DS2 had a better level design

[GrayHound]

I never thought I'd say that, as DS2's level design was absolutely disjointed and way worse than in DS1 but here it is. Remember the starting area? Or the foggy forest with invisible enemies? Balistas? Moving bridges/staircases/the furnace? Breakable walls? Doors of Pharros? The levels were interactive and distinct. DS3 level design: "The door does not open from this side.".

Not to mention the lore in DS3 is by far the weakest. The bosses have no backstories except for "Remember this guy from DS1?". I really enjoyed the game but now that I know it I'm quite disappointed.

[lolschrauber]

Honestly, if we had the games in opposite order, a lot of people would have opposite opinions on a lot of things.

[Mudpuppy]

It's too early to tell for me but I see where you're coming from

[DamZe]

As much as I like DS3, DS2 had some of the most memorable locales in the entire series. It is true that is was nowhere as interconnected as DS1, but it didn't have to be to present a fun ARPG experience, was Zelda completely interconnected? So yeah DS3 has it's drawbacks, no doubt about it.

[puzzlefox]

There's tons of breakable walls for one. I actually like the level design in DS3. The maps are huge and punishing by not providing a bonfire every 6ft like in DS2. Yeah there's a lot of "door does not open from this side" but that is a result of having such large areas. Instead of checkpoints being made by bonfire, they're made by shortcut. Granted, they could have been more creative than using those pesky doors with inside latches, but I don't necessarily mind.

Originally posted by GrayHound:

Not to mention the lore in DS3 is by far the weakest. The bosses have no backstories except for "Remember this guy from DS1?". I really enjoyed the game but now that I know it I'm quite disappointed.

I disagree. I LOVE DS1 lore, and this game being closely tied with DS1 story-wise, I love all the throwback and references to DS1. Demon Ruins and Anor Londo were great areas for me because it finished the stories of a some DS1 lore. I can't wait for VaataVidya to release all his videos on it.

[Erebus]

Originally posted by GrayHound:

I never thought I'd say that, as DS2's level design was absolutely disjointed and way worse than in DS1 but here it is. Remember the starting area? Or the foggy forest with invisible enemies? Balistas? Moving bridges/staircases/the furnace? Breakable walls? Doors of Pharros? The levels were interactive and distinct. DS3 level design: "The door does not open from this side.".

And yet the individual levels here are hell of a lot more branching and less obvious.

Not to mention the lore in DS3 is by far the weakest. The bosses have no backstories except for "Remember this guy from DS1?".

Someone isn't talking to npcs, examining the environment, and reading item descriptions.

[Hekk]

The thing that is much better in DkS2 than it is in DkS3 and even in DkS1 is damn covenants...

[GrayHound]

Originally posted by Erebus the Indolent:

And yet the individual levels here are hell of a lot more branching and less obvious.

That's really nice but when everything is a castle theme park then it's still not enough. The Ash Lake was the most jaw-dropping area in the series and it was 100% linear.

[Jork]

yes, lost bastille was especially a great map

that giant box with that same blue tint and nonsensically bright illumination! so good!!!!!

[FireShark]

Um, no. DS2 is WLDOTY -all years (worst level design of the year)

[LitteralFish]

I strongly disagree. DS 2 was a set of straightforward hallways. Here the areas are actually made so that there is a room for exploring and thay loop around. Shortcuts and stuff. It is a marginally better game design

[tcpl]

What you just described is precisely why I loathed DS2's world. In DS1 I felt I was actually in a medieval city-fortress and its dark dungeons beneath it, whereas DS2's world is a bunch of maps different designers created then pasted together with lifts and what have you. The lack of a unifying design and the garish transitions completely destroyed that world's believability and made it feel very 'gamey', and not at all Souls-like.

DS3 is a return to form.

[lomni]

lol

[GrayHound]

Originally posted by Gunner:

What you just described is precisely why I loathed DS2's world. In DS1 I felt I was actually in a medieval city and its dark dungeons beneath it, whereas DS2's world is a bunch of maps different designers created then pasted together with lifts and what have you. The lack of a unifying design and the garish transitions completely destroyed that world's believability and made it feel very 'gamey', and not at all Souls-like.

DS3 is a return to form.

Yes, I agree. The disjointed maps were really bad but this sameness is pretty bad, too. Maybe it's my pink glasses but how hard would it be to replicate DS1 approach and just make it different?

[Blade43v3r]

DKS3 level design is amazing and im anxious of what will be in the dlc's

[Soulkey]

I disagree. Dark Souls 3 is not only aesthetically better looking but uses space more effectively: lots of shortcuts, hidden areas and a lot of vertically used in the level design.Cathedral of Deep or Irythill Dungeon are shining example of this.

However there are some lazily done areas as well: Smouldering Lake (ground level with the crabs, not the underground lvl), rehashed Anor Londo, or how Firelink Shrine and High Wall of Lothric aren't connected comes to my mind. Also it's nowhere as interconnected as Dark Souls 1 was, where many areas lead back to the main hub.

Dark Souls 2 did have some excellent areas, especially in the Lost Crown DLC pack, but most of the maps were just bland, barely any shortcut and overall just a linear experience.