Dark Souls 3 is short?

[Jäger]

Hi,

Is it me or is DS3 quite...short?

Maybe i'm progressing too fast, maybe i'm playing better after +150hours on DS2, maybe DS3 is actually really easier, maybe that's because there is no dlc for now, maybe the level design is not that vicious, maybe there is not so much content after all... maybe that's all of this.

I've been playing for 37 hours, i'm already at the final boss, and i feel like i've been playing since 1 or 2 days. I know i missed two (likely small) optionnal areas and an optional boss, i hope they are cool too.

Am i the only one who feel like this?

[Ripley Gamer]

I completed the game within 36 hours on my PS4 copy, but I completely skipped out on Archdragon Peak and the two bosses there which might have given me a couple more hours. Perhaps the two DLCs will added a lot more hours depending on how much content they have.

[OntologicalWeevil]

Originally posted by Daenom Soulz II confirmd k:

Hi,

Is it me or is DS3 quite...short?

Maybe i'm progressing too fast, maybe i'm playing better after +150hours on DS2, maybe DS3 is actually really easier, maybe that's because there is no dlc for now, maybe the level design is not that vicious, maybe there is not so much content after all... maybe that's all of this.

I've been playing for 37 hours, i'm already at the final boss, and i feel like i've been playing since 1 or 2 days. I know i missed two (likely small) optionnal areas and an optional boss, i hope they are cool too.

Am i the only one who feel like this?

It's becasue we're just gitting gud.

[Jäger]

Originally posted by Ripley Gamer:

I completed the game within 36 hours on my PS4 copy, but I completely skipped out on Archdragon Peak and the two bosses there which might have given me a couple more hours. Perhaps the two DLCs will added a lot more hours depending on how much content they have.

Two DLCs? I wonder what we have to expect from these, i was actually hoping for 3 dlc. The 3 Kings chapters in DS2 were adding a really decent amount of content, let's just hope it's going to be the case again.
I skipped the Archadragon Peak too, and the Garden, gonna explore there right now.

Originally posted by ITellMyselfSecrets:

It's becasue we're just gitting gud.

WE HAVE TO GIT BAD. So we can enjoy Dark Souls again.
But i don't think i'm playing really well. I don't even parry, i never bait, i don't care about stealth anymore, i often get hit.

[mgp]

-no reasons for replay the game
-auto summon covenant broken
-red invasions dont work very well (we all know this, pvper and not)
-bugs here and there
-only 1 (maybe 2) decent npc's quest

[Hunubul]

Originally posted by mgp:

-no reasons for replay the game
-auto summon covenant broken
-red invasions dont work very well (we all know this, pvper and not)
-bugs here and there
-only 1 (maybe 2) decent npc's quest

NPC quests are much better than DS2 NPC quests (well that's not an achievement), and is also better than DS1 NPC quests.
DS1 had the same amount of replayability (none).
Length doesn't contain PvP.

So your only decent argument is the bugs. For me they are more than okey, it's not as bad as DS1 bugs (that's cuz DS1 was worst port in history), and barely worse than DS2 bugs.

But DLC will fix the lack of content you felt in this game. It fixed lack of content with DS1 and DS2 so far, dunno why this title would be different.

[mgp]

To Ponion...

well ... for now i get my different point of view....:-)

and i'm not the only one who feels what i said.

i really hope that " But DLC will fix the lack of content"

[Hunubul]

Originally posted by mgp:

To Ponion...

well ... for now i get my different point of view....:-)

and i'm not the only one who feels what i said.

i really hope that " But DLC will fix the lack of content"

I didn't say you are not right with invasions. You are right with those. But only those. And of course covenants not working. But it does not shorten the game. Yeah, it means less playtime if you don't pvp that much, but it's a lot different.

DS2 sucked so much before DLCs came, don't you remember? DS3 doesn't suck, even tho there is a few problems, like invasions and auto covenants not working.. Duels and PvE is pretty great. Lack of conent will be fixed with DLC, as it was with DS2, and balance and other issues will be fixed with patches, as it was with DS2. It was the same kind of ♥♥♥♥ DS2 got when it was released what you do with this game.

Put down the nostalgia glasses and have patience.

[Carcaroff]

Dark souls games need a difficulty level, cause we are now too experienced. We know the gameplay, the mechanics, ofc we start fast and progress even faster...and, btw, certain areas are just too easy, like undead settlement.

[gackie]

It's not as short as DS1, infact in terms of map size it's just a bit bigger. I finished my first DS1 run in 17 hours and I finished my first DS3 run in 28 hours. I'm not gonna ignore it could've been bigger though.

[gackie]

Originally posted by Jean-Baptiste Grenouille:

Dark souls games need a difficulty level, cause we are now too experienced. We know the gameplay, the mechanics, ofc we start fast and progress even faster...and, btw, certain areas are just too easy, like undead settlement.

Undead Settlement is the second area in the game, dude.

[Zeddicuus]

So far I've been finding it to be a fairly big game, though I'm new to the Souls games so that may have a play in it as I am learning all the things the veterans learned from the previous games.

Sitting at 70 hours and just got to the Dancer.

Been a fun trip so far and fairly difficult, but I noticed I am definitely getting better.

[Jäger]

Originally posted by Jean-Baptiste Grenouille:

Dark souls games need a difficulty level, cause we are now too experienced. We know the gameplay, the mechanics, ofc we start fast and progress even faster...and, btw, certain areas are just too easy, like undead settlement.

Well, the "hard" mode in DS3 is a ring increasing damages received by the player.
The "difficulty covenant" in DS2 wasn't that good but better.

Originally posted by Hat Skeleton!:

It's not as short as DS1, infact in terms of map size it's just a bit bigger. I finished my first DS1 run in 17 hours and I finished my first DS3 run in 28 hours. I'm not gonna ignore it could've been bigger though.

For some reasons i still remember DS1 as HUGE and DS2 as quite big too but i guess that was just an impression. I know i sucked hard in DS1 because that was my first soul game, that's maybe why i was progressing much slower, making the game seem longer and bigger.

[gackie]

Originally posted by Frank Jaeger:

Originally posted by Jean-Baptiste Grenouille:

Dark souls games need a difficulty level, cause we are now too experienced. We know the gameplay, the mechanics, ofc we start fast and progress even faster...and, btw, certain areas are just too easy, like undead settlement.

Well, the "hard" mode in DS3 is a ring increasing damages received by the player.
The "difficulty covenant" in DS2 wasn't that good but better.

Originally posted by Hat Skeleton!:

It's not as short as DS1, infact in terms of map size it's just a bit bigger. I finished my first DS1 run in 17 hours and I finished my first DS3 run in 28 hours. I'm not gonna ignore it could've been bigger though.

For some reasons i still remember DS1 as HUGE and DS2 as quite big too but i guess that was just an impression. I know i sucked hard in DS1 because that was my first soul game, that's maybe why i was progressing much slower, making the game seem longer and bigger.

If you think about the progress route though.
Burg > Blighttown > Sens > Anor Londo > Izalith/Archives/Londo/Catacombs > Kiln that's not very big.

[Brave and Fearless Sir Shiba]

not only that you played other souls so youre more adept to how the game works so you can steam roll it alot faster than lets say one of the newbies to the trilogy.

[stonecutter]

Dark Souls 3 is short? Crashing all the time..that is Dark Souls 3.