Dark Souls III (revisited)

[Noodle Lizard]

Well, it's not much of a "revisiting" for me I suppose since I only played it for the first time last year. Coming fresh off of Elden Ring, it was difficult to take a step backwards in terms of gameplay and mechanics, and despite a few excellent bosses I felt that most of it was just a less good version of what I'd already experienced in ER. I took a break after starting The Ringed City DLC because it was just fucking stupidly hard, and then I lost my save file when transferring over to PS5, so that was the end of that.

But after exhausting every reasonable possibility with Elden Ring and Bloodborne and trying/failing again to get into Dark Souls 1, I decided to give it another go from scratch. I've beaten it all except for Midir, who is giving me a serious ache in the arse. I've always been shite at dragons in these games, with Placidusax being possibly the hardest boss for me in Elden Ring, but this is a whole other story. I also summoned for help with Nameless King on this run because I didn't fancy doing that first phase over and over again.

I like it now. It's not as good as either of the other two I've completed, but there are some things I like about it more.

Anyroad, I would like to discuss it in the breaks between attempting Midir and throwing my controller on the carpet in a big huff when the smelly bastard inevitably merks me.

[The Crumb]

Towards the bottom of the pile for me. Feels really small and unambitious after 2, the reliance on DS1 references was a bit much and half of the small number of areas were boring or irritating. It feels very obviously built off the back of Bloodborne which doesn't really work with the weight combat.

For all the story about the light finally dying, ultimate decay and darkness etc. it was the exact same stuff as always. Couldn't even build on the torch/light mechanics from 2.Some good bosses but also quite a lot of naff amd gimmicky ones.

[oggyraiding]

Feels the most refined of the From games, not as innovative (for the time) as Demons/DS1, not as experimental as DS2, not as interesting a setting as BB. Most things it sets out to do, it does well, it's just those things aren't hugely interesting.

[chutnut]

I bloody love DS3. I just could not be fucked with Midir though, I think it's the only boss in any of the games that I've given up on, and I gave up pretty quickly when I realised how long it takes even if you're smashing it. Just running from one end of the room to the other over and over again no thanks. I suppose it's quite similar to the elden beast in that way.
I played it before the first one so I wasn't bothered by all the fan service stuff that everyone seems to hate it for, and it's just better than DS2 in every way imo (I hate ds2)

[Video Game Fan 2000]

one of the best games ever made but i despise the call backs and 'members

they did havel very dirty

[Noodle Lizard]

So it seems that those of us who played it before DS1 like it a lot better!

I beat Midir today. Piece of piss, dunno what you were all so worried about.

Trying to run around polishing off any loose ends before hopping into NG+. I'm pretty sure I missed a few NPC questlines. I finished with a pure DEX katana build for this run, any other builds or weapons well worth a try?

[The Crumb]

It's quite funny playing as a pyromancer and experiencing how laughably shit the combat is once you get decent magicks.

Also funny experiencing From's peerless game design at its most refined when there's 3 bonfires in 50 metres on the way into Irithyll.

[Roxy Robinson]

The Japanese release was about a month before it came to the West and the experience of playing it essentially blind was really exciting. There were little fragments of dialogue and imagery that had me buzzing to see how they would bring everything together. The Gwyn piano motif during the Soul of Cinder fight gave me a lump in my throat and tear in my eye; it completely caught me off guard and I felt how much these games meant to me.

I played through that Japanese version with three separate builds before the English release and I enjoyed it less each time. I realised how much it looked and felt like the Bloodborne engine and how little weight there was compared to the first two games and Demon's. It felt closer to a hack and slash. Yet coming off the fluidity and quickstep glide of Bloodborne, it also felt stiff and limited. The weapon arts felt mostly useless, a very unpolished mechanic. The easiest way to play the game was to get a fast longsword and stunlock enemies by hammering R1. Nevertheless, I looked forward to understanding the on-screen text and going deeper.

I played the English language version once, only to find that there was no particular significance to any of the nods and references. There was no contextual reframing or subversion or contrast or anything. It was very very far from The Royal Wood or the Artorias revelations. The more I played it, the thinner and more superfluous it became. Everything seemed to be a reflection of something that had gone before, but without any emotional resonance or purpose, only recollection. The Izalith, Catacombs and Latria sections got worse each time. The swamp is awful. Anor Londo redux cheapens one of the greatest reveals in gaming - for nothing. Onion knight, Dragonslayer and Havel are barely fan service. Worst of all with Solaire and Nameless King, they ruined one of the most emotive and engaging mysteries of the original game. I could go on but it's all been said before and better so why would I repeat?

There are things I like. Archdragon Peak secret. The sunny, sickly aesthetic of Lothric. Some of the new lore and quests leading to the marriage. Some cool
convoluted mechanics like the Hollow stuff. The extension of the Hemwick aesthetic in the early game. The gradual changes to Firelink/skyboxes - well borrowed and developed from BB. While much of the DLC areas feel like skill checks, gank shit and gimmicks, the finale was spectacular and it did make me wonder how brilliant this could have been if they'd developed the convergence stuff more. Gael is a superb boss. The egg moment is great. It could have been something special.

Ultimately, I could get past the empty references and the lack of personality if the combat and areas were more enjoyable but I find it the least interesting and exciting FROM game to actually play through. For all the many egregious faults of DS2, that game remains weird and varied and endlessly replayable in terms of builds. It also has personality and atmosphere and a sense of grand adventure that only Dark Souls can really match.

In short, I don't often get sincerely irritated but DS3 is one of the few times in life that my high expectations and excitement progressively dimmed to the point that I feel contemptuous.

[Thursday]

It's quite funny playing as a pyromancer and experiencing how laughably shit the combat is once you get decent magicks.

Also funny experiencing From's peerless game design at its most refined when there's 3 bonfires in 50 metres on the way into Irithyll.

Irithyll is one of the most beautiful sights in any game, even post-elden ring but the enemies there are absolute bullshit. Overtuned AND the numbers of them mean they gank you. Of course I'm just going to run past them.

[oggyraiding]

https://www.youtube.com/c/zulliethewitch

This channel is really interesting if you're into the hidden stuff and "backstage" elements of the Soulsbornekiroring games. Changes or cuts to the final content, stuff like Pontiff Sulyvahn originally being the final boss in early stages, before his demotion to regular mid-game boss.

[druss]

and it's just better than DS2 in every way imo (I hate ds2)

The combat, most of the bosses and the graphics are better and it feels smoother to play than DS2 but I struggle to think of anything else that DS3 did better than 2.

[chutnut]

The combat, most of the bosses and the graphics are better and it feels smoother to play than DS2 but I struggle to think of anything else that DS3 did better than 2.

Well that's a pretty good list already tbh, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that in ds3 you don't end up attacking in completely the wrong direction half the time even when locked on

[Roxy Robinson]

Well that's a pretty good list already tbh, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that in ds3 you don't end up attacking in completely the wrong direction half the time even when locked on

But DS2 is so much more than 'Skill Check:The Game'.

[PlanktonSideburns]

Played this, and only this. Had no idea that onion bloke, and all the other stuff was actually plot from the other games, just thought it was a load of random dungeons and dragons stuff lobbed together

Still liked it, but had a totally surface experience of it, like ooh, that blokes cool, he has like a sort of Spanish medieval vibe SMACK kill him, ooh a dragon and so on

[Thursday]

One of the things I like about earlier Souls games is that they're more "tactics" based. They're less about perfect reflexes and timing and more about having the right approach.

DS3 moves more into fast action combat, where a cautious approach will often see you punished, but while it's smoother than a DeS/DS1/DS2, it doesn't even give you the tools or movement options of Bloodborne or Sekiro which are more carefully designed around your abilities and limitations.

in Dark Souls 3, it's mostly just "You move faster and rolling/running doesn't deplete your stamina meter as quickly." Feels like an uncomfortable middle ground to me.

I was worried about Elden Ring, because it is based in DS3's systems, but it adds so many other movements options, weapons, tools and abilities and different ways to approach things it levels the playing field. 

[Dickie_Anders]

Played this, and only this. Had no idea that onion bloke, and all the other stuff was actually plot from the other games, just thought it was a load of random dungeons and dragons stuff lobbed together

I like that these games are basically vague fantasy fever dreams with a story there if you really want to dig into it

I can imagine someone playing DS3 first then going back to DS1 and finding the controls a lot less reactive, and being put off. DS1 for me is a survival game where you play as a weighty put-upon man who struggles to do everything, DS3 is closer to an action game

[The Crumb]

I was very disappointed that the game built up Aldrich so much and then it was a turd with a DS1 character stuck in it.

[Noodle Lizard]

Aldrich is a fun fight, but a bit anticlimactic perhaps. Dancer and The Twin Princes more than make up for him though.

I think DS3's boss line-up is very consistent, perhaps moreso than any of the others I've played (still haven't finished Sekiro, Demon's Souls or Dark Souls 1). Bloodborne and Elden Ring bosses probably occupy the top slots overall, but they each have a fair few clunkers as well. I can't think of a genuinely bad boss in DS3 - the tree or Crystal Sage are sort of boring, but nowhere near as terrible as something like Godskin Duo or Rom.

The Ringed City did push it a bit as far as tedious difficulty goes. Those swamps are just awful, hard to imagine anyone truly enjoying them, and the Adjudicators respawning is a properly infuriating decision. I worry that Elden Ring's DLC might do something similar - after all, the Haligtree is in the base game! If it can give us a better fight than Gael, though, it'll be worth it.

[falafel]

It's the Psycho remake of Souls games.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's the Psycho remake of Souls games.

Well, I don't know if that's fair. But it's also understandable that Miyazaki would want to make a fully-polished version of Dark Souls, having not been able to properly finish the first one and then being entirely absent for the second. I also think Dark Souls 3 is far more future-proof than the others, which exist in that weird end-of-generation space where they're not quite "old" enough to be charming but not advanced enough to feel comfortably playable to a newcomer today. I probably should finish DS1 and 2 before speaking with any real authority, of course, but I feel as though I played enough of both for that point to be salient.

It might also help that, for me, the lore is usually secondary to the gameplay and atmosphere (Bloodborne is a slight exception), so I'm not recognising all the references or repetitions.

I bloody love DS3. I just could not be fucked with Midir though, I think it's the only boss in any of the games that I've given up on, and I gave up pretty quickly when I realised how long it takes even if you're smashing it.

It's probably far too late for this, but if you feel like returning to him you do eventually get a critical hit which basically deletes half his health bar. I don't know if it's an intentional gimmick a la Yhorm, but it seems to happen consistently if you whack his head enough times.

[Dickie_Anders]

I also think Dark Souls 3 is far more future-proof than the others, which exist in that weird end-of-generation space where they're not quite "old" enough to be charming but not advanced enough to feel comfortably playable to a newcomer today. I probably should finish DS1 and 2 before speaking with any real authority, of course, but I feel as though I played enough of both for that point to be salient.

I don't think the older Souls games are slower/weightier and more methodical because they were "not advanced enough yet". I think it was almost definitely a design choice. Some people (including myself) enjoy that style of gameplay more than the post-Bloodborne stuff (not that I don't like those games too, though)

[druss]

Well, I don't know if that's fair. But it's also understandable that Miyazaki would want to make a fully-polished version of Dark Souls, having not been able to properly finish the first one and then being entirely absent for the second. I also think Dark Souls 3 is far more future-proof than the others, which exist in that weird end-of-generation space where they're not quite "old" enough to be charming but not advanced enough to feel comfortably playable to a newcomer today. I probably should finish DS1 and 2 before speaking with any real authority, of course, but I feel as though I played enough of both for that point to be salient.

It might also help that, for me, the lore is usually secondary to the gameplay and atmosphere (Bloodborne is a slight exception), so I'm not recognising all the references or repetitions.

It's probably far too late for this, but if you feel like returning to him you do eventually get a critical hit which basically deletes half his health bar. I don't know if it's an intentional gimmick a la Yhorm, but it seems to happen consistently if you whack his head enough times.

Do you mean future proof as in it will be harder for newer players to go back to? Or future proof in the sense that in time people will look back and think DS3 was superior to DS1?

Because I'm pretty sure the second option definitely won't happen.

I came to the Souls series relatively late (2020, thank you lockdown) when all 3 games had been out for some time and always found DS1 to be the best, by quite some distance. DS2 was far better than expected too as from most online comments you would think it was unplayable with hit box issues every 5 minutes but this wasn't an issue more than a handful of times.

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't think the older Souls games are slower/weightier and more methodical because they were "not advanced enough yet". I think it was almost definitely a design choice. Some people (including myself) enjoy that style of gameplay more than the post-Bloodborne stuff (not that I don't like those games too, though)

Yeah, maybe. I don't know enough about what was possible at the time, but some of the clunkiness (like roll-direction, weird hitboxes, some boss design etc.) feels like a significant downgrade after having started off with the perhaps more accessible later entries. Weirdly I didn't have this sensation with the Demon's Souls remake, despite the game itself not being as interesting for the most part.

Do you mean future proof as in it will be harder for newer players to go back to? Or future proof in the sense that in time people will look back and think DS3 was superior to DS1?

Because I'm pretty sure the second option definitely won't happen.

The first one. Despite being 5 or more years old, Bloodborne and DS3 don't feel too much older than Elden Ring to me, so I'd expect more people who are introduced to the series with ER (or whatever's next) to find them much easier to go back to. That's assuming everyone is like me, of course, which they all are.

[Dickie_Anders]

Yeah, maybe. I don't know enough about what was possible at the time, but some of the clunkiness (like roll-direction, weird hitboxes, some boss design etc.) feels like a significant downgrade after having started off with the perhaps more accessible later entries. Weirdly I didn't have this sensation with the Demon's Souls remake, despite the game itself not being as interesting for the most part.

Well I think you can look at action games that came out earlier that Demon's/Dark Souls e.g. the Devil May Cry games to see that it was more than possible to have much more reactive, smoother fast-paced combat in games. Demon's Souls was faster/more reactive than Dark Souls, even, despite coming out before, so I can't see why it wouldn't have been a conscious choice

It's interesting that you come at it from the perspective that DS1 is a significant downgrade. DS3 has always been pooh-poohed a bit by From fans, and DS1 and Bloodborne are usually the darlings (unless that's changed in recent years?). I think DS3 is ace but DS1 and Sekiro are probably still my faves

[Roxy Robinson]

DS3 is a dumbgrade.

New word which everyone probley start using now.

[bgmnts]

Actually a slang!

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/dumbgrade

[falafel]

Bumgrade more like

[Roxy Robinson]

Inspired by this thread, I started DS3 up again and I've really enjoyed the opening areas - my enduring memories of the game from when I first played it. High Wall and Undead Settlement are great, particularly the latter. Lots of hidden areas, both below ground and up the towers. Lots of different routes and architecture. It's great. Lothric, likewise, lots of distinct areas which nevertheless feel cogent. The castle type structure, the dungeon, the gardens, the courtyard, rooftops, the walls, the dining area, the dragon. Great stuff.

I've now reached Farron Wood and the big swamp and my heart just sank. Slowly legging it round doing suicide runs for all the items and then suicide runs for the flames.

[Noodle Lizard]

Inspired by this thread, I started DS3 up again and I've really enjoyed the opening areas - my enduring memories of the game from when I first played it. High Wall and Undead Settlement are great, particularly the latter. Lots of hidden areas, both below ground and up the towers. Lots of different routes and architecture. It's great. Lothric, likewise, lots of distinct areas which nevertheless feel cogent. The castle type structure, the dungeon, the gardens, the courtyard, rooftops, the walls, the dining area, the dragon. Great stuff.

I've now reached Farron Wood and the big swamp and my heart just sank. Slowly legging it round doing suicide runs for all the items and then suicide runs for the flames.

Yeah, that's a bad area. I just blitzed to the fires and had done with it on my second playthrough, came back for anything important I missed later on. Luckily it gets good again after that.

FROM related tangent: I finally decided to play Sekiro properly. I'm at the final boss now (Demon of Hatred notwithstanding, I haven't bothered with him yet). It's good, although I'm learning that notoriously unpopular boss designs like Godskin Duo or Bed of Chaos are clearly not an accidental drop in quality on Fromsoft/Miyazaki's part. As with the poison swamps, I think they just enjoy making us do things they know we'll hate. I haven't decided whether that's a net positive or not, but there are bits of each game I absolutely dread. Sekiro's been relatively light on these, at least, although it's had by far the highest quantity of bosses or enemies that appear absolutely impossible at first.

[druss]

Yeah, that's a bad area. I just blitzed to the fires and had done with it on my second playthrough, came back for anything important I missed later on. Luckily it gets good again after that.

FROM related tangent: I finally decided to play Sekiro properly. I'm at the final boss now (Demon of Hatred notwithstanding, I haven't bothered with him yet). It's good, although I'm learning that notoriously unpopular boss designs like Godskin Duo or Bed of Chaos are clearly not an accidental drop in quality on Fromsoft/Miyazaki's part. As with the poison swamps, I think they just enjoy making us do things they know we'll hate. I haven't decided whether that's a net positive or not, but there are bits of each game I absolutely dread. Sekiro's been relatively light on these, at least, although it's had by far the highest quantity of bosses or enemies that appear absolutely impossible at first.

Without wanting to make this a Sekiro thread, beating the final boss of that game was probably the most satisfying boss in all of their games for me. It seems utterly impossible on your first few tries but last time I played I could beat him fairly consistently even on NG+ (possibly even ++ as well, I forget).

I cheesed demon of hatred though, wasn't fun at all.