Just Beat Dark Souls 3 on Xbox One, it seemed pretty short.

I was wondered if anyone else used the early Japanese release to play the game, I just beat it tonight with 38:55 hours clocked it, considering it took me 77 to beat Dark Souls 1 and 82 to beat Dark Souls 2 I feel like it was a little short, or maybe I just destroyed it? I don't know but I was wondering if anyone else had gotten as far.

It was great but I can't help but feel sad that I don't have another 40 hours of game to play.

EDIT/UPDATE: Seems like most people feel like 30-40 hours is normal for a Souls game, I must have just been slower/less experienced with Dark Souls 1 and 2 since those took me almost 80 hours to get through my first run, the game is awesome and I was sweating at the end so nothing against the game at all, I don't want anyone to think I'm standing here saying 40 hours is short, it just felt short from prior experiences.

Do you feel like going back through it with a different build/continuing on to NG+?

Did it feel lacking in content compared to the other games, or just easier to get through?

It's possible there's a bunch of stuff you missed/skipped over. Or maybe this 1 release every year thing is getting to from software.

I'd have to think that after playing through the previous games you've got a good handle on how to avoid constant death. Not at all surprised it didn't take as long as the others.

That's how long it took me to platinum Bloodborne (which involved beating it 3 times for me), so that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Also, Dark Souls 1 also took me around 80 hours to beat the first time, but it was also my first "Souls" game so huge chunks of that was learning how to play and exploring totally irrelevant aspects of my nonexistent "build" (so basically putting points into everything, using magic etc when I had barely any int). DS2 took about half that time because I already knew how to play a Souls game, and had about 100+ hours practice from DS1 already.

Long story short, you're probably just better at the game, also 40 hours is not short at all, even for a Souls game.

I want to at least go into it to see if it changes much.

This crossed my mind obviously.

I check out most areas as much as I can, I don't think there is much left for me to discover.

I know that isn't short but I feel like I had a good handle on things in Dark Souls 2 and that was still a 70+ hour experience, ripping through this in under 40 just felt crazy.

I seem to remember someone from the Bombcrew describing Dark Souls 1 back in the day as a "40 hour game" (perhaps during Vinny's Load Our Last Soul feature?), so this doesn't shock me. Besides, when I look back on Bloodborne, it was actually pretty darn short, but it sure didn't feel that way during my first foray. Honestly, pacing and interesting level design do wonders for a game more than play time, I think. Hopefully it'll be the same for this game.

Bloodborne took me 25 hours, and that seemed solid. 38 almost seems too long for me.

I really don’t mind a shorter game so long as it maintains a high level of quality and a decent amount of polish throughout both kind of lacking form their past games as they always seem to be in a rush whether by being too ambitious or just not being allowed enough time . I really like DS1 but the second half isn't nearly as good as the first especially the bosses.

40 hours seems in line with the previous games. howlongtobeat puts Demon's Souls at about 35 hours, Dark Souls 1 at 50 hours, Dark Souls 2 at 50 hours, and Bloodborne at 35 hours. These numbers are without including DLC, of course, since Dark Souls 3 doesn't have any DLC yet.

It's typical for your first Souls game to take extra long because you're new to the conventions of the series; your subsequent Souls games go much faster for a single playthrough.

Isn't that pretty close to the average length of Dark Souls I and II? I remember the first game took me around 45 hours or so. Seems about right to me, I'm glad it isn't longer.

That sounds perfect to me, so long as there are a decent number of secrets within the game to discover.

One of my biggest complaints with that series is that they just last too long, and I lose interest in the late-game. Saying it's shorter kind of makes me want to play this more

It took me a little over 40 to finish DS2, which I played first, and a little under 40 to beat DS1 including the DLC. 38:55 seems fine to me.

I'd be OK with it if it were only 15 hours, so *shrugs*. As long as it's good.

I got the game early, but I've only managed to sink around 12 hours in so far. No idea how far I am in the game (I just got about half way through the cathedral of the deep, and have beaten the Farron guys), but what's struck me in particular is that it seems distinctly easier than the other games. I guess I can chalk some of that up to experience, but in general it seems like there is a lot less dying in 2-3 hits in this game than in previous iterations. I've also beaten most of the bosses I've fought on the first or second try - and I wouldn't say that's because I'm particularly skilled, or anything. I think it's just much more forgiving, at least up to the point where I'm at.

So I guess it doesn't surprise me that it ends up being a little bit shorter overall - I just haven't had to retread the same ground as much as I have in past Souls titles.

38 hours is not short for any game. But I do get what you mean when you say it feels shorter but people are right, you're already more prepared for these games so naturally you'll be better at them

@homelessbird: Supposedly the day one patch that the Xbox One early version does not have also includes a HP/damage boost for enemies that was tuned down for some press events. I had a similar experience with the difficulty for the early game which seems to have evened out where I am now so maybe only those early zones were altered.

Take this with a grain of salt, but there's some rumblings that the version we're playing (Xbox One Japanese pre-patch, ver. 1.0) lacks a difficulty bump that comes with the day one patch. No way to be sure until the patch comes out, but I'm leaning towards believing it since I'm halfway into the woodland area and have yet to feel "Dark Souls challenged." The two real bosses I've gone up against have been pretty predictable and have only taken a few attempts to down, and a lot of enemies feel like fodder, crumbling in two or three hits. It would be a pretty drastic change in Souls difficulty if things were working as intended.

@meldingplague: @efesell: I can definitely believe that. Although I can't imagine that they've done anything to change the boss or enemy AI, or anything like that. But it does seem like the enemies, at least in the earlier areas, should be doing a bit more damage.

I'm curious to know what NG+ looks like in this. In Bloodborne, it was downright laughable. Barely anything scaled up enough to become a threat again, and I cakewalked the thing in around 5 hours. Dark Souls 2 got it right by having there be a significant bump to the difficulty that included adding phantoms and rearranging enemies. I'm hoping it takes more from DS2 than any other in that regard.

@homelessbird: Yeah it would just be a damage and health boost. I assume the idea to be that if they were going to give press a few hours to play the game then it'd be best if everyone had a better chance of seeing more of it.

In general I think the boss design and mechanics are pretty incredible so far so even if there's not a huge change to the difficulty I'll probably be pretty satisfied. Better the really interesting one or two shot fight than the boring one I have to repeat a lot I guess.

Its worth mentioning that reports are saying this is prepatched and nearly equivalent to a ng-1. You might want to check it out again after release.

This is basically detuned to the level they had for the press events.

@atomicoldman: Man, I forgot they started adding that kinda stuff into DS2 NG+. Now I'm going to be disappointed if they didn't take that concept further in this game...

there's a few optional areas with bosses, don't know if you got those done..but otherwise yeah maybe it is a bit shorter but I think it's a higher quality product than lets say what DS2 ended up being.

That time the giant two-headed spider climbs up the cliff a whole area before you're supposed to fight it in NG+... One of the most effective jump leap scares in recent memory. DSII without a doubt has one of the best NG+ systems in all of gaming, especially for how you could trigger that stuff prematurely with the bonfire ascetics. Bloodborne was thusly extremely disappointing in that regard for how there was literally nothing different from playthrough to playthrough besides the requisite health and damage modifiers.

@yummylee: I cannot remember another time I've been more underwhelmed with a game than Bloodborne's NG+. I straight up beat that in one sitting, it was pitiful, really.

I finished the English version (patch 1.00) in about 30 hours. I'd say there's more to it than DS1, but less than 2. To answer @rongalaxy though DS3 is probably the best paced of all these games, however that does mean it feels sorta slow. There are also some design decisions that exaggerates the feeling of lack of progression, and generally messes with your perspective on the amount of content.

@atomicoldman: According to people close to the development of Bloodborne there was a lot of ambition going in but they ended up having to rush the game out so stuff like NG+,PVP and areas like the Burgenwerth weren’t fully realized. There were fewer weapons on release then they were hoping to provide and apparently the chalice dungeons were made more significant to try to make up for a perceived lack of content.

@ikramit: Do you have a link to that stuff? Not that I doubt it (I think a lot of Bloodborne can be explained by it being rushed through development), but I think it'd be a real interesting read to hear about what the goals for that game were.

By the by, I think the thread title should be altered to better reflect its estimated '38-39 hour' runtime, because it being 'pretty short'--with that number clocked--doesn't seem befitting.

As a brand new player to souls, DS2 base only took me 45~ hours to finish, 40 for a vet in DS3 sounds pretty good.

I didn't feel short-changed by Demon's Souls 30 hours so this won't bother me. 40 sounds good. Especially as that usually translate to 50 + hours for my slow ass.

@atomicoldman:

Most of what I said was from a twitch stream by AGermanSpy it was a while ago; he worked on the official guide for both DS2 and Bloodborne and knows a few people on the team that worked on the game. He described the ways in which the game didn’t come together in the ways they hoped it would. Epicnamebro who is in the same position had very similar things to say on varies YouTube videos so I’m willing to believe it’s true, links may be a bit difficult though sorry.

Still From has rushed out every other soul’s game they’ve made so it’s really not much of a stretch to think it’s the same here.

Theirs a dark souls 2 design works interview were the guy heading the project basically throws the former director (who had worked on heading the project before him)under the bus and talks about how he and the team had to start from scratch with a few existing assets pretty close to when the game was supposed to come out . DS1 was also pushed through the door super-hot with the second half being a lot less fleshed out, lost izalith being the prime example of that. Their also the fact that the sizable DLC was initially meant to be a part of the main game your meant to gather all aspects of the first flame one of which is the dark soul (manus) all of that was cut because they didn’t have enough time Miyazaki has stated that a number of times. Demon souls was picked from the cutting room floor by Miyazaki and also has a large amount of cut content that was planned(giant arch stone) the souls games have been a mess in that regard all along.

Compared to DS2 that sounds short. However, I'd rather take 40 hours of quality content than DS2's bloated filler content.

It sounds about on par with the other Souls games. DeS was a little shorter. DS1 took me a little longer (close to 70 hours) but that was because it was my first Souls game and I experimented, explored and failed a lot. Bloodborne was about 40 hours, too.

So, sounds good to me.

I bet your experience with earlier games matter a bit.

Bloodborne was my first entry and I have about 90+ hours there for one playthrough. Which I heard was abnormally long.

Bloodborne took me about that long. Dark Souls took forever because I hadn't played a game like that before but by now we're all pretty much old-hands

@ikramit: I did know about Demon's Souls having content that was cut, which at the time I was hoping would materialize later as DLC, but I was unaware of the issues surrounding DS1 and 2. I'll have to look around for more information on their development, sounds pretty interesting. Bloodborne absolutely felt rushed, though, and I always assumed that's probably what the deal was with a lot of things in that game.

So I'm not derailing anything, 40 hours seems about right to me. That's how long DS2 takes when you're competent at these games already. I remember them saying the levels would be more densely packed but not quite as long and I'm sure that has something to do with it. It sounds like they really want you to explore each area, but that you could reach the boss rather quickly if you press through.

I think I did Dark Souls 2 in about 40 hours, so it's not a surprising length to me. Dark Souls 1 on the other hand took me a solid 80.

I dunno, 38 hours is still hardly short in the grand scheme of things, and that's around how long Bloodborne is for most people.

And honestly, as much as I love Dark Souls 1, there's stuff in that game that could have been cut, and probably would have made the game better for it. Like Blighttown. I'd rather they make the best game they could, and if that means it's a bit shorter, but better paced/better in terms of overall quality, then I'm all for it.

You can't cut the poison swamp level. Ever.

Blighttown is one of my favorite Souls levels and in my opinion the essential Souls experience. So, nope!

Demon's Souls was my first and took me 70+ hours. Dark Souls took me about 45. Dark Souls 2 took me about 35. Bloodborne took me about 30. These games just get eaiser when you know their tricks.

@cptbedlam: Maybe if the framerate wasn't a blight, I might be willing to reconsider my position, but never!

The first Dark Souls was my first game of that type, and it took me 69 hours to beat it almost 4 times (one full playthrough then some more rush-through NG+s) and get all of the achievements. But I played it a whole bunch more after that. Bloodborne was maybe 30-40 hours first time through (I think it was actually more than that but that's because of all the Chalice Dungeons) yet I've played it through multiple times now. As long as it has the variety for multiple playthroughs (which it seems to from what I've seen) then I'm totally cool with that. I'm sure there's some optional stuff that people haven't found all of yet too, and there'll be DLC coming along as well.

Worth noting that your very first Souls playthrough will generally take longer as you're learning the game's mechanics. Dark Souls II is a bit of an exception because that game is actually rather long (including some bits that could perhaps have been well-served by some trimming down). But I routinely watch those games beaten in casual non-speedruns, usually in roughly 5-10 hours. You can definitely blitz through them once you know what you're doing if you're of a mind - though the first playthrough of any new version will obviously be a tad slower even if you are going as quickly as possible.

I think I'm okay with a slightly shorter Dark Souls game if that means the experience is simply tighter and more memorable. Or if it's just jam-packed with awesome optional content and the critical path is shorter.

40 hours doesn't seem particularly short. And the learning curve is smaller with each game in the series.

I understand if you had hoped for more, that is fine. But 40 hours seems on the longer side of games.

@skullpanda1: At first I suspected this, too. There will definitely be learning and skill development across the games. Although, I do wonder how many bosses and zones Dark Souls 3 has compared to the other games? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significantly shorter game. It had a shorter development time, no?

Blasphemy! Never, ever too much Souls!

Playing the PS4 Japanese Version over here. So far i'm 38 hours in (pretty sure i'm close to finishing it, at least the game is giving me reason to believe that). Have to say i'm very surprised it's actually this long of a game. I was fully expecting this to be similar in size to bloodborne when in reality it's much closer to DkS1.

Also i'm really liking this game(duh). there is no grand innovations but it feels like From managed to take everything good out of each respective Souls game and combine it into this one, which is really all i wanted.