OP
OP
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dark Souls 1 seems to be looked upon fondly? I can't help but criticise it for all its flaws.
- Thread starter Much
- Start date
I never playes any of the Souls games until Bloodborne.
I didnt get into Bloodborne at first either but after a 2 week break it clicked and it became one of my favorite games this gen.
I went back to DS3 and didnt like it at all.
I think going from DS gameplay to BB works well, but vice versa not so much.
I also didnt like the visual design as much.
I see the appeal, but I cant help but be frustrated with how the gameplay is different from BB.
I even heared a lot of people say BB makes people better DS players. Maybe I am just not good enough for that.
I didnt get into Bloodborne at first either but after a 2 week break it clicked and it became one of my favorite games this gen.
I went back to DS3 and didnt like it at all.
I think going from DS gameplay to BB works well, but vice versa not so much.
I also didnt like the visual design as much.
I see the appeal, but I cant help but be frustrated with how the gameplay is different from BB.
I even heared a lot of people say BB makes people better DS players. Maybe I am just not good enough for that.
That's possible. I played the first time on PC, and although it wasn't locked 60, it wasn't a mess either.
That too. And when you get back to firelink shrine only to find the fire keeper dead? Oh man!
As someone who played DS1 after DS3 the main thing I disliked about DS1 were the boss fights. My favorite fights in the series were Slave Knight Gael, Abyss Watchers, and Champion Gundyr. Besides Ornstein and Smough, and Artorias DS1 didn't have any bosses that I really enjoyed fighting or learning the patterns for. The level design in DS1 is great though.
Last edited:
I think the leveldesign in soulsborne games is a bit overrated. I mean it's not that genius to connect levels via elevators and unpassable gates until you unlock them from the other side.
Soulsborne games have other strenghts, but i consider the leveldesign not one of them.
Soulsborne games have other strenghts, but i consider the leveldesign not one of them.
I'm not even a big fan of Souls games but I disagree with most of what you said EXCEPT your feelings on the controls. The stiffness and clunkiness is what made me bounce off of Demon's Souls initially. I eventually grew to enjoy these games in spite of such a major shortcoming though it helped that their games have gotten dramatically better in that regard
Not true at all. The second half of the game is universally disliked and is considered really poor design in many areas.
First time I played it I went through Tomb of Giants way underleveled and without a light source, only to encounter a locked door and be forced to backtrack all the way to the entrance. Good times lol.
Yup, I was gonna guess you had. That's the whole reason I have that theory: I noticed that PC players tended to like Blighttown more often than console players.
Weirdly I notice this happens to me too. I'll subconsciously not have as much fun and wonder why and then find out, oh, it's the framerate difference. For whatever reason though, at the time it didn't bug me with Dark Souls.
OP
OP
Thanks for your input, it didn't really add to the discussion. I appreciate other posts since it's changing my mind quite well. Just quite frustrated with the last quarter.
Eh. I think New Londo Ruins, Painted World, Catacombs, Tomb of the Giants, and Duke's Archives are muuuuuch better levels than Undead Burg and Darkroot. In fact, the first three I just named are among my favourite levels in the whole game.
In fact I think Darkroot is one of the worst levels in the game. It's nice how it's all interconnected but it's a flat-out chore to go through. The hydra area in particular is a big slog.
The "second half of the game sucks" meme needs to die, tbh. Only the Demon Ruins -> Lost Izalith stretch is significantly worse than the first half.
Comparing the game to sequels (and Bloodborne is very much a sequel in spirit) is like saying Super Mario 64 sucks because Mario Galaxy has better production values and made natural improvements
Video viewcounts have no barring on the quality of the game. Case in point, here's a video on how to get your first weapon in Bloodborne. With 33,000 views.
As a first time player of dark souls 1 i can see some of the flaws you mention, its a little unfair comparing it to the newer games but hey this is a new release after all too, i agree the game falls flat after anor londo, the bosses are nowhere the excitment of the new entries (expect for smoul, artorias aNd manius) the combat is a little stiff, i like the conected world but honestly its the only thing that i can really apraise.
If i have to give a note i would rate:
Dark souls remastered - 88
Dark souls 3- 95
Bloodborne - 99 (framerate and chalice dungeons)
If i have to give a note i would rate:
Dark souls remastered - 88
Dark souls 3- 95
Bloodborne - 99 (framerate and chalice dungeons)
I think sometimes by the second quarter also, you're used to being better at the games so it starts to not frustrate you any more. However then it starts throwing new stuff at you that gets frustrating again, and you hage to readjust and take it serious again. This happens to me any time I replay the game.
I will say I definitely appreciate Bloodborne's semi linearity. I think for what it aims for, it's literally perfect. Actually it and Halo: CE compete for my favorite game of all time.
But Dark Souls has some experiences that Bloodborne could never give me, and part of that is the really tough levels. Where the levels themselves were foreboding.
I mean, how lame would Tomb of the Giants be if you could see all the pitfalls, and if almost all of them weren't deadly? It would be like watching a horror movie with the lights off and someone coming in and turning all the lights on and talking over it. It would suck. It's no longer scary. Because instantly it's just a game to be completed, and no longer a terrifying experience to be had.
To be fair, it isn't that uncommon to not notice the weapons there and continue playing without them.
Man that's so crazy to me though. First thing I always do in a hub world is explore the hub.
It would benefit you all in online discussion and in real life to not use absolute statements all the time. They reinforce depression.
After playing Bloodborne, I don't even feel like going back to Dark Souls.
The first Dark Souls, it is what it is tbh. The sequel improved upon that after. Simple as that for me.
The first Dark Souls, it is what it is tbh. The sequel improved upon that after. Simple as that for me.
Yeah it kind of is, but I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Sometimes people just miss these right in front of them, I've had some ladders elude me before lol.
I think you are going to be unique with that Duke's Archives mention. The Undead Burg and Parish are so awe inspiring to a new player. Duke's Archives are fatiguing to any existing player. I hate them. :D
See, I'm the opposite. Played the Remastered version after beating it in 2011 and it's as good as ever. The DLC was new to me and probably my favorite part. Masterful game.
My point is that going by the OPs logic the level design of the begining is poor. There's identical videos to what their talking about for bloodborne. How to get to the Forbidden Woods has 168,000 view, Cainhurst Castle 324,000, etc. Its just the nature of the Souls games.
The Duke's Archives are... frustrating.
The initial enemy gauntlet (why are these pigs here?) is bad. The fake-out boss encounter and mandatory death is really really fucking bad and I think everyone's glad they learned their lesson and will hopefully never pull this sort of stunt again. The prison escape is kind of mediocre. The Crystal Cave is awful, and like I said earlier, basically gets a pass because it's visually interesting and you can completely skip it if you've done it once.
That main rooms with the rotating staircases, though? That's pretty good. That's the closest the back half of the game gets to the best design principles of the first half.
Ladders are fair. I've missed really obvious stuff before too. I just can't imagine missing a shiny. Video games have trained me to be hyper aware of shinies.
wat..I mean how what a terrible take. I don't understand how you have to spend that long to find your way to the next bonfire. That's not indicative of poor design, that's just poor gameplay
You can run circles around the dude. Seath is one of the easiest bosses. I've never been cursed in Dark Souls. You have to go out of your way to let the bar the fill up till you're cursed.
I mean really...You're gonna stop in the one area that's filled with bones and skulls in a level that has respawning skeletons, necromancers etc. and then get mad cause you couldn't stop to sip some orange juice?
OP
OP
THANK YOU. I've said it's great before hand, but it goes downhill drastically afterwards.
At first glance, they kind of just look like tutorial/player messages. Ain't nobody got time for that.
if you think the level design in Dark Souls is poor i'm sorry to say that the level design in every videogame ever is even worse
Also, playing it recently, i couldn't disagree more that it aged poorly. It still has great controls, great level design, fantastic vistas, the best story in the series, i mean, yeah i think i disagree with everything
Also, playing it recently, i couldn't disagree more that it aged poorly. It still has great controls, great level design, fantastic vistas, the best story in the series, i mean, yeah i think i disagree with everything
It can happen, I happened to be mucking around on NG+ and forgot that my gear had terrible curse resist. Oops. But to me this was a sign to go do New Londo and its asshole ghosts since I was cursed anyway. There's some little things like that I really appreciated doing a 100% of the game with the remaster.
Hmm. You have a point. See, I haven't been a "new player" in so long, for me, the Burg is just eh, a tiny-ass area where, even if you are completist and kill/loot everything, is over in a few minutes, whereas the Dukes' Archives is still challenging and kinda cool.
But for a new player the perspective is different. The Burg the very first time was certainly more interesting. It doesn't hold up on replays though, unlike 1-1, Central Yharnam, High Wall of Lothric, and yes (don't @ me people) the Forest of Fallen Giants. I mean, it's okay, but nothing exceptional.
Yes, that's the part I had in mind. You're right that the mandatory death is bullshit, and the boars are annoying.
OP
OP
You left out the part that followed on that quote. Let's have an open discussion, not one that barrages me with gifs that add nothing to the discussion, thank you.
This isn't even a controversial point, it's pretty much widely accepted that the back-half of the game is just not of the same quality as the first (everything up to Anor Londo). Hell, we still shit on the Demon Ruins and the Bed of Choas.
Dark Souls 3 is the best IMO. Did you say you haven't played DS2? Because, I'd love to hear your opinion on that game.
I feel you OP, and find kind of hilarious those "But it's supposed to be that way!" replies
From must be the only Studio in the World that gets away with Poor design. They struck gold releasing DS in the era of extreme handholding.
And let's not forget all those out of nowhere cheap deaths you're supposed to be able to foresee because fuck you, Git gud
From must be the only Studio in the World that gets away with Poor design. They struck gold releasing DS in the era of extreme handholding.
And let's not forget all those out of nowhere cheap deaths you're supposed to be able to foresee because fuck you, Git gud
This for sure I like a lot of those later areas. It's really just those two that are a step down compared to the rest.
New Londo, Catacombs and Painted World are better than anything up to Anor Londo. >.>
Duke's Archives? Terrible? I cant agree. The forced death is a bit of a dick move, but the prison and library are still pretty cool. I love how you escape the prison by basically grabbing the keys behind the guard's back.
I dont understand how you got lost in the Archives though. It's very linear except for the staircase area. Even then, you can find your way through by taking it slow.
I dont understand how you got lost in the Archives though. It's very linear except for the staircase area. Even then, you can find your way through by taking it slow.
Dark Souls 3 is so good, I can see going back to 1 feeling a little outdated if you started with 3 and Bloodborne. Can't agree with bad level design post AL though unless you're only counting Izalith for some reason and I don't even hate that except the boss
Eh. As someone who played through the series as it came out, I think I've come to the conclusion that some of the areas in Dark Souls 3 peak way higher in quality than the best of Dark Souls.
However, I, like many, valued how the overall world of Dark Souls was designed to be compact and intertwined with itself, which was lost in its sequels. You can see in Dark Souls 1 they had the ability to design amazing standalone levers with the Painted World of Ariamis, but for most of the game opted for a more connected world.
I also think many of the bosses in Dark Souls 3 are much more fun and varied compared to Dark Souls, though I wouldn't knock Dark Souls' best bosses either. Artorias of the Abyss contains 3 or 4 of the best bosses in the series.
One thing I will say is that way too many people lump the rest of the post Anor Londo areas with Lost Izalith. New Londo is awesome, Tomb of the Giants is good albeit intentionally annoying, and the Duke's Archives is alright.
Lost Izalith is pretty trash, although after the lava lake I actually REALLY love its design and aesthetic. Just wish there was more of that with less chubby statues and less lava lake dragon legs.
Dark Souls 3 is far more refined, but unlike Dark Souls 2, doesn't stand on its own very well without Dark Souls 1. Which is why, in my mind, I can't decided whether Dark Souls or Dark Souls 3 is better.
However, I, like many, valued how the overall world of Dark Souls was designed to be compact and intertwined with itself, which was lost in its sequels. You can see in Dark Souls 1 they had the ability to design amazing standalone levers with the Painted World of Ariamis, but for most of the game opted for a more connected world.
I also think many of the bosses in Dark Souls 3 are much more fun and varied compared to Dark Souls, though I wouldn't knock Dark Souls' best bosses either. Artorias of the Abyss contains 3 or 4 of the best bosses in the series.
One thing I will say is that way too many people lump the rest of the post Anor Londo areas with Lost Izalith. New Londo is awesome, Tomb of the Giants is good albeit intentionally annoying, and the Duke's Archives is alright.
Lost Izalith is pretty trash, although after the lava lake I actually REALLY love its design and aesthetic. Just wish there was more of that with less chubby statues and less lava lake dragon legs.
Dark Souls 3 is far more refined, but unlike Dark Souls 2, doesn't stand on its own very well without Dark Souls 1. Which is why, in my mind, I can't decided whether Dark Souls or Dark Souls 3 is better.
Last edited:
Your TL;DR summary sums up my feelings. Like you I played the game after spending hundreds of hours with BB/DS3. I'm glad I got the opportunity to play it but I won't be taking it to NG7.
It's sad to see a thread in which the OP actually makes an effort to explain why he thinks x or y are bad and people either don't bother to read or reply "ur wrong lol" without even trying to make an argument as to why.
I actually agree with you, OP. Of the mandatory areas, the whole second half of the game sucks, at least when it comes to level design and enemy positioning. I made a post about it last month:
I actually agree with you, OP. Of the mandatory areas, the whole second half of the game sucks, at least when it comes to level design and enemy positioning. I made a post about it last month:
OP
OP
Nope, but I do plan to pick it up on sale sometime soon. Need a bit of relief from Soulsborne for a bit though after this remaster. Been playing it straight since May or whenever Bloodborne came out on PS+. I'm bot even hating Dark Souls 1. It's an enjoyable game, that given evidence of this thread, is put on a pedestal where any criticism is invalid. I'm allowed to criticise the game, even if that means talknig about it's level design. It's mostly great and exceptional even, just not after Anor Londo.
Me rolling and getting hit shouldn't be a norm. It doesn't happen in the future games as much, so why can't I criticise the first game for it? :P