Can somebody explain to me why people consider this the worst souls game? Some people, even on Yas Forums...

Can somebody explain to me why people consider this the worst souls game? Some people, even on Yas Forums, place ds2 higher than this...

Attached: ds3.jpg (358x429, 26.88K)

Dark Souls on a Bloodborne costume

>muh references
>muh pvp
>muh world interconnectivity
They're eternally butthurt that it is both simultaneously too far away from Dark Souls but also too close to Dark Souls

dark souls 2 sotfs is the best game in the series

contrarians

The pandering was on the nose, some of the monsters are fast and filter plebes(we get it, you got gibbed by those werewolves near the crystal mage a few times before you beat the game anyway, get over it) and the pvp has enormous holes that upset dedicated reds, kinda shoe-horning you into the pontiff sillyman covenant for good odds of avoiding gank squads. God help you if you wanted 30 turn ins for blue covs.

Also DS2 contrarianism went too far and you even see retards screeching that DS1 itself was a bad game all along. I wish they'd just accept that it's OK to like the weakest entry in the series, especially if it's at worst a 7/10 instead of an 8 or 9.

>the pvp has enormous holes that upset dedicated reds
Faggot reds, you mean. The multiplayer in DS3 is the best in the series, for a multitude of reasons, and only pseudo-duelists who think Dark Souls is a fighting game, and scrubstompers who invaded Burg with +15 weapons and maxed armour, think otherwise.

Just don't invade at meta level and avoid Pontiff's Playground and Gank Woods. That's how you avoid invading into ganks. That's how you get the real experience of being the balancing mechanism for a phantom or two. You become part of the level, an obstacle for the host to face.

I don't disagree but I meant the problem of invasions being biased towards matching a red with groups of players who escort a baby through the level and do 2-3 overlapping weapon sweeps on top of the red. Pretty dull. I found Pontiff's to be the most fun as an aggressor because it had the best odds of catching somebody playing the game solo. I wasn't interested in scrubstomping, I liked doing efficient but off-meta builds with themes, like sneaky cunt rogue or wide sweeping pole-arm dude one-handing a great shield. Kind of like I was one of those scripted NPC invasions. I think the worst thing DS3 did pvp-wise was making it practically impossible for blue covs to function.

Convince me that there is nothing more fun than invading in Catacombs with obscuring ring and standing on the opposite side of the bridge before Wolnir

I liked to use obscuring ring + silent ring + light weight for fast run/roll to stalk and head shot people with a normal long bow and see how long they'd search for me. They'd be pretty tilted if they found me and I'd have a good 50/50 of finishing them off with R1 spam and the good ol' rapier. It was an RPfag thing, my character was a cowardly ambusher.

I just beat DS2 and dont understand anything of the story

Was the throne the same as the kiln of the first flame?
did the king steal the throne from the giants?
are the dlc kingdoms in the past and in the same geographical area, or are they all different kingdoms in different lands?

why couldnt nashandra access to the throne herself and needed me to do it?

It’s boomer cope

Throne is different, King stole the throne from the giants, DLC kingdoms are present day in different kingoms/lands, don't think about Nashandra too much because they didn't. I think at best she needed the king's ring to open the door.

I genuinely liked Ds2 more. It obviously had a rushed development but at least they were experimenting with new ideas. Ds3 is just Bloodborne: Souls edition.

ok, that makes sense, at least the ring part.

Some people didn't like it because it was kind of linear compared to 1 and especially compared to 2. I still enjoyed it though.

It lacks soul.

Still a great game though.

cause they already played Demon Souls, DS1 and 2 and Bloodborne and the game wasn't hard anymore

New bad
Old good

DS3 was pretty based for invading and trolling when the playerbase was at its peak. Cutting the bridge for easy pale tongues, being a watchdog and staying near the crabs or just being a cunt as an Aldrich faithful using the knights as reinforcement. I miss that shit

People are dumb. This is my favorite DS game, and it's the only one I've actually bothered to finish multiple times.

Nothing new at all.

>"Hey remembah this? LOOK IT'S GOOD OL' SIEGMEYER OF CATARINA!!!!!..................... OR IS IT? *winks winks*"

>retarded "lore" that solves fucking nothing

>not a dark souls game, it's bloodborne with armors (I can accept this shit but at least be honest about that crap)

>literally made for the youtube audience

>no soul like the first two games

DS2 is a botched attempt to make something amazing, while DS3 doesn't attempt to overstep any boundaries and plays it as safe as possible. I can appreciate the former much more than the latter.

Some people started with 2.
Others have bad taste.
There's people out there with the weirdest fetishes, it's no surprise some like this shit.

>not a dark souls game, it's bloodborne with armors
i always see people parroting this shit. how is DS3's combat any less "dark souls" than DS1's? because you have to dodge as opposed to poising through everything?

>because it had the best odds of catching somebody playing the game solo
ex-fucking-actly my point. You have less estus. You have a HP disadvantage. The host has phantoms. But you have the level to play with, and you can fit yourself into it as you want. A solo host is a glorified duel, and I don't want any of that. I don't really care about a 1v1 dickwaving contest because DS3 PvP is pretty shit at 1v1. It's like a jank, over-shoulder fighting game with extremely limited movesets. What I want from the multiplayer, as a diehard invader, is to be a part of the level. I want to be a part of the host's game experience. That's what the game is balanced around, that's how it's supposed to work.

Blue covenants are fine. A solo host wearing Way of Blue might as well have a phantom, since they will trigger in under 60 seconds if there is a darkmoon waiting in that level range. At that point, again, it's no longer just a glorified duel, and it's actually now even more interesting since the blue, the host and the invader all have different objectives, all mutually exclusive.

The multiplayer is built more-or-less seamlessly into the game. Dark Souls is the only game which has these systems and mechanics, and people keep trying to change them because they don't understand them. You aren't SUPPOSED to invade a solo host to have an honourable duel at the bonfire. You're supposed to invade a party, or a solo host who will be assisted by blue spirits.

The only real issue is that blue spirits tend to be really bad at the game, because experienced blues very often become dedicated invaders themselves since they now hate hosts with a passion for being retarded potato people who run into fuckpits full of enemies headfirst without considering which angles the invader could approach from.

Attached: 2xTKglJ.jpg (1280x720, 122.07K)

>experienced blues very often become dedicated invaders themselves since they now hate hosts with a passion

Attached: 1f83018385.png (700x363, 142.59K)

play all games before talking like a retard, retard.

Ds3 is better than ds2 but the pvp is shit

I like 2 better because it constantly throws curveballs at you, while 3 is too streamlined with the more cinematic approach.

DS3 can't be the worst soul game when DS2 and BB exist. It's still dogshit though.

It's nothing like Bloodborne, it's just something the """ PC masterrace"""" parrot to cope with missing out the best game in the series

It's faster paced than Bloodborne. The rolls are literally OP.

linear
boring
souless
gray
unbalanced
uninspired
nonsensical
cheap