become very unbalanced in PVP due to the way they are able to answer and avoid every attack in any way possible.

User reviews? Hypocrites who bash DS2 for the same things DS3 does?

Here is the thing, many fans do not accept someone other than the original creator doing the work, no matter how good another director or developer or team is, and fans like praising the original creator unless the work absolutely sucks even if the work isn't great. See, Bioshock Infinite and Bioshock 2 for examples.

How is it obvious that they put less time in their artwork? Here is the thing, they made DS2 a "counterpoint" of DS1, that went with the opposite style world design with wastelands, more natural levels, and outdoor ruins instead of grand metropolitan areas and castles.

Dark Souls 3 is a complete mechanical mess that From Software still has yet to tell the public what poise does in the game. How this game is getting the kind of praise it got is beyond me when I have seen early access releases have far better gameplay balance and integrity than this game...

I honestly don't get why people didn't like DS2. I pretty much enjoyed all my time with it. The DLC was absolutely worth the money and it has a boss with quite possibly the coolest opening ever. To me these games usually place about the same if I had to rank them in my top favourites. DSIII is giving me what I want atm...These games have yet to dissapoint me.

you can call user reviews anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that your love for ds2 isn't shared by a significant group of people, unlike ds1.

It is more than just the artwork, had they build dark souls 2 on the same engine like bloodborne, it would gotten a lot less of criticism. Here's the thing, when dark souls 1 released it was a great looking game but it released on a system that was already at the end of its life. By the time dark souls 2 released the xbox 360 and ps3 were already way past there expiration date. Naughty dog could still do some things with the ps3, but not every dev was able to harness the power of the ps3 and it was still heavily bottlenecked by the gpu.

Had they used the same artstyle , it would have gotten a lot less criticism as well, the artstyle of ds1 worked a lot better with the old engine than the arstyle of ds2.

But even then after all that, I don't think they will be able to top dark souls1 if they use other people to make it. Now that you mention it, i didn't like bioshock infinite either and I loved bioshock 1. It is basically the same scenario with far cry , crytek and ubisoft. The spirtual successor for far cry is crysis , not far cry 2. Don't get me wrong far cry 2 is a great game, but it is no crysis.

Look, you're being thick headed if you think that the group consists of significant opinions. A very good example now would be the Infinite Warfare video on Youtube.. look at that dislike bar on there...it's entirely unreasonable even if Call of Duty isn't a franchise in high regard at the moment. A lot of the dislikes are unconditional or just purely following a trend... some may be authentic yes but I doubt that the bar of dislikes you see there is the real picture. Dark Souls II got a lot of flack when everyone found out that Miyazaki wasn't working on it... I have read a lot of reviews on DS2 and quite frankly it's mostly subjective opinions on things they just don't like rather than critically dissecting the game. It's similar to playing a genre you don't like and then bashing it...

The artstyle once again is entirely subjective.. It didn't hit any extremity of good or bad artstyle. It wasn't terrible but neither was it amazing. Dark Souls 2 is by no means as bad as people make it out to be...

So the poise isn't broken or need to be fixed....it just needs to be put on ?

Its basically broken cause it doesn't nothing as longest the developer refuses to turn it on. Also, turning it on manually will get you banned, regardless if you only play alone.

Strict defintions aside...maybe it is "broken". But nothing a patch the size of a few Mbs can't fix.