Dark Souls 3

[Monsieur Tirets]

Who is looking forward to this? I actually havent played a dark souls title(or demon souls for that matter) but im a huge fan of the kings field series, especially the ancient city. the thing is, while i usually prefer rpgs with a strong focus on things other than just combat, despite KF being pure dungeon crawls with little npc interaction, the mood and atmosphere were incredible, and they only took 20-30 hours to complete. whereas the souls games are said to take 60-70 minimum. that sounds awfully long for what appear to be pure combat driven rpgs with little to no npc interaction. so, my question is, are they pure dungeon crawls as they appear to be, or is there more to them?

Honestly, after having put dozens of hours into the witcher 3, every recent game looks as if it will fail in comparison.

 

[Ares]

I never played the other Dark Souls games.... too many people like "OMG DIS GAME IS SUPER HARD AND MAKES YOU FUCKING RAGE"

I have alot of games on my backlog as it is, I didn't find it worthwhile to play a game that makes me as mad as when I'm at work TBH.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

yeah, i dont mind a game being difficult, but im also not very keen on the idea of a game that constantly make me want to rage quit. but it seems like it really depends on the player, some say they are way too hard and not worth it, others say they are not nearly as hard as people want to make out. the kings field games are notorious for being brutally difficult, but i never found them to be so.

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

They are difficuly yeah, but once you get into a groove and understand the way the game is meant to be played you'll be fine. I know neither of you guys are casual gamers, you'll be okay. The most difficult part of a Souls game is the first two or three hours, it tests your mettle really and its like any other difficult game with a learning curve. Once you get passed it you'll be golden. I've beaten all of the Souls games, and personally think Bloodborne is the best game of this decade. I couldn't even play a game like The Witcher III because the combat doesn't even come close to as satisfying. Again, my opinion.

There is a really cool indie PS4 game that just released called 'Salt & Sanctuary' that plays like a 2D Dark Souls meets Metroidvania concepts. That game is a blast and only $18.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

They are difficuly yeah, but once you get into a groove and understand the way the game is meant to be played you'll be fine. I know neither of you guys are casual gamers, you'll be okay. The most difficult part of a Souls game is the first two or three hours, it tests your mettle really and its like any other difficult game with a learning curve. Once you get passed it you'll be golden. I've beaten all of the Souls games, and personally think Bloodborne is the best game of this decade. I couldn't even play a game like The Witcher III because the combat doesn't even come close to as satisfying. Again, my opinion.

There is a really cool indie PS4 game that just released called 'Salt & Sanctuary' that plays like a 2D Dark Souls meets Metroidvania concepts. That game is a blast and only $18.

is there more to the souls games besides constant combat? are you ever given a chance to breath and explore the environments without being thrust into combat every few seconds?

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

is there more to the souls games besides constant combat? are you ever given a chance to breath and explore the environments without being thrust into combat every few seconds?

Definitely, Bloodborne has the best, most convincing setting I've ever seen in a game. Bloodborne is made by Miyazaki, whom also makes the Souls games. I'm using Bloodborne as an example because I have studied the game and really believe it's the definitive "Souls" game. Dark Souls III may change that though, everything I have seen from DSIII so far is just as breath taking as Bloodborne was.

There is plenty of story to be had as well but with a catch. These games will spoon feed you absolutely no narrative, but it is there for you to find. Miyazaki grew up watching American movies but didn't have a great grip on our language so he pieced things together himself, that is sort of what he does to his audience. For example, someone wrote a long essay about the lore of Bloodborne taken from item descriptions, in game text, etc. It all adds up if you're willing to find it. It's, for me, what took Bloodborne from an excellent game to a genius work of art. Of course Bloodborne starts out with horror movie tropes and turns into a Lovecraftian nightmare. Very cool stuff.

A little bit about the combat, normal enemies can and will **** you up if you get lazy or dick around too much. Every enemy is powerful, which lends well to the world building. The boss battles are master class, plain and simple.

P.S. Dark Souls II was lead by Miyazaki's team but not by himself, think Arkham Origins. Don't start there. The original Dark Souls had huge PC porting issues but has most likely been fixed via an official patch or mods. Worth looking into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

I also wanted to add that the whole game is about exploration, but there are almost always enemies in the way. Finally beating a boss and moving into a whole new section is so gratifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

i know Miyazaki said the kings field games were a huge influence on dark souls, so thats really why im interested in dark souls 3. i heard 1 had quite a bit in common with kings field and was something like a third person continuation of the series. he didnt direct the 2nd and ive heard it wasnt as good nor as kings field like.

kings field had a lot of combat, but after you cleared an area you could explore and discover without having to worry about more enemies. plus they were much shorter games with the last taking around 30 hours. im not sure how a 70 hour kings field would fly with me. if dark souls is anything like kings field there will be little npc interaction, no towns, no side quests, just a very moody atmospheric dungeon crawl. its the mood, locations, etc. that carry the game, but i fear combat will bog it down in imo. especially since if you die you have to fight your way through an area all over again dont you? i hate that.

have you played any of the kings field games? if so, how do they compare?

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

i know Miyazaki said the kings field games were a huge influence on dark souls, so thats really why im interested in dark souls 3. i heard 1 had quite a bit in common with kings field and was something like a third person continuation of the series. he didnt direct the 2nd and ive heard it wasnt as good nor as kings field like.

kings field had a lot of combat, but after you cleared an area you could explore and discover without having to worry about more enemies. plus they were much shorter games with the last taking around 30 hours. im not sure how a 70 hour kings field would fly with me. if dark souls is anything like kings field there will be little npc interaction, no towns, no side quests, just a very moody atmospheric dungeon crawl. its the mood, locations, etc. that carry the game, but i fear combat will bog it down in imo. especially since if you die you have to fight your way through an area all over again dont you? i hate that.

have you played any of the kings field games? if so, how do they compare?

I haven't played King's Field, I wish I had. In Souls games once you interact with a bonfire enemies will respawn, but you can clear a whole area, explore it, and enemies won't respawn unless you light a bonfire or die. Respawning enemies is sort of necessary because when you die you lose all of your experience and have to pick it up where you died or else its gone forever. You can run away from/kite enemies along rather easily though, especially when you're over-leveled. DSIII is adding a feature where the player can place a bonfire anywhere, which might take away some of your worries.

Bloodborne took me under 30 hours to finish (54 in two playthru's) and Dark Souls was similar IIRC, Dark Souls II took me about 57 hours because I messed around with all three DLC areas.

The game is very combat heavy though no doubt about it. I don't think the combat bogs it down because the environments vary so well from each other, as do the enemies. But yeah, the game is basically a loop of, normal enemies, explore, find boss, kill boss, level up, and rinse and repeat.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

if you ever in the mood for some retro gaming i recommend going back and giving kings field 4(or the ancient city as its known in the US) a go. the mood and atmosphere is amazing and the way the world connects with one area leading to another is impressive. i heard dark souls 1 did that as well. there are a couple of set pieces in the ancient city that are as impressive as anything ive ever encountered in a game... the passage of light and your first entrance into the forest clearing.

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

if you ever in the mood for some retro gaming i recommend going back and giving kings field 4(or the ancient city as its known in the US) a go. the mood and atmosphere is amazing and the way the world connects with one area leading to another is impressive. i heard dark souls 1 did that as well. there are a couple of set pieces in the ancient city that are as impressive as anything ive ever encountered in a game... the passage of light and your first entrance into the forest clearing.

That is PS1 as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

no, the ancient city is on ps2.


if you decide to play it just keep in mind that it can be very slow paced and rather clunky, can be difficult at times, requiring dedication, and can be obscure in regards to just what youre suppose to do in order to advance(but that can be solved with a guide, which admittedly may be needed at times).

but for all its arguable flaws, its one of the best games of all time imo simply due to the mood, atmosphere, and art direction/design. when i finally get around to trying out a souls games(likely 3) i just hope it comes close to what kings field was. shit, i wish from software would just make another kings field instead of focusing on a spiritual successors.

 

[TheeUndyingFan]

I will definitely look into playing The Ancient City. You never know, you may like DSIII more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unannounced Fart]

If you're interested, this guy is playing a copy of Dark Souls 3 right now: https://www.twitch.tv/avoidingthepuddle
There are a few other people streaming it as well.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

so, anyone pick it up?

 

[botfly10]

I never played the other Dark Souls games.... too many people like "OMG DIS GAME IS SUPER HARD AND MAKES YOU FUCKING RAGE"

I have alot of games on my backlog as it is, I didn't find it worthwhile to play a game that makes me as mad as when I'm at work TBH.

The point of Dark Souls though, is that the difficulty is FAIR. Its a big distinction to make. That means that difficulty is not a result of randomness or stupid nerfs. Its all mechanical. Which means you can learn and master the systems. When you die, you always know where you made mistakes and can adjust your tactics.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

The point of Dark Souls though, is that the difficulty is FAIR. Its a big distinction to make. That means that difficulty is not a result of randomness or stupid nerfs. Its all mechanical. Which means you can learn and master the systems. When you die, you always know where you made mistakes and can adjust your tactics.

im debating if i should pick up the first one and play that, or go into 3 fresh.