Well, production values were certainly through the roof. No jank like in DS2.
As far as tone and atmosphere, i prefer the original by far. Just the fact everything in DS3 is recycled from the previous games left a bad taste in my mouth. It felt very cynical, like they didn't really care about the world, just answering to the complains about DS2 in the most condescending way possible (meanwhile DS2 added a ton of original features and ideas, many of which shit sure, but at least they tried). Ho, here's Andre, from the original. Haha, wasn't he great (he was, but god damn, really)? And here's Rhea of Thorolund, again, and the chick from DS2, and Patches again, who betrays you not once, but twice! Haha, can't get enough of his antics, amrite?
The only NPC i liked was the little thief guy. Everything else was very nondescript. The swamp pyromancer, bleh. The mage, bleh. Karla, bleh. And so on.
But apart from the recycled NPCs, there are other problems. The biggest is the level design. Now, it's not bad per se, the areas are well constructed with their own unique visuals and unique enemies, just like the previous games. But it doesn't feel like a real place, like it did in DS1. Just the fact you can warp between bonfires from the get go makes it very hard to feel attached to the world, or to think of it as a real place. It was a bad idea in DS2 and it's even worse in DS3. I think actually this is a general theme with the game in general, that while DS1 tried to make it feel like you were roaming a real place, DS3 is more "meta" oriented, more about making things a bit easier and convenient for the player as opposed to create the illusion of a world that needed to be known and explored. Just the fact everything you need is in one location, something they inherited from DS2, removes some mystique from the areas you are navigating. I guess this was just answering to the complains of people who felt it was too boring having to walk around all the time just to get to this vendor or NPC but come on.
I will also say Lordran just felt more coherent from a thematic point of view. Sure, DS3 has better graphics and they went to town adding ton of details the original couldn't have because of the simpler engine, but DS1 felt more distinctive all the same for me. This may be a case of too much of a good thing actually. In DS1, getting to Anor Londo for the first time was a spectacular moment. Even the layout of the entire world map has this idea that the lower you go, the drearier the ambient becomes, with swamps, tombs, and that infernal nightmare that is Lost Izalith (which was clearly unfinished and easily the worst area in the game, but in a sense it sort of fits considering you are in the lowest depths of Lordran), where as you have to go upwards to reach Anor Londo hence the celestial atmosphere (emphasized when you meet the amazing chest lady derp).
In DS3, you start off in the Lothric cathedral and end up there again by the end of the game, after going through ton of gothic castles and cathedrals, including Anor Londo again. It really started to feel routine at one point. I get it, muh metroidvania, right? Except DS1 didn't feel like that. Again, too much meta in DS3. Too much of "we gotta have Gothic shit 'cause Castelvania amright" where as the cathedral in Anor Londo is a unique place that has a justification from a setting's point of view.
Lastly, the levels themselves felt less interesting from a gameplay point of view. Each area in DS1 presented a unique challenge pertaining to the level itself, and not just from the enemies you found there. This is actually something DS2 has done better than DS3. In both DS1 and DS2, there's some areas that are remembered with particular loathing and dread. Blighttown, or the Tomb of Giants, or the Shrine of Amana in DS2, and so forth. But i don't even remember any area form DS3 by name. Maybe that swamp place with those guys with the branches, but meh, aside for the crabs it wasn't really all that. Again, the areas are well designed, they look great, they are fun, but it all feels rather routine, and the fact everything is so damn linear makes it worse too.
Now, as far as gameplay goes, the emphasis on twitch combat certainly allowed for some intense boss fights. I'd say the bosses are definitely the best thing about the game. Still, just the fact they basically kept the code from Bloodborne and didn't bother to change it to make the game feel more in line with the Dark Souls style bothers me. I'm not even sure it was a design choice it just felt like, ok, this is the engine, it works well, why bother mess with it. In DS1, you could finish the game with any build you wanted. Even the DLC bosses, which share some similarities with the DS3 bosses, could be done in various ways. I heard you can actually tank Manus and Artorias has an obvious weakness to heavy weapons and can probably be face spanked i'd imagine with some Giant Dad kind of build. Lastly, you can pretty much block everything Kalameet does if you have high enough stamina or stability. But in DS3? Just roll brah. The amusing thing is that the game doesn't actually emphasizes light builds either, because you get the same amount of invincibility frames with medium roll so really, longer roll may be useful but there's actually no point to care and i think longer roll is actually a disadvantage for PvP. So basically all strategy and variety on how to build your character is out the window. So pump health and damage, stay below 70% equip load and you are done. Ho, magic and miracles? Lmao ain't got no time for that just roll roll roll.
Now with all that said, i still say DS3 is a great game and miles ahead of the popamole garbage we have today, but i liked the first one better, even if the latter is more "evolved" in some aspect with harder bosses, more fluid animations etc. I mean DS1 is from 2007 some technical innovation is to be expected, but i still prefer it, just because it felt more inspired to me.
So DS1 stays on top and the real battle is between DS2 and DS3, and to be honest it's not a clear cut victory for DS3. I mean yeah the game is just better designed, some of the jank in DS2 was just ludicrous, but i don't know, aside for the bosses DS3 wasn't particularly memorable for me, while DS2 for some strange reason was, even if i just remember it for the shit it did wrong lmao.
having never played any souls game before, ever. The optional dragonrider boss was the only legitimately hard one, and also the fucking teleporting brothers.
