Current Events > Dark souls 3 is worst because it's way too short

(+) Yeah! (+)

Beat the game in 35 hours. Ds2 took me 80 and ds1 took me 70. In 3, by the time you can upgrade a weapon to +10, game is basically over.
---

That's not the only reason why it's the worst.

Ds1 is the worst because blight town, and the entire second half of the game

Also has some or the worst bosses in souls history
---

None of the souls game should be taking you more than ~40 hours on a first play through so perhaps you were just shit at DS1 and 2 and things clicked for you finally in 3

nah, it's the best one.

I haven't played DS2 in years, but DS1 should have been shorter, considering how much weaker its second half was in relation to the first half.
---

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

Dash_Harber posted...

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

This is one of the worst series rankings ive ever seen tbh

SoundNetwork posted...

blight town

Why's Blight Town so bad?
---

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

This is one of the worst series rankings ive ever seen tbh

Luckily, ranking games are entirely subjective. I also should point out that even the worse game in the series is still a pretty great game in its own right, and that Bloodborne's status as a 'love it or hate it' for fans is pretty common.

Schwarz posted...

SoundNetwork posted...

blight town

Why's Blight Town so bad?

On PS3 and 360 the framerate would go to absolute shit, especially when you were down in the swamp, otherwise most people tend to just hate the poison swamp areas in these games

Dash_Harber posted...

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

This is one of the worst series rankings ive ever seen tbh

Luckily, ranking games are entirely subjective. I also should point out that even the worse game in the series is still a pretty great game in its own right, and that Bloodborne's status as a 'love it or hate it' for fans is pretty common.

Having DS2 above anything is objectively wrong though, the only good parts of the game were the DLCs and even those didnt really match DS1, DS3, or BBs DLC quality

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

This is one of the worst series rankings ive ever seen tbh

Luckily, ranking games are entirely subjective. I also should point out that even the worse game in the series is still a pretty great game in its own right, and that Bloodborne's status as a 'love it or hate it' for fans is pretty common.

Having DS2 above anything is objectively wrong though, the only good parts of the game were the DLCs and even those didnt really match DS1, DS3, or BBs DLC quality

It's not objectively wrong, it's just my opinion. I felt that DS2 refined the mutliplayer of DS1, which was fun, but flawed. The covenant system was greatly improved. I also liked the addition of some more high fantasy settings and felt like there were more puzzles that relied on interacting with the environment, which I felt was a strong suit of the series and something that DS3 really lacked. It felt more akin to a D&D experience, and I liked that.

DS3, on the other hand, suffered from relying too heavily on nostalgia. It was incredibly linear for a Souls game, and many of the bosses were unimaginative. The puzzles and backtracking were almost impossibly rare, as well.

Bloodborne was good, but honestly, it just wasn't my thing. I didn't enjoy the combat as much and the setting got super repetitive and heavy-handed about halfway through. I also hated the reliance on the stereotypical 'fast, flippy humanoid that turns into a giant abomination' boss types that seemed to be so common (or even the 'giant, slow tank' bosses).

I love all of them. I don't get why it always has to be a dick measuring contest lol.
---

Touch posted...

I love all of them. I don't get why it always has to be a dick measuring contest lol.

I'm not really sure where you get dick measuring contest out of this. We are clearly all fans of the series, and we all like to talk about it. Sometimes disagreeing about how everyone interprets a series is very fulfilling and interesting because you get to put your views into words and you also get to see how other people might have viewed things differently.

it's not short. you just got gud at them by the time part 3 rolled around.
---

Schwarz posted...

SoundNetwork posted...

blight town

Why's Blight Town so bad?

IMO, Blight Town is a decent area if you have the rusted ring
---

Captain_Qwark posted...

35 hours is standard for those game. You were just suuuuper sluggish in the first two

Ruddager posted...

None of the souls game should be taking you more than ~40 hours on a first play through so perhaps you were just shit at DS1 and 2 and things clicked for you finally in 3

I played 2 then 3 then 1. I like grinding and upgrading stuff and I felt like 3 gave the least opportunity for it. 2 was my favorite by a mile. I loved the variety in maps, the always on multiplayer, and the freedom and flexibility in builds. I played a hexer with a dark red iron twin blade and a lightning lance and wrecked shit.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Ruddager posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

I'd say it's the worst because of how linear it was and how unimaginave many of the bosses were. I cut it some slack since it was supposed to be the series grand finale, and so a lot of the elements were homages to previous elements, but it just failed to do anything new with any of it. Honestly, Demon's Souls is the best, DS1 and DS2 are tied for second, then 3, then Bloodborne, IMO.

This is one of the worst series rankings ive ever seen tbh

Luckily, ranking games are entirely subjective. I also should point out that even the worse game in the series is still a pretty great game in its own right, and that Bloodborne's status as a 'love it or hate it' for fans is pretty common.

Having DS2 above anything is objectively wrong though, the only good parts of the game were the DLCs and even those didnt really match DS1, DS3, or BBs DLC quality

It's not objectively wrong, it's just my opinion. I felt that DS2 refined the mutliplayer of DS1, which was fun, but flawed. The covenant system was greatly improved. I also liked the addition of some more high fantasy settings and felt like there were more puzzles that relied on interacting with the environment, which I felt was a strong suit of the series and something that DS3 really lacked. It felt more akin to a D&D experience, and I liked that.

DS3, on the other hand, suffered from relying too heavily on nostalgia. It was incredibly linear for a Souls game, and many of the bosses were unimaginative. The puzzles and backtracking were almost impossibly rare, as well.

Bloodborne was good, but honestly, it just wasn't my thing. I didn't enjoy the combat as much and the setting got super repetitive and heavy-handed about halfway through. I also hated the reliance on the stereotypical 'fast, flippy humanoid that turns into a giant abomination' boss types that seemed to be so common (or even the 'giant, slow tank' bosses).

When have puzzles ever been a part of the series let alone a "strong suit"? I will agree that pvp was greatly improved in 2 but the single player experience was extremely underwhelming and 2 was just as linear as 3 was imo, you had Majula as a hub surrounded by 4 or 5 extremely linear spokes and the level design was pretty trash, too many bonfires as well.

3 absolutely relied too much on callbacks to DS1 but depite having less bosses the variety was a large improvement over 2 where nearly all bosses can be described as humanoid thing in armor with large sword.

Besides Father Gascoigne there were no other bosses in BB that wen from human to beast and besides The One Reborn there were no slow tanky bosses. Slow is the exact opposite of basically everything in BB. Say what you will about the setting but the level design/world design is second to only DS1.

I need a ps4 for bloodbourne
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

I need a ps4 for bloodbourne

You really do, its the best in the series with the DLC, base game is a little short by itself but the DLC is literally a masterpiece, up there with the Witcher 3 for best DLC ever released

DS3 did seem a bit short. I feel like the full version with DLC matches up with the DS2 vanilla. DS2 with DLC is absurdly huge.

Then again DS3 never really padded the length like the other games did, such as throwing enemy-soup at you or long empty areas. It flows the best.

That said, I felt Profaned Capital, King's Garden, and Smoldering Lake had pretty weak showings. Going in, I expected those areas to offer more of an adventure (Smoldering Lake would get a pass on length if it wasn't just a copy and paste of the Catacombs).
---

Ruddager posted...

When have puzzles ever been a part of the series let alone a "strong suit"?

In 2, and I enjoyed that.

Ruddager posted...

you had Majula as a hub surrounded by 4 or 5 extremely linear spokes and the level design was pretty trash, too many bonfires as well.

Which is still better than DS3, which just had one spoke masquerading as multiple spokes.

Ruddager posted...

3 absolutely relied too much on callbacks to DS1 but depite having less bosses the variety was a large improvement over 2 where nearly all bosses can be described as humanoid thing in armor with large sword.

Like I said, it's the level design that I preferred about 2. That's not to mention the tradition of puzzle bosses that dates back to Demon's Souls. Also, while knights were common, a lot of them function pretty differently. On top of that, you had a ton of different enemy types, like giants, dragons, spider enemies, etc.

Ruddager posted...

Besides Father Gascoigne there were no other bosses in BB that wen from human to beast and besides The One Reborn there were no slow tanky bosses. Slow is the exact opposite of basically everything in BB. Say what you will about the setting but the level design/world design is second to only DS1.

Maybe I described it wrong. The bosses almost all behave in one of two ways (or a combination), fast flippy guys that can backflip across the arena, or giant shambling tanks.

It took me over 50 hours to beat DS3 but i did grind, experiment, explore and die a lot. Basically took my time and it felt about right length wise.
---

Ruddager posted...

On PS3 and 360 the framerate would go to absolute shit,

Ohh, never had this problem myself. And the area's not like nasty unfair, so I always wondered.

boxington posted...

IMO, Blight Town is a decent area if you have the rusted ring

v tru
---

Blightown I just used the elevator to skip over a bunch
---

DS1 is the GOAT. DS3 is fun to playthrough. DS2 is not.
---

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.
---

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.
---

ds2 is probably my favorite in the franchise but im not too far into ds1 so my opinion is subject to change
---

Zodd3224 posted...

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.

False. DS2 was best in series because of the amount of content.
---

Dark Souls 3 was my second favorite. Probably the combination of decent graphics and 60fps on PC? I dunno. Didn't run into many hackers or morons and enjoyed my time as a faith/dex build.

Dark souls 2 was probably my third favorite but I got bored. It was too padded and too many sub-bosses that were just mob enemies reskinned or repurposed.

Dark Souls 1 had the best atmosphere but the omni-rolling and meta changes in the next two spoiled me on return visits. I also only ever experienced it on PC, and the PTD port was godawful joke tier.

Demons Souls was my favorite. Fight me.
---

Ruddager posted...

On PS3 and 360

lol
---

IMO - Bloodborne Dark Souls 3 > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls Dark Souls 2
---

ds2 is the worst because it goes on for an eternity while simultaneously having next to no thought put into about 80% of its levels
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.

False. DS2 was best in series because of the amount of content.

I would rather have less content that is actually good than have a bigger pile of shit
---

Forgot all about bloodborne. That was excellent, but I have a launch ps3. The 24fps and stuttering/loading really killed it for me. Need to get a Pro, or an SSD for it.
---

DS2 isnt actually shit. But the base game PvE is shit in comparison to DS1 and DS3. The DLCs and the PvP are really good.
---

boxington posted...

IMO - Bloodborne Dark Souls 3 > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls Dark Souls 2

---

Zodd3224 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.

False. DS2 was best in series because of the amount of content.

I would rather have less content that is actually good than have a bigger pile of shit

Nah. Like I said, in 3 youre end game by the time you get a single weapon upgraded. Ds2 I had a +10 pretty early and was able to play with a ton of builds. And you had tons of pvp encounters and invasions with how the multiplayer worked. Thats the fun of those games so ds2 was the best.
---

boxington posted...

nah, it's the best one.

Preach it
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.

False. DS2 was best in series because of the amount of content.

I would rather have less content that is actually good than have a bigger pile of shit

Nah. Like I said, in 3 youre end game by the time you get a single weapon upgraded. Ds2 I had a +10 pretty early and was able to play with a ton of builds. And you had tons of pvp encounters and invasions with how the multiplayer worked. Thats the fun of those games so ds2 was the best.

Invasions were broken in 2, they never happened, lol. Invasions in 3 are 10x better.

DS2 and DS3 are frustrating with their linearity, DS3 moreso. But its still a better game.
---

I am actually starting a new DS2 playthrough. I just beat DS1 today.
---

Zodd3224 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

snesmaster40 posted...

I think Dark Souls 3 feels shorter, because it's also faster than the other games.

Dark Souls 2 is proof that quantity is not better than quality.

False. DS2 was best in series because of the amount of content.

I would rather have less content that is actually good than have a bigger pile of shit

Nah. Like I said, in 3 youre end game by the time you get a single weapon upgraded. Ds2 I had a +10 pretty early and was able to play with a ton of builds. And you had tons of pvp encounters and invasions with how the multiplayer worked. Thats the fun of those games so ds2 was the best.

Invasions were broken in 2, they never happened, lol. Invasions in 3 are 10x better.

DS2 and DS3 are frustrating with their linearity, DS3 moreso. But its still a better game.

They were fine for me. I only played Scholar of First Sin though.
---

Why do Greirat and Siegward have to die
---

Ruddager posted...

None of the souls game should be taking you more than ~40 hours on a first play through so perhaps you were just shit at DS1 and 2 and things clicked for you finally in 3

What

I spent well over 100 hours on each first playthrough. Like 120-150.

kuwab0 posted...

Why do Greirat and Siegward have to die

---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Ruddager posted...

None of the souls game should be taking you more than ~40 hours on a first play through so perhaps you were just shit at DS1 and 2 and things clicked for you finally in 3

What

I spent well over 100 hours on each first playthrough. Like 120-150.

Then you either went incredibly slow or you were not very good and never got better. 120-150 is beyond even regular big jrpg game playtime

Ruddager posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Ruddager posted...

None of the souls game should be taking you more than ~40 hours on a first play through so perhaps you were just shit at DS1 and 2 and things clicked for you finally in 3

What

I spent well over 100 hours on each first playthrough. Like 120-150.

Then you either went incredibly slow or you were not very good and never got better. 120-150 is beyond even regular big jrpg game playtime

I was a completionist and I also spent a lot of time comparing items, testing tactics/spells, doing PvP, etc.