Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

219 Comments

Dark Souls III Review

4
  • XONE
  • PC
  • PS4

Though a handful of major bugs hold back the PC release a bit, Dark Souls III is a satisfying finale to the monumental series.

Dark Souls III offers a return to the interconnected world that was such a distinctive element of the first Dark Souls.
Dark Souls III offers a return to the interconnected world that was such a distinctive element of the first Dark Souls.

In 2009, when From Software’s Demon’s Souls first arrived, it introduced a new formula of action RPG that challenged fans with its punishing structure as much as it intrigued them with its obscurant style of storytelling. Now, seven years later, the Souls series is among the most popular franchises around, and many of its major innovations have spread across the landscape of gaming. With Dark Souls III, From smartly seems to recognize that the series is ready for its final act. Unfortunately, while DS3 is narratively and mechanically a solid conclusion to the series, some major bugs dramatically hurt the overall experience on PC.

When Dark Souls II launched, there was some question as to whether it was a direct, narrative sequel to its numerical predecessor. Any doubt of canonical connection is immediately dispensed with in Dark Souls III, as it quickly sets stakes that long term fans of the series will understand: The first fire that keeps humanity from fading into an abyssal darkness is fading yet again, and the Lords of Cinder--those who had previously done the job of keeping the flame lit--are shirking their duties. As “the Unkindled,” you must bring them into line by doing what you do in every Souls game: Exploring the treacherous ruins of fallen kingdoms, taking down monstrous bosses, and feverishly reading item descriptions to piece together the Whos, Whats, and Whys of everything that’s happening.

No Caption Provided

Though the Souls games have a reputation for challenge, the truth is that they’ve always been pretty clever about subtly introducing complexity to the player. In some ways, though, Dark Souls 3 feels like it starts at Act 2, tossing you into the deep end much faster than previous Souls games. Within the first half hour, you’ll face a challenging first boss, start planning your character build, and maybe even dig into the weapon upgrading system. It’s a smart decision, since many veteran players are familiar with the basics by now.

This also allows players to concentrate immediately on the new stuff, especially the FP (Focus Points) mechanic. Shoved between the usual health and stamina meters is a new blue bar that is drained whenever players use spells or one of the special abilities attached to every weapon in the game. To keep that blue bar filled, players will have to dedicate part of their stack of healing Estus Flasks to a new type of potion (Ashen Estus Flasks) which can be used to recover that FP. The attacks fueled by FP range from powerful, guard crushing uppercuts to special movement techniques to strategy-shifting combat buffs, and testing out every FP ability I found contributed to the feeling of discovery that I always love in Dark Souls games. These special abilities also open the combat up even further, rewarding tactical consideration and mastery of your chosen weapon.

Hollowing returns in DS3, but it arrives in a totally new, deeply intriguing way.
Hollowing returns in DS3, but it arrives in a totally new, deeply intriguing way.

There are, on the other hand, a number of ways in which Dark Souls 3 represents a less open, more constrained experience than its predecessors--or at least something that feels more constrained. While there’s a huge range of armor, weapons, and spells (including a number of fan favorites from past games), the stat system in DS3 really discourages wild, experimental builds (at least for the first playthrough). Heavy armor users will get knocked around a bit more than in the past, while enemies seem to bounce out of a staggered state more often. Sorceries, pyromancies, and miracles all feel weaker than ever, though as in Bloodborne, magic seems to have a bit more bite in New Game+. The result is that balanced, hybrid melee builds do the best throughout the first playthrough--which is great if, like me, that’s what you were planning on playing anyway. Otherwise, though, it could be rough.

It isn’t only the stat builds that can seem constrained, though. While the world has the same geometrically-connected design that so many loved in the first Dark Souls, the opening areas seem more linear than previous games in the series. In actuality, each of the opening zones does have a number of ways through (and out), but it’s not something that is readily apparent in those early hours. Where Dark Souls 1 felt like an intricately designed vertical diorama and Dark Souls 2 was spread out on an impossibly broad plane, Dark Souls 3 gives the impression that it is a line, pulling you from one boss to another, towards finality.

No Caption Provided

I can’t help but think that this is intentional. It’s no secret that Dark Souls 3 is being positioned as a finale to the series, and throughout the 35 or so hours I put into my first playthrough, there was a constant sense of impending resolution. Though it still primarily delivers its story through its sometimes-obscure use of environmental storytelling and item descriptions, Dark Souls 3 is also perhaps the most straightforward game in the series. You’ll find out what’s happened to some major players in the series’ lore, get confirmation (or denial) of long running fan theories, and even have some pretty metaphysical facts about the world established once and, maybe, for all.

In some ways, this is a disappointment: At its best, Dark Souls has been an unanswered question. I mean this narratively (Whatever happened to Gwyn’s third child, anyway?), but mechanically, too, as each game offers new combat, exploration, and stat-building challenges to solve. But it’s been seven years since Demon’s Souls first confused and intrigued. I’ve gotten better not only at the particular obstacles presented in each game, but also at the process of quickly adapting and learning how to solve this whole subgenre of action RPG.

Ah, um, I... My sword seems to be, ah... You know what, nevermind. This is fine. Everything is fine.
Ah, um, I... My sword seems to be, ah... You know what, nevermind. This is fine. Everything is fine.

But there’s another way in which Dark Souls 3 represents an incredible success for From. Like Metal Gear Solid 4, DS3 had the difficult job of addressing lingering questions without becoming a simple interactive epilogue. And it had to do this in the middle of a Dark Souls overdose. Between a strangely over-hyped release of a Dark Souls 3 t-shirt, an Eli Roth-directed cartoon ad for the game, and the endless spread of the "Dark Souls of X” linguistic infection, it might be the case that Dark Souls has finally gotten a little too popular for its own good.

But it does it. It sticks the landing. Dark Souls 3 is able to reference its expansive history to build environments, boss fights, and narrative turns that leverage the last seven years of games, making both thematic allusion and direct, canonical reference to each Souls game and perhaps (if my headcanon is right (and it is)), even to Bloodborne.

Despite the #brand #overdose, DS3 is a reminder of why the familiar elements of Dark Souls have always worked so well: Poison areas still shake up your usual strategy of attacking and spacing because of the constant health loss; processions of enemy groups walk through the winding streets of a splendored city, demanding you to carefully pull one at a time else risk a running battle against an overwhelming force in an unfamiliar place. And there’s more, too. The clanking of sinister mechanisms; the resigned laugh of a coward; the peculiar side quest that seems to suddenly stop… only for you to find the grisly conclusion hours later while revisiting an already cleared location.

No Caption Provided

Dark Souls has always been a series interested in the blurry memory of history, and now it has its own massive history to allude to. There was a moment towards the end of the game that made stop in place and just soak in a particular arrangement of fortifications in front of me. Was that.... I’d been there, I think, once, a long time ago. Or had the curse finally taken me, too? It was one of the most magical moments of the series for me, but in the way that in Dark Souls, “magical” means an uncanny blend of beautiful and disorienting.

Less beautiful (but still disorienting) are the crashes, at least on the game’s PC build as of launch. As a lot of folks have reported already (and as you can see in our pre-launch stream from a couple of weeks ago), Dark Souls 3 has been an unstable experience for many players. Approaching a new bonfire or loading into one and then quickly running away form it can cause a sudden hard crash, even for those who meet the game's system requirements. And it's worth noting that I also had crashes far away from bonfires during my playthrough.

This error is especially frustrating when you know that you did nothing to cause it.
This error is especially frustrating when you know that you did nothing to cause it.

Some of these were reproducible--I couldn’t use an early game magical sword with a special aura without crashing, for instance. Other times, though, the game would crash without any clear cause. Though the number of crashes reduced over the course of my play time (and, strangely, my NG+ character no longer crashes in areas that he did 40 hours ago), it was the fear of crashing that I could never shake. Dark Souls 3 is already an incredibly tense game--”will I be killed by whatever that is?”, “Is my build right for this boss?”, “Where the hell am I going in the dark and muck?” But that tension slides from “fun” to “frustrating” when I also have to ask “Will I randomly crash in the middle of this boss fight?” And the answer, at least twice, was “Yes, I will.”

Early reports indicate that setting the lighting to low seems to hold at least some of the instability at bay, but it’s especially frustrating because the game otherwise runs well for me on my Nvidia GTX 760 with High settings. I can go hours and hours with only the occasional hiccup, and then suddenly I'm looking at my desktop wallpaper and left to wonder about where DS3 will decide to put me when I load back in. That said, it doesn't seem like this is a fundamental problem with the game's engine, and hopefully we'll see a fix issued sooner than later.

Thankfully, the console versions fare much better in terms of stability. On PS4, it runs at least as smooth as Bloodborne did and with much faster load times (with the trade-off of occasionally slow-loading textures.) On Xbox One, Dark Souls III runs at a noticeably choppier frame rate and a slightly lower resolution than the PS4 build, but it's still very a playable and stable and solid port of the game.

No Caption Provided

It’s easy to recommend Dark Souls 3 on consoles with a single caveat: Much of what makes it work so well is the way that it does justice to the series’ own past, which just won't mean much for folks hopping onto the Souls train for the first time. My recommendation for the PC build has to come with a firmer qualification. Yes, I still really enjoyed my time with Dark Souls 3 on PC. Yes, I’ll probably play through at least one run of NG+. But my enjoyment was seriously impacted by the unpredictable performance and crashing.

If you’ve stuck it out this far (and especially if you actually care about the world and lore of Dark Souls), Dark Souls 3 will prove to be a satisfying coda to your time with the series. I can’t wait until the community goes into full lore-speculation and secret-finding modes. If Dark Souls needed to end--and all signs point to "Yes, it did"--I’m glad it was able to do so with such singular focus and form.

219 Comments

Avatar image for nyhus
Nyhus

140

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nyhus

@ripelivejam:

Yeah, im on an intel cpu, a pretty old one, though. 8gbs ram. Weird how you dont get a better frame rate, from what i can understand, DS3 doesnt need 'that much' to run well.

Hope it works out for you, max graphics and a steady 60 is pretty awesome. Great art in this game!

After 15hours of game time, Im so far more positive on this than I was on DS2 15hours in. Ds2 turned out, imo, to be the weakes of all the souls games, including BB. Still a great game, but Im suspecting DS3 is better.

Avatar image for frytup
frytup

1954

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By frytup

@amyggen said:

There's also no reason to believe that they didn't review the final code of the game, that was literally the reason why Austin waited with the review until the game was out.

With games being constantly patched/updated, I'm not sure "final code" has any real meaning anymore.

Simple solution: don't treat reviews as set in stone. Update them as patches roll in. Yeah, I know the staff doesn't have time to monitor the progress of every game they've reviewed, but it's probably worth the trouble for big releases.

Avatar image for amyggen
AMyggen

7738

Forum Posts

7669

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By AMyggen

@frytup: "Final code" as in what people will play at release.

Also I'm not a fan of the updated review concept because either you do that with every game or no game, and there's no way any site has the manpower to do that with every game. Doing it with some games will just be arbitrary. Treat reviews as buying advice on day 1 and if technical issues are mentioned you take that with a grain of salt if you're buying the game much after that.

Avatar image for frytup
frytup

1954

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@amyggen said:

@frytup: "Final code" as in what people will play at release.

But how much does that really matter if there's a release day patch? Or a patch the day after release? And why pretend a review based on technical issues at one point in time is still valid two weeks later?

If it were me, I'd both get rid of scores and break down the notion that reviews are unchangeable. The first puts far too much emphasis on score aggregation sites, and the second is a relic of print.

Avatar image for giantlizardking
GiantLizardKing

1144

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Fucking A, that was well written. Maybe video games after all.

Avatar image for amyggen
AMyggen

7738

Forum Posts

7669

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By AMyggen

@frytup said:
@amyggen said:

@frytup: "Final code" as in what people will play at release.

But how much does that really matter if there's a release day patch? Or a patch the day after release? And why pretend a review based on technical issues at one point in time is still valid two weeks later?

If it were me, I'd both get rid of scores and break down the notion that reviews are unchangeable. The first puts far too much emphasis on score aggregation sites, and the second is a relic of print.

The "final code" thing was a response to the user I (and Brad) responded to, so don't ask me about that. I was just saying that contrary to his conspiracy theory I think you can guarantee that Austin tried out the release code of the game before playing it.

I don't really care about review scores or not. I don't see "too much emphasis on score aggregation sites" as a big problem because I find scores to be a useful summary, and Metacritic to be a decent guide if I don't care enough to look up much about a game myself (I follow games so closely that I generally don't need score aggregation sites for that medium, but with both music and film I use score aggregation sites pretty frequently and I find them helpful in pointing me in the direction of good stuff). It's also funny to see people still get angry over review scores, so that's an added bonus. The "publishers give out bonuses based on Metacritic" isn't a good argument in my book because that's not on the critics, and if Metacritic ceased to exist publishers would just give out bonuses based on some other bullshit metric (it's also unclear how often this has actually happened).

Even if reviews are unchangeable I still think they're very relevant, even today. They give a good snapshot of the game at release for people buying a game at that time, and for most games things generally doesn't change that much to the base game. If the reviewer is pointing out technical issues and the review hasn't been updated, the consumer can just look up if those issues are still present or just take it with a grain of salt. Of course in the ideal world a review should be updated with each major patch, but that's just not realistic. But that doesn't mean that it's still not perfectly fine to just put a date on a review and keep it as is. And if some reviews are not relevant two weeks later (I'd argue that a review like this is relevant two weeks later even if they fix literally every bug with the game, everything else in the review will still be relevant) that's okay because that won't be the case with most reviews.

Avatar image for ragingflower
RagingFlower

104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By RagingFlower

I was ready to let sequel fatigue scare me off from this one, but Austin's fantastic review has reinvigorated my interest in this. I've played every single one of these since Demon's, I doubt i'll hold off now.

*Edit*: I hope people aren't taking Austin's personal experiences with the PC version as a direct knock against the game from a design perspective. Austin had every right to dock points for the crashes and framerate issues that were present in his game, as stability is an important thing to scale the whole experience to.

For my part, I've had an amazing track record when it comes to "technical messes" like Fallout: New Vegas, X-Com 2, The Walking Dead (Lots of people were down on that game for deleting their saves, I just got lucky...) where I never encounter the issues people were seeing. I don't really think less of a review because my experience doesn't line up with it, I just take it as an interesting new perspective. Until reading Giantbomb's X-Com 2 review, I had no idea that major technical issues were plaguing some users.

Avatar image for batmanbatman
BatmanBatman

565

Forum Posts

3712

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I've been pretty concerned about the PC version since I saw Austin playing it, and I'm happy to report that the experience has been very smooth for me so far. Pratically a locked 60 with no crashes or bugs.

I'm more or less 8 hours into the game though, so maybe it's a little to soon to consider myself out of the thin ice yet.

Oh yeah, saw that 4 star score from a mile away :)

Avatar image for wwen
Wwen

127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

4 stars and 1 brown dwarf and a Kupier belt object.

Avatar image for xeirus
Xeirus

1729

Forum Posts

418

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

@sear said:
@xeirus said:
@sear said:

It might be worth pointing out that GeForce 700 series cards are at the minimum requirement level for the game. Dinging a game for not playing well on a near-below-spec system feels dubious to me.

"near-below-spec system"

So, like, not below them?

Meaning, it's perfectly justifiable, and likely more realistic for most players?

You're right of course. I'm not saying that people should expect min-spec systems to not work. It's mostly just that "minimum" typically means "you can play on this, but you probably don't want to". :P

To put it another way: I seriously doubt 90% of PC game reviews test games on a variety of hardware setups before publishing. Yet, almost every single PC game has problems with compatibility at launch. That Austin's 3-year-old video card just happened to produce crash issues for him? That's crappy, but I can name dozens of games on PC in the last years that had crash issues and reviewers barely if ever mentioned them.

To turn things around, what if a developer names Intel HD Graphics as the minimum requirement (which is fairly common) but it doesn't perform well on that setup? Yet try finding me a PC game reviewer who is playing games on Intel's integrated graphics. I can almost guarantee you nobody is. Is that okay? Where do you draw the line? What if Dark Souls 3 had problems with Intel graphics, and they were named the minimum, but Austin never played the game on that setup? Would we say "damn, better change the score" or would we go "well, you have Intel graphics, you're asking for trouble?"

So given all the general wonkiness around PC games and compatibility/hardware/drivers/etc., it feels a bit weird to then single out Dark Souls 3 for crashes based on an unlucky roll of the dice.

That's the problem. You think someone is singling out this specific game.

No one cares who made the game, it's about the experience that person has. That experience gained 4 stars, that's the end of it.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

@nasher27: I prefer a 10 point scale but admittedly all scores are pointless anyway. Reviews in fact are pointless. What if you're a huge Yoshi Island fan, but before buying that game you had read Jeffs thoughts on it (which are wildly negative) you respect the guy but I mean what use would that be to you? This is why reviews that deal with scores for sound, video, design might seem antiquated but in a way they do make sense.

Avatar image for dovah
dovah

705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nice review Austin.

Avatar image for tlaar
Tlaar

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Thanks for the review, Austin. I'd been planning to get DS3 on PS4, but with all the talk recently, I'd begun to think maybe I should go with my aging PC build instead. Now I'm excited again for another round of Dark Souls.

Avatar image for zombievac
zombievac

492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@austin_walker: I know, Austin. Thanks for replying. I just think the major issues you had, aside from the bonfire one which I was aware of and didn't mention, are fixed in 1.03. There are always complainers on Steam and reddit, and that's fine. I don't know of a single, high budget game these days that doesn't have them. But I hear you, just thought you played much of the game on pre-release code, you almost had to, right? I don't know when 1.03 hit.

Anyway, I sparked some rage here in the comments, so I apologize. Just giving my thoughts on it. I just feel this game is perfection in the genre, so far, and technically impressive given the series' history and the current PC beta release world we live in.

Avatar image for themaintank
TheMainTank

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheMainTank

@jijipose: There's a few that should be accessible to you at that point in the game. One of the boss souls transposes into the very definition of Strength Scaling Huge, and there's a few variants on big cutters and crushers around the undead settlement. Crashing and smashing with strength weps is great this time around.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
ripelivejam

13572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@wwen: best rating system ever. Id personally give it two hot jupiters.

Avatar image for assirra
Assirra

521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

just chiming in.

gtx 980

intel 3770k

windows 10 64bit

16GB RAM

SSD

I get crashes, not the infamous bonfire crashes but at complete random places, Sometimes when entering a boss room, sometimes when rolling through stuff, sometimes just when walking. I keep bathering through but especially during the middle of a bossfight crashing and getting thrown either dead or in front of the bossroom again is getting really tedious.

Avatar image for bag7725
Bag7725

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I couldn't have put it better myself! I am really enjoying the game but i am definitely looking to what else this team can do.

Avatar image for calbags
calbags

154

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By calbags

Why does everyone think this will be the last souls game? I can't remember the exact quote but it was more along the lines of this game being the last chapter of the series to take place in this lore setting, nothing about it being the last souls game. Fromsoft have made like 15 Armored core games why would the Souls series be any different.

Avatar image for darkfiber
darkfiber

72

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A couple hours so far with the PC version and it runs buttery smooth without a single crash. I hope it stays that way.

Avatar image for wrathofgod
WrathOfGod

938

Forum Posts

242

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Great writing, Austin.

Like a big dumb idiot, I'm seriously thinking about jumping into Shadow Tower and King's Field for the first time instead of getting DSIII.

Avatar image for onemanarmyy
Onemanarmyy

6406

Forum Posts

432

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Onemanarmyy

@calbags: You're right about this. They won't make a new Dark Souls game but i'm pretty sure they're not going to abandon their animation heavy combat system. Maybe we'll do it with mechs next time around. Or with ninja's.

@nasher27

Jeff said that there are a lot of people who just want to see a score under a game, and he wants to serve those people as well. Also he feels like a game can make you feel in 5 ways ( Terrible,bad,ok,good,amazing) and he thinks those feelings are pretty well translated to Metacritic using this 5-point scale.

Avatar image for avyshue
avyshue

114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Thanks for the review Austin. I've never gotten very far in these games because I just don't like the combat style/intentionally obfuscated leveling and progression, and I appreciate your review indicating that this is very similar to the other games.

Regarding criticism, the reason that I trust the people reviewing games on this site is that they take the time to indicate all of their influences and thoughts, not just run down a bullet pointed list of dry pros and cons. When I read a review from Jeff on a new call of duty (a series I am never going to play another installment of) I can appreciate what he likes about those games and carry that to other reviews. Similarly, Austin is going to be WAY more into a grand strategy cyberpunk mech simulator than I would, but I can know enough about his feelings and influences to parse a properly nuanced opinion, not just if the graphics were good or whatever.

Long post short, I would love for all your writing to be as long a form as possible, and the score at the bottom I could not give a shit less about.

Avatar image for violegrace
VioleGrace

106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By VioleGrace

@xshinobi: OMG YES ! Otogi 3 would be amazing too !

Avatar image for calbags
calbags

154

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
monkeyking1969

9098

Forum Posts

1241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 18

Too bad about the crash bugs. But, a good game is still a good game under the fixable flaws. I hope the fixes come quickly.

Avatar image for y2ken
Y2Ken

3308

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 28

I'm glad to hear you say that it sticks the landing, Austin. So far I've increasingly been wowed by the game as I progress, but a lot of the early characters and story really does feel like they're setting up a tightrope to walk between a big success and huge disappointment. So hearing that you were satisfied is great.

The game is stunning, too. I reached the area Brad hinted at and it dropped my jaw too - then within a few hours I was left speechless again by another location. Their design is spectacular in a way the early areas didn't at all hint at.

Avatar image for bread_harrity
Bread_Harrity

140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@viking_funeral: People with minimal real life issues like to complain about insignificant things, or knit pick when things aren't exactly the way that they want them to be. Thankfully, opinions are subjective and we can like what we like. I loved Dark Souls 2 as well!

Avatar image for mozartfx
mozartfx

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mozartfx

Why does DS need to end? Austin is not the first person I've heard say this. For me, they could make one of these games every year and I'd buy it. The idea that games need to have HUGE changes every time they come out with a new one is ridiculous...to me.

Avatar image for cav829
Cav829

830

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 2

@mozartfx: There have been five of those games since 2009. Even Miyazaki has said he wants to move on to something else at this point. I know you might buy it and a number of existing fans might continue to buy these games, but even a lot of the super fans are walking into DS 3 a little fatigued with the series after a new game each of the past three years. At minimum, FromSoft deserves a break before at some point likely making Bloodborne 2. Annuazing a series does eventually catch up with it.

Plus at some point it'd be great if they could release an updated version of and Dark 1.

Avatar image for jpope
Jpope

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I got really lucky to not CtD like some other people have been having issues with in this game. The funniest bug I've found is that you can airwalk on top of a tree in the Cathedral of the deep. I've also had two of those obese lady mage/cleric's clip through solid ground and fall to their death (although, I'm happy they did or I would of probably died.

Avatar image for ferenz
ferenz

141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xeirus said:
@ferenz said:

Informative and well written review but I'm surprised at the score, as well as what seems like a general bias against giving AAA games 5 stars these days. The line I keep hearing consistently is that "we don't have any bias towards giving indie games higher scores because they were made by smaller development teams," but I'm not sure the statistics are bearing that out. Taking a look at the first page in "Reviews" currently I see the following five star reviews:

  • Stardew Valley
  • The Witness
  • Undertale
  • MGS V
  • Super Mario Maker
  • Axiom Verge

The top 10 list from 2015 also included Invisible Inc, Grow Home, and Kerbal Space program (as well as Undertale) while Bloodborne is absent as well as several other titles that everybody on the team gushed about for weeks at release. To me, it seems like it's becoming difficult to argue that there's not a growing bias towards favoring lower budget, smaller studio games.

/facepalm

Just accept that the game is good and move on.

Why on earth do you care about a one star difference?

You think they're getting paid off by the rich indie scene or something?

Feel free to have your own opinion about it, for me it's an interesting question that I don't think has fully been considered/discussed by most game journalists/reviewers as it's only a somewhat recent phenomenon. If you find it facepalm-worthy then it's probably not worth your making the effort to respond to, right?

Avatar image for ferenz
ferenz

141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mofaz: That's a valid justification I think, and one that I've considered myself. I'm sure there may be some statistical considerations at play also, like maybe the only indie games we hear about are those that have gotten massively popular due to their quality, in which case the percentage of "5 star" indie games may still be far, far lower than "5 star" AAA games. I just think it's an interesting question to consider as indie games continue to rise in popularity among mainstream gamers.

Avatar image for zombievac
zombievac

492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By zombievac

@brad said:
@zombievac said:

With all the talk the guys do about only reviewing the final build of the game, not pre-release, it's too bad Austin dinged this one for technical issues that were fixed by the launch v1.03 patch.

Game is better than most PC releases have ever been, as far as performance and stability go for me personally. I would give it 5 stars hands-down, but this is my favorite series of all time possibly and I was extremely happy to have a follow up that is the best among the series by far...

EDIT: So, I've combed around some forums, and it appears the issues Austin and GBeast had were exclusive to their setup, IF HE ACTUALLY REVIEWED FINAL CODE, which it's pretty obvious he did not. Even without the final code, the issues they had were not the common experience.

Not only are you completely wrong about this, you're being an ass about it. I mean this in the nicest way possible but this post makes you sound like a lunatic.

Thanks Brad, that's high praise from you!

We'll have to agree to disagree because I still only see one major issue after 1.03 that has an immediate (as of launch), easy, & relatively painless workaround that one could find within a few minutes, and an incoming fix, post 1.03. Like any PC game, you could find many examples of other issues but they're 90% because someone did something wrong, and that does not make them idiots but it doesn't change that fact: Gaming PC ownership requires research and maintenance. I fix these type of issues all day long on gaming PCs and high-end workstations, it's my profession, and I work with smart people who just refuse to accept that their PCs will never be perfect especially if they refuse to accept the nature of their inherent issues and work with and around them.


"What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?" -George Orwell

Avatar image for blacklab
blacklab

2025

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Despite the #brand #overdose,

Austin, I thought you were better than this.

Avatar image for xeirus
Xeirus

1729

Forum Posts

418

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

@ferenz said:
@xeirus said:
@ferenz said:

Informative and well written review but I'm surprised at the score, as well as what seems like a general bias against giving AAA games 5 stars these days. The line I keep hearing consistently is that "we don't have any bias towards giving indie games higher scores because they were made by smaller development teams," but I'm not sure the statistics are bearing that out. Taking a look at the first page in "Reviews" currently I see the following five star reviews:

  • Stardew Valley
  • The Witness
  • Undertale
  • MGS V
  • Super Mario Maker
  • Axiom Verge

The top 10 list from 2015 also included Invisible Inc, Grow Home, and Kerbal Space program (as well as Undertale) while Bloodborne is absent as well as several other titles that everybody on the team gushed about for weeks at release. To me, it seems like it's becoming difficult to argue that there's not a growing bias towards favoring lower budget, smaller studio games.

/facepalm

Just accept that the game is good and move on.

Why on earth do you care about a one star difference?

You think they're getting paid off by the rich indie scene or something?

Feel free to have your own opinion about it, for me it's an interesting question that I don't think has fully been considered/discussed by most game journalists/reviewers as it's only a somewhat recent phenomenon. If you find it facepalm-worthy then it's probably not worth your making the effort to respond to, right?

You're coming across like a conspiracy theorist, that's the facepalm.

Did you ever think that this group enjoys the smaller games more and that it has nothing to do with the size of the team?

Stardew and Witness were in development over 5 years each, and MGS and Super Mario are _not_ small dev teams. What is your point again?

All of this over a 4 star review instead of 5 stars. That is embarrassing.
You're the person they make fun of on the podcast each week.

Avatar image for ferenz
ferenz

141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xeirus: Your logic is irrefutable. I surrender.

Avatar image for austin_walker
austin_walker

568

Forum Posts

5245

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mozartfx: Because while there will undoubtedly be a number of people who agree with you, they have to balance that number against the number of people who are burning out on the franchise and will slowly stop buying them. Someone, somewhere, has spent the last four years saying the same thing you just said, but about Assassin's Creed. But the fact is that a developer can't devote a huge amount of resources towards satisfying only those superfans. At some point, that money would better be spent elsewhere, either for a better immediate return or else in order to set up a new IP with long-term potential.

Avatar image for onemanarmyy
Onemanarmyy

6406

Forum Posts

432

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Onemanarmyy

@ferenz:

AAA games are set up and marketed to reach a wide audience. When the new Fallout game or Call of Duty game ships, a lot of people will know about that release and wonder what the gamingsites think about them. That's why those games get reviews.

Now for indiegames , there are 10 coming out on steam every day, and most of them are not doing anything special or interesting to warrant a review. Especially because the majority of the audience won't even know that game is available or be interested in it. However, when an indie game does stand out from that crowd, chances are that someone on the staff falls in love with it and writes a positive review about it. This happened with Stardew & Undertale.

Of course you could pick a bad indiegame to balance the reviewscores, but why would anyone write about a bad indie game that no one really cares for anyway? Especially when there are so many coming out each day. Having Alex spend 4 hours to explain how bad Bad Rats really is, isn't that valuable if no one is on the fence of buying that game.

I think that's mostly the reason why indiegame reviews tend to score higher. AAA-games get scored out of necessity (people want to know how good the latest big thing is) and therefore doesn't only get scored out of passion for that game, while an indiegame only gets reviewed if it stands out and someone is passionate about it.

Avatar image for shishkebab09
shishkebab09

154

Forum Posts

132

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

For what it's worth, I'm on PC and have had zero issues thus far.

Avatar image for zevvion
Zevvion

5965

Forum Posts

1240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 2

Edited By Zevvion

I haven't had any issues playing Dark Souls 3 on the PC.

Same here. And I'll add XCOM 2 to that list. And just about every other game that was claimed to be a buggy mess. I've started to disregard comments about games being buggy. It's just never true. At least not for me.

Avatar image for lively
Lively

364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ferenz said:
@xeirus said:
@ferenz said:

Informative and well written review but I'm surprised at the score, as well as what seems like a general bias against giving AAA games 5 stars these days. The line I keep hearing consistently is that "we don't have any bias towards giving indie games higher scores because they were made by smaller development teams," but I'm not sure the statistics are bearing that out. Taking a look at the first page in "Reviews" currently I see the following five star reviews:

  • Stardew Valley
  • The Witness
  • Undertale
  • MGS V
  • Super Mario Maker
  • Axiom Verge

The top 10 list from 2015 also included Invisible Inc, Grow Home, and Kerbal Space program (as well as Undertale) while Bloodborne is absent as well as several other titles that everybody on the team gushed about for weeks at release. To me, it seems like it's becoming difficult to argue that there's not a growing bias towards favoring lower budget, smaller studio games.

/facepalm

Just accept that the game is good and move on.

Why on earth do you care about a one star difference?

You think they're getting paid off by the rich indie scene or something?

Feel free to have your own opinion about it, for me it's an interesting question that I don't think has fully been considered/discussed by most game journalists/reviewers as it's only a somewhat recent phenomenon. If you find it facepalm-worthy then it's probably not worth your making the effort to respond to, right?

I think a simpler explanation is that a lot of AAA games are very conservatively designed to the point of being same-y and padded out with filler. Naturally, smaller games have more freedom to stand out and do something truly original.

Avatar image for cav829
Cav829

830

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 2

@ferenz: The issue is your initial post was pretty accusatory whether that was intentional or not. You drop a question "is there a bias" and your only presented evidence is "look at this set of review scores and a top ten list that has all sorts of crazy stuff that went into it." You then left it to others to answer your question. More effort to make that a topic of conversation like "why are we seeing indie games receive comparable/possibly better than scores over AAA games" rather than starting off with a "defend your review scores" I think would have garnered a better response.

Getting into Top Ten aggregate lists, that's such a strange beast in and of itself. Undertale, Invisible Inc, Rocket League (the indie games in last year's top 10 list) all received a great deal of praise from a lot of sources. Grow Home might be the most niche game of the group. Plus if you go back just a bit further in time, you'll find Bayonetta 2 and Shadow of Mordor both received 5 star reviews, i.e. two AAA games, and I think those were the only 5 star reviews in 2014.

4 star vs. 5 star ratings almost always come down to a level of personal preference, so I don't really see anything here heavily suggestion there was bias towards DS III being a AAA game. It's the fifth Souls game since 2009 and it presented itself as kind of a "greatest hits" experience. I haven't played it yet, so I'll reserve judgement until I do so, but I can easily see why someone would say it's more 4 than 5. I wouldn't call DeS or Dark II 5 star games either after all.

Avatar image for plasmaduck
PlasmaDuck

230

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

The game plays well, but it feels very thin and creativily lacking compared to the other souls games. I was also kinda disappointed to never find a better weapon than the Lothric sword I got in the first hour, after upgrading it with a refined gem it even did more damage than most greatswords. None of the boss weapons was ever worth it, the fancy skills served as nothing more than another way of getting you killed against all the wildly flailing enemies.

I would probably have liked it more if it wasn't trying to tie together with the past games. It kept shouting "hey you remember this right?" everywhere you went. There were some really cool bosses, but waaay to few overall. I just finished the final boss (wtf From how did you think that would be acceptable?) and I'm left with a disappointing "that's it?" feeling.

Avatar image for barrettalong
barrettalong

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By barrettalong

Perhaps I play the DS games differently then say every reviewer but I have been to most of the major sites and not a single person has referenced the changes to the multiplayer aspect of the game. I will say I have always loved the covenant system in the game and trying to rise the ranks by offering items obtained by either helping or invading other has really added longevity and some really awesome mechanics to the series. However in DS 3 I can't fathom how anyone will ever be able to collect 30+ Pale Tongues or Vertebra Shackles or whatever because the have totally unbalanced Invasions.

I have attempted to Invade at least 40 times by now and have be out numbered 2/3/4 to 1 in all but one instance. When invading you loose any health buff from embers and your estus flask use is halved and that is fine because you are interrupting another game and should have a disadvantage. Also the math to determine invasions makes sure that your soul level always matches the host and that your weapon level also matches and again these stipulations make total sense. However the only way you can actually invade a player is if a player has used a summon sign or the dried fingers. So at the least you are going 2 on 1, and the 2 are the same character/weapon level as you but have the health buff from using an ember and all there estus flasks. However in the case of the dried finger you are probably joining in for a 4 on 1 (or 4 on 2 of you are super lucky). The odds are so stacked against you that it becomes nearly pointless. If that didn't tip the scales enough it appears that in some areas upon invasion there are smoke walls that the host can hide behind and in which they can heal, summon more phantoms and rain down spells/arrows/pyro or whatever and can not be touched.

Perhaps this is a minor gripe in an otherwise great game but it does bring up the question as to why they still have the covenants at all. 5 of the 8 covenants are dependant on invasions and interplay from this mechanic and as the game is now they all seem irrelevant.

Now that is a lot of text and I would not usually post such a diatribe but this seems like a massive oversight that seemingly no reviews are mentioning. I hope this changes and is tweaked in a later patch but as for right now it seems pretty broken.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I think this is still a great review Austin.

Avatar image for olivaw
Olivaw

1309

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@barrettalong: I've been invaded multiple times when I was embered and alone. I've never touched the dried fingers or even know off-hand what they do. Not discounting your experience, but maybe you've just gotten unlucky forty times in a row, during launch week, when ninety eight percent of the ground is covered in summon signs pretty much everywhere.