I've been going through DS1 Remastered for trophy collection having played the original six years ago or so. I've loved the games and specific things with each game but you're absolutely correct with your grievances in terms of combat shortcomings.
Faith and pyromancery in general never really get their moment to shine with either lack of effective PvE use but I do enjoy the variety in weapons even if you'll never use all of them.
The one thing going for it is that multiplayer is still pretty active despite it being a few years old. I even got the sun from the Sunbros tattooed on me because of the first two games lmao.
The level design is good, I'll give you that. But to me the combat is honestly disgustingly slow. I don't like controlling a character that feels like they're 400 lbs overweight, even with light armor.
I just platinum'd the game a couple weeks ago. From a lore perspective, the game is a mess and incredibly disappointing. There are great ideas and interesting stories to be found but overall it leans so hard into the fan service that it doesn't even logically fit with the first two games.
The combat is my favorite of the trilogy though and it has some fantastic bosses. It has some great level design as well, even if the overall structure is fairly linear. The gameplay along with several QoL updates make it the most playable of the Dark Souls games but it's probably the worst as an overall immersive experience.
idk man but of all the souls games I've played, DS3 tops everything. I really liked the builds and most of all the bosses. BB was good but i found its bosses to be not as good as DS3. The first half of ds3 is okay but the second half damn man. and the DLC. I was literally screaming when salve knight gael entered his final phase. man i have some great memories with the game.
They are all great, together they make for some of the best fantasy action games ever made. There is really no bad side to any of the games, I feel like people like to complain because its difficult to overcome some of the challenges. But Ive been playing through the game recently, and just about cleared everything except Nameless King, and then Soul of Cinder. And Ive been joking that it feels more like Hard Work 3 than anything else, towards the end. Maybe Im a bit fatigued by playing all three games in a few months but I think some areas have been a little bit too tough, and I miss the abundance of NPC summons from 2. There is still some animations that feel different from the first game, just like 2, but thats maybe because I went in with DS1 R first.
But Dark Souls 3 is an amazing game. Had a great experience clearing Young Prince Lothric earlier, with a warrior of sunlight summon and it was awesome. Used 2 estus the whole fight, just perfectly executed. After a while of learning the fight, feels really great. But it can be pretty frustrating getting there.
DS3 is a bit too up its own ass for the most part which is unfortunate because I think there are some good ideas in there. Ringed City DLC (and Ashes of Andriel's awkwardly placed "2nd phase of Sister Friede") is the best example of what you'd imagine a fan-made Dark Souls game to be like in some of the worst ways possible. I don't hate the game but I was glad to be done with it and don't really have any interest playing any future games in the franchise
I feel the reason why some people dont like DS3 that much is because I think people expected something new but there's only so much you can add in the 3rd installment.
Are Faith and Magic builds really as useless as OP says? I'm playing DS2 now and leading up to it all I heard was how Faith got nerfed but I'm playing a Cleric (wanted those extra heals) and having a good time.
DS3 will forever remain at 85% because I simply do not have the will to go through it again and again. I can't put my finger on why but it's the only one of the series where everything felt like a more annoying retread or somewhere else. The nostalgia callouts were ok but for me something just didn't click and I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did all the others.
At the time I thought it might be series fatigue but after playing Demons remake I realised it's fine and I just didn't like 3
DS3 is a good game that relies too much on other Souls games nostalgia. BB is the best made souls game while DS2 is my favorite , DS1 starts out great but drops in quality a lot after a certain point.
I totally agree with you in all regards (and have stated as much in a different thread if I recall) except for difficulty. I don't find that game particularly difficult *flexes muscles*, but then again I am a god gamer. No, but seriously, I find DS2 much more difficult though that may just be because of how the feel and pacing of the combat in that game is opposite of how I play these games. With that being said, I also find DS3 combat a questionable mix of DS1 and BB that they didn't put too much thought into I think and it just doesn't meld together well. I also agree that the lore is a jumbled mess full of needless callbacks to the other games. If there's anything I hate it's references just to have references.
Well the other thing is that -- and yes, I haven't played DS1 or DS2 -- but the world of DS3 never really seemed that interesting? Maybe it was because DS3 was tied to other games, but with DeS and Bloodborne, it felt like they weren't chained to something that came before it and could explore weird and strange ideas without being beholden to existing lore.
I still think the level design of DS3 puts it above DeS, and the bosses in DeS are probably too easy, but I like the cleanness of DeS's story and the intricate nature of Bloodborne's that felt very well-thought-out
Agreed. The thing to me is that what sets DS1 apart in terms of story isn't as much the lore itself (though it's also really awesome imo), but the way the story is told that is particularly impressive, and to be honest ahead of any other game they've made. I like Bloodborne's lore more than Dark Souls', but the way the game itself reacts to you figuring out its secrets in Dark Souls is something else. All of that is lost when you just take the major plot points and make a sequel.
"What happens after the fire is linked many times?"
Nobody gives a shit, that wasn't a question anyone was really asking, that wasn't the point.
Having just gotten the platinum on DS2, I'm actually really liking DS3 so far. Love the animations and the first few areas, feels much closer to Demon's Souls to me for some reason (haven't even played the remake yet, too).
Yeah it feels like people put a lot of effort into seeing what Dark Souls 2 was TRYING to do with its story, and then ignoring what Dark Souls 3 does do.
Dark Souls 3's story is exactly what the point of Dark Souls 1 set out to say. That no matter how well you try to revive a corpse, it will always die. You can't reverse entropy, and trying to fight death is unnatural and at best only extends an illusion of life. A big theme of Dark Souls 1 is that as the fire fades and entropy increases, spacetime falls falls in on itself, mixing up time, timelines (Solaire calls them worlds), and space. Dark Souls 3 just continues with that and with DS2's idea that things get reincarnated (which I found the least interesting, but if you don't like that idea then direct your ire at 2, not 3), but no matter how many times you try to reverse entropy, it will always win. By getting introducing disparity, you have life, but with life you have death. Heat and cold. Light and dark. By introducing high energy states, you introduce a dissipation of energy. It's like a fairy-tale take on scientific concepts. It's pretty damn neat honestly.
The ending of Dark Souls 3, where trying to link the fire does not really work, is what Dark Souls 3 is about. It just continues the idea dark souls 1 started and bears it out. Dark Souls pointed out that the power was fading and what we saw was a lie, like Anor Londo, or the demons that came from the Witch's flame attempt. We were purposely not told that our sacrifice only prolonged the inevitable. Dark Souls 3 covers it from the angle of hopelessness. No longer can you make that illusion. Creatures are more twisted. The timelines are even weirder. Those in power become more depraved. The embers of the flame aren't even hot enough to pretend. It's just those in power attempting to keep that power going by demanding you, the ashen one, push the coals together and hope they keep some sort of fire going, but it's hopeless. I think it's perfect. We needed a game in the series to say that, as it's kind of the final piece of the story.
It's also a meta commentary on both the series as an art, and also the final point dark souls started. This is further emphasized from a different angle with the rot in dark souls 3's first dlc. I mean the developers basically use the Corvian settler to basically say "guys, quit asking for more dark souls. Let it die."
I completely agree on the metanarrative angle, that part is done in a very neat way, actually, and doesn't get as much recognition as it probably deserves. Whenever people criticize Dark Souls III with a version of "just let it die already", most of the time they don't realize that the game agrees with them 100%. Miyazaki himself wasn't exactly subtle even outside of the game by mentioning that was it for the Dark Souls series in every interview.
As for the in-universe value of the events, I feel like it was somewhat let down by its visual design. Dark Souls III is, in my opinion, the blandest looking Souls game by a mile. The more consistent visual tone for the whole game worked for Bloodborne, but I always thought Dark Souls should keep its distinctive visuals for each area, even using blatant color filters with jarring transitions to make them as different as possible. That one leaked screenshot of the dreg heap with the huge goo serpent is a much more stimulating version of a similar concept.
I wonder if the original story pitch was kept, it would have been better accepted by being more overt about its meta themes. When the game was announced, From described your journey as "you're a dark hero hunting down the Lords of Cinder". But in the actual game, while we do seek the lords still, we're fighting primarily to link the fire, and the alternative endings are framed as either a "Grand Betrayal" or a whole scheme to break free from the Dark Souls 2 cycle. You have to interpret the shitty link the fire ending as not having any fanfare for a reason, instead of it just being a boring ending.
Loved DS1, DS2, and Bloodbourne. Really enjoy games such as Nioh as well. But for some reason, I just can't get into DS3. Played it for maybe 4 hours when it released and just completely forgot about it. Found the game recently and thought I was in for a treat as I never really played it. Quit it again after 3 hours.
I can't explain it. But I just really don't want to engage with the game for some reason.
I completely agree on the metanarrative angle, that part is done in a very neat way, actually, and doesn't get as much recognition as it probably deserves. Whenever people criticize Dark Souls III with a version of "just let it die already", most of the time they don't realize that the game agrees with them 100%. Miyazaki himself wasn't exactly subtle even outside of the game by mentioning that was it for the Dark Souls series in every interview.
And keep in mind FROM was contractually obligated to do 3 games. Can't remember if we know that from insiders or publicly, but given Miyazaki, then president of the company said it was not his will to make the game, well, you see what happened. He did at the same time also say that he had a number of ideas for the game though, and I think we saw those.
I will never understand the idea of "it's just fan baiting." I mean...maaaybe? But the new content really stands on its own, and I feel like it doesn't get enough credit. But also, like I said before, that conceit was there from the beginning. For me I loved that.
I've never understood the idea of like, not wanting a sequel to take place in the same areas as it's predecessor. That seems like a unique thing for gamers. And especially considering that FROM completely remixed all areas that had any resemblance to that which came before, like, yeah I don't get the complaint. Some are only similar in name.
I mean, even firelink shrine is clearly a title. And the way the game
uses it repeats ITSELF from its own game, further cementing the fact that Dark Souls 3 is talking about different timelines, repeats of history, and collusion of spacetime. If it was really just fan service, we wouldn't be getting that shit.
As for the in-universe value of the events, I feel like it was somewhat let down by its visual design. Dark Souls III is, in my opinion, the blandest looking Souls game by a mile. The more consistent visual tone for the whole game worked for Bloodborne, but I always thought Dark Souls should keep its distinctive visuals for each area, even using blatant color filters with jarring transitions to make them as different as possible. That one leaked screenshot of the dreg heap with the huge goo serpent is a much more stimulating version of a similar concept.
I do agree a little bit. Overall I love its visual design but I understand a difference in taste in that regard. I totally understand what people mean by bland. But for me the beautiful art and detail make up for it.
I wonder if the original story pitch was kept, it would have been better accepted by being more overt about its meta themes. When the game was announced, From described your journey as "you're a dark hero hunting down the Lords of Cinder". But in the actual game, while we do seek the lords still, we're fighting primarily to link the fire, and the alternative endings are framed as either a "Grand Betrayal" or a whole scheme to break free from the Dark Souls 2 cycle. You have to interpret the shitty link the fire ending as not having any fanfare for a reason, instead of it just being a boring ending.
Well, what I was kind of trying to say is I think the shitty ending is very much on purpose. You are called to push the embers back together to try and stir up the fire once more. You are hunting down the lords of cinder, but not for some epic reason you think, but yet again for the machinations of those in power, to try and keep the status quo despite it dying. The link the fire has to be an option because that's what those in power WANT you to do, but it's the shitty ending because the point of the game is that it's pointless to do. Of course, since it's your choice, I mean you can decide that despite what others intend, you can still take matters into your own hands, and decide that you really were hunting them down to take them out and dismantle the power of the gods once and for all.
I started but didn't finish a replay a couple months back. It definitely hews closer to DS2 than any of the other Souls games, from the gang bang enemy placement to the seemingly random way all the areas are thrown together.
And keep in mind FROM was contractually obligated to do 3 games. Can't remember if we know that from insiders or publicly, but given Miyazaki, then president of the company said it was not his will to make the game, well, you see what happened. He did at the same time also say that he had a number of ideas for the game though, and I think we saw those.
I will never understand the idea of "it's just fan baiting." I mean...maaaybe? But the new content really stands on its own, and I feel like it doesn't get enough credit. But also, like I said before, that conceit was there from the beginning. For me I loved that.
I've never understood the idea of like, not wanting a sequel to take place in the same areas as it's predecessor. That seems like a unique thing for gamers. And especially considering that FROM completely remixed all areas that had any resemblance to that which came before, like, yeah I don't get the complaint. Some are only similar in name.
I mean, even firelink shrine is clearly a title. And the way the game
uses it repeats ITSELF from its own game, further cementing the fact that Dark Souls 3 is talking about different timelines, repeats of history, and collusion of spacetime. If it was really just fan service, we wouldn't be getting that shit.
I do agree a little bit. Overall I love its visual design but I understand a difference in taste in that regard. I totally understand what people mean by bland. But for me the beautiful art and detail make up for it.
Well, what I was kind of trying to say is I think the shitty ending is very much on purpose. You are called to push the embers back together to try and stir up the fire once more. You are hunting down the lords of cinder, but not for some epic reason you think, but yet again for the machinations of those in power, to try and keep the status quo despite it dying. The link the fire has to be an option because that's what those in power WANT you to do, but it's the shitty ending because the point of the game is that it's pointless to do. Of course, since it's your choice, I mean you can decide that despite what others intend, you can still take matters into your own hands, and decide that you really were hunting them down to take them out and dismantle the power of the gods once and for all.
The one thing that bugs me the most about the "recurring places and characters" criticism is when it's backed up with "nobody remembered those names in Dark Souls II". I guess people didn't know how to write in that particular kingdom, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for that. I take much more issue with nobody remembering shit in DS2 but these folks still influencing the land in major ways than I do with just them being called by name and having their stories revisited. I thought the further exploration of Gwyn's background with the pygmies and giving him new children was extremely boring, personally, but it's still better than "the one whose name we forgot but still remember that he created this miracle and then forbid its use."
DS2 is bae for me personally, was disappointed that 3 didn't deal with the characters inhabiting the world as much as DS2 did, aside from Anri of Astora and Ringfinger dude. The plot was serviceable, didn't enjoy it as much as DS2's but I saw that as story as more of a character study, namely you, the player, with the NPCs and their motivations or lack thereof for you to bounce off of. That's not an approach others might take with DS2 so I'm aware I'm a bit of a minority on that front.
But for me I suppose it makes sense, first game dealing with the creation myth of the world and the dying flame, the second dealing with what it means to be human in this kind of world where you are not privy to the events of the past yet still have to navigate thru this world contesting with the manipulations of others and a dangerous world. 3 I probably would have enjoyed if they focused more on how man moves on from the First Sin, and in a way it does show that, some look to uphold the status quo and others beckon the coming of the Deep but then it just kinda goes on a DS1 fan service kinda tangent and, I mean I didn't mind it as much since I know everyone loves DS1 so so much; but it did feel like the game kinda of interrupts itself to do so. Which in the end makes it feel like the game lost it's train of thought.
The one thing that bugs me the most about the "recurring places and characters" criticism is when it's backed up with "nobody remembered those names in Dark Souls II". I guess people didn't know how to write in that particular kingdom, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for that. I take much more issue with nobody remembering shit in DS2 but these folks still influencing the land in major ways than I do with just them being called by name and having their stories revisited. I thought the further exploration of Gwyn's background with the pygmies and giving him new children was extremely boring, personally, but it's still better than "the one whose name we forgot but still remember that he created this miracle and then forbid its use."
Yeah, 2 was to me a much more soulless take. I just can't understand how "hey here's these things, but followed up in a sequel" is worse than "here's the same things, with the same origins, with a remix on the same concept, and absolutely nothing done with the concept."
Like, idk I find "oh it was actually just always this secret power reincarnated all along" so fucking boring. It is probably my least favorite story concept ever. And dark souls 2 is full of it. It is so lacking in creative energy.
Are Faith and Magic builds really as useless as OP says? I'm playing DS2 now and leading up to it all I heard was how Faith got nerfed but I'm playing a Cleric (wanted those extra heals) and having a good time.
I'm doing a pyromancer build now on my first run in DS3 and it seems fine? I had come from DeS and BB so the Estus system threw me at first and I was doing a poor job allocating it. But also — the way the spells are dolled at first probably means it was a poor choice for an initial run in the game and I struggled mightily at first.
Are Faith and Magic builds really as useless as OP says? I'm playing DS2 now and leading up to it all I heard was how Faith got nerfed but I'm playing a Cleric (wanted those extra heals) and having a good time.
DS2 has the most build variety so while they did touch upon faith magics to tune them down it isn't felt nearly as badly since u can always sling some hexes using your FTH stat. In DS3 it definitely doesn't end up that way and spells feel more like toys than tools. EDIT: thankfully as mentioned above its not unplayable but definitely feels like an addition to your melee weapons rather than self sufficient unto itself as tools of death.
I've been replaying the entire series lately and I just have, complex feelings on where all the games stand.
Demon Souls is good, but it feels like a beta test for the series. I don't really have much of a desire to replay it but it was still really enjoyable. I actually like the horizontal level progression the game offers with the archstone layout but I can see where it might throw off people who really like connected feeling worlds. The character progression mechanics just don't really feel refined though. It gets bonus points for being the OG Souls experience though and the remake is gorgeous.
Dark Souls 1 is great but uneven for me. I actually think the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the game is the weakest in the series. I understand what they are going for with the layered world design, but in the start of the game it just frequently feels like I'm stuck walking thin planks that float on top of the real game world. But then most of the final half and DLC is some of the strongest content in the series. I just personally have a difficult time replaying this game because I don't like the build variety in the game and don't like all the walking the game forces you to do with the limited teleportation system. Gets a lot of bonus points for being the first in a trilogy and I'm sure a lot of nostalgia for many fans.
I've only played Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin edition but it is almost my favorite kinda? In terms of console releases its the only good playing Souls game that From has actually released mainly because it was a 360/PS3 game ported to PS4/XBO so actually being able to play a Souls game at 60 FPS without major technical problems was bloody amazing. The build variety is also unmatched in the series and I love the stat system and sheer variety of weapons and spells. But the content quality is fairly uneven and the game is just HUGE. Its such an exhausting game to run through for me and it feels never ending. It exists as both my favorite and least favorite of the series.
Bloodborne is my favorite aesthetically and content wise, but least favorite mechanically. I'm not a big fan of blood vials, bullets being low capped and tied to health, or how a lot of builds end up feeling very samey. Even if you end up trying to do an Arcane build you just end up using a Saw Cleaver anyways and its a bit of a bummer not being able to do a proper fatty tank build simply because they wanted it to be a faster paced action game at all times. It also is the most painful game to replay these days because its limited to the PS4 with frame pacing issues, but I would lose my mind if we got a proper PS5 patch or a PC port. I desperately want a sequel.
Dark Souls 3 is probably my favorite to replay and the one I enjoyed the most for PvP builds. The game is just the right size to cruise through to complete a build and just has my favorite balance of content and mechanics. I think the biggest issue for 3 is that it isn't strictly the best at any one specific thing in the series, but its good enough at everything to round out into the best complete package. The highs aren't as high as the best part of the series but it never felt bad.
I haven't gotten around to picking up Sekiro yet but maybe one day. Trying to rank these games against each other just ends up being me holding a bunch of game cases and screaming.
Playing through Bluepoint's Demons Souls makes me constantly yearn for a Dark Souls 3 with similar treatment.
DS3 remains my favourite of the series. Countless hours min/maxing different builds, countless epic moments in PvP and PvE, great boss encounters and environments.
really not sure how you can think the bosses in 3 are unfairly difficult. level up vigor and use the i-frame ring and all of them are ez with the absurd amount of healing items you can use. are you one of those people that refuse to level vigor for some reason? i guess that would explain it if so
I mean, Duke's Archives is finished as much as any other area. Tomb of the Giants probably has some of the most care and careful level design of the entire game. It's really only Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith that are unfinished and honestly they're pretty inoffensive other than the BoC. It's the only one bad and clearly unfinished area in the game. Not sure that counts as "second half unfinished." Almost all of the souls games have areas that are clearly very rushed or have less polish or less going on than the rest. I mean, really, you're going to tell me that Heide's Tower is so much more elaborate beyond aesthetics than Demon Ruins? Like it's not good, but Heide is just as boring to play through. At least I can treat demon ruins like a fun challenge sandbox to go against a bunch of Taurus demons. Dark Souls 2 is full of completely just, barely levels like Heide, Black Gulch, honestly shaded woods, aldia's keep. Like, they're a lot of areas that have like, some interesting aesthetics, but the level design is completely and totally boring and lacking. Not sure I can really care about one looking more unfinished. And again certainly that's a far cry from entire "second half" of the game.
I agree that DS3 is a weak close to the series, in lore terms. It has some of the better combat and "jump-in" friendliness, as well as some of the most impressive art.
I rank it in the middle of the pack: BB > DS2 > DS3 > DeS > DS1.
Yeah it kinda sucks. It's the least inspired of the Souls games and a over correction to DS2. I hate the way it looks and feels and the build variety is lacking. It's only saving grace is some good bosses and cool secrets.
This is super weird to me because DS2 is the unfair one with tons of cheap enemy ambushes and "gotcha" deaths, while DS3 is the "fair to a fault" one that telegraphs everything (sometimes to the game's detriment).
I can't say I agree, the game felt like a breath of fresh air after suffering through DS2. And I don't understand the complaints about referencing DS1, I mean most sequels will reference the previous games.
Although I think the game suffered from late development changes to the lore and other things and could've been even better.
Overall, it's a close second to DS1 as my favourite dark souls game, with Bloodborne being my favourite of FROM games.
Easily my favorite of the Soulsborne games, right behind Bloodborne. It combines the best of Dark Souls 1 and Demon's Souls, with a dash of Bloodborne in there. It fixed that terrible magic system in Dark Souls 1. It sped up the combat to be more in line with Demon's Souls but it kept a lot of the refinement that came from Dark Souls and Bloodborne. It didn't have any outright terrible areas like some of the previous games. And invading/cooperating was better than ever. Pyromancy was so god damn fun too. I can't wait to play through DSIII at 60fps when I get a PS5.
I can't say that I ever felt like DSIII was unfair or overly difficult. I played it the same way that I play every other Souls game, with patience. Never felt like something was too difficult to react to or overcome. I mean, Nameless King and Friede were challenging but I loved those fights. Felt amazing when I beat them. I never dig that deep into the lore of these games but I enjoyed the characters and the locations a lot. I don't have a ton of nostalgia for the first Dark Souls though. So the callbacks to that game didn't bother me in the slightest.
Dark Souls 3 is clearly a cash grab designed by committee game if you played all of the games in order, i believe the praise comes from people that didn't play most of the predecessors so they can't compare or recognize that Dark Souls 3 for the most part is a pale imitation of the other games without any personality, a patchwork without cohesion.
Are Faith and Magic builds really as useless as OP says? I'm playing DS2 now and leading up to it all I heard was how Faith got nerfed but I'm playing a Cleric (wanted those extra heals) and having a good time.
Not useless (for pve). Just kind of all or nothing if you're a pure caster. You need to min max plus wear all the damage boosting stuff to do decent damage. First playthrough can also be tough until you get better spells. Some of the bosses that the op complains about, like Friede and Nameless King, are arguably much easier using just spells because you don't need to learn all the close up dodge timing.
It's not even remotely as bad as RE6. It's probably equal to Dark Souls 2 depending on why you're playing. It's the worst of the series (besides Bloodborne) if you like playing with Sorcery until you're over halfway through the game, but beyond that it has the best combat of the games with "Souls" in the title.
The biggest gripe I have with it though is that the world is just boring. Boring to look at due to the muted color palette and boring because it tries really hard to look like Dark Souls: Bloodborne Grayscale Edition with not only the color, but having clutter everywhere just for the sake of having clutter. It also seems to want to go for a "best of" the previous games with the overall area and enemy designs without offering much of anything new unless you never actually played those games. I don't regret my close to two hundred hours with it, but it's not a game I really want to replay anymore. Not without overhaul mods anyway.
DS3 is great. The only real complain is that it feels a bit formulaic.
"Gotta have a swamp level"
"Gotta have a big castle level"
"Ppl liked Ornstein"
"Ppl liked Anor Londo"
etc
The one thing that bugs me the most about the "recurring places and characters" criticism is when it's backed up with "nobody remembered those names in Dark Souls II". I guess people didn't know how to write in that particular kingdom, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for that. I take much more issue with nobody remembering shit in DS2 but these folks still influencing the land in major ways than I do with just them being called by name and having their stories revisited. I thought the further exploration of Gwyn's background with the pygmies and giving him new children was extremely boring, personally, but it's still better than "the one whose name we forgot but still remember that he created this miracle and then forbid its use."
I love the sense of lost memory in DS2, the sense that the end has no end. The DS1 callbacks in that game are a mixed bag, sometimes interesting and sad and sometimes just kinda weak, but I much prefer the execution there to the one in DS3. The problem isn't revisiting old names and areas, necessarily, but the way in which "hey, this is that character/place from the previous game" took center stage. It emphasized familiarity too much: not only does it assume you're familiar with all that stuff, invested in it, but it makes sure to be familiar to you in the very, very unsubtle way a lot of it is presented. In the end, for me, it was one of the things that contributed to a lack of...mood, I guess? I've tried to beat DS3 a few times after the first playthrough, and whereas I always end up really enjoying a lot of it, I also end up running into a feeling of derivativeness that results in me falling off.
Like, I know I'm capable of loving DS3, but it just hasn't clicked that way. Wouldn't be so bad if I didn't carry shame for never having done the DLC.
I didn't care for the story for any From Software action game so that is completely disregarded from all of those games for me. Why did the world go to shit? Who cares. Everyone is slim pickings for me to kill.
But DS3 easily has some of the best bosses in the series. Only Sekiro beats the quantity and quality of that, while Bloodborne, Demon's Souls, and DS1-DS2 are weaker than DS3 in that aspect. Bloodborne does fine-tune the offensive part of combat with trick weapons, but DS3 overall offsets that and some with its bosses. I'm really confused at how you think all of those bosses and The Ringed City are bad because it just seems incomprehensible.
I only have Gael left to beat, and I honestly think it's a better game than DS1.
The only thing it's missing is the long ladders/towers/elevators/corridors connecting different areas (which I really don't care and tend to think its interconnectivity is overrated), other than that it tops DS1 in every way.
And it's probably the only game that has a significantly stronger second half in the series.
