Dark Souls 3 Level Design Makes Me Sad
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- @neptunusequester's video: • How to get an early +1...
join my discord: / discord
small list of organizations to donate to: www.marieclair...
information on how you can get help: mayday.health/
give.thetrevor... - เกม
God, im ecstatic that someone else also thinks this way. I felt like i was seeing a parallel universe playing DS3 "the best dark souls" and finding it... Fine, and then playing DS2"the worst of the trillogy and a bad game" and utterly falling in love with it. The world design, the weird niche equipment and environment interactions, the obscure secrets all made ds1/2 so nuch more satisfying for me to explore as opposed to DS3's feeling of being in a cooridor at all times, even if that's not actually true
Do you have mild to severe brain damage?
Same here buddy, I played Dks2 after Dks, not expecting too much, and it became my favorite out of the series, even more than bloodborne. And now I just beat dark souls 3, and I'm slightly disappointed, which for a dark souls game is a first, this really feels so clearly a step down in my experience. Content, lore, big moments, bosses, all lacking so far.
It does some interesting things, but takes many many small but important misteps.
I completely agree. Ds3 in terms of boss design trumps ds2 and even ds1 in some aspects, but world design hands down the first two were the best. I've been playing through ds2 for the first time and, although with quite a few frustrating parts, I was not having nearly as bad a time with it as I anticipated. I could even see myself playing through it again, especially after hearing how great ng+ is, but ds3 I've only played through again because I was getting my friend to play it with me, and there were some areas that I could just visualize entirely, and dreaded the thought of having to go through it again, the exact same as last time. Even with different builds, it doesn't feel much different. If I want to play ds3 again, I'll just get a boss rush mod and fight them at appropriate levels, not go through the motions that are considered "area exploration"
@@dgouin99 just letting you know that the painful areas aren't so painful if you tackle them thoughtfully, farron keep for example you can see where the other fires are by just looking over the cliff from any of the other fires.
@@Ghorda9 that is fair, I wasn't much complaining about the difficulty of the areas, but just the general straightforwardness of everything makes it a bit of a slog to go through
There was a quiet part that I never said out loud while playing Dark Souls 3, but Elden Ring has sorta broken an illusion that I've held for a while. The linear world of DS3 is too theme-parky, with every playthrough and every experience pretty much only accounting for a one-way-through approach. This isn't inherently bad, but something that always irked me is how the levels always seemed to just fall apart if you ever backtracked through them. For instance, with the knight placement in Lothric and the group of enemies on the stairs, the moment you get close to them from behind, they just start walking away from you. It makes the maps feel less like a level and more like a theme-park ride spectacle, because you're really only expected to move through the world in one way. Even the side paths aren't really side paths; Deacons is a necessary boss, regardless if you do them before or after Carthis.
While Elden Ring may be the least linear of Fromsoft's souls catalogue, everything from DS1 and 2, to Sekiro, Demon Souls, and Bloodborne have a level of player progression choice to them. For instance, in Sekiro, you can basically rush to get the immortal severance sword right after Genichiro. Demon Souls and DS2 outright give the player the ability to pick which world/part of the world they want to tackle first. With Dark Souls 3, it felt like they went too far in the opposite direction, making every subsequent playthrough feel like the one before it.
It's really just a personal gripe imo, and I still like DS3. But man, compared to DS1 and DS2, Dark Souls 3 just felt way too small. But again, that's just my opinion.
I agree with you. DS3 needs more branching and for parts of their levels to feel more variable.
90% of DS3 is "Hey, remember this cool thing from Demons, Dark 1 and Dark 2? We ported them over!!" The other 10% is signs of a very clearly tired franchise.
It’s alllll fanservice
dark souls 3 is a weird one for me because mechanically and in terms of combat i really like the game, but i really don’t like how linear the world is. if there was a game that had the combat of ds3 and a world on par or better than ds1, then it would, imo, be the best souls game.
The combat is a big part of it for me, there are times where I absolutely adore it, the dancer comes to mind as one of my favorite boss fights in the series, but there are also times where I find it to be the most annoying and frustrating souls-like I've ever played, like the Pontiff.
I honestly hope that they do a remake like that instead of just a remaster
@@solarpellets parry better pontiff isnt that bad
@@charrtrd notice how I didn't say pontiff is hard
Pontiff is not fun to me, that's a very different thing.
@@solarpellets curious on what was the most frustrating thing about pontiff to you? I thought he was a fun and simple boss with a pretty cool design
Hate Crystal Sage only because I am colorblind and the only way to tell wich one is real is by the color of the spell
that is the only way to tell them apart (unless this is the way i figure out im colorblind)
no, wait, sorry for bad reading comprehension
@@Ninjamaa no problem!! Fromsoftware should be aware at this point that only changing colors and anything else in the design of something is a really bad way to communicate something to the player
Being colourblind must suck for some bosses
The fake sages only have like 1 health so you can throw a dagger at them to make them disappear
I think the main problem in ds3 level design is that the game teaches player that the easiest way to avoid ambush is to just run past everything, unlike da2, where thats the easiest way to get into ambush.
And that's bad game design. Enemy mobs in ds2 were dogshit
@@Spectrum0122 so just running past everything and turning the game into a glorified boss rush is good game design?
I feel like people say a lot about hitboxes and ganking in ds2 but from my experience ds3 has some hitboxes which are questionable at times.
Thank you for the daily vids. Really helping with a tough time keeping my mind occupied
I think this video is very interesting. Ds3 is my personal favourite in the trilogy, whereas ds1 is my least.
I think this is actually a pretty good tutorial level that has a lot to teach the player about how this game works and how it differs from the previous ones. Things like the shield bashing from the knights, they do this to disincentivise sticking to them and circle strafing for easy backstabs which was way too strong in ds1, and keep you at a distance to make more effective use of their weapons. That is just one example of something you pointed out as a flaw or annoyance, that is actually just different and to me an improvement.
I have many such criticisms of ds1, many of which mirror yours in this video in a lot of ways, such as the hoard of hollows with the channeler in the chapel or the dagger enemies bursting through the doors in the street before capra. In the end these are my subjective opinions, as yours are yours, and I think all of these games are still enjoyable and have a lot to offer, each being the best in some aspects whilst lacking in others.
I didn't point out the shield bashing as a negative, I was just frustrated because it was turtling and every time I tried to position for an attack for when it was done it would shield bash lol. I do think it's a great tutorial to show the differences in 3, absolutely (aside from, for instance, the dogs, like I pointed out), but that's why I don't like it as a tutorial, because it does all the things that I don't like about DS3.
The lower burg is one of my favorite levels in the game, especially since the "ambush" is signified by the loud slamming of the doors, so in that sense I think the tell is much better than the potential ambushes in DS3. DS1 doesn't necessarily give you the tools to deal with large groups like that, which, in my opinion, makes the problem solving much more interesting.
@@solarpellets I liked the shield bash because to me, it incentivized using multiple weapons to counter specific enemies. I always had a sword with the Stance weapon art (many can be obtained early game) to break shields, a dagger/huge weapon for backstabs and ripostes, etc. to swap between.
You clearly haven't played ds1
I really agree with this and the DS2 video, ive learned that the things i dislike about 3 are kind of complicated, subtle, and subjective so its difficult to talk about. The ambushes especially were so disappointing to me in this game, but i could never really articulate why. I think you did a good job describing them though
its so strange watching this and your other DS3 video. i have the opposite take on almost every boss / level / mechanic you talk about lol. DS3 is my favorite in the series. appreciate the different perspective though
In ds2 you can go seperate ways to the same location same for ds1. In ds3 you are always bound where you can go in what order(unless you can kill the dancer in low level)
It's so sad that fromsoft didn't use ds1's level design in ds3 ):
I'm not sure but I think the whole getting estus randomly thing has something to do with another player activating a bonfire near you for the first time or something similar like beating a boss or maybe an invader because I've noticed it never happens when I'm offline... I might be wrong though
I've had it happen offline, but kindling a bonfire in DS1 did give other players estus. In DS3, afaik, it's just a random chance every time you kill certain enemies, though some can never drop it and some have a much higher chance, 12% in the case of the darkwraiths, for instance.
@@solarpellets it’s after beating a group of enemies without healing, or having less than full estus. Elden ring has the same mechanic
@@JesterBM I'm not sure how Elden Ring's works, but that's definitely not it in DS3, someone in my discord did some data mining, I'm working on a video about it right now
@@solarpellets that’s weird it’s always felt like that while playing ds3 but hopefully your video clears it up before I spread more false info
Dark souls 3 has an invisible gauge, which fills up when you defeat enemies, different enemies fill up the gauge different values, but if an enemy has a red eyes it gives a higher value. When that invisible gauge is filled up you get an Estus. It's similar to how dark souls 1 worked when it gave you occasional humanity.
It's not explained, but you do earn it yourself
Ds3 got a *lot* of leeway in criticism of its design because it was the final DS game. Souls games live and die on their replayability, and getting equipment in a straight line for 80% of the game puts a serious damper on that.
I played the Dark Souls trilogy for the first time back to back to back and the thing about 3 that really stood out as I was playing it was how inferior the level design was.
I was very disappointed with it. I didn’t find many areas particularly interesting and wasn’t compelled to explore much further than necessary. I just wanted to get through the areas to get to the next boss.
I remember after playing each game I could draw a map in my mind of almost every area in DS1 and a lot of areas in DS2 but I couldn’t remember the layout of any specific area in DS3.
i just started ds3 not too long ago and just got up to irithyl. so far, none of the levels were enjoyable to me. before ds3 i finished bloodborne and loved it so much. the level design in that game was done so well that i wanted to explore absolutely everything, but in ds3 i found myself just searching on youtube the fastest route to get to the boss for almost every level. everything just looks bland and samey and it doesnt make me interested enough to explore it. i remember i played through the cathedral of the deep yesterday and didnt enjoy a minute of it. from crystal sage, to the actual area, to the deacons boss, it felt like a chore. the entire castle in this level (if it even is a castle idk) had no interesting landmarks in it, just big gray room after big gray room with too many hallways which made me run in circles. even the enemy placement in these levels was so bad. i remember in bloodborne i wanted to kill every enemy i saw, but in ds3 i just sprinted past everything just because it felt like there were too many enemies and it was a waste of time to bother fighting anything. even when i first started the game at the high wall of lothric, after dying the first time to some bs, i went straight to youtube for the route to vordt because i knew it wouldnt be worth it trying to get to the boss myself. same thing with the catacombs. i really wanted to do something myself for once in this game, but i kept running in circles and was completely lost to the point where i needed a tutorial. even all the bosses of these areas were bad (apart from abyss watchers), so there was no real reward for going through these horrible levels. im hoping it gets better with irithyl tho
the drake doesnt spawn unless you go up the stairs
Basically, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls share an engine. Then Bloodborne and Dark Souls 2 both have their own new engines, like Fromsoft was testing out what to do. They went with an updated Bloodborne engine for Dark Souls 3, and then from there to Elden Ring.
so as much as i don't like ds3 i think high wall is very fun and it felt like i was always making progress (this was right after i finished playing ds1 and i was playing pyromancer), the rest of the game felt like i was doing fetch quests and wasn't being rewarded for exploring all that much, and sometimes the game just expecting me to know where to go when i just ended up lost 3 or 4 times.
i agree about the ambushes, i feel like ds3 wanted more chaotic combat while asking you to be focused with what you're doing and it just means i end up playing every combat safely rather then having to take another 10 mins hoping a bonfire is nearby
I've played all the souls games twice and 3 is the only one I will probably never return to. It has some great bosses but the choice to use the same/a very similar graphics engine to Bloodborne means that the entire game, but especially the first half, doesn't even LOOK like Dark Souls. Anor Londo is infinitely less spectacular in this art style.
Actually the first time someone has the same view as me on dark souls 3. Great video
I stand by every souls game being 10/10s as they are the only games I can play countless times and still enjoy every single playthrough. However every souls game I have parts I dislike but the issues I always have are design choices and not actual complaints of the game. DS3 could be improved in a lot of ways but the parts I think can be improved are not bad they just could be better to me.
DS2, 3 and Bloodborne are all kinda weird about early game without much consideration for new player experience in their own ways - hell, and elden ring to a lesser extent.
DS2 doesn't put a boss at the end of a tutorial level so much as put an array of easy bosses in locations a total newbie won't reach for hours. It's also pretty unclear about what good directions to go in to start with are. You could end up running into a combo of decision paralysis and accidentally running into ganks because you've not learned to be methodical enough, get frustrated and bounce off the game.
DS3 has a nice, easy, atmospheric tutorial level. ...Then throws the lizard and gundyr at you. Gundyr might be an easy fight for a souls veteran, but he's way more a newbie wall than phalanx, asylum demon, or even last giant/dragonrider. And then high wall feels like a *second* tutorial level in a really weird way... And throws puses and lothric knights (who have early game health and damage, but late game elite enemy movesets) at you. And then the game relaxes and doesn't throw another intense fight at you until the abyss watchers.
Bloodborne gates leveling up in a really unintuitive way that'll screw with a blind-run new player, whilst giving you a labyrinthean intro level and worries about resource management for heals and ammo.
Elden Ring throws a nearly unwinnable fight at newbies that's effectively a scripted loss. Then puts the tree sentinel in your path, who will also feel nearly unwinnable. Then it tries to funnel you to Margit to learn that he's *also* kinda strong with starting stats and equipment. The intention is to make you hit Margit then realise you've got the whole of Limgrave to explore until you feel ready, but placing the tree sentinel making it a high chance of the newbie getting their face kicked in and giving up three times in a row is... questionable.
My own first game was DS3 and I consider all of the games to have their own charms and faults, but goddamn DS1 and Demons are the only ones that don't feel like they're trying to chase new players away up front in some way or other.
DS2 has several directions for the player to explore and learn at their own pace. If they decide they happen to not like the forest, they can go check out heide's, which has much stronger enemies but is a much shorter area. If they happened to get a branch, because scholar is better, they can visit the shaded woods instead, which is much higher level, but could offer a nice reprieve if they're struggling in the other areas. Heide's and the forest are also both potential paths forward to the same place, so you don't even necessarily need to do both of them. Most players probably will, but regardless. If a player doesn't learn to play slowly and carefully from getting ambushed immediately while picking up the item in the river or from the enemies waking up from the ground, that's entirely on them. DS2: SotFS was my first souls game, but I only went through about a quarter, maybe less, before playing DS3.
Gundyr is an incredibly easy tutorial boss, I beat him second try when I first played DS3, which was my second souls game. I don't think he's harder than the other tutorial bosses at all, however, he is significantly more of a skill check. The others are difficult in different ways, Demon's Souls expects you to strategize, DS1 expects you to get stronger and decimate, and DS2... well, actually last giant is definitely far easier, but pursuer is a better tutorial fight, with so many potential strategies, DS2 expects you to explore and utilize your environment, which is strengthened by the dragonrider and the levers around the level to make falling off less likely if not impossible.
I agree with pretty much everything else, though lol. DS2 is arguably the most beginner friendly, with how easy the first few areas are, especially with the catacombs in DS1, but it does still expect you to explore and learn, it won't teach you directly, none of them do, except arguably 3, but then you have the high wall lol.
@@solarpellets Well, bear in mind my framing of DS2 is from the knowledge a lot of people try out the souls series for a few hours, get frustrated and leave. Sometimes they come back after a bit, othertimes not, but either way on that first trip they don't persist long enough to get the feel of the series and slip into that comfortable gameplay groove.
Basically I was honing in on the elements that could cause a newbie to bounce.
As for Gundyr - I can do fancy challenge runs and randomisers and such now, sure, but back when I first scooted in to the souls series as a pyromancer with an oversized nose from messing with the character sliders too much, dude bodied me like 8 times before I started to work out the roll times properly. Compare to other pre-able-to-level bosses like phalanx who practically just sits there and asylum demon who has about two slow telegraphed moves and a hurtbox the size of kansas.
For the drake bit comparision, the presentation of the area is a big deal. In DS1 there is a long empty bridge, so the player will typically be sprinting before the suprise of the drake appears which helps them survive. Also, the safe spot of the bridge is clearly shown meaning if the player reacts calmly they'll survive.
In DS3 the same area is up a tight set of stairs so you can't really aee ahead of you, your focus is then on the sudden large group of enemies at the top of the stairs, which itself is already a cramped space before you add 6+ mobs to deal with and, as you point out, if you aren't already running past them at that point into the much less obvious dark doorway you will almost certainly die to the suprise drake.
Its a very good example of what not to do with level design.
Cool video but that first sentence invalidated your opinion to me
DS2 is fun from an exploring, hidden secrets, and puzzle perspective. Its DLCs are probably the best overall as a group too. DS2 combat mechanics are the worst of Fromsoft's games. Adaptability and Soul Memory as well as being able to farm enemies till they are gone are all bad ideas. DS3 is too linear zone to zone overall, it could use more branching options. The actual level spaces within the zone are well designed though. DS3 combat is superior to DS2 in every way. DS3 first dlc is underwhelming except for Sister Friede fight. Ringed City DLC is solid DLC in everyway. Maybe the best single DLC of Dark Souls.
I cannot express how much I disagree with nearly everything you said after the first sentence. DS2's DLCs are easily the worst part of the game by far, barring maybe Shulva, DS2 has significantly better combat than BB, DS3, and ER, ADP is one of my favorite things about the game, Soul Memory is only bad if you want to co-op with friends and even then, as long as you're doing vaguely the same things, it's not really an issue, enemies disappearing is also one of my favorite things about the game and can be remedied completely if you really want to farm for whatever reason, not to mention it incentivizing ascetics, the level design of DS3 is the worst by far, barring Elden Ring, though I do agree that it's far too linear, and all of the DS3 DLC is somehow worse than the base game, except friede who is a middle of the road boss and the demon princes who are an S tier boss.
TL;DR I don't understand your opinions, and I disagree with almost all of them lol
@@solarpellets Funny thing I never understood the deal with ADP. It didn't change my experience the way I play. I've replayed the game not allowing me to level up and keep ADP low at 3 and it didn't seem impossible, I could still dodge, maybe I don't expect or count invisible frames, I roll away from what I perceive was going to hit me. Anyway, whether low or high ADP, those janky hitboxes still get me sometimes. I also don't know if DS2 has better combat than the modern, it's very unexpected opinion, but anyway I don't like DS2 for this, I like that it lets you use the environment, drop some barrels to the dogs, pull levers to drawn enemies to lava, use a lot of other equipment, rather than just roll, roll, roll attack all the time. It's fun to replay with different builds and take different routes each time, something that DS3 doesn't let you, it forces you to always aggressive fighter mode, it's too linear I really don't know of different paths except from very few that don't make sense.
It's still better than ds2's awkward and silly level design tbh.
@@loubloom1941 DS2's level design is the most cohesive and complete, by far. At least, for scholar.
I really enjoyed Ds3 up untill upper lothric and even then the swamp level sucked booty too
I think ya'll need to look up the definition on most of the keywords the videocreator used and all the keywords he didn't use XD ya'll confused as heck
Level design does not equal world design or enemy placement or interconnectivity or map connectivity or enemy AI or enemy placement or teleportations just to give a few examples
And i think ya'll forgetting places like ds catacombs and ds2 lavaland in the sky XD
Not to mention the hollow ambush right above lower undead burgh and the assassin ambush in lower undead burgh where one could not predict it because the doors were hiding their models XD
Dark souls 1, there is no dark souls 1...
*she
Also, iron keep gives you a room specifically to funnel enemies and the lower burg's ambush is deliberately offset with a very loud and unique sound
that door at 9:00 lmao, i played that game at least 3 times before i knew what it was (its useless)
For me, Dark Souls 3 is soo good, it becomes boring. It's the perfected souls formula. Dark souls 1 & 2 had imperfections, quirks and weird elements. THat made their charm. DS3 feels polished, sanatised.
Ds3 > Ds1/DSR > DS2
I have Lime Disease
Did you... I'm the next couple minutes I go to there. I kill that knight. If you go up there it's entirely possible that all three attack you at once. Even if you're able to fight that specific knight one on one, the other two will still aggro on to you when you come back down. If you're trying to explore and fight the two knights you'll probably have to fight both. Stop trying to mindlessly defend DS3 and understand that it's different in a way that I don't like as much.
I dono which ds2 you played but I played through both the original and sotfs and both are way worse for gank squads than ds3 and there was a few other claims you made that just aren't true. personally I like ds2 and ds3 for different reasons. both games have their flaws and have features that is better than the other but part of the souls experience is having to learn new strategies and mechanics.
I like the ds3 level design, it's a lot more direct and it's harder to get lost. Because one of ds2's biggest flaws is not knowing where to go and what to do. Idk why people think linear is bad, most video games are very linear
They don’t think it’s bad it’s just not their preferred type of level design for the game. A lot of the concepts for this game cone from the player not knowing what to do and seeking help from other people playing the game so to go from something more open to the linear design isn’t bad just disappointing to fans
linearity isn't bad, non-linearity is better. Getting lost, not knowing where to go, aimlessly wandering and exploring, looking for the next semblance of something interesting, only to stumble onto some incredibly interesting but nonetheless optional, is one of the best things about DS1 and 2
If you play bloodborne again pick axe as first wepon and you will love the first zone
I've played through the game with all three starting weapons start to finish. It's not about the weapon, it's about the layout. I did enjoy the axe most, though lol
@@solarpellets oh ok looking back the starting zone in bloodborne was very difficult compared to other souls games. But damn bb was good
@@oskarszile4372 it's not about the difficulty at all, it's why it's difficult. For example, the lower burg is difficult for a similar reason, arguably more difficult, because it gives you a bunch of fast enemies. The difference, however, is that this is bloodborne's teaching moment. It's teaching you to run in and be incredibly aggressive, as are the mechanics and speed of the game, while in the lower burg you're taught to slow down, look around, and strategize. I find the slower more methodical pace of DS1 more fun
@@solarpellets It sure is fun but sometimes you just want to give into the beast :)
On the other hand most my opinions on these games come from an artistic perspective i look for the design and music and story which bb just nailed.
And im sure there were areas in bloodborne where its better to take your rime and slowly methodicly go thru a level.
Speak for yourself, it's my favourite of the trilogy. Love ds2 tho!
I was explicitly speaking for myself lol
It makes "me" sad, just cause I preferred what DS1 and 2 did
@@solarpellets that's fair lol
ohh finally some criticism on ds3 and praise for ds2
I love DS3 but it's often treated like the best Souls just because it has cool bosses and weapons, forgetting all the flaws
Played through ds3 multiple times, tried multiple times to play through ds2 and I can't stand it. Worst game in the series by far
It objectively sucks so much eggs I don't understand how some people have fun playing that dumpster fire
fun fact: art cannot be objectively bad by definition. The very fact that people like DS2 proves that it is not objectively bad. Just because you're bad at it doesn't mean other people can't like it :3
@@solarpellets I’m not bad at it, I killed almost every single boss first try. Difficulty is not the problem, also muh art is subjective is such a cringe throwaway reddit opinion.
you sound really cute 🥺
I like to think I am :3
Garbage souls 3 definition of garbage
I wish Dark Souls three was better than it is.
Why the heck do u like dark souls 2 its dogwater 😂 compared to every other fromsoft game
Ds2 is a mixed bag, the movement can feel off while first playing but you get used to it and it becomes second nature after a while, the game enforces positioning and avoiding sabotages which is different to the other games, in my personal opinion I also think that ds2 is gorgeous (Heides Tower of flame comes into my mind). What is it that shifts your opinion to think it’s bad and why? Not trying to argue over it my best friend despises ds2 lol
@@LeeG2 first off the clunkiness of the characters from a result of the cost stamina per swing is ridiculous compared to the other titles also the recovery of stamina and the horrible hitboxes. The other thing that bothers me is the level design sure all the areas connect to majula but other times u got areas like iron keep directly above a godamn windmill like that makes 0 sense. If you've ever played ds1 or bloodborne you can see where I'm coming from
I do agree, however the hitboxes I find are exaggerated by lots of people, ds3 has som hitboxes that are bad or even worse, and I love the level design, I have also never really noticed that much stamina being gone per swing but I do think some level transitions are whack lol, I’m neutral on ds2 but I think it is over hated. The clunky movements of the character is easy to get used to
The stamina management is one of the best parts of the game, and is one of the things I miss most from DS3, but they couldn't possibly reinstate it without dramatically altering every part of the game (probably for the better tbh) so that just culminates into a lot of problems I have with the game, but especially the absurd amount of enemies that are just dumped on you. DS2 hitboxes aren't perfect, but after spending several hundred hours in all the games, they're all just as imperfect. DS3 has it's fair share of shitboxes, and DS1, despite being the best game in the series by far, isn't immune to that, either. The world design is fascinating and surprising in ways that wouldn't be possible if it made more sense. Sure, it's not physically possible, but I really don't care, that just makes the next turn even more surprising. In DS1, you go into a cave and, whoop-de-doo, you get a cave. In DS2 you go up, but instead of getting a roof, you get a massive castle flooded with lava and a burning landscape all around. That's awesome, genuinely one of my favorite parts of the game.
@solarpellets In my opinion the transition to iron keep is pretty whack lol 😂
Should be retitled "Dark Souls 3 Enemy Placement Makes Me Sad" It's disappointing that you only really criticized the enemy placement and nothing else, like the lack of getting lost that ds1 and 2 have. I also notice you dislike being bombarded with enemies, which is the same as ds2?? I'd like to know why you think it's different.
Because in DS2 you're taught to avoid being surrounded, that's the entire point of the enemy placement in that game. DS3 forces you to be surrounded. Also, it's kinda hard to get lost in any of the early levels in any of the games, and DS3 can get confusing sometimes, places like the profaned capital come to mind, but largely I agree that the levels themselves are way too linear, let alone the level to level progression.
Ds3 will always be my favourite dispute the level design
How to invalidate anything you say in 30seconds. DS2 level design is hot garbage.
That's a nice argument
You wanna back it up with... Literally anything?
@@solarpellets Horse butt fuck alley. The red phantom gank stairs. I can go on forever ds2 has some sorta awful design in every level without fail.
@@seikanekasin the dlc sucks, sure, but the base game is great. No man's wharf, the forest, shaded woods, earthen peak, that one is literally called peak, drangleic Castle, like the game is really good, just cause heide's can be boring or that one section of sinner's rise is a little too hard for you doesn't mean the game is bad
@@solarpellets The game isn't hard stop coping. You have unlimited healing. The problem is the levels are unfair to make up for a lake of meaningful difficulty. And the Base game is just as gank heavy with boring sub par level design. Futhermore if you think ds2 is hard you must be using your dick to play because every build is so fucking broken that the game can play itself.
Ds3 is easily the worst soulsborne game
It seems like a fair amount of the points of critic made in this video were points of praise in the ds2 video, specifically the issues pertaining to crowd control and 'teaching' players how to deal with ambush events. You can't simultaneously say ds2 teaches you how to crowd control and how to be observant, and then when ds3 practically does the same thing it's somehow bad design. There also a lot of claims of 'this thing is bad' but then there is never a concrete provided reason as to why xyz is a bad thing. At 4:00 you could make the argument DS3 is 'teaching' the player to turn back from the 5 enemies and go up the stairs, which if doing so the dragon would kill every single enemy down in that area you had a complaint about plus the ones on the area above the stairs. You can't say its bad design and disagree with the assumptions you make about what the game is seemingly trying to teach players, and then turn around and ignore clear points where the game provides the player with a solution.
You're completely misunderstanding what I meant if you actually think I said DS2 and 3 had anything similar having to do with enemy placement and combat. They both teach the player how to deal with ambushes, sure, but DS2 teaches you to prevent them entirely, DS3 teaches you how to get out of them or survive them. DS2's way of ambushing the player is vastly more fun for me, that was the entire point of this video and the other.
ds3 is an interesting game,level design its the worst one made, but it does have some of the best boss fights. midir, gael, and lothric are very cool
I know it's not a common opinion, but Gael and Midir are some of my least favorite fights in the series lol. Both are far too easy and far too long, so it just becomes boring. If they were shorter fights I'd enjoy them much more, but as is, they're just kinda not fun, imo. Lothric and Lorian is one of my favorite fights in the series, though.
I agree with most of the points in the video I really don't like this game just likes to put a group of enemies into a choke point with a big guy behind them and especially after ds2 where you can avoid getting overwhelmed by just looking around yourself (my favorite example of this is probably the end of undead crypt in the hall with the Dragonrider where there are there hollows hidden trying to hit the bell under the stairs) but every time I try to bring this point up nobody wants to listen and think I don't like ds3 just to spite them or try to be different
There's a lot of projection for DS2 going on in this video about DS3. Like the part where you said that DS3's backstabs are "finnicky" (despite trying to backstab with a heavy attack???). DS2 is the one and only game in the series where you can start the sync animation for a backstab, see your character lock into place, and have the enemy randomly cancel out of it and deny you your backstab for no reason. In DS3, backstabs work exactly like they should: You get into the right position, press the attack button, and a synced animation starts between you and the enemy. Moreover, in DS3, like in every other game in the series, you get full invincibility frames during backstabs, since they're long animations that you can't cancel out of. In DS2 you only get s during the second half of the backstab animation, for some reason? But the game never communicates that to you or tells you why.
Or how you keep saying that DS3 is built around you being ambushed constantly or expects you to fight multiple enemies, yet you openly state that you try to run past all enemies whenever you play and don't have the patience to wait for one to move away from another. The reason that works in DS2 is because DS2's combat is genuinely bad, and the game attempts to discourage you from engaging with it via a multitude of mechanics and design decisions, and much of the level design in DS2 is linear coridoors with no side-paths, whereas DS3 has very good combat, and the game knows it and attempts to get you to learn it and become skilled at it. Every situation in this video where you said you were ambushed or expected to fight through multiple enemies, there was another path available for you to take.
Like the part with the fire-breathing wyvern. You're expected to bait out the fire and run through it. As a matter of fact, you can even bait out the fire on the lower level where the group of enemies are blocking the way and have the wyvern kill them for you. Are there two enemies close to each other and you only want to fight one of them? Use a ranged attack to aggro a single one and pull it towards you. Even full-melee characters have access to ranged attacks via throwing knives and firebombs. That's been a core mechanic in all the Souls games since Demon's Souls.
DS2 has seemingly fewer ambushes because the game has massively greater amounts of enemies at all turns. Which is to say, instead of 1 enemy attacking you from behind because you ran past it, 8-15 enemies will aggro onto you and attack you at once when you walk into their room. In reality, however, DS2 has many more ambushes than any other game in the series. It's basically a meme. Most of the time when you open a chest or pick up an item in a corner, you'll be attacked by some enemy hiding just out of sight.
I have plenty to criticize about Dark Souls 3 as well, (the over-reliance on rolling to mitigate damage, armor being nearly useless, poise not existing at all, hyperarmor as a mechanic for both players and enemies, shields being very weak due to the huge stamina cost of blocking, all the enemies that emit ear-splitting screeches, etc) and I don't consider it the best game in the series either, but many of your criticisms about it in this particular video are simply the result of user error.
The attack just prior to talking about the backstab was a stab because the game tried to make me backstab because I was vaguely behind the enemy. But also, DS3 allows you to completely fail a backstab if the animation doesn't connect, it's infuriating because you don't choose when that animation happens. It just happens if you're "behind" the enemy.
I get ambushed in DS2 when I try to run past, too. I don't in DS2 when I go slow and play normally. I do in DS3 because the game is built around that. It's almost like "I usually sprint through" and "you have to be ambushed" were completely disconnected statements.
DS2 never unavoidably ambushes you. Ever. You will never have an enemy come from behind you if you're paying attention. Also, DS3 has significantly more enemies and the enemy placement is significantly compact. I suggest you play DS2 again, you seem to be misremembering it.
This entire video is exclusively focused on level design, critiquing other elements wouldn't have made sense
@@solarpellets ds3 isn’t built around ‘ambushes’. I’ve played through it about a half dozen times and can’t recall a moment where I felt overwhelmed by mobs or got ganked in such a way I felt like it was unfair. Compared to DS2 where enemy placement is genuinely infamous for how bad it is.
Like you can say DS3 is more linear and I’d agree, but the areas are well designed and threats are telegraphed well compared to DS1 and 2 outside of one or two instances in irythill dungeon. If you want to talk about bad level design, talk about the Frigid Outskirts.
@benguy8338 I never once said it was overwhelming or difficult or unfair, I literally only said that you will be ambushed because it's impossible to not be ambushed. I was never once unfairly ambushed in DS2 and if you were and didn't find it fun, you were playing it wrong.
@@solarpellets your logic literally doesn’t make any sense, if you’re going based purely off whether there are encounters you can’t avoid then DS2, again, is infinitely worse in that regard. You talk about playing as intended in the video and how DS3 punishes you for it, but you’re using what’s essential a tutorial level that’s naturally teaching you to think about encounters before engaging in a crowd as a negative because as you said, your playstyle involves running past things (there’s also multiple spells in the game that help you do that, including one you can start with).
It’s fine to say you like DS2 more but most your examples in the video you could make the same case for tons of areas in the first 2 games, it really comes off as though you’re just bitter more people like DS3 over DS2.
@@benguy8338 I never said DS3 punishes you for anything. I never said my play style involves running past enemies. I said DS3 forces you to be ambushed. I never said that's bad. I said that DS2 never forces you to be ambushed, which is only untrue in circumstances where one or two enemies drop from the ceiling, and the enemies only ever drop in front of you, meaning you'll never be surrounded because DS2 is not built for that. You will be surrounded in DS3. That's not a punishment for the game, it's just how the game is built. I said I run past enemies when I replay the game so my understanding of the level might need a refresher, which is what happened in this video. My opinion changed multiple times throughout its course. DS3 does not punish you, groups of enemies are not bad, I just don't like how DS3's encounters are set up as much as DS2's. Also, if you truly think you're supposed to think about encounters before engaging then you should agree with me. There are multiple instances in this video where I very explicitly point out why it's impossible to anticipate and think about an encounter before engaging. I cannot fathom why so many people are mindlessly defending DS3, especially from things that I never said.