I saw the blurb and that guy said he felt DS3 didn't have enough exploration and hidden side paths, which is definitely not what I've been hearing from people playing the game. Also, that guy gave DS2 a 9/10, and while I have no problem with that, as I actually like DS2 just as much as the other Soulsborne games, it does mean he's probably not on the same page as a lot of people who play these games.
That aggregate of reviews have his as the only one lower than 8/10, most of them being 8.5+. Seems his opinion is a bit of an outlier.
He's definitely not on the same page with a lot of people. He says the bosses are the hardest the series has had, but the consensus on the DS3 subreddit is that they need to patch the bosses to have more health, because the first 1/3rd of the bosses die in so few hits, and even the later ones are often too easy.
From what I've read, he's right on about the overall linearity, in that there isn't really a "tackle things in a different order" potential the way the previous games have had, but at the same time, I've heard each individual area is really large with tons of shortcuts and verticality, etc.
It's more like the overall order you do areas in is linear, but each one is not just a linear path through it. Kind of like each area is a huge area like a Demon's soul world, but you don't get to choose the order in which you do them. That's at least the impression I've gotten reading stuff online.
There's a ton of DS2 mechanics in DS3 as well, but in terms of combat speed and enemy aggression, it's definitely melded with Bloodborne.
0
Options
HalibutPassion FishSwimming in obscurity.Registered Userregular
The only thing I don't like about invasions is that there is an inherent build disparity between the invader and the invaded. Even if all other things were equal (soul level, skill, availability of equipment), the invader will be built for killing other players, and the invadee will almost always be built for PVE.
That said, I don't mind being invaded as long as it's only once or twice in a play session. Seeing the message pop up is always thrilling. Very few games induce actual panic the way invasions in Dark Souls do, and I wouldn't want that to go away. The way DS2 handled invasions (even in soul form) was awesome in that regard.
Also, I don't mind getting summoned into someone else's world (like ratbros) since there's basically no risk when you die.
I don't know where this idea that invaders are always using min/maxed PvP builds and invadees are using whatever a PvE build is supposed to be came from, but it's just not true. A lot of people invade to get covenant rewards, and are not using some super pvp build.
I mean, if I invade you at SL40, you're SL40, you have cinder mode health buff, I don't. What disparity is supposed to be there? It's not like as you're playing through the game, people who like PvP have maxed out builds.
Especially in DS3, where if you're a sunbro and you invade you get sunlight medals for killing hosts. You're going to see me and others invading for fun fights and to get sunlight medals in case we're just tired of co-oping the same bosses and want to mix it up.
The idea that the SL30 guy invading you in the same newbie area you're in is going to be "built for pvp" is nonsense. Are there going to be people who rush to get the red eye orb, to get some weapon that's "good for pvp", etc.? Sure. But there's no twinking any more with the weapon upgrade level being factored in to matchmaking too. If you can't beat somebody with a 40% health boost, equal SL, and equal weapon upgrade level, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Gone are the days of twinks with +15 weapons invading you in undead burg and taking your lunch money.
Matchmaking is DS3 is SL based, plus it considers the upgrade level of your weapon. I don't know if it's just your equipped weapon at the time you invade or what though, so might be able to get around it if so. I'd hope they'd have considered that, but who knows. I'd hope it's based on the highest upgraded weapon you have in your inventory(not storage).
So invaders should be expected to be close to your SL, have a similarly upgraded weapon, and have 40% less max health than you. I believe phantoms come in with half their current number of estus charges, but they are able to heal themselves using estus this time around.
Also, password matchmaking ignores SL, but you are scaled to the host's level, in case you're much higher and helping co-op with somebody lower.
Joshmvii on
+1
Options
HalibutPassion FishSwimming in obscurity.Registered Userregular
I haven't played DS3, and am only speaking from experience with the previous games. The invasions where it was an even footing were few and far between. DS2 was slightly better than DS1 in that regard though.
The weapon level thing sounds like it has the potential to be a good solution (I've been mostly dark on DS3 for a while, so I didn't know about this change).
That video showcases some of the failures in the poise system in DS3 imo. When he hits people with the fireball, no matter what kind of armor they have, they're staggered so he can follow up with the whip immediately. Seems like they went with a system where poise does nothing unless you're inside of an attack animation, and then it modifies your hyper armor.
I don't think anybody wants to return to DS1 poise days, but if super high poise doesn't even stop a dagger R1 from staggering you when you're in a neutral stance, it's going to be pretty lame. Basically Demon's Souls.
Does DS3 have the stupid iframe stuff on the dodge roll from DS2 in it? I think that was my least favorite part of DS2, that I have to level up this other stat just so my dodge roll can actually have the iframes that it looks like it should have.
Another thing people who don't like invasions should be glad to know is that when you beat bosses in DS3 it puts the area into a state like DS2, post SotFS, where invasions are locked out. So if you wanted to just clear an area as fast as you could, kill the boss, then backtrack and explore it fully for items and such, you could do so with no fear of invasions in that area once the boss is dead.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to remove the limitation, so people who like to play around by running around the world looking for hotspots for invasion fun are out of luck.
Another thing people who don't like invasions should be glad to know is that when you beat bosses in DS3 it puts the area into a state like DS2, post SotFS, where invasions are locked out. So if you wanted to just clear an area as fast as you could, kill the boss, then backtrack and explore it fully for items and such, you could do so with no fear of invasions in that area once the boss is dead.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to remove the limitation, so people who like to play around by running around the world looking for hotspots for invasion fun are out of luck.
Even with the dried finger? If invasions are completely disabled like in Bloodborne that would super suck, but at least we can summon with soapstones.
As far as I know dried finger just resets invasion timer, as well as allowing a 2nd red phantom invader and an additional friendly phantom. Everything I've read indicates once you've killed a boss in an area, invasions are shut off for that area. And there's not an option to undo it at the bonfire like DS:SotFS had.
Does DS3 have the stupid iframe stuff on the dodge roll from DS2 in it? I think that was my least favorite part of DS2, that I have to level up this other stat just so my dodge roll can actually have the iframes that it looks like it should have.
It has iframes, but it's not stat based like DaS2. So far the consensus is that it's equipment load mostly, and there are actually items that can buff your iframes now.
More like unfortunate, which is one definition of regrettable, but another is unwelcome, so I feel like more specific word usage is helpful to delineate that we are talking about how it impacts me, and not that others may not welcome my dislike of PvP.
but it doesn't change the fact that it is a huge aspect of the game for a lot of people (myself included) and helps with selling a lot of copies of the game.
I am not claiming that at this point in time there isn't a moderately healthy amount of Dark Souls players coming to the games for PvP, specifically. However, since the key features don't expound on the type of PvP (non-consensual as well as consensual), any new players aren't easily informed of what they're in for (unless they do research like I did). That means that many potential player who enjoy hard games, or even just what boils down in many cases to intense puzzle mechanics via an action RPG, may not be fully informed of what they're getting in to. From just reading the store pages on Steam, for example, I could easily infer that the games allow PvP, but on my terms (primarily because there is no specific mention of the invasion mechanic). It would be most welcome to have easy to join covenants,
items, etc to be able to use to circumvent that discovery, instead of feeling like returning the game, having to fool around with work-arounds, etc. Joshmvii has mentioned, for example, that a certain miracle will allow a constrained amount of Co-Op while hollow, and that is an excellent start, as is the ability to clear a boss and thus free up an area of potential invasions.
It feels often like the PvP argument that happens so often here misses the mark; there are disagreements about how it is or isn't a key mechanic, or how the feel would totally be different, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is that those that don't want PvP aren't asking for the feature to go away, they just want to be easily excluded from it with some form of options inside a game, and not be punished for that decision (less health, less options, etc), instead of trying to understand firewalls or having to unplug their internet connection just to play the game in a way that they can appreciate. We don't want folks to miss out on PvP, we just don't want to be there with you. For some, it's an integral part of the game, while to others, it's a roadblock to enjoying the game, possibly even a stopping point.
That said, not every PvP mode in the game is griefing, and to say thus would be totally disingenuous. And it commonly comes across from my side of the camp that those who enjoy the PvP aspect are simply assholes getting off on others pain (because that's commonly how it feels to us). The problem comes from the frustration of repeatedly being told that those who don't like PvP are babies, whiners, carebears, etc. Also, being told that if we could opt out, that leaves less invasion targets (which as far as I can remember is only an argument I've seen elsewhere) is akin to saying that other players should suffer for your enjoyment, and that rubs us raw as well. Some of us are not looking to be anxious, or have our nerves frayed by continuous danger both from unknown areas ahead and the constant threat of invasion, and being told that obviously we're just wimps rubs our nerves so raw that every PvPer starts to sound like the same griefing asshole, regardless of it that's true or not. Being told of all the half-options or to "git gud" are not helpful (and thankfully the latter is not commonly used around here) when those options aren't really useful to or significantly detract from the experience of the entire player base. However, providing useful information about the current system (as Joshmvii and Kevin Crist in particualr have been doing) help to show that the developers know at least some of their fans are not into the invasions/PvP system, and are making changes that let us know we're valued as well.
Some of the player base (I'd be willing to bet about half) loves PvP while the the rest just don't, to some degree. The ones who dislike PvP aren't trying to take that element away from you (unless they are, but that's an extreme point of view that I'm going to assume in good faith no one here shares), and they aren't weak or lesser because they'd like options to avoid the experience, even if that experience is written in to the lore and enjoyed by many. Likewise, the people who enjoy PvP aren't saying that the other players should be forced to PvP (unless they are, which is an equally extreme point of view, and again I hope no one shares that either), they aren't cruel just because they personally enjoy invasions, either as the invadee or invader.
Most of what has been posted about DS3's PvP, as a whole, sounds considerably better than previous game's PvP options (though I have no ability to assess Bloodborne, so they may have started with that game). It doesn't mean they're great, but they might just be "good enough" to at least ameliorate problems many players seem to have, while doing as little damage to PvP fans' enjoyment as possible.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I saw the blurb and that guy said he felt DS3 didn't have enough exploration and hidden side paths, which is definitely not what I've been hearing from people playing the game. Also, that guy gave DS2 a 9/10, and while I have no problem with that, as I actually like DS2 just as much as the other Soulsborne games, it does mean he's probably not on the same page as a lot of people who play these games.
That aggregate of reviews have his as the only one lower than 8/10, most of them being 8.5+. Seems his opinion is a bit of an outlier.
He's definitely not on the same page with a lot of people. He says the bosses are the hardest the series has had, but the consensus on the DS3 subreddit is that they need to patch the bosses to have more health, because the first 1/3rd of the bosses die in so few hits, and even the later ones are often too easy.
From what I've read, he's right on about the overall linearity, in that there isn't really a "tackle things in a different order" potential the way the previous games have had, but at the same time, I've heard each individual area is really large with tons of shortcuts and verticality, etc.
It's more like the overall order you do areas in is linear, but each one is not just a linear path through it. Kind of like each area is a huge area like a Demon's soul world, but you don't get to choose the order in which you do them. That's at least the impression I've gotten reading stuff online.
yeah, the game has a ton of secrets and exploration. i'm loving discovering them all without any hints and tips. i was streaming and i hit 2 walls and then i was like well i might as well hit this third one... and found a secret covenant down a loooooooong ladder. it was amazing.
every chest could be a mimic! every wall could have secrets!
i am 40+ hours in and still on playthrough 1 though i think i'm close to the end. may have missed some areas not sure... definitely missed a lot of NPC stuff.
Does DS3 have the stupid iframe stuff on the dodge roll from DS2 in it? I think that was my least favorite part of DS2, that I have to level up this other stat just so my dodge roll can actually have the iframes that it looks like it should have.
It has iframes, but it's not stat based like DaS2. So far the consensus is that it's equipment load mostly, and there are actually items that can buff your iframes now.
Oh thank christ.
I'm fine with iframes, I just didn't like how it was tied to a stat in DS2. I'm totally cool with equipment load and special items changing how the iframes work, as long as I don't have to pump an obligatory stat for 10-15 levels to get there.
Sweet, glad they changed that. I might actually boot up DS2 again before DS3 comes out. Or I could buy the Bloodborne DLC. Decisions!
Steam: Spawnbroker
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I am a bit sad that I just realized that my black blade katana would be just as good buffed without scaling as an element than with my 40 dex build. I can't find any sharp gems for it.
I could dump those stats into like faith or intelligence I guess.
There's so many fun weapons this time around and the infusions can make anything good. Maybe too many in fact, I think a sorcerer/pyro/cleric could also have a good weapon.
+1
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Combat is rock solid and boss fights are rad, but the game is plagued by performance issues and its super linear structure is disappointing.
Heh
Austin Walker mentioned this specifically during last week's Beastcast. He said there will be some people who think the game is super linear, but it absolutely is not.
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
edited April 2016
I don't understand the game people are playing if they think it's linear. At the start, yes, there's a path. Then there are 2 paths. Each of those paths has a few more. Plus each area had so many weird side paths and stuff.
I think he rushed through the game to get the review out which is pretty typical but very unfortunate.
I absolutely CANNOT agree with his "the side paths often end just a few feet from where they started". I have come back to areas and realized I left out entire GIANT FREAKING AREAS that went on and on and on. Sometimes too long!
I mean to be fair, I've seen a lot of people on reddit who have beaten the game who said it is definitely linear compared to the other Soulsborne games if you're talking about from a high level.
The people I'm talking about suggested the order you tackle areas in is not as flexible as it is in the other games, but the individual areas themselves are huge and vertical and have tons of exploration to be done and what not.
Each of the Souls games is very different. DeS was a hub and then worlds, but you could tackle the worlds in any order you wanted. DS1 had a ton of different orders you could tackle areas in, basically from the very beginning and all throughout. DS2 was really open in terms of order you could tackle areas until late game where it narrowed into a linear path. Bloodborne's main required stuff was insanely linear with no flexibility, but that's because like 70% of the game is completely optional and missable, so when you factor it in then it feels like it's a lot less linear because you can tackle those optional areas in whatever order.
I've heard that DS3 is more like Bloodborne with the main story areas being in a pretty locked order, but the individual areas are much larger with more to explore while still being really densely packed with content.
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
What's the fat roll weight % in this one?
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
someone said you could be right at 70% and not fat roll but i was 70% yesterday and fat rolled sooooooo 69.9 it is
Much appreciated! Now I can plan my stats easier..
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I've had it go both ways as well. Sometime good at 70.0 sometimes not. Usually wind up around 67/68 anyway.
My Big McStrongman run has hit a wall at (boss)
Dragonslayer Armour.
First run was katana+dex, and that boss was way easier. Strength weapons feel so slow by comparison.
Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I'm honestly amazed that people talk about runs in these games, but then I'm the meticulous person who feels the need to get every glowing item fire he sees, so . . .
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
My first go took about 35 hours, minus some idle time, and I missed two huge optional areas, and many smaller secret spots and hidden things. Finding a lot more stuff now. Also, the NPC quests are really damn complex and easy to screw up, so I've restarted a few times in order to hit all the right marks.
The opening bits do feel a bit linear I suppose, but the game's second area opens up a lot, and things split off a good deal more from there.
I think my favorite thing is how connected the world feels. I lost count of how many times I peered at a cool vista only to realize I knew exactly which prior area I was looking at. Even more so going through again. You can look down from, say, the massive bridge, and easily "place" a lot of the areas. It's real cool.
Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
+1
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I've had it go both ways as well. Sometime good at 70.0 sometimes not. Usually wind up around 67/68 anyway.
My Big McStrongman run has hit a wall at (boss)
Dragonslayer Armour.
First run was katana+dex, and that boss was way easier. Strength weapons feel so slow by comparison.
you can respec at least
the npc quests are impossible without guides printed and in front of you.
i'm curious what areas you missed... i'm wondering if i'm missing any, but i've explored really intensely.
And yeah, the sense of place rivals Dark Souls 1 but is prettier (obviously) and more detailed. It's great. I realized once that I was looking down on the
giant gross swamp
that's penned in by walls. And that
evil village
looks so quaint and tiny from afar.
those spoilers are just general locations that are in every souls game but maybe you want to be surprised at how much you hate certain returning areas... sometimes literally!
If 70 can be either fat or not fat, it seems like a display-limitation.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Hitting random walls and finding secret areas is the best.
My favorite and the best armor:
right before anor londo, there's a big circle room and a giant statue. i hit it cause why not and went down a huge set of stairs, found the brass armor and then there's just an empty room i couldn't find anything to do in
was neat, i think maybe if i do the loyalty gesture there.....
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I've had it go both ways as well. Sometime good at 70.0 sometimes not. Usually wind up around 67/68 anyway.
My Big McStrongman run has hit a wall at (boss)
Dragonslayer Armour.
First run was katana+dex, and that boss was way easier. Strength weapons feel so slow by comparison.
you can respec at least
the npc quests are impossible without guides printed and in front of you.
i'm curious what areas you missed... i'm wondering if i'm missing any, but i've explored really intensely.
And yeah, the sense of place rivals Dark Souls 1 but is prettier (obviously) and more detailed. It's great. I realized once that I was looking down on the
giant gross swamp
that's penned in by walls. And that
evil village
looks so quaint and tiny from afar.
those spoilers are just general locations that are in every souls game but maybe you want to be surprised at how much you hate certain returning areas... sometimes literally!
I missed
the underground lake/ruins and the dragon area
entirely. Probably wouldn't have found them if I didn't go start looking up secret stuff after finishing.
Posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4dayln/dark_souls_iii_review_thread/
That aggregate of reviews have his as the only one lower than 8/10, most of them being 8.5+. Seems his opinion is a bit of an outlier.
He's definitely not on the same page with a lot of people. He says the bosses are the hardest the series has had, but the consensus on the DS3 subreddit is that they need to patch the bosses to have more health, because the first 1/3rd of the bosses die in so few hits, and even the later ones are often too easy.
From what I've read, he's right on about the overall linearity, in that there isn't really a "tackle things in a different order" potential the way the previous games have had, but at the same time, I've heard each individual area is really large with tons of shortcuts and verticality, etc.
It's more like the overall order you do areas in is linear, but each one is not just a linear path through it. Kind of like each area is a huge area like a Demon's soul world, but you don't get to choose the order in which you do them. That's at least the impression I've gotten reading stuff online.
That's all I need, despite giving up on Bloodborne after like 20 hours.
That said, I don't mind being invaded as long as it's only once or twice in a play session. Seeing the message pop up is always thrilling. Very few games induce actual panic the way invasions in Dark Souls do, and I wouldn't want that to go away. The way DS2 handled invasions (even in soul form) was awesome in that regard.
Also, I don't mind getting summoned into someone else's world (like ratbros) since there's basically no risk when you die.
I mean, if I invade you at SL40, you're SL40, you have cinder mode health buff, I don't. What disparity is supposed to be there? It's not like as you're playing through the game, people who like PvP have maxed out builds.
Especially in DS3, where if you're a sunbro and you invade you get sunlight medals for killing hosts. You're going to see me and others invading for fun fights and to get sunlight medals in case we're just tired of co-oping the same bosses and want to mix it up.
The idea that the SL30 guy invading you in the same newbie area you're in is going to be "built for pvp" is nonsense. Are there going to be people who rush to get the red eye orb, to get some weapon that's "good for pvp", etc.? Sure. But there's no twinking any more with the weapon upgrade level being factored in to matchmaking too. If you can't beat somebody with a 40% health boost, equal SL, and equal weapon upgrade level, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Gone are the days of twinks with +15 weapons invading you in undead burg and taking your lunch money.
So invaders should be expected to be close to your SL, have a similarly upgraded weapon, and have 40% less max health than you. I believe phantoms come in with half their current number of estus charges, but they are able to heal themselves using estus this time around.
Also, password matchmaking ignores SL, but you are scaled to the host's level, in case you're much higher and helping co-op with somebody lower.
The weapon level thing sounds like it has the potential to be a good solution (I've been mostly dark on DS3 for a while, so I didn't know about this change).
I don't think anybody wants to return to DS1 poise days, but if super high poise doesn't even stop a dagger R1 from staggering you when you're in a neutral stance, it's going to be pretty lame. Basically Demon's Souls.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to remove the limitation, so people who like to play around by running around the world looking for hotspots for invasion fun are out of luck.
Even with the dried finger? If invasions are completely disabled like in Bloodborne that would super suck, but at least we can summon with soapstones.
I wonder how much of the game can be explored without killing bosses.
It has iframes, but it's not stat based like DaS2. So far the consensus is that it's equipment load mostly, and there are actually items that can buff your iframes now.
More like unfortunate, which is one definition of regrettable, but another is unwelcome, so I feel like more specific word usage is helpful to delineate that we are talking about how it impacts me, and not that others may not welcome my dislike of PvP.
I am not claiming that at this point in time there isn't a moderately healthy amount of Dark Souls players coming to the games for PvP, specifically. However, since the key features don't expound on the type of PvP (non-consensual as well as consensual), any new players aren't easily informed of what they're in for (unless they do research like I did). That means that many potential player who enjoy hard games, or even just what boils down in many cases to intense puzzle mechanics via an action RPG, may not be fully informed of what they're getting in to. From just reading the store pages on Steam, for example, I could easily infer that the games allow PvP, but on my terms (primarily because there is no specific mention of the invasion mechanic). It would be most welcome to have easy to join covenants,
items, etc to be able to use to circumvent that discovery, instead of feeling like returning the game, having to fool around with work-arounds, etc. Joshmvii has mentioned, for example, that a certain miracle will allow a constrained amount of Co-Op while hollow, and that is an excellent start, as is the ability to clear a boss and thus free up an area of potential invasions.
It feels often like the PvP argument that happens so often here misses the mark; there are disagreements about how it is or isn't a key mechanic, or how the feel would totally be different, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is that those that don't want PvP aren't asking for the feature to go away, they just want to be easily excluded from it with some form of options inside a game, and not be punished for that decision (less health, less options, etc), instead of trying to understand firewalls or having to unplug their internet connection just to play the game in a way that they can appreciate. We don't want folks to miss out on PvP, we just don't want to be there with you. For some, it's an integral part of the game, while to others, it's a roadblock to enjoying the game, possibly even a stopping point.
That said, not every PvP mode in the game is griefing, and to say thus would be totally disingenuous. And it commonly comes across from my side of the camp that those who enjoy the PvP aspect are simply assholes getting off on others pain (because that's commonly how it feels to us). The problem comes from the frustration of repeatedly being told that those who don't like PvP are babies, whiners, carebears, etc. Also, being told that if we could opt out, that leaves less invasion targets (which as far as I can remember is only an argument I've seen elsewhere) is akin to saying that other players should suffer for your enjoyment, and that rubs us raw as well. Some of us are not looking to be anxious, or have our nerves frayed by continuous danger both from unknown areas ahead and the constant threat of invasion, and being told that obviously we're just wimps rubs our nerves so raw that every PvPer starts to sound like the same griefing asshole, regardless of it that's true or not. Being told of all the half-options or to "git gud" are not helpful (and thankfully the latter is not commonly used around here) when those options aren't really useful to or significantly detract from the experience of the entire player base. However, providing useful information about the current system (as Joshmvii and Kevin Crist in particualr have been doing) help to show that the developers know at least some of their fans are not into the invasions/PvP system, and are making changes that let us know we're valued as well.
Some of the player base (I'd be willing to bet about half) loves PvP while the the rest just don't, to some degree. The ones who dislike PvP aren't trying to take that element away from you (unless they are, but that's an extreme point of view that I'm going to assume in good faith no one here shares), and they aren't weak or lesser because they'd like options to avoid the experience, even if that experience is written in to the lore and enjoyed by many. Likewise, the people who enjoy PvP aren't saying that the other players should be forced to PvP (unless they are, which is an equally extreme point of view, and again I hope no one shares that either), they aren't cruel just because they personally enjoy invasions, either as the invadee or invader.
Most of what has been posted about DS3's PvP, as a whole, sounds considerably better than previous game's PvP options (though I have no ability to assess Bloodborne, so they may have started with that game). It doesn't mean they're great, but they might just be "good enough" to at least ameliorate problems many players seem to have, while doing as little damage to PvP fans' enjoyment as possible.
yeah, the game has a ton of secrets and exploration. i'm loving discovering them all without any hints and tips. i was streaming and i hit 2 walls and then i was like well i might as well hit this third one... and found a secret covenant down a loooooooong ladder. it was amazing.
every chest could be a mimic! every wall could have secrets!
i am 40+ hours in and still on playthrough 1 though i think i'm close to the end. may have missed some areas not sure... definitely missed a lot of NPC stuff.
Oh thank christ.
I'm fine with iframes, I just didn't like how it was tied to a stat in DS2. I'm totally cool with equipment load and special items changing how the iframes work, as long as I don't have to pump an obligatory stat for 10-15 levels to get there.
Sweet, glad they changed that. I might actually boot up DS2 again before DS3 comes out. Or I could buy the Bloodborne DLC. Decisions!
I could dump those stats into like faith or intelligence I guess.
There's so many fun weapons this time around and the infusions can make anything good. Maybe too many in fact, I think a sorcerer/pyro/cleric could also have a good weapon.
Austin Walker mentioned this specifically during last week's Beastcast. He said there will be some people who think the game is super linear, but it absolutely is not.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think he rushed through the game to get the review out which is pretty typical but very unfortunate.
I absolutely CANNOT agree with his "the side paths often end just a few feet from where they started". I have come back to areas and realized I left out entire GIANT FREAKING AREAS that went on and on and on. Sometimes too long!
The people I'm talking about suggested the order you tackle areas in is not as flexible as it is in the other games, but the individual areas themselves are huge and vertical and have tons of exploration to be done and what not.
Each of the Souls games is very different. DeS was a hub and then worlds, but you could tackle the worlds in any order you wanted. DS1 had a ton of different orders you could tackle areas in, basically from the very beginning and all throughout. DS2 was really open in terms of order you could tackle areas until late game where it narrowed into a linear path. Bloodborne's main required stuff was insanely linear with no flexibility, but that's because like 70% of the game is completely optional and missable, so when you factor it in then it feels like it's a lot less linear because you can tackle those optional areas in whatever order.
I've heard that DS3 is more like Bloodborne with the main story areas being in a pretty locked order, but the individual areas are much larger with more to explore while still being really densely packed with content.
sub 70%
sub 30% fast roll
someone said you could be right at 70% and not fat roll but i was 70% yesterday and fat rolled sooooooo 69.9 it is
Much appreciated! Now I can plan my stats easier..
My Big McStrongman run has hit a wall at (boss)
The opening bits do feel a bit linear I suppose, but the game's second area opens up a lot, and things split off a good deal more from there.
I think my favorite thing is how connected the world feels. I lost count of how many times I peered at a cool vista only to realize I knew exactly which prior area I was looking at. Even more so going through again. You can look down from, say, the massive bridge, and easily "place" a lot of the areas. It's real cool.
you can respec at least
the npc quests are impossible without guides printed and in front of you.
i'm curious what areas you missed... i'm wondering if i'm missing any, but i've explored really intensely.
And yeah, the sense of place rivals Dark Souls 1 but is prettier (obviously) and more detailed. It's great. I realized once that I was looking down on the
those spoilers are just general locations that are in every souls game but maybe you want to be surprised at how much you hate certain returning areas... sometimes literally!
My favorite and the best armor:
was neat, i think maybe if i do the loyalty gesture there.....
well, it means there's a break point in the rounding somewhere like 70.02% is fine but 70.07% is not
Also good to know that the DLC will include a dating sim.
Dating Sim, Walking Simulator?
I just went on Steam and you're absolutely right.
I missed