I don't think Miyazaki really worked on DS3

[Carlos]

Just a feeling. The game smacks of creative burnout, there's hardly any new ideas or innovations or concepts. The gameplay is mostly great, it looks awesome but creatively the game feels empty.

It's as if Bamco said "Fans want more Souls so why not make more, it's easy money. Only Hidetaka swore after DS1 he isn't gonna do this anymore and fans don't want anohter B-team product either. So we'll be smart about it - we'll tout Hidetaka's name as the director but in reality he'll be just supervising B-team again. He's already developing his new IP anyway so he doesn't have time to work full time on DS3."

Anyone has the same feeling?

[Rubenticus]

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Originally posted by INSPECTOR GADGET:

Even a genius is mortal. The entire Miyazaki cult thing is something silly though. He can only produce a game that's as good as the people surrounding him.

This is entirely stupid statement. A movie director can only produce a movie that is as good as the people surrounding him. No ♥♥♥♥ sherlock. However when we look at movies the movie is thought to be the creative product of the director. Peoples roles like actors, camera opperators can be looked at objectively and you can go they did a good job even if the movie was terrible. However the movie as a whole being good or bad is largly placed on the back of the director.

The Lead Game Designer for any studio sets in the same position as the director for a movie. He must look at and check off everything thats going into the game. Does it fit into his vision ect ect. So its not a "cult" its talking objectively about the person who is entirely responsible for the end product delivered. I really like DS3. I really hate large aspects of DS3. All of the pros and cons of the game fall onto one man. And that is the Lead Game Designer.

Do not call me Sherlock, I'm inspector Gadget. Sherlock is overrated. You might not agree with what I'm saying, that's fine, but you can't just hold one man responsible for an entire release. I always felt that he was overrated anyway, and with BB and DS3 being the last games he supposedly had the strings on, it's proven that he isn't a demigod by any stretch of the imagination.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by INSPECTOR GADGET:

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

This is entirely stupid statement. A movie director can only produce a movie that is as good as the people surrounding him. No ♥♥♥♥ sherlock. However when we look at movies the movie is thought to be the creative product of the director. Peoples roles like actors, camera opperators can be looked at objectively and you can go they did a good job even if the movie was terrible. However the movie as a whole being good or bad is largly placed on the back of the director.

The Lead Game Designer for any studio sets in the same position as the director for a movie. He must look at and check off everything thats going into the game. Does it fit into his vision ect ect. So its not a "cult" its talking objectively about the person who is entirely responsible for the end product delivered. I really like DS3. I really hate large aspects of DS3. All of the pros and cons of the game fall onto one man. And that is the Lead Game Designer.

Do not call me Sherlock, I'm inspector Gadget. Sherlock is overrated. You might not agree with what I'm saying, that's fine, but you can't just hold one man responsible for an entire release. I always felt that he was overrated anyway, and with BB and DS3 being the last games he supposedly had the strings on, it's proven that he isn't a demigod by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes you can hold one man responsible because thats his role. Every decision for that game ultimatly comes down to him. He may not interact with every code monkey or art designer (thats what department leads are for) however he is the one who ultimatly decides whats going into the game.

[SnusHead]

Originally posted by Nick Naughty:

I like how Dark Souls 2 is still doing well for its player base.

Think its safe to say Dark Souls 2 popularity can't get any worst, only improve over time due to a working match making system and ng+ content.

Dark Souls 3 has a poor foundation, took the worst parts of DS1 and left out the best parts of DS2, popularity can only go down.

I'm only really grinding covenant items, then I will return to Dark Souls 2.

Me too.
Already 1 week after DS3 release i see most of the DS players in my friendlist playing DS1 or DS2 again.

[Phoenix]

Guy makes one good game, and he can do no wrong. Any of his works that are bad must be part of some conspiracy, because he couldn't have actually worked on something bad. Yeah, that doesn't sound crazy and stupid.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by Eisenhart:

Guy makes one good game, and he can do no wrong. Any of his works that are bad must be part of some conspiracy, because he couldn't have actually worked on something bad. Yeah, that doesn't sound crazy and stupid.

The only game he hasn't worked on in the souls series was DS2. He was in charge of all the other souls games. The real irony is DS2 was probably my favorte souls game so take that as you will.

[TheEvilNoob]

This is ridiculous.

Dark Souls 2 tries new things and people complain it's a bad souls game. Dark souls 3 goes back to being closer to the original and people complain that it didn't do anything new.

Dark Souls 2 (vanilla) had terrible bosses and people complained about it, with complaints such as the bosses were unthreatening and easy and that some bosses were copy paste jobs. Dark Souls 3 gives us new bosses that are much better and people complain about it.

People complained that the lore of DS2 didn't reference and link to the past game. DS3 references both games lore and has its own good lore, but people complain that the game is just about referencing DS1.

From can just never win. No matter what they do people complain they didn't do the opposite. Is the game perfect? No. Does it even matter if Miyazaki made it or not? Not at all. But the game is just fine.

[The Holy Spirit]

I felt like Dark Souls 2's slower pace of gameplay meant that the player must be extra-careful in order to defeat the enemies. It took days when chugging Estus in DS2, which is one of the reasons that I felt DS2 was more punishing than DS3. Bosses dealt more damage and had more punishing power. Hollowing also reduces your max HP, forcing the player to take a less barbaric approach on tackling the enemies.

I liked DS2 better... so far.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed DS3 alot even though the co-op breaking lag-related bugs were very annoying. DS3 made really spot on improvements from DS2 (Weapons are not made of glass, boss weapons now takes from FP instead of durability [exc. MLG]. I love the way Embered form gives you that burning effect. Weapon Arts are damn nice. I've noticed that they update Dark Souls 3 with improvements, buffs and nerfs. Does that mean Fromsoftware is actually active in its developments still? When they have fixed all the multiplayer bugs, maybe I'll declare DS3 as my favourite souls game.

tl;dr: I love both DS2 and DS3, but DS2 is the preferred option for me.

[EXPLODENSTEIN]

There is just no plesing people, everyone is entitled and special.

[GrayHound]

Originally posted by TheEvilNoob:

This is ridiculous.

Dark Souls 2 tries new things and people complain it's a bad souls game. Dark souls 3 goes back to being closer to the original and people complain that it didn't do anything new.

Dark Souls 2 (vanilla) had terrible bosses and people complained about it, with complaints such as the bosses were unthreatening and easy and that some bosses were copy paste jobs. Dark Souls 3 gives us new bosses that are much better and people complain about it.

People complained that the lore of DS2 didn't reference and link to the past game. DS3 references both games lore and has its own good lore, but people complain that the game is just about referencing DS1.

From can just never win. No matter what they do people complain they didn't do the opposite. Is the game perfect? No. Does it even matter if Miyazaki made it or not? Not at all. But the game is just fine.

Neither nazis nor anarchists are ideal. I liked DS2 but I can understand the criticism. I think DS3 is a copy paste job, especially the armors, enemies, lore and a few areas. Hell, the forest people (Gruu?) have a chanting voice that's a direct rip from DS1's larva people. Talk about lazy devs.

[Goosey]

Originally posted by TheEvilNoob:

Dark Souls 2 (vanilla) had terrible bosses and people complained about it, with complaints such as the bosses were unthreatening and easy and that some bosses were copy paste jobs. Dark Souls 3 gives us new bosses that are much better and people complain about it.

Both games had some crap bosses _('-')_

[Hunny]

Originally posted by R4phStryker:

Originally posted by TheEvilNoob:

This is ridiculous.

Dark Souls 2 tries new things and people complain it's a bad souls game. Dark souls 3 goes back to being closer to the original and people complain that it didn't do anything new.

Dark Souls 2 (vanilla) had terrible bosses and people complained about it, with complaints such as the bosses were unthreatening and easy and that some bosses were copy paste jobs. Dark Souls 3 gives us new bosses that are much better and people complain about it.

People complained that the lore of DS2 didn't reference and link to the past game. DS3 references both games lore and has its own good lore, but people complain that the game is just about referencing DS1.

From can just never win. No matter what they do people complain they didn't do the opposite. Is the game perfect? No. Does it even matter if Miyazaki made it or not? Not at all. But the game is just fine.

Agreed! I can't take this thread seriously its a bunch of gamers over reacting after playing the game for 100hrs+ :Dosh::Fistofdosh:

DkS3's gameplay is nothing like DkS1. Just because a man wearing an onion shows up doesn't make this game comparable to a classic.

DkS2 had 0 secrets, 0 replayability.

[Sa†o]

Dark souls 1: The flawed masterpiece´.
Had alot of problems for the pc users, everything from terrible reoslution to dreadful controls.
Unplayable with kb+m.
Summoning was wonky and unreliable, and you couldn't co-op in the area incase the boss was dead...
But overall was a very memorable game with level/monsterdesign, pacing and was the real first attempt for an open world like that (no demon souls was not open like ds1)

Dark souls 2: Scrapped the leveldesign completely (long empty hallways), took a huge steaming pile of you know what on monster/boss design and lied to pc users about the graphics which they then resold with SotFS.

On the other hand...
Improved pvp, improved co-op, improved build diversity, more special gear/items.
Worked pretty well without having to do any fixes/mods to get anything to run unlike ds1.
And has the best ng+ ever compared to most games not just souls franchise.

Dark souls 3: It merged the worst of ds1/2 into it, instead of the best parts.
I don't even know where to start...
Shall we begin at how thousands upon thousands are crashing? They cant even get the game to boot let alone to get to the first bonfire.

I mean I will not really go into too many details but after so many years, and being the third third itteration of the Dark souls series, what did it actually do better than 1+2 combined?
Graphics? Sure slightly more detail kinda like bloodborne. Still looks like sh!t for a 2016 game.
Anything else? Cause I sure as hell can't think of it.
Monster design is totally garbage, everything fights exactly the same and hell they all use sword/board.
Only monster I can think of that is a bit different is the leech ones infront of cathedral of the deep and jailers from demon souls.
Makes ds2s sh!tty monsterdesign look like a masterpiece in comparison. Even though most enemies were humanoid they acted alot differently than the monsters in ds3.

And lastly for people who don't understand the concept of sequels:
They HAVE to be better. Saying ds1 had just as many problems as ds3 therefore ds3 isn't worse than ds1 is fking ridicoulus.
You understand how OLD ds1 is?
With so much time having passed, and so many games made, and the technology advancing when it comes to gaming (hell we are starting with VR ffs) and this was the "best", the absoloutly BEST, they could do? I for one, am not impressed.

[Nick Naughty]

Yet over the coming years Dark Souls 2 will remain quite popular, and will probably be deemed the best in series unless some unfortunate lack of online access should occur.

I can't say the same for Dark Souls 3 as its already at a peak play due to being a recent release, currently already having problems with its match making system and covenants.

There is no sign of improvements, only brand new mistakes which have been made.

[Goosey]

Originally posted by Duero:

Dark souls 1: The flawed masterpiece´.
Had alot of problems for the pc users, everything from terrible reoslution to dreadful controls.
Unplayable with kb+m.
Summoning was wonky and unreliable, and you couldn't co-op in the area incase the boss was dead...
But overall was a very memorable game with level/monsterdesign, pacing and was the real first attempt for an open world like that (no demon souls was not open like ds1)

Dark souls 2: Scrapped the leveldesign completely (long empty hallways), took a huge steaming pile of you know what on monster/boss design and lied to pc users about the graphics which they then resold with SotFS.

On the other hand...
Improved pvp, improved co-op, improved build diversity, more special gear/items.
Worked pretty well without having to do any fixes/mods to get anything to run unlike ds1.
And has the best ng+ ever compared to most games not just souls franchise.

Dark souls 3: It merged the worst of ds1/2 into it, instead of the best parts.
I don't even know where to start...
Shall we begin at how thousands upon thousands are crashing? They cant even get the game to boot let alone to get to the first bonfire.

I mean I will not really go into too many details but after so many years, and being the third third itteration of the Dark souls series, what did it actually do better than 1+2 combined?
Graphics? Sure slightly more detail kinda like bloodborne. Still looks like sh!t for a 2016 game.
Anything else? Cause I sure as hell can't think of it.
Monster design is totally garbage, everything fights exactly the same and hell they all use sword/board.
Only monster I can think of that is a bit different is the leech ones infront of cathedral of the deep and jailers from demon souls.
Makes ds2s sh!tty monsterdesign look like a masterpiece in comparison. Even though most enemies were humanoid they acted alot differently than the monsters in ds3.

And lastly for people who don't understand the concept of sequels:
They HAVE to be better. Saying ds1 had just as many problems as ds3 therefore ds3 isn't worse than ds1 is fking ridicoulus.
You understand how OLD ds1 is?
With so much time having passed, and so many games made, and the technology advancing when it comes to gaming (hell we are starting with VR ffs) and this was the "best", the absoloutly BEST, they could do? I for one, am not impressed.

I can agree with this

[Player117]

Every one of us have our very own opinion and taste. Like it or not, you should AT LEAST respect them. Sure, some may sound stupid, but if they really entitled to their opinion then we can't just shove our opinions to their mouth.

That being said, I'll just give my gist and opinion about "Dark" Souls series.

Dark Souls; a spiritual sequel, is one darn good game. PVE is decent and the interconnected world is really a nice touch. The DLC is really good. And not to mention the lore is good as well. However, the PVP is really not that enjoyable imo. *vietnam flashbacks*
And let's not forget how bad DkS PC port without the mods.

Dark Souls 2 is, well, my least favorable Souls game. BUT, we can't deny the great stuffs B team had introduced in this Souls game. Sure, PVE is pretty weak and such but the PVP aspects are absolutely fantastic imo. Well, that excluding lags and horrible phantom range at several weapons. Powerstance is also a cool feature. Not to mention that the DLCs are good, as well.

And here we are, Dark Souls 3. I say this game is in between in PVE and PVP. PVE feels fresh and pretty damn good, but I have to agree that certain areas and mobs are re-used ideas. PVP in here is still floating on metas and wonky in this current state but overall the combat is good and weapon arts are welcomed addition. Just hope the patches will fix and re-balance stuffs in here. I'm impressed by this game. However, I'm also a little bit disappointed at certain points/areas in this game, mechanics wise. Like anyone said, the game lacks several good things from previous games and new mechanics and such.

TL;DR: In my opinion, I choose
DkS for PVE
DkS2 for PVP
And in between: DkS3