Dark Soul's 3 doesn't feel like a Miyazaki game.

[Fox12]

Dark Souls 3 is a great game, with tight mechanics and gorgeous visuals. And yet, right from the beginning, something seemed wrong. The whole game was strangely linear, the plot seemed less coherent then before, and there were bonfires everywhere. The game is terrified of not giving you enough bonfires. In one area I tested at a bonfire, went up some stairs to another bonfire, and then crossed a bridge to another bonfire. All within the very bigining of the level. After a while, the game felt like a fan fiction version of Dark Souls.

Looking at the credits, there are three or four people listed as directors. Given that Miyazaki was working on Bloodborne while this was in development, I'm left with the impression that he had very little to do with the game. It doesn't seem to reflect his design philosophies at all, and instead reminds me more of the second game.

How much do you think Miyazaki was involved in the production of Dark Soul's 3, and how do you think the game stacks up against the other Souls titles?

 

[DefunctTheory]

A lot, from what I can tell. He's openly apologized for some aspects of DSIII he thought weren't great, something that would be bizarre if it wasn't his fault, and I've read several articles about how much time he spent on the game, sometimes even going to do things like directly monitoring audio recordings. By all accounts, it certainly sounds like he was involved.

On the topic of your examples, I just want to remark that the level design does seem off from previous games. Where DS1 and even DS2 felt like you were in a world where stuff was happening, DS3 feels more like what it really is - Levels. Everything feels like it was specifically designed to funnel you this way, or that way, or encourage this kind of fight against this kind of enemy, while in DS1 I always had this wonderful feeling that I was in a world where things just happened to be going on. This is reflected by bonfire placements being numerous, and put in places that seem to be chosen because it was a good starting point for an enemy skipping sprint to the boss (At which point I have to ask - Why not just put the damn bonfire in front of the boss if your just going to encourage me to pull the ol' skip-a-roo?), and how you port everywhere rather then travelling.

Maybe thats the source of your worries, and my dislike of the game. DS1 made a lot of concessions to the world that probably disrupted some people's enjoyment of the gameplay, while DS3 makes a lot of concessions to gameplay that have a detrimental affect on the world for some people (Or just me, I guess).

 

[Dansen]

Dark Souls 3 is a great game, with tight mechanics and gorgeous visuals. And yet, right from the beginning, something seemed wrong. The whole game was strangely linear, the plot seemed less coherent then before, and there were bonfires everywhere. The game is terrified of not giving you enough bonfires. In one area I tested at a bonfire, went up some stairs to another bonfire, and then crossed a bridge to another bonfire. All within the very bigining of the level. After a while, the game felt like a fan fiction version of Dark Souls.

Looking at the credits, there are three or four people listed as directors. Given that Miyazaki was working on Bloodborne while this was in development, I'm left with the impression that he had very little to do with the game. It doesn't seem to reflect his design philosophies at all, and instead reminds me more of the second game.

How much do you think Miyazaki was involved in the production of Dark Soul's 3, and how do you think the game stacks up against the other Souls titles?

The level design is very Dark Souls 1 like, particularly the scenarios set up through out the level. I was able to predict a lot of secrets and ambushes based on my experiences with DS1. Its area progression is linear but the areas themselves are pretty maze like and intricate. There could be less bonfires but I choose to believe we are making bonfires out of the ashes of the bosses and fallen warriors so it doesn't bother me as much. I dunno, it feels like a Miyazaki game to me and I love it. The jury is still out on the story though, I'm still piecing it together.

 

[Fat Hippo]

I was a little disappointed by how the areas connected to each other, and the rather linear progression of the game. They also felt more like discrete "levels" rather than part of a world. But the areas themselves were mostly great, with lots of cool shortcuts and secrets strewn about. Far better than most of Dark Souls II.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Considering this came one year after Bloodborne, even if he was the sole director I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he dropped the ball a bit.

I never played Dark Souls 2, but out of the previous Souls games DS3 feels like the weakest one. The world itself just doesn't feel that interesting, and I don't have any real urge to return to it. I just don't really care all that much, eventhough I do like the combat.

 

[Silence]

On the topic of your examples, I just want to remark that the level design does seem off from previous games. Where DS1 and even DS2 felt like you were in a world where stuff was happening, DS3 feels more like what it really is - Levels. Everything feels like it was specifically designed to funnel you this way, or that way, or encourage this kind of fight against this kind of enemy, while in DS1 I always had this wonderful feeling that I was in a world where things just happened to be going on. This is reflected by bonfire placements being numerous, and put in places that seem to be chosen because it was a good starting point for an enemy skipping sprint to the boss (At which point I have to ask - Why not just put the damn bonfire in front of the boss if your just going to encourage me to pull the ol' skip-a-roo?), and how you port everywhere rather then travelling.

Maybe thats the source of your worries, and my dislike of the game. DS1 made a lot of concessions to the world that probably disrupted some people's enjoyment of the gameplay, while DS3 makes a lot of concessions to gameplay that have a detrimental affect on the world for some people (Or just me, I guess).

DS2 felt far more like levels, completely disconnected from each other. It was slightly less linear, but aside from that, really random.

DS3 is more linear, but at the same time much more connected and makes much more sense. Also I never had the feel that I was in a living world, not even in DS1. I mean, that it is dying is pretty much the concept.

All of the bonfires, aside from maybe 1, make much sense in DS3, are placed for convenience, yes, but also make the game much more playable than DS1. DS1 and by extension Demon's Souls had these "game is hard in the beginning, but easy at the end" bad balance decisions, while 3 gets the balance right, for the most part.

And Myazaki himself? He has full control over story, even of DS2, so it is really no help to anyone to try and not include him in the blame for the quality of the story of DS2 and 3. He is no god, he can make mistakes himself (and imo did not even really make them in 3).

Also, if we go by pure quality of the game, DS1, especially on PC, ranks pretty low.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

On the topic of your examples, I just want to remark that the level design does seem off from previous games. Where DS1 and even DS2 felt like you were in a world where stuff was happening, DS3 feels more like what it really is - Levels. Everything feels like it was specifically designed to funnel you this way, or that way, or encourage this kind of fight against this kind of enemy, while in DS1 I always had this wonderful feeling that I was in a world where things just happened to be going on. This is reflected by bonfire placements being numerous, and put in places that seem to be chosen because it was a good starting point for an enemy skipping sprint to the boss (At which point I have to ask - Why not just put the damn bonfire in front of the boss if your just going to encourage me to pull the ol' skip-a-roo?), and how you port everywhere rather then travelling.

Maybe thats the source of your worries, and my dislike of the game. DS1 made a lot of concessions to the world that probably disrupted some people's enjoyment of the gameplay, while DS3 makes a lot of concessions to gameplay that have a detrimental affect on the world for some people (Or just me, I guess).

DS2 felt far more like levels, completely disconnected from each other. It was slightly less linear, but aside from that, really random.

I'll have to take your word for it. I got about an hour and a half into DS2 before I said 'No thank you, you lifeless, boring heap.'

DS3 is more linear, but at the same time much more connected and makes much more sense. Also I never had the feel that I was in a living world, not even in DS1. I mean, that it is dying is pretty much the concept.

I didn't say 'living' world, just a world. Both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls (More Dark Souls) always felt like I was in a place. DS3 feels like the video game it is.

Of course, 'feel' is the most subjective thing in video games. Everyone feels different from everyone else. But DS2 and DS3 have consistently failed to transport me to an alternative realm.

All of the bonfires, aside from maybe 1, make much sense in DS3, are placed for convenience, yes, but also make the game much more playable than DS1. DS1 and by extension Demon's Souls had these "game is hard in the beginning, but easy at the end" bad balance decisions, while 3 gets the balance right, for the most part.

Again, I'll take your word for it. I can't stomach playing DS3 solo and quit trying fairly early, and I think the friend I was playing with caught on to how little fun I was having and hasn't asked me to play for a couple days. So I guess my game ends at that stupid tree boss.

Also, if we go by pure quality of the game, DS1, especially on PC, ranks pretty low.

DS1 on PC had some frame rate and graphical issues, yes. Fairly sad at that. Gameplay and the world remain unchanged. Dumped a hundred hours at least into the PC and PS3 version, and I loved every minute on both platforms (Except for the 30 minutes where I gave keyboard/mouse controls a shot just for a laugh).

 

[Silence]

DS1 on PC had some frame rate and graphical issues, yes. Fairly sad at that. Gameplay and the world remain unchanged. Dumped a hundred hours at least into the PC and PS3 version, and I loved every minute on both platforms (Except for the 30 minutes where I gave keyboard/mouse controls a shot just for a laugh).

Boss quality, even reused enemies and bosses, unfinished areas (Izalith), no good bosses after Ornstein and Smough (who are pretty cheap) make the overall quality stand low for me. I think DS3 perfected these qualities. Especially most boss fights are far cooler than DS1 and 2.

Gameplay, from a pure technical standpoint, was already better in DS2, as faulty as the game is in most areas.

The world, while being very connected (but still not making any sense in architecture, seriously, have you thought about Undead Burg?), and therefore being cool, I also have a hate-relationship with, because of my first time DS, running through the graveyard and dying 500 times before giving up on the game for the time being - I honestly prefer the route DS3 is taking in that regard.
And yes, that is preferring convenience and gameplay over a more realistic world.
DS2 was too far in the this direction, though, with area connections that were boring, had no detail and made no sense.

Honestly I think what gets you most is that the novelty of the series has run out, you played far too much DS1.

 

[Jandau]

I don't quite get the complaint about too many bonfires. Yes, there are a few situations where you get a bonfire around the corner from the previous one, but that's usually a case of the game's logic - you get a bonfire when you beat a boss and you get a bonfire at the start of a new zone. If a new zone starts right after a boss, it'll be two bonfires one right after the other. Not really a big deal. Also, plenty of parts where you really wouldn't mind an extra bonfire. The run to the Ballista through the tunnels at Smouldering Lake is a massive pain in the arse. So is the outside of the Cathedral of the Deep - tricky platforms, archers everywhere, hidden enemies that suicide bomb you off said tricky platforms, etc. A fair nuber of long streatches with no bonfires and plenty of hazards.

As for the world, I like it. It's not as interconnected as DS1, but the design of actual zones is better, especially compared to the second half of DS1 (basically, most stuff after Anor Londo, Izalith in particular). I'm not going to even mention DS2, that game's zones felt like they were designed by temps (a few exceptions such as the Dragon Aerie, but only a few). The interconnectedness was only really a thing in DS1, and while it was neat, I don't really feel it adds much beyond the occasional "Oh, that leads here? Cool." moment. And to top it off, the world of DS3 DOES have moments of interconnectedness. An example that springs to mind is when you ascend the Old Wolf Farron's tower and end up on the battlements. One end of the battlements is demolished, and on the other side you can see the ledge near Undead Settlement where you find Yoel. There are other sections like that as well.

The game isn't even totally linear. Zones branch out and can be completed in various order (Farron Keep or Cathedral ; Irythil Dungeon or Anor Londo), with several optional zones (Smouldering Lake, Archdragon Peak), optional sections in numerous zones, some of them also hidden (the semi-secret part of Undead Settlement where you fight the Wandering Deamon).

While I don't expect everyone to like the game as much as I do, these particular criticisms of DS3 don't really resonate with me...

 

[Skatalite]

Well, it isn't, at least not really. The game's got three directors, and Miyazaki himself was pretty busy with Bloodborne.
But it's not just the directors. The whole team is different, as it's from the guys behind the weaker Dark Souls 2.

 

[Evonisia]

DS3 feels more linear, but I'll attribute that to all the effort put in to "Bloodborne". Miyazaki was probably heavily involved, but it's fairly obvious where his focus was during the production of the game.

As for how it stacks up. I found "Dark Souls 2" incredibly boring, though I do insist on at least attempting to play it every now and again. I guess it's world just didn't feel as alive as the other Souls games. It's more a selection of levels, none of which really trigger me to keep exploring.
"Dark Souls", as well, really wears out on me, especially during boss fights which I've never liked in any of these games as they basically acted as this incredibly dull barricade from the rest of the world.
I haven't finished 3, but it's holding up much better than the other games as far as I'm concerned, both in terms of world and gameplay. The shift to a more aggressive playstyle really helps alleviate the tedium that can come from multiple defeats. The world is easily the best because it feels like stuff is actually happening in it. I know the world is supposed to be dying, but it's inhabitants are still around so they kinda have to do stuff. "Dark Souls 3" pulls this off in a blunt but effective manner.

"Dark Souls 3" is not "Bloodborne", but it's the closest "Dark Souls" will ever get to it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

DS1 on PC had some frame rate and graphical issues, yes. Fairly sad at that. Gameplay and the world remain unchanged. Dumped a hundred hours at least into the PC and PS3 version, and I loved every minute on both platforms (Except for the 30 minutes where I gave keyboard/mouse controls a shot just for a laugh).

Boss quality, even reused enemies and bosses, unfinished areas (Izalith), no good bosses after Ornstein and Smough (who are pretty cheap) make the overall quality stand low for me. I think DS3 perfected these qualities. Especially most boss fights are far cooler than DS1 and 2.

Gameplay, from a pure technical standpoint, was already better in DS2, as faulty as the game is in most areas.

The world, while being very connected (but still not making any sense in architecture, seriously, have you thought about Undead Burg?), and therefore being cool, I also have a hate-relationship with, because of my first time DS, running through the graveyard and dying 500 times before giving up on the game for the time being - I honestly prefer the route DS3 is taking in that regard.
And yes, that is preferring convenience and gameplay over a more realistic world.
DS2 was too far in the this direction, though, with area connections that were boring, had no detail and made no sense.

Honestly I think what gets you most is that the novelty of the series has run out, you played far too much DS1.

I guess I have to just say it again - The man draw of the first two Souls games, for me, was always the world and it's presentation. The gameplay was solid, but it was always secondary to that. And I feel like that has suffered, regardless of any gameplay changes. As I said before, mileage always varies, but for me that's the deal breaker. I'm told Dark Souls 2 gets better in the regard latter on, but the beginning is just so dismally poor, and boring, and just bad that I didn't think it worth the effort to dredge though it. Dark Souls 3 is much the same - The beginning is boring. The levels never seem to reach any level higher then 'place you swing your sword in.' The Undead Settlement in particular is so bad that my eyes literally glazed over every time I tried to do anything in it.

As for the gameplay, I've gone into it elsewhere, but overall, I don't like it. It's too fast. Everything from PvP to bosses to trash is all based around getting in fast and rolling fast and swinging fast. I don't even get to appreciate character design anymore. But that's personal preference.

As for being burnt out, I don't think so. I still enjoy the occasional DS1 romp, and I'd boot up Demon's Soul's everyone once in a while too until I got rid of the PS3. I just don't like where the series has gone.

Maybe I've just gotten old and slow.

because of my first time DS, running through the graveyard and dying 500 times before giving up on the game for the time being

Want to know whats crazy? I burned the entire Catacombs and almost made it to Pinwheel before realizing I was in the wrong area.

I was over leveled for a lot of stuff after that.

 

[Saelune]

Dark Souls 3 feels like a weird mash up of all the Souls games. Game design-wise its certainly more like Demon Souls and Bloodborne, while obviously wanting to be like "Hey, remember this from Dark Souls 1?". I'm not too far in, so I'm not sure my overall opinion of if I like it or not though. But the Bonfire thing is real. After the first boss after Firelink you get a bonfire, then are flown to an area and dropped off next to another bonfire, then you go down past a gate with dogs and bam, bonfire. But then no bonfires for awhile.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Boss quality, even reused enemies and bosses, unfinished areas (Izalith), no good bosses after Ornstein and Smough (who are pretty cheap) make the overall quality stand low for me. I think DS3 perfected these qualities. Especially most boss fights are far cooler than DS1 and 2.

This is part of the reason I find it difficult to take those who say DS1 is unabashedly the best game completely seriously. The latter half of the game has at least a few garbage areas and bosses. Personally I'd say the majority of them are past Ornstein and Smough, despite loving every game in the series I've played, to the point where I'm not sure where I'd rank them, if at all.

Bonfire frequency criticism is something I don't really get too much, either. The biggest offender is a certain boss's bonfire being right next to the one at the beginning of the next area, but that's not really something that affects the game in any negative way, or negatively affects my perception of the game's world. It just prompts me to ask "why?" more than anything else.

I don't care how much Miyazaki was involved in the game because frankly I'm not interested in hailing him as the Souls savior that >90% of the Souls fanbase does. I don't care who worked on the game, I care how good it is. And personally, I think it's pretty fucking good. Vastly mechanically superior to each game before it, at least.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I just got to the Profane Capital last night, and I would have loved to have another bonfire between there and the start of the jail.

I guess I kind of understand people complaining about bonfires being there too much, but to me it's perfect. I explore every area as completely as I can, so the places tend to be huge to me. I also end up getting lost a lot, and it gets to the point where when I finally do find a bonfire, I get a huge sense of relief. Granted, once I know an area well, I can sprint from bonfire to bonfire, but the first time I enter a place and get past the welcoming bonfire, I am on the lookout for the next one and usually make it by the skin of my teeth.

I'm liking the story so far, from what little I've been able to piece together. Mostly I'm enjoying the little call backs to the previous two games and finding out what happened to everyone, like The Fair Lady and her sister.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Lol and so the "It's not as good as Dark Souls" portion of the cycle begins. Next stop at "It's a travesty unworthy of the name Dark Souls".

 

[DefunctTheory]

Lol and so the "It's not as good as Dark Souls" portion of the cycle begins. Next stop at "It's a travesty unworthy of the name Dark Souls".

As the only person in here that has said flat out said that he liked a DS game other then DS3 best, I'm flattered you think I can start such a movement.

But I really wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

What happened to them? The only interesting thing I know is that Priscilla

Spoiler

is most likely killed/eaten by cannibal pope fo her god killing scyth

Spoiler: SPOILER SCHMOILER

You find the bodies of both turned to stone behind an illusionary wall not far from the bonfire near the Old Demon King boss. Quelana's body holds the Izalith pyromancy tome IIRC, which can only be given to Karla and not regular pyromancer dude.