The bonfire placement is by far the worst thing about this game. Hell, it's the only thing about the game I don't like. If it weren't for this, this would be an easy contender for best soulsborne game in my mind.

See, in Demon's Souls, you got a new archstone at the beginning of an area and again after you beat a boss I believe. That makes the area run to the boss more memorable and methodical. There was a huge risk every time you did a run through that area. If you racked up a lot of Souls, there's a chance you could die and lose all of them. Then you'd have to make the run again and get your Souls back. The fact that stones were so far away from each other made you completely memorize each area so you became a pro at it by the time you finished. Yes I'm aware this is obvious but I wouldn't be saying this if it didn't need to be said.

Dark Souls mostly continued this spaced out bonfire placement with the exception of HIDDEN bonfires behind illusionary walls. Once again, making you memorize each area. Ask anyone who played Demon's and Dark and they'd probably be able to perfectly describe the layout for most areas in these games. Now, Dark Souls II is where problems happened which was understandable to me with Miyazaki absent as director. Sometimes there were bonfires within 5-10 minutes of each other. It was kind of ridiculous and made me remember areas LESS. Bloodborne though went BACK to really spaced out lanterns and I thought to myself "well Miyazaki is back so that's why." Dark Souls III though? Sometimes bonfires are placed even CLOSER to each other than in Dark Souls II. It was by far the worst and most disappointing thing about this game to me. It made the game's risk factor almost completely absent to me. Often times I could see the last bonfire I lit FROM the one I just found. Hell, there are even a couple cases where bonfires are within less than a minute of each other, like right after the dragonslayer armor boss. Was this just because they were afraid people who loved Dark Souls II would hate spaced out bonfires? Even so, why make them even closer and with Miyazaki back on board?

It was an awful decision. It makes the risk plummet and makes you remember the game LESS. I was really excited to get that old design philosophy here with Miyazaki back but it looks like someone didn't want it to happen. It's a big shame. And if I may be a bit aggressively presumptuous, I feel like people will reply to this saying it's really not a big deal? But it is. It really is. It's a design philosophy that dates back to the first Super Mario Bros. You play through the whole level and by the time you finally beat it, you've memorized that whole level. It's a mountain you climb. You've conquered it. It just breaks my heart to see a Miyazaki Souls game adopt Dark Souls II's idea of bonfire placement even after he brought it back with the lanterns in Bloodborne.

I agree that some of them are just confusing in where they are placed but there's nothing I miss about spaced out bonfires. The repetition of slogging through areas you have 'solved' has always been the weakest part of these games to me.

If it bothers you that much, then simply don't light bonfires when you find them. Or light every other bonfire. I thought they were fine.

Different design, I suppose. Seemed like they wanted people to finish this game so the bonfires and shortcuts were fairly forgiving. And since each area was so dense, they decided long runs weren't especially welcoming. I kind of blew through this game and never felt frustrated, which is something I was fine with.

Once I was done with an area, I usually had it fairly memorized. By that point my goal was to fight the boss, not memorize the area more.

@csl316: It's not about what your goal is, it's about what you're experiencing subconsciously while playing. Nobody plays a game and sets out to memorize every enemy placement and all the level geometry and areas, it's just something that happens.

It's about remembering the game and becoming intimate with it. Once again, it's the design philosophy that dates back to super mario bros. It's something that Demon's and Dark CLEARLY took influence from and used it as a strength. You as a player remember the entire game more as a result. The fact that you "blew through" the game is proof. I did too and as a result, the game is less memorable than Demon's, Dark, and Bloodborne. that's just common sense. It's a design choice that every Miyazaki Souls game did...except this one.

I'm not so sure you can just take your criteria for a memorable experience and then drape it over everyone else.

I think it's a good example of how their game design has evolved. There's nothing really beneficial to making people play through entire areas repeatedly and people didn't. In the first two games, there were a bunch of shortcuts and you could just run past everything for most bosses. Being frustrated just to be frustrating is bad game design.

Also, so much stuff is hidden everywhere that you're still encouraged to learn the ins and outs of every area.

It's common sense. If someone goes through an area once or twice and another person goes through an area many many times, that second person is going to remember it in detail much more than the first person. It's simple.

That's besides the point though. The point is this one had a clearly different design philosophy than Miyazaki's other Souls games when it comes to archstone/lantern/bonfire placements. That really can't be argued.

@frostyryan: Well, I still memorized enemy placements so I don't know what else to tell ya.

And I blew through it (though 27 hours isn't nothing) while missing a ton of secrets and NPC quests. Like @hunkulese said, their design has evolved along with the gameplay itself. But the depth is still there if you want it. Not everyone wants to spend 50 hours just to beat the baseline game, with 20 hours of that running through the same areas repeatedly.

Without change, we'd still be playing King's Field. Which means a few thousand people would be playing King's Field. Guessing you weren't a fan of games getting rid of limited lives, either.

That was never the point though. Think of climbing a really tough mountain that gets harder as you go along. You'll probably keep falling off, so you keep climbing it. Once you reach the peak, you've accomplished an incredible feat. It's frustrating, yeah. Souls games are frustrating and that's the way it's been since the beginning. That's what the design for Miyazaki's other souls games were. Something is definitely lost when you give the player so many safe zones.

I know this one did something different and not necessarily "bad" but that old school design philosophy of climbing that mountain seemed to be in Miyazaki souls' DNA.

The way these games have been designed I'm gonna know where all of the enemies are and where the ambushes happen after seeing them on that initial run through, I'm not gaining any further insight by having to repeat old areas after a death. I'm just getting more and more annoyed on each run through.

To me the design change is one of focusing on having a good time moving forward instead retreading old ground and I'm always going to be in favor of that. It's why I also don't overly mind that bosses tend to have lower health in this game on average.

When I'm doing boss runs, I am sprinting through the level and not fighting anyone anyway. By the third run, I know the run well enough that it's virtually impossible for me to actually die before reaching the boss so the "risk" element is gone. At that point, what is the purpose of making me run through the entire level again? All it does is force me to have 5 minute breaks between each boss attempt. Fuck that.

I thought the bonfire placement was fine. That risk factor you're talking about is strange. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like people who love the series enough to look as intensely as you are at it have learned to let go. I've purposely abandoned decent sized chunks of souls just because I wanted to explore another area, and I've kept going because it's easier to get back to them rather than reset the zone. There's always more souls, losing them isn't important.

Straight up shitty zones aside, having to go reset the entire level because you fucked up one enemy and know you won't make it through with your remaining flasks sucks. More often than not, even all the way back to Demon's Souls, if I'm dying, it's to something specific. The random skeletons are filler until I get to the cool guy with the sword. They don't provide challenge. I clawed my way through all of these games(platinum in Darks Souls 1, 2, and Bloodborne. Working on DS3). I don't miss grinding an entire level to get cheesed out by a boss or mistime a roll for a 2-5 minute run up to the boss.

That said, you might just be progressing faster than the skill floor that the game is designed for. If you think about it, a lot of the bonfires are linked either by covenant rooms(makes sense), boss arenas(makes sense), or shortcuts. In the case of Dragonslayer armor, there doesn't really need to be a bonfire in his room, but there's one in every other arena and not one for the Warriors of Sunlight, so his can be used for that. Yes, there's the Lothric Castle bonfire immediately after it, but it's a new zone. No real harm.

The only one I can see as being kinda strange is the randomass one in the Roads of Sacrifice on the way to Crystal Sage. I didn't even find it until someone I was invading ran to it. It felt like it was in the middle of nowhere and was actually only there to shorten the run to crystal sage by like 15 seconds. It was strange.

I don't know, sorry if this post sounds more defensive than I mean it to. I really enjoyed how tight everything is though, especially for backtracking to get missed things and for NG+. I feel like the other four games tested me enough and I'm ready to move at a more brisk pace. I've earned it.

I know not everyone wants this and that's fine. You can like the new design if you want. I'm saying that original old school design was apart of the series DNA and it's gone now. It's one of the things that made souls what it is, and it's just absent here.

I also have no idea what King's Field has to do with this discussion or why I would like limited lives based on what I said. I'm not against evolution in games, I'm against getting rid of design decisions that make me feel less intimate with a game as intimate as Souls games have always been. This is not comparable to limited lives in any way.

@yi_orange: No that wasn't defensive at all and that's the best argument I've read so far here! I just feel like something is lost when bonfires are so close together now. I feel like there's no mountain to climb, like I said.

Also may I just make it clear that I still absolutely loved this game despite this whole thing

@frostyryan: Then go play Demon's Souls, dude. It's still there.

Look, a series changes as it goes and people have their favorites. When I go back to Mario, I play Mario World. I played Streets of Rage 2, Revenge of Shinobi, Halo 1, Devil May Cry 3, Red Faction: Guerilla, Doom 1. I enjoy the games in each franchise for various reason, but I have my favorites. Hell, I might not even like some entries. Halo 2? Fuck duel-wielding, but some people absolutely loved it. And for years we said that "the sword ruined the game!!" But one aspect of the game didn't ruin my life.

You seem to prefer the early Souls games, go back and play those. In 10 years when I want a FROM game from this era, I'll jump into Bloodborne. Then DS III. Then probably DS II because I prefer that design philosophy.

The point is this one had a clearly different design philosophy than Miyazaki's other Souls games when it comes to archstone/lantern/bonfire placements. That really can't be argued.

Yep, if that is the point then I think everyone here agrees with you.

Having to run continuously through a level to get to a boss is one of the worst things in dark souls, it doesn't make the game any more challenging it just makes it more annoying, and to me this game has the most annoying enemies of all the souls games.

The only bonfire I took issue with was the one you could stand at and see another bonfire down the hall. I honestly don't share your issues with how much this is a detriment to the game, it's just very mildly unfortunate. In DS3 the placement of bonfires seems to be prioritizing key fast travel locations rather than being spaced as core level progression checkpoints. That's why you see bonfires at each covenant offering area regardless of whether there's another bonfire just down a ladder and around the corner.

Also the notion that because Miyazaki is back that bonfires will be more appropriately placed is pretty hilarious.

Just because they're not as spread out doesn't mean the areas between are balanced the same as Dark Souls, or automatically comparable to them. You might have breezed through the game, but I only did in the sense that the combat wasn't that difficult anymore after playing so many of these games. I still spent hours going back to old areas to run through and search every corner for items/NPCs/paths that I'd missed (and the closer bonfire placement actually made doing that more appealing), and so I don't have the same feelings of DS3 being forgettable at all.

I remember the layout/enemy placement/map of the first half of DS1 way more than anything in DS3, sure, but that's because you have to backtrack through them so many times. I couldn't tell you a single thing about areas like Duke's Archives because I only ever had to run through them once per playthrough, and never struggled to get through them either.

I also don't remember anything about the layout of the Tower of Latria from Demon's (despite having to run through that area more than any other Souls area), because it's all so samey and condensed. It's also one of my favourite areas in the series, so memorizing the level layout had no impact on that at all for me.

That's not really how memory works for everyone. See my above example of Latria.

I can see where you're coming from, but if I had to run all the way through Irithyll every time I died, I would have put this game down and never returned. Have I become soft? Yeah, maybe, but that's just my preference these days.

I'm playing through the games now, and I'm half way, or 75 percent through Dark Souls 2, and it's on rare occasion that you have to run to the second boss of an area with a long trek and a barrage of enemies on the way. Especially in Demon's Souls, more often than not, you'd kill a boss, and almost in the next room over, the next, final boss of that area would be. The time I'm thinking about now which this was an issue, was when I played earlier today, trying to get to The Duke's Dear Freja. I felt this was an annoyance, and not something that happens a lot in my experience. A bunch of enemies were on the way there from the last bonfire, so that was annoying, but a lot of the time, it's quite easy to find a way to run past groups of dudes to get where you're going. There was a bonfire that was locked behind a door, and I couldn't figure out how to open it unfortunately, though it wouldn't have made it any quicker to get to him I think.

Also, I have to say, I like that there are a bunch of bonfires in three. I agree that one has to memorize the area, as well as find a way through everything quick so you can move on and not wade through enemies, though I don't think whenever that happened, it was that big an issue, nor do I find that many instances that it happened, so I can't say I agree entirely about the fact that it takes time to get to a boss from a bonfire, other than when you start a new area. Honestly, I think Dark Souls 2 is the worst at this in some instances. An exception perhaps in Demon's was when you had to fight the Penetrator, but I didn't die on him, so I didn't have to run all the way back. Also, if I lose all my souls, I don't much care most of the time. There has only been one time that I was a bit miffed I lost them, and that was in two.

That said, there are also a handful of bosses here in two, that are basically bonfire room, and then boss. To me, I like that. Same as how I liked that in Demon's Souls after you kill the first boss, the second boss is basically in the next room. I don't know. I really like these games, and I do like them because they make you focus due to challenge, but more bonfires is not a bad thing to me. I don't die too much in these, but if that was ever the case, I would hate to go all the way through the place again, and again.

I much prefer more frequent bonfires because it incentivises further exploration around a level to find all the things (especially NPCs). I hate it when I'm part way through an area but then have to change from properly exploring to either doubling back or going in search of bonfires just because I'm running out of estus flasks and such. I end up feeling like I'm being penalised because I want to explore, to see everything, and get most of the treasure. I end up going through areas multiple times not because I'm dying or screwing up, but because I want to explore without constantly worrying where my souls are.

I don't know about others, but I can run through an area once and I've already memorised it (as well as where items are - including those I cannot reach from where I am). It's not fun to have to go through it multiple times when all I want to do is see "what happens if I go that way - does that lead to that item?". Making stopping points artificially further away means I'm just less likely to try things out. Repeated encounters aren't a fun challenge like bosses, they're just filler between them. There's a reason why I always take a break from Souls games part way through (usually for a few weeks to play something else): because they usually spread the variety out so much with filler that it feels like they aren't respecting my time.

I agree that Dark Souls 2 had bonfires placed very oddly but I'm really enjoying the balance of Dark Souls 3 at the moment (though I'm only at Irythil Dungeon).

Having two bonfires close to each other after a boss (as in your example) makes perfect sense, because it lets you start from the beginning of the new area instead of walking from the room of the previous boss each time. It felt a bit weird at first because these games haven't done that before, but it's smart design.

That being said, there were times in III when I felt bonfires were a bit too close to each other. But in one respect I actually they didn't go far enough with bonfires -- I mean bonfires before bosses. Boss runs are one of the worst parts of these games. Running past enemies in an area is really easy when you know the layout, and having a 1-2 minute eventless jog to a boss every time you die is terrible game design. They might as well have a 2-minute load screen every time (that would actually be an improvement, because with a load screen I could do something else for a couple of minutes instead of sitting there holding forward on the analogue stick). It doesn't make the game more challenging or memorable, it's just shitty.

I`m glad this is the last game in the Dark Souls series. No more threads complaining about design changes or "it`s not like the old game", "this weapon, armor, stat, is useless/broken/op", etc.

@frostyryan: Oh, a point I wanted to try to make but lost.

Sticking with the analogy of climbing a mountain, I feel like DS 3 is supposed to be the top of the mountain. The other games were climbing it, and it's time to plant your flag. Most of the challenges in this game were something I recognized from earlier games. I applied knowledge and techniques I learned through the series(not counting Bloodborne, this is the first I played without blocking a single attack and without parrying. I never use magic). And though I can't say for certain, I learned how to deal with enemies and bosses much quicker than I would have without the rest of the series. I can see how some bosses and enemies would be real fuckers if you didn't know how to deal with them. A couple still are. I wouldn't be surprised if the game was intentionally designed as a sort of final test for the series rather than trying to go back to square one again. With that in mind, I'd be curious about the take of someone who is experiencing this as their first souls game. And I wonder if From was even concerned about them.

If we take my assumption to be true, then that makes the bonfire placement make more sense. They assume you didn't get through a zone by luck. If you managed to make it to a bonfire it's because you solved the enemies between the two fires and they're more interested in getting you to the next test rather than drilling a boneman with a spear into you over and over. You can kill him. And just in case it was luck, there will be more spears later, don't worry.

And that holds true for me. There's not an enemy in the game I don't feel confident against. Except the three wing knights on top of the Grand Archive. Fuck those guys.

I understand what you're saying, but you need a better analogy. If you fall off a mountain, you won't be trying again because you'll have a serious injury or be dead. If you're climbing a tough mountain, you're constantly giving yourself "safe zones" so that doesn't happen.

There is a sense of accomplishment after you clear a tough area and reach a bonfire and after you beat a boss. I never combined the two. Souls game areas usually become tedious after you figure them out and the fun is really only in the first time through unless you're trying to find secrets. Forcing a player to redo something difficult they've already defeated over and over again because they they're trying something else difficult is being frustrating just to be frustrating and is bad design. It adds nothing to the experience.

I also don't agree about Bloodborne. I don't remember where every bonfire was but I know for all the bosses I had difficulty with there was a bonfire right beside them.

@frostyryan: considering a lot of the original Dark Souls was about finding the shortest, sneakiest, heck even cheese-iest way back to the boss I really appreciate closer bonfires. Heck I wish bosses had bonfires basically right outside their room.

Also I think I would consider this the hardest Dark Souls game so I am ok with this concession.

Bonfires are for casuals.

Compared to the eventual despawning of enemies, which meant you ultimately ended up running through from the bonfire straight to the boss if you spent enough time grinding away in 2, I think this system is much better. If you're looking for ways to make the game more challenging there are plenty of alternatives, and I hardly think the bonfires are frequent enough to cause actual detriment to the experience. If you feel otherwise then I believe you to be in the vast minority.

I dunno whether your criticism against DS3 is justified or not, but design-wise, for me it was always a familiarization thing. You grow more comfortable with the area between a save point and the boss, and eventually can just sprint straight to the fight. The horrible place that was apprehensively and meticulously charted out during the first trek through was now barely a thing at all. It feels like you've fully conquered the challenge of the area. You've got its number, and no pretend dead, corner ambush, or sub-sub-boss is gonna give you pause. You can breeze through that zone like you live there.

I never found it frustrating though. It's all part of the fun of the Souls games. I get a similiar sort of feeling with stuff like Hotline Miami or Super Meat Boy. The respawn is more snappy there, obviously, but the satisfying feeling of accustomization is similiar, just at a pace that's in line with the sort of games these are (talking about Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne).

I disagree, it's good when you're exploring the place for the first time because you feel the sense of dread as you venture further into a level not knowing when you're gonna die. But when I'm on my boss run, the last thing I want to do is completely redo a level to get to the boss. Imagine going through the whole level just to fight *boss who shall remain nameless* only to die after two hits and start from the beginning over. I'll probably snap the game in half (even though I bought it digitally).

I'm fine with most bonfire placements, except for the Dragonslayer/Archives one which was a bit ridiculous.

My only complaint about the bonfires is the two sets of two of them being so close together. It makes no sense. You can stand at them and see the other one. They are within a stamina bar of distance. Why? What was the point of this? Why did they do this twice?

Then only use bonfires at boss rooms then or something. Getting perturbed about this is among the silliest things I've seen on the internet today. Souls fans can really be insufferable sometimes.

I get where you're coming from, inasmuch as part of Dark Souls' appeal has always been about "the struggle." However, I'm not going to complain if shortcuts and bonfires are a little more frequent than they were in past games. I found Dark Souls III to be hard enough even with these concessions, and honestly I'm still a little cynical about all the comments from people who have played 3 or 4 games like this one saying it's the easiest game in the series. Poise doesn't seem to work, magic (the grand murder machine of previous games) isn't very powerful until NG+, and there are plenty of enemies who are way faster and more aggressive than anything in Dark Souls 1.

@demoskinos: You're basically saying people can't criticize something if they can just ignore it. You can make almost any game more difficult by putting arbitrary restrictions on yourself. It doesn't change the fact that the game is eaiser in someway and that is a totally valid critisism if you come to a game for a difficult challenge.

The runaround is something that some Souls players enjoyed and others didn't. I wouldn't say it was the DNA of those games as much as it was something they started with and continued to refine with each new game. Dark Souls was a small step back with not letting you teleport between bonfires from the very start, which was something they obviously realized since it was corrected in every subsequent release. Personally I never much cared for it. The first time you made your way through an area was pretty exciting. Having to run through that entire area just to get to the boss time and time again became tiring. I kind of "save scummed" in Demon's Souls for Flamelurker because I was that tired of running back to the fog gate.

Also it's very possible that this one person who didn't want that oldschool bonfire spacing to happen was in fact Miyazaki. As these games have gained in popularity you can clearly see how they started to cater more and more to a wider audience. I'm not complaining as these were incredibly obtuse games to begin with, but it's apparent that the systematic increase in bonfires dating back from Demon's Souls is very deliberate.

Either way, count me in as another person that wasn't really bothered by it.

I find the amount of hidden stuff in the areas is enough incentive to get to know my surroundings. This souls rewards exploration more than any other. I probably messed around in the first two areas for almost 20 hours and I still feel like I'm missing stuff. Especially in the Undead Settlement.

I only find it weird that there are some bonfires right next to each other, your at the Dragonslayer Armour bonfire and take a few steps and there's the Grand Archives bonfire for example.

Having two bonfires be few meters apart is admittedly weird, but hardly consequential. My only complaint regarding bonfire placement is that it can be misleading in a way. For instance, in the first three levels (High Wall of Lothric, Undead Settlement and Road of Sacrifices/Farron Keep), bonfires and/or shortcuts are fairly frequent. But then you go to the Cathedral of the Deep, and you don't unlock the first shortcut, until more than halfway through the level.

I do think it is in these games' DNA to repeat a level, or a sub-section thereof, if you die to something within that level. I don't, however, see any value to going through a level to get to a boss. Most people just run past enemies anyway, so unlocking a shortcut to or having a bonfire near a boss is good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

They seemingly had a few rules for bonfires:

-Beating a boss makes a bonfire appear
-There must be a bonfire at the beginning of a new area.

Those are pretty good rules, even if the close proximity between bosses and new areas make for weird placements, especially when you take into account that 9 times out of 10 it is good design to have a bonfire or shortcut before a boss as well. Even Demons Souls had a short route from the archstone to the boss most of the time (the major exclusions being in the shrine of storms). I think you might be mis-remembering how hardcore the older games actually were because you've gotten better at them.

Read the first line and then the second line. Cause that is my point exactly. If the bonfire placement is a issue for you then don't use them. Same way as if summoning make things to easy for you? Don't use it. I really don't see the issue here. If you come to the game for a challenge there are plenty of ways of making the game more of a challenge.

@demoskinos: Again just because the player can make something more difficult for themselves doesn't save the game from criticism about the design itself. If someone thinks the game is eaiser and puts arbitrary restrictions on themselves it doesn't change the fact that the game played as intended is easier to them. It's a totally valid critisism.

@jesushammer: Nah, thing is souls fans like to pretend that the old games were really "hardcore" when they really never were and still aren't. And that's kind of my beef with this line of criticism really. It reeks of a dishonest elitism. "Back in my day souls games were challenging" Well, actually no, they weren't. The thing that has changed isn't that the game is easier its that the learning curve for people who have played since Demon's Souls isn't there anymore.

The way the bonfire placement has evolved hasn't really changed since Dark Souls 1. Also the criticism over the placement in DS3 is way overblown. Many areas do have bonfires extremely close together yes that is true but in almost all of those cases that is because the boss arena directly connects to the first area of the next area. Its just better design to not force the player to travel another arbitrary 10 seconds from the boss room for no good reason. Quite a lot of the elements in Dark Souls 3 are just better designed. Much of the game design from Demon's Souls at this point is just archaic. There is plenty of challenge still to be had in the game and giving the player more well thought out checkpoints doesn't defeat the challenge of the game.

Cause guess what after you take your first blind run through a level bonfire placement doesn't matter anyways as once you know enemy placement you can literally sprint through pretty much the entire game ignoring all fodder enemies and heading straight for the boss. To me it seems like OP takes more issue with how other people are experiencing the game rather than the actual placement because again if the issue is just personal challenge then you can ignore all the mid-way point bonfires and only use the ones at the start and end of levels. The actual placement is irrelevant.

Are any of these in this same area? My memory of oddly close bonfires always involved a transition into a new zone and thus required a new establishing bonfire for the warp screen.

@efesell: They are technically different areas, yes. But there is no reason for it. You only need the second one in each situation. You do not need a bonfire on the bridge where you beat Dragonslayer, you only need the one for the Archives a few steps away. Even for running back to sunbro covenant, it just a few extra steps. And the end game ones, those two are like, what, two body lengths apart. And why? There is nothing there but the end of the game. No covenant, no other boss, they are just there. Can't remember the names of those ones now. But its pretty pointless.

The reasoning is sound when you're not staring directly at the two fires, I think.

Every boss gets a bonfire so that players can wind down. Major new areas get an introductory bonfire so that warping around is convenient. In this case rules were followed and nobody stared at it long enough to realize that it looks very silly.

Thanks for (mostly) everyone being very respectful and understanding with their arguments!

I admit I'm kind of surprised how I'm in the VAST minority on this one. To me, that design philosophy of Demon's and most of Dark and BB is one of the huge reasons I adore those games. I'm a sadist I guess? I like how it punishes me by setting me so far back whenever I make a little mistake.

I'll also say I shouldn't have used the word "atrocious" in the thread title. It's a different kind of design to make levels more linear and keep bonfires closer to each other, and that's not inherently bad, just different. To each his own! Just understand why I prefer that old school "mountain climb" as I described.

@yi_orange: I want to touch on what you said here about DaSIII being somewhat of a victory lap for players who conquered the four other games. THIS is the mindset that led me to truly appreciate DaSIII.

To me DaSIII was kind of ridiculously easy 90% of the time...but in the end I said to myself "I earned this." I earned this confidence and skill that had built up since 2009 with the launch of Demon's Souls. It was a very cathartic feeling, especially when you watch let's plays and see other people being so...er..."bad" at the game and failing at spots you thought where a breeze. DaSIII was definitely me at the peak of the mountain slaying enemies left and right and it felt damn good. Just wish the game was a little more punishing...but how much harder can a game reasonably get, I guess?

I've completed Dark Souls and Dark Souls II before this (haven't played to the extent you have) and still had some pretty tough times with this game. Exploring and getting through areas was fine, but some of the bosses were real roadblocks for me! I'm talking 20+ attempts on some of them. So I can see that if you found the game easy in general, then the safety of the bonfires probably didn't mean much to you.

I played through the whole game without a shield, which was kind of the self enforcement I had. I did that for Dark Souls II after not finding a shield I liked straight away and then decided to roll with it. So sometimes I wonder if I summoned or used a shield then some parts would be easier.

Have you thought about a self imposed challenge like that to add some more challenge?

@paulmako: Trust me when I say I envy people who struggle with these games. I miss that feeling so much. I miss the massive sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

And the only self imposed challenge I treat myself to with these games is I refuse to summon helpers during my first playthrough. I also only use sword and shield. So basically, I'm a basic bitch for my first run, and then second run is party time with invasions, co-operators, and going crazy with weapons.

I admit you people have balls to play the whole game with no shield