Dark Souls III - better than Bloodborne?

Finally, there are people who really understand how fundamentally flawed and uninspired dark souls 3 really is . I played about half-way through and was absolutely surprised at the mostly positive reception that it received. Where dark souls 2 actually took more risks and really elevated the series with new ideas and concepts, dark souls 3 seems more like a rehash and too much fanservice for no reason.

The part that really cracks me up the most is that it really does seem like the game was rushed out. The locations are boring and generic, as they are just more or less what to expect from a dark souls game. Sequels, especially a third game in a franchise should be more bolder, bigger and at least a little more ambitious and broader in scope (witcher 3, mass effect 3 and so on) . New ideas and concepts should be pushed, and for all of the criticisms of dark souls 2, dark souls 3 repeats most of them and no one complains..........because......Miyazaki.

The one thing I've learned about this franchise is that a good amount of the fan-base are mostly hypocrites. Other game franchises would've been critically mauled for failing to advance the series and playing it too safe/relying on nonsense fan-service.

Dark souls 2 was a great sequel, it had flaws due to restarted development, but it really tried to introduce new elements to the series to freshen up the now stale formula. It had a story thread that was simplified but easy to follow and understand, an example of good storytelling. Ambiguity does not equal good story-telling no matter how intricate a lore is. The game had an identity and a running theme that wasn't a rehash of the first game. It tried a new theme with its story, and whether or not it was successful at it is a different topic, but it tried something different.

Dark souls 3 on the other hand feels more like a rehash. It's a good game, but not a great one in my opinion. Too many technical issues and ridiculous game balance makes it even worse, and, the most damning of them all, the introduction of the bloodborne-esque combat severely hampered the game. Bloodborne was a great game and the combat system worked for it as the entire game balance was designed for that style of combat. Dark souls 3 on the other hand suffers for throwing away the slow and methodical combat that the series was known for. Now enemies don't really operate by the same rules, poise is functionally broken or changed and combat balance is now out of the window.

In the end, this series should end or go back to the drawing board. The formula is growing stale and ideas are thin. It's really clear that this third game really didn't have much going for it in terms of inspiration hence the over-reliance on nostalgia and fan service. Rehashing the same tropes over and over again (how many times must a dragon freaking land on a building/bridge and rain fire again and again), and trying to hide badly designed npc quest-lines and story threads under ambiguity.

Plat Dark Souls 3 and beat the game through NG+++ and now currently replaying Bloodborne and I'd say Bloodborne was better.

Dark Souls 3 is a great game(8.5/10 for me) but the bosses were no threat besides one until NG+++ where some of the weaker ones finally posed a decent threat. The atmosphere was okay but nothing was memorable. Covenants that were virtually fixed and were unique in Dark Souls 2 are again broken and generic in Dark Souls 3 with people wanting to get covenant rewards from certain groups relying on farming monsters with pathetic drop rates.

@thehig1: Nah. It's widely agreed upon that DS1 is better than Demon Souls.

I think it might be better than any Souls game.

not really. people just claim DS1 is the best game because it's A) the souls game most people played first and B) demon's souls was a lot more obscure and exclusive to PS3. demon's souls straight up has better level design and bosses, though i agree that dark souls has better mechanics, online play, and replay value. most importantly it introduced the bonfire and the estus flask.

also as a matter of personal opinion i much prefer demon's souls lore over dark souls lore

@SexyJazzCat: what ever souls games the person played first is likely to be favourite.

The people who agree dark souls 1 is best likely played dark souls 1 first.

@thehig1: Anyone who started playing the series from the beginning will tell you DS1 is better than Demons.

@princeofshapeir: How does it "straight up" have better bosses and level design??

Behold: the universal go-to for dks2 hate. This is what virtually all "critics" of dks2 descend upon. "Look, a lot of people who have subjective complaints agree with me!" "Artstyle"... "lore"... "world design" etc. etc.

I didn't start being vocal about how dks2 was the best in the series until dks3 arrived, and I sensed something seriously wrong. Now I've joined the discussion to put this shit to rest. You dks1 circle jerkers don't have any objective criticisms of dks2. Instead, most of this crowd resorts to shit that doesn't bode on game design to try and convince people to think like them. In reality, they've pushed people *away* from a game where most of the attention to detail was in how the game played, how many viable ways you can play it, how balanced it is, facets of game design etc. all while remaining deeply fun.

Before you try to comment on familiarity with the series, I started with Demons, found Dks1 to be pretty good, but I was completely wowed by Dks2. The difference is that I appreciate the focus on the way the game plays. They put their foot in it with dks2, and people are satisfied with crap in dks3 because of what, glorious miyazaki? No developer is infallible.

@omenodebander: The most offensive fanservice that immediately appeared was the literal copy pasted blacksmith. I was so mad when I saw that. I then realized they just copied a lot of their literal code from dks1 (and a little bloodborne) to make dks3. They obviously didn't focus very much on the gameplay.

Generally true. Although I oscillate between demons and dks2, because nothing will recover that feeling of starting up demons for the first times. Nothing will ever. Dark souls 1 tried to come close though.

The problem is that they simply refuse to do it, instead we get an answer such as "Its working as intended", which translates to "go **** yourself".

@SexyJazzCat: There's even posters in this very thread who have said demons is their favorite.

@thehig1: Are they those sony fanboys that run rampant here?

ironically the people who say that on here also say the only good "souls" games are demon souls and bloodborne.

its just by chance those games are exclusive to sony platforms...right?

I determine which games are better by how much I enjoy playing them. I've enjoyed BB but I enjoy the slower game play of DS3. It 's more my style of play though I think BB is a great game.

Well, i'm done with the game.

Fun, but it was a choir on some parts. Bloodborne tainted me, i can't get into PVP in my build so i quit.

I don't care if you are a ds 2 fan, I didn't like the game for the reasons I already mentioned.

and apparently a lot of people don't like the game either , wether that is because of the fandom of certain developper or not doesn't matter. I never even heard of that developper and I didn't even play ds3.

I'm quite sure not all negative ds 2 user reviews are negative just because it is another developper as well. Ds 2 has another lore and artstyle, end of story.

I read enough reviews about it that mentioned the different artwork, I've never read somewhere that it was another developper. I seriously doubt I'm the only one that feels this way as well, especially after reading user reviews that explicitely point out the same things that I didn't like about the game.

I could very well be that a big part of those negative user reviews is just because it is another developper but even then , it is a different artstyle because it is another developper. Your comparison with call of duty could be no comparison at all, or it could be that this call of duty will not be very good at all. It really doesn't matter, like I said far cry 2 is not really far cry 2, and while far cry 2 was a pretty good game imo, it cannot touch crysis. Crytek is to a lot of people just a better dev than ubi, and apparently it's the same scenario with ds2 here.

That you like the game is all well and good but don't start denying the sunlight, a lot of people simply didn't like ds2 because it had a different artstyle and because it was build on a old engine.

@SexyJazzCat: @lawlessx: you two have a point

I wasn't saying that the reviews mentioned Miyazaki not working on the game as their reasons... I was saying that people just wanted to give DS2 flak because of this.. It was and probably still is a trend and I was using the dislikes on Infinite Warfare as an example maybe an extreme one but this shows that people sometimes some people (not all) try to see how far they can take the dislike bar.

It isn't a different artstyle because of another developer... It wasn't using a new engine that's all. The artstyle in the Souls games may be one of it's good points but it hardly has the weight to make the game outright terrible if the artstyle isn't the best.

I wasn't using Infinite Warfare as a comparison at all. I was using the dislike bar on it's reveal trailer as an extreme example.

Ok. So firstly, sunlight ? You are one of those people that try to add as much weight to subjective opinions as you can and if you can bring the "but so many others people think so too" then why the hell not. There is no sunlight here. You aren't wrong but neither is DS2 a bad game. One is subjective while the other one is entirely objective.