From Software Dark Souls 3

[Arnust]

And me thiking that it'd be a clever multiple personality (with DS1's, but whatever) character. But nope, Patches. I did like how was it done, but then make TWO npc's for fuck's sake.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Did they fixed the poise, the infinite stamina pool of enemies and other broken game mechanics with this DLC?

 

[sullynathan]

Did they fixed the poise, the infinite stamina pool of enemies and other broken game mechanics with this DLC?

poise was never broken, it just wasn't there, don't know about infinite stamina though

 

[Night Goat]

Man, fuck Ashes of Ariandel. At the point I'm at now, my choices are to fight Friede and get one-shotted, or climb down the bridge to some roots and get fucked by giant archers shooting explosive arrows that can't be dodged without falling to my death. Yeah I know, le git gud meme but my reflexes will never be that good.

 

[Hyperion]

Honestly sounds llike you need a Greatshield. Havel's has the best all around defenses, but is heavy as FUCK. Very little chip damage from Friede's magic / dark damage. Good stability for sustained blocking. Very little loss of footing when blocking those heavy arrows. You should just need to roll forward once to avoid the explosion after the block. If Friede Phase 3 is your biggest concern, an infused Cathedral Knight Greatshield gets 99.6% dark resist, requires 8 less strength than Havel's and weighs 15.5 units compared to Havel's 28.

If the stat investment is too much, Black Knight Shield is pretty much the go-to in this game, but only has 63% dark resist.

Another option for the roots section is to put on the Silver Cat Ring and just make a mad dash through and try to get to the lowest possible point from where you can jump and survive. There's a bonfire at the bottom of the frozen lake, so you really just need to make it there to proceed.

 

[sullynathan]

yeah, keep a silver & black knight shield +5 with you at all times.

 

[Ivan]

fuck shields, invest in gitting gud

 

[Correct_Carlo]

Man, fuck Ashes of Ariandel. At the point I'm at now, my choices are to fight Friede and get one-shotted, or climb down the bridge to some roots and get fucked by giant archers shooting explosive arrows that can't be dodged without falling to my death. Yeah I know, le git gud meme but my reflexes will never be that good.

You don't need to git gud, just git summons.

 

[cruel]

Am I getting too old for this, or From crossed the line with the 'no bonfire' part in Ringed City? Like 25+ enemies to beat, some of them being those big fat guys walking under the bridges, plus red phantom invasion. 100k souls collected, equipped Sacrifice ring to be safe, and then died due to some random curse. Sacrifice ring does not work if you die because of the curse, of course. Fuck this game.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[cruel]

-

 

[Makabb]

I almost finished DS 1, got far in DS 2 but i just can't play DS 3

 

[sullynathan]

Am I getting too old for this, or From crossed the line with the 'no bonfire' part in Ringed City? Like 25+ enemies to beat, some of them being those big fat guys walking under the bridges, plus red phantom invasion. 100k souls collected, equipped Sacrifice ring to be safe, and then died due to some random curse. Sacrifice ring does not work if you die because of the curse, of course. Fuck this game.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

git gud

 

[Anthedon]

Man, fuck Ashes of Ariandel. At the point I'm at now, my choices are to fight Friede and get one-shotted, or climb down the bridge to some roots and get fucked by giant archers shooting explosive arrows that can't be dodged without falling to my death. Yeah I know, le git gud meme but my reflexes will never be that good.

And here I am with my old man reflexes debating whether to get the DLC because it's the last Souls content for a while. Or just finish my current playthrough and go out on a high note without unnecessary rage caused by super-twitchy enemies.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Geez, how old are you guys? Because if you can't beat this stuff solo because you lack the reflexes, you probably should never drive a vehicle ever again. This series has always had very generous windows for dodge rolls vs tells. I suspect the actual problem is either a lack of awareness of what the various tells lead to, or not knowing which attacks you can profitably (not necessarily safely, I traded a lot of hits with Ariandel on purpose) punish.

I played through both DLCs with a great hammer, whatever weapon you're using you've got wider margins of safety than I did.

 

[Arnust]

I played through both DLCs with a great hammer, whatever weapon you're using you've got wider margins of safety than I did.

Ledo's? That weapon is the shit. Sucks for Midit, though.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Yeah, was using the one from the previous DLC before that. Midir went from impossible to trivial once I realized only a couple of his breath attacks were worth countering on. Terrible fight.

 

[Anthedon]

From nerfed most elemental infusions with the recent patch. The patch notes actually say those infusions got a buff. Chaos is now C/C Int/Faith and instead got some B scaling for Dex or Str (see Estoc, or Artorias Greatsword). The wiki has not been updated yet. Was a pleasant surprise to find out my Raw ASS with weapon enchantments still hits way harder than supposedly better Chaos infused weapons.

 

[Lithium Flower]

Finally got around to beating the Ringed City a few days ago. I really enjoyed Gael but as others pointed out Midir starts out as and impossibly daunting foe and then turns into a tedious grind to reduce his HP once you figure out his moveset.

Re: complaints about lack of closure and comparisons to DS2. I actually think that the series would be much more coherent as a duology, without DS2 (judging DS2 by what it is, not by the DS2 we never got due to the B-team and development problems). Both DS3 and DS2 explore similar ideas but DS3 shows whereas DS2 tells. The result is that DS2 not only is more clumsy in the way it delivers its ideas but it also cheapens and spoils DS3. A great example of this is the idea of cycles. In Dark Souls 3, the cyclical nature of the world is hinted at when we visit Untended Graves. The player finds themselves in a strange place until they realize that it is the Firelink Shrine from a different time, a different place where the fire faded until Ludleth willed himself lord. Afterwards Ludleth refers to both the player character and the firekeeper as "prisoners kept to link the fire", implying that we are stuck in one hell of a groundhog day. How does DS2 break the idea of the cycles to us? Well two or three characters tell us straight up that "countless kingdoms have fallen and risen on this very spot" and of course, the entirety of Aldia's character and his long winded monologues that are so out of place in a Dark Souls game.

Don't get me wrong, I actually really liked Aldia's "there is no path" monologue, but once again 3 shows us the folly of light and dark and sets up a way to bypass the two and enter a new, uncertain age (through the death of fire or usurpation of fire endings, depending on your interpretation) without resorting to walls of text. Instead it shows the stagnation of order and the dying age of fire and effectively builds on the ideas from the first game, for instance by showing us the dying Demon race and how each time the fire is linked the world becomes more corrupt.

Characters in Dark Souls are best viewed as concepts or ideas they represent. Gael is DS3's "Aldia monologue" because he represents the absurdity and drive of man - he is a fairly minor character who takes up a daunting task which he knows full well will destroy or corrupt him ("And yet, we seek it, insatiably...such is our fate.") Patches is a representation of humanity in general: low, wretched, and greedy, yet somehow persevering through every hardship in its way. The despairing yet tenacious nature of men is shown in Rosaria's fingers, the pilgrims of Londor, and the Dragon worshipers, each attempting to be reborn into something more permanent, something that would allow them to transcend the cycles. Oceiros is obsession, Prince Lothric is resignation, the locust preachers are seduction to nihilism. While DS1 focused on Lords, in DS3 the lords/gods are dead, leaving only men and their follies.

Also I think that the painting burning/creation is a nice allegory for the development of the game. Miyazaki chose to kill the series at the 3rd game, thus "burning" the painting before the "rot" sets in and giving the series a dignified death as opposed to milking the franchise. Hopefully his new paintings are not going to be all console exclusives (haha, who am I kidding).

 

[Lazing Dirk]

my Raw ASS

Well this is a Dark Souls thread I guess

 

[Gentle Player]

Finally got around to beating the Ringed City a few days ago. I really enjoyed Gael but as others pointed out Midir starts out as and impossibly daunting foe and then turns into a tedious grind to reduce his HP once you figure out his moveset.

Re: complaints about lack of closure and comparisons to DS2. I actually think that the series would be much more coherent as a duology, without DS2 (judging DS2 by what it is, not by the DS2 we never got due to the B-team and development problems). Both DS3 and DS2 explore similar ideas but DS3 shows whereas DS2 tells. The result is that DS2 not only is more clumsy in the way it delivers its ideas but it also cheapens and spoils DS3. A great example of this is the idea of cycles. In Dark Souls 3, the cyclical nature of the world is hinted at when we visit Untended Graves. The player finds themselves in a strange place until they realize that it is the Firelink Shrine from a different time, a different place where the fire faded until Ludleth willed himself lord. Afterwards Ludleth refers to both the player character and the firekeeper as "prisoners kept to link the fire", implying that we are stuck in one hell of a groundhog day. How does DS2 break the idea of the cycles to us? Well two or three characters tell us straight up that "countless kingdoms have fallen and risen on this very spot" and of course, the entirety of Aldia's character and his long winded monologues that are so out of place in a Dark Souls game.

Don't get me wrong, I actually really liked Aldia's "there is no path" monologue, but once again 3 shows us the folly of light and dark and sets up a way to bypass the two and enter a new, uncertain age (through the death of fire or usurpation of fire endings, depending on your interpretation) without resorting to walls of text. Instead it shows the stagnation of order and the dying age of fire and effectively builds on the ideas from the first game, for instance by showing us the dying Demon race and how each time the fire is linked the world becomes more corrupt.

Characters in Dark Souls are best viewed as concepts or ideas they represent. Gael is DS3's "Aldia monologue" because he represents the absurdity and drive of man - he is a fairly minor character who takes up a daunting task which he knows full well will destroy or corrupt him ("And yet, we seek it, insatiably...such is our fate.") Patches is a representation of humanity in general: low, wretched, and greedy, yet somehow persevering through every hardship in its way. The despairing yet tenacious nature of men is shown in Rosaria's fingers, the pilgrims of Londor, and the Dragon worshipers, each attempting to be reborn into something more permanent, something that would allow them to transcend the cycles. Oceiros is obsession, Prince Lothric is resignation, the locust preachers are seduction to nihilism. While DS1 focused on Lords, in DS3 the lords/gods are dead, leaving only men and their follies.

Also I think that the painting burning/creation is a nice allegory for the development of the game. Miyazaki chose to kill the series at the 3rd game, thus "burning" the painting before the "rot" sets in and giving the series a dignified death as opposed to milking the franchise. Hopefully his new paintings are not going to be all console exclusives (haha, who am I kidding).

I was always under the impression that both Dark Souls II and III were a somewhat more convoluted re-telling of the same tale or myth that was the basis of the original Dark Souls. Dark Souls (original) certainly has one of the most coherent stories out of all From Software games I've played.

 

[Gentle Player]

I will never understand the people who try to uncover "secrets" and try to draw up absurd conclusions in FromSoft games. It's almost as if they have no experience of any fiction other than D&D or Elder Scrolls and the like, where the whole history of the fictional world is nicely enclosed in some player's handbook or encyclopaedia. Whether you like it or not, From Software have always been in the business of creating a mysterious setting with a minimal plot where the focus is on killing things and getting Souls whilst enjoying a melancholy or nightmarish atmosphere. Though it may be fun to think about, there is no grand truth or great secret to uncover. Miyazaki is a video-game designer; he is not a Ford Madox Ford who from the outset plans a tetralogy of novels over the span of almost a decade where all the characters and their paths and interactions are meticulously planned. These are action-RPGs and not works of literature. I don't understand what it is that people are expecting.

 

[Lithium Flower]

I will never understand the people who try to uncover "secrets" and try to draw up absurd conclusions in FromSoft games. It's almost as if they have no experience of any fiction other than D&D or Elder Scrolls and the like, where the whole history of the fictional world is nicely enclosed in some player's handbook or encyclopaedia. Whether you like it or not, From Software have always been in the business of creating a mysterious setting with a minimal plot where the focus is on killing things and getting Souls whilst enjoying a melancholy or nightmarish atmosphere. Though it may be fun to think about, there is no grand truth or great secret to uncover. Miyazaki is a video-game designer; he is not a Ford Madox Ford who from the outset plans a tetralogy of novels over the span of almost a decade where all the characters and their paths and interactions are meticulously planned. These are action-RPGs and not works of literature. I don't understand what it is that people are expecting.

The storytelling is minimal, the story is not. There is a greater story to uncover beyond the veil, but you are right that it is not meant to be all-encompassing or completely satisfying. For example, the people back in DS days that theorized that there is a hidden plot which involved Velka being the ultimate mastermind behind the entire storyline were pretty stupid. But trying to analyze the game is hardly unreasonable, especially since the game and Miyazaki encourage the player to do so. For example, Gwynevere is almost certainly the queen of Lothric and while this is never explicitly said, there are enough clues in the item descriptions to draw a definite conclusion.. On the other hand the game works just as well when ignoring the story entirely or focusing on its surface level, which is a good thing IMO.

 

[praetor]

you're wrong on pretty much everything. your eloquence fails to hide your stupidity. these 2 in particular are perfect examples

Patches is a representation of humanity in general: low, wretched, and greedy

hahaha, no. Patches was never greedy. he hates greed. Patches is pretty much Miyazaki's avatar

Also I think that the painting burning/creation is a nice allegory for the development of the game. Miyazaki chose to kill the series at the 3rd game, thus "burning" the painting before the "rot" sets in and giving the series a dignified death as opposed to milking the franchise. Hopefully his new paintings are not going to be all console exclusives (haha, who am I kidding).

Miyazaki didn't choose shit. From had a contract with Bamco and they fulfilled it. if it was for Miyazaki, the series would've ended at DS1. he was pretty explicit in his dislike for sequels. and they have at least one more Sony exclusive in the pipeline, as they signed a contract for 3 (it's just unclear if that occurred before or after DeS)

oh, and DS2 is 10 times the game DS3 wished it was, only plebs like you fail to recognise that

 

[bataille]

I reset my character's stats, started using fume's sword and yohrm's axe, and the final bosses instantly became doable...
I guess these 30 points of faith help explore the levels but become useless in boss battles.
In any case, it was good to finally conquer the last standing enemies.

 

[Lithium Flower]

Patches was never greedy. he hates greed.

"Every age, it seems, is tainted by the greed of men.
Rubbish, to one such as I, devoid of all worldly wants! Hmmm, I dunno, maybe it's just the way we are.
I'll stick you in my prayers. A fine dark soul, to you."

^Remember, this is coming from a guy who spent his entire life kicking people down chasms and stealing their shit. The bolded sentence is also succeeded by the trademark "evil laugh" of the series. That kind of sounds like irony to me, my dude.

Miyazaki didn't choose shit. From had a contract with Bamco and they fulfilled it. if it was for Miyazaki, the series would've ended at DS1. he was pretty explicit in his dislike for sequels. and they have at least one more Sony exclusive in the pipeline, as they signed a contract for 3 (it's just unclear if that occurred before or after DeS)

Didn't know about the details of the contract, interesting. My point still stands - Miyazaki is against the idea of franchise milking. I believe it may have inspired the Ashes of Ariandel storyline - or perhaps it was merely a re-framing of the light vs dark dynamic. I feel like it might have been an intentional nod to the end of the series because the painter's words are the last piece of content in the entire series, if you think about it.

oh, and DS2 is 10 times the game DS3 wished it was, only plebs like you fail to recognise that

If you say so, but certainly not in the way of being a coherent part of the series. Why are the kingdoms from DS1 forgotten in DS2 but seem to reappear in DS3? Why is that the player is not given a good reason to do anything for the first two thirds of the game besides "gather great souls so you can bypass a ruin wall for some reason"? Why are Dark Souls 2 giants different from Dark Souls 1&3 giants? Could it be because 2 was made by a B-team and its development was plagued with problems? :^)