Can we at least all agree that DS2 is far better and more inspired than the rehashed fanservice circlejerk that was DS3?
I love DS2 and I always have a lot of fun when I replay it, but I still prefer DS3 overall. "Fanservice" is a big word, most references to the first game are limited to item descriptions, rare lines of dialogue and stuff in the background (mind you, I said "most", not all of them). There's an entire amazing game around those references, exactly as there is an entire amazing game around that fucking elevator to the Iron Keep.
You mean like the literal hour-long section that is a rehash of Anor Londo architecture? Or the High Wall being a slight reshuffle of Undead Burg (yes, Fallen Giants fort was a lot more imaginative and had way more inventive architecture and locales) Or the Havel enemy and the Iron Tarkus enemy and the... I mean, come on, do I need to go on?
[...] (mind you, I said "most", not all of them). [...]
While I agree with the general concept that DS3 rehashes some concept from previous entries, your examples seem weak to me.
Anor Londo? It's lazy that the entire architecture of that area is recycled from DS1, but it still makes sense in the context of the plot of DS3. Some madmen found a way to enter in contact with old forgotten gods and decided to serve them as a banquet for their newly found god. Yes, those gods are the gods of DS1, but is it a crime to link a game to previous entries in the series?
High Wall is not a "slight" reshuffle of Undead Burg, they share some similarities but play quite differently from one another. If this is your complaint, then DS1 is far more similar to Demon's Souls than DS3 to DS1.
What's your point with Havel/Iron Tarkus? You fight some enemies that have models that already existed in DS1, so what? Are you really saying that reusing characters/armor sets in a SEQUEL is cheap or fanservice? Are Baldur's Gate 2 and IWD 2 "rehashed fanservice circlejerk"? DS2 has basilisks and a boss straight from DS1.
Also, it's disingenuous to say only DS3 got fanservices. Did everyone so conveniently forget that the Old Ones are literally the Lords from Dark Souls 1?
- Old Iron King (and to an extent, King Vendrick) is literally Gwyn
- Lost Sinner is literally Witch of Izalith (blatantly implied with the chaos bug appearing in the cutscene)
- The Rotten is literally Nito (meat corpses instead of skeleton)
- Duke's Dear Freja, while not literally Seath, is directly connected to it, even blatantly shown by a dragon's corpse in the arena and the memory of an ancient dragon. Even Tseldora is full of crystals.
And as if it wasn't enough, they'll literally slap you in the face about it not once, but twice. First by having Shalquoir telling you, then second by having each and every one of them drops their corresponding Old Souls in NG+ onward. It's like they're desperate to tell you, "Hey, this is a Dark Souls sequel!!!!!". And that's not to mention Literally Queelag (Najka) and Literally Garl Vinland (Velstadt), and there's perhaps even more if I try harder to remember it and looked it up.
I actually didn't mind them from gameplay perspective. But considering the height Dark Souls 1 achieved in certain aspects other than gameplay mechanics, it's just a shame. If this game was released not bearing the name of Dark Souls, with all the details changed to tell its own story and lore, I would've actually love it as a whole. I still prefer the DLCs, though. In fact, I think it would've been better if the game was all about the Crowns of Kings from the start, still keeping the curse concept as a reason to collect the crowns, minus the Lord Souls connection and the Light-Dark bullshit.
My point is that Miyazaki can make one game and one game only and if he made DS2 too, we would have 4 of the same game, including Demon Souls.
Bloodborne is Bloodborne. There's very little in it that actually resembles Demon's/Dark Souls, and the only complete similarity between them was the fact that they were made by the exact same company and directed by the exact same guy.
And it's disingenuous to say he can only make one game when the team directly under him made Sekiro, a VERY different game with zero resemblances to Soulslike.
He was not the sole director on Sekiro
Is that really a reason to dismiss him, even after at least Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 1? I remembered there being an interview where they asked him (or was it someone else related to From?) that they're not keen on the idea of making sequels. Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1, Bloodborne, and now Sekiro really showed it, and I said that with no intention of giving all the credits to Miyazaki alone. I think From Software is at their prime when making a whole new game with whole new concept, new lore, and new story, because I didn't really have to worry about the gameplay. Obviously I would love it if they gave us fresh gameplay concept or at least improved reiteration of existing ones, which is probably why I'm more welcoming of Sekiro because it's not in any way Souls or Soulslike.
I was wondering when is inevitable Black Gulch rage going to manifest. Hey at least it's a really short area. And don't forget to unlock bonfire with Fragrant Branch.
If it's going to be really short area, might as well not exist. Or rather, it's actually a cool looking area, so I would prefer it if they just expand the aesthetics to parts of the Gutter to show transition from one area to the other, or better yet combine it with the Gutter to make one whole area with the green aesthetics gradually appearing as you approach the Rotten.
Or, in an ideal version of the game, remove Black Gulch and replace it with the entirety of the Shulva, the Sunken City and make it so Elana is guarding the Rotten (I remembered there was a theory that the Rotten is actually the Sunken King, so it would makes much more sense since the Child of Dark are accompanying strong, powerful kings) and not Sinh (he should've been a side boss like Kalameet).
