Dark Souls III - Stress Test

Over the weekend a stress test for Dark Souls 3 was hosted by From Software. VG247 has an overview of 8 of the changes to the system they have experienced. Here is one of them:

Locations are massive, great sense of scale

You’ve probably seen a bit of this in the trailers, the game’s playable area is very large. It’s not quite on the same level as The Witcher 3 or other open-world RPGs, but it’s the series’ biggest yet.

The first door you open in the game is on a rooftop. From there, you can see three distinct locations that you’re going to come across. You can also see the enemies patrolling them and in some cases, choose which of them to visit first. The area we were allowed to access was very reminiscent of Demon’s Souls 1-1.

Furthermore, it looks like even the smallest of nooks are going to tell stories, just by having a few decorations and certain things that we won’t spoil. Think of Nightmare of Mensis from Bloodborne to give you an idea of of the type of thoughts that’ll go into your head just by entering the place and looking around for five seconds.

Click to expand...

The Souls Forum also has some screenshots from the stress test.

Thanks Eye.

More information.

I've never played one of these, because I thought they mostly focused on combat. Can an exploration/loot junkie enjoy these? I'm not into twitch type stuff.

crpgnut said:

I've never played one of these, because I thought they mostly focused on combat. Can an exploration/loot junkie enjoy these?

Click to expand...

Some people claim the exploration is great, though I think it's pretty barebones. You won't find much in the way of story/journals/logs - but you'll find hidden "glowing orbs" and chests that will contain loot and other goodies.

Loot is interesting, though, because weapons can be quite distinct and change your playstyle in a more significant way than most other RPGs. Weight and speed are actual factors to consider - and not just about numbers, for instance.

In my opinion, the game is 99% combat - and you'll have to endure replaying sections when you die.

The game teaches you to fight by killing you, essentially.

Dart sums it up pretty well. He and I will disagree on exploration though, as I'm one of the people that think it's great. More so in DS1 than the other though.

I don't see finding a story/journal/log to be any better than find a weapon/ armor/ ring or hidden area to explore. Especially in DS1 where finding certain weapons or rings can totally change the way you play the game. Unfortunately DS2 didn't offer these grand rewards and opted for a system where each item just offered a small increase from the previous one.

It's all a moot point though because if you don't like twitch combat then this series is 100% not for you.

Having played the stress test, DS3 sticks to the formula and spices it up a bit with faster combat and more combat moves and options. It was just a small sample but magic seems to be a more viable play option this time.

sakichop said:

Dart sums it up pretty well. He and I will disagree on exploration though, as I'm one of the people that think it's great. More so in DS1 than the other though.

I don't see finding a story/journal/log to be any better than find a weapon/ armor/ ring or hidden area to explore. Especially in DS1 where finding certain weapons or rings can totally change the way you play the game. Unfortunately DS2 didn't offer these grand rewards and opted for a system where each item just offered a small increase from the previous one.

It's all a moot point though because if you don't like twitch combat then this series is 100% not for you.

Click to expand...

To me, the journals/logs only work when they support the bigger picture - or they tell a complete story of some kind.

For instance, in Lords of the Fallen - they actually implemented audio logs and they were completely terrible, because they didn't feel like part of a meaningful tale to me.

So, my primary issue with exploration in Dark Souls is that, ultimately, there's no cohesive or wholesome story to experience - and rooms don't have a real purpose or history, like they do in games like System Shock or Bioshock.

For exploration to work for me, locations/rooms need a sense of place.

I had a very similar problem with Kingdoms of Amalur, as another example. It was huge and it had a ton of things to find - but it was all completely disconnected and felt arbitrary. They had these tidbits of "lore" you could find, but it felt like it was entirely separate from where you found them - and again, seemed arbitrary.

In games like System Shock or, say, Fallout 3 - each room or place has a reason to be there, and you can "tell" that someone used to live there and they had a life there.

To me, that's fascinating.

Finding loot is great for progression - but I absolutely need a reason to progress. Otherwise, I'd just be playing Diablo - and at least in Diablo I have the cooperative experience to share.

I'd be all over Dark Souls if it had a proper cooperative mode, instead of that awful multiplayer implementation it currently has.

Thanks guys! It's not my type of game. I have no patience for twitch, since the original Playstation.

great exploration, great loot. probably some of the most rewarding loot systems i came across.
as long as its better than ds2, its awesome.

ds1 takes the cake so far. ofc.

Not only there's a complete story, but there's a whole mythology and many interconnected stories about Dark Souls's characters, locations, and world, plus the game's rather powerful plot itself. None of these are easily accessible, however, and you'll have to invest a lot of energy and time into digging information up, be those obscure NPC dialogues, short item descriptions, or even subtle things like the placement of certain corpses and items in the world. Almost everything has a very good reason to be where it is, and every location has history. Then you need more time to think about these, and connect the dots for yourself. This is the very definition of exploration in storytelling.

Alternatively, you can completely ignore this aspect, and only play the game as a rather tight combat simulator.

Miyazaki and his team deliberately constructed Dark Souls like this, and they left many answers for the player. They want you to internalize the story. They provide 70% of it, but the rest is really up to you. Incidentally, that also makes you to come up with who your character in all of this is, and very few games succeed at this so magnificently. DS2 is less successful in this, sadly, but Bloodborne does the same, and hopefully, DS3 will, too.

Denying there's a complete and well thought out story, or a bigger picture in Dark Souls (or Demon's, or Bloodborne, and even in DS2) when there are hundreds of hours of high quality lore videos and theories, hundreds of pages of essays, and countless threads of discussion on symbolism, mythology, and plot of the game out there would be less than reasonable.

I'm talking about an actual story within the game, not obtuse bits of lore with which you have to imagine your own story. I've heard these bullshit claims about a great story before and I've yet to encounter a single person who could relay it without linking to elaborate videos full of interpretation.

I'm sorry, but if I have to watch an out of game video to experience the story, then the developer utterly failed to engage me.

Also, please stop pretending every room has a story purpose on the same level as the games I mentioned. There's only so much delusion I can take from fans

I bet 9 out of 10 DS fans couldn't relay even the core of this "story" if their lives depended on it.

crpgnut said:

Thanks guys! It's not my type of game. I have no patience for twitch, since the original Playstation.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the DS1 has twitch combat, is very much strategic, so it might be worth to try it. A slower player who plan every move, will be more successful than a button-masher with super quick reflexes.

Exploration and loot is truly great, and the atmosphere is top-notch! The main story is very inaccessible though, even a serious player like DArt who spent some serious time on it is having a hard time with it. If you find everything and read every little piece of text and talk to everyone and research the composition of every area, you might get 70% of it, the rest is up to you...

But I think you don't care much for story anyway, so it doesn't matter much for you. I'd say definitely give DS1 a try. I think you might like it.

Yeah, I don't really agree with the twitch combat statement either. IMO it has the best ARPG combat that I've played. Loot and exploration is also great. DS1 that is, I haven't tried DS2.

GothicGothicness said:

Well, I don't think the DS1 has twitch combat, is very much strategic, so it might be worth to try it. A slower player who plan every move, will be more successful than a button-masher with super quick reflexes.

Exploration and loot is truly great, and the atmosphere is top-notch! The main story is very inaccessible though, even a serious player like DArt who spent some serious time on it is having a hard time with it. If you find everything and read every little piece of text and talk to everyone and research the composition of every area, you might get 70% of it, the rest is up to you…

But I think you don't care much for story anyway, so it doesn't matter much for you. I'd say definitely give DS1 a try. I think you might like it.

Click to expand...

If even the most invested player only gets 70% of this "story" - then what's the point, really?

I mean, I could come up with a 10 page story and I could drop 7 pages worth of hints - and that's what you call a story?

It's typical Japanese "mythology" crap with ancient gods and demons doing battle - and people dying all over the place. There's no cohesive satisfying story there at all.

The claim that each room has a story - like you'd find in Bioshock - is ludicrous. In Bioshock, most rooms had a clear purpose and actual people connected with it. You'd walk into a bar and you'd find logs about events taking place, and you'd find tables full of drugs and money. You would walk into a hotel room, and you'd find two dead bodies holding hands in a large bed - and you'd find a log that served as a farewell tale, explaining that they were man and wife who chose to commit suicide together, instead of living through that nightmare. That sort of thing.

In Dark Souls, most rooms are empty save for the exact same table or chairs as all the other rooms - and maybe there's another long dead body with a glowing orb. That's it. Oh, and then you have "glowing letters" left behind by designers and players with amazing lore like "watch out!".

Yes, there's a handful of NPCs spouting obtuse bits of lore about ancient gods and what not, but that's about it.

Just like in Demon's Souls - it was the exact same thing. You had a few NPCs that gave long tales of nothing much - but you really had to imagine what it was about for yourself.

That's not to say you couldn't spend an eternity coming up with your own versions of it.

Maybe it's the same thing as with David Lynch movies

I also agree that it's not "twitch" combat. It's quite deliberately paced.

I'd say the challenge is about patience and pattern recognition.

You don't need to be particularly fast - you just need to die a lot until you've learned the pattern of enemies and "encounters". To some, that's a great challenge - to me it's tedium. But to each his own.

But the actual combat is very well done if you can look past the camera issues and the fact that archery sucks and there's no stealth or dual-wielding. You can backstab, though. It's melee and a handful of spells. I find that quite limited, but what's there is pretty good.

Nice nice nice, cant wait for this, my most expected game alongside deus ex from next year. Interesting with that ember, instead of humanity, like that dude says there, could we be a descendant of gwen?

sakichop said:

It was just a small sample but magic seems to be a more viable play option this time.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand this quote to be honest - playing and building a pure sorcerer or pyromancer was perfectly viable in the first two games. In fact, my first DS2 character was a Sorcerer. If it were any more viable - it'd be overkill/too easy!

I had a friend do the stress test and have seen a few of the videos. Looks excellent and I'll be naturally keen as a Souls fan to play, though perhaps not immediately. I'm also not fully won over yet by the extra speed in the combat. I like to be able to fully see what's going on!

DArtagnan said:

If even the most invested player only gets 70% of this "story" - then what's the point, really?

I mean, I could come up with a 10 page story and I could drop 7 pages worth of hints - and that's what you call a story?

It's typical Japanese "mythology" crap with ancient gods and demons doing battle - and people dying all over the place. There's no cohesive satisfying story there at all.

The claim that each room has a story - like you'd find in Bioshock - is ludicrous. In Bioshock, most rooms had a clear purpose and actual people connected with it. You'd walk into a bar and you'd find logs about events taking place, and you'd find tables full of drugs and money. You would walk into a hotel room, and you'd find two dead bodies holding hands in a large bed - and you'd find a log that served as a farewell tale, explaining that they were man and wife who chose to commit suicide together, instead of living through that nightmare. That sort of thing.

In Dark Souls, most rooms are empty save for the exact same table or chairs as all the other rooms - and maybe there's another long dead body with a glowing orb. That's it. Oh, and then you have "glowing letters" left behind by designers and players with amazing lore like "watch out!".

Yes, there's a handful of NPCs spouting obtuse bits of lore about ancient gods and what not, but that's about it.

Just like in Demon's Souls - it was the exact same thing. You had a few NPCs that gave long tales of nothing much - but you really had to imagine what it was about for yourself.

That's not to say you couldn't spend an eternity coming up with your own versions of it.

Maybe it's the same thing as with David Lynch movies

Click to expand...

Yes, some people like to get only 70% of the story and figure out rest 30% by imagination, some don't, if you want 100% of the story.. no dark souls don't give you that. But on the other hand neither does Bioshock infinite or almost any other movie / game, they might give you 90-95% though which is more satisfying for some. That said I wouldn't claim that dark souls overall story is something amazing, but it is still better than a lot of other games.

Also, not every room has a story no, and what I actually wrote was every "area" because each area has a unique story, compistion and unique characters which populate them, and if you bring it all together you get an idea of the whole, and if you've only seen a handful of NPC's you've missed a lot of them to be sure.

Also to clear up one more misunderstanding, yes before you know the game, there might be a lot of trial and error, and for some bosses sure, but once you become a better player, you can get through many areas on your first try, by playing careful, sometimes running away… coming back with a different strategy and so on, in fact I was surprised that ,once I got the hang of it, how many areas I could make without trial and error or dying.

GothicGothicness said:

Yes, some people like to get only 70% of the story and figure out rest 30% by imagination, some don't, if you want 100% of the story.. no dark souls don't give you that. But on the other hand neither does Bioshock infinite or almost any other movie / game, they might give you 90-95% though which is more satisfying for some. That said I wouldn't claim that dark souls overall story is something amazing, but it is still better than a lot of other games.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by 90 or 95% - as I'm talking about a cohesive and complete story. That doesn't mean everything is tied neatly into ribbons - but that I get a full sense of completion when I'm done.

If sprinkling bits of obtuse lore about the place and claiming that's 70% of some story is what you want, then that's cool.

But you'll never get me to agree it's a complete or satisfying story.

Also, not every room has a story no, and what I actually wrote was every "area" because each area has a unique story, compistion and unique characters which populate them, and if you bring it all together you get an idea of the whole, and if you've only seen a handful of NPC's you've missed a lot of them to be sure.

Click to expand...

That wasn't meant for you, it was what Soulbane claimed - that each room has a history.

I mean, I get that DS is a great game for people into that genre, but I don't understand why people have to invent bullshit claims to defend it.

Also to clear up one more misunderstanding, yes before you know the game, there might be a lot of trial and error, and for some bosses sure, but once you become a better player, you can get through many areas on your first try, by playing careful, sometimes running away… coming back with a different strategy and so on, in fact I was surprised that ,once I got the hang of it, how many areas I could make without trial and error or dying.

Click to expand...

I don't know the point you're trying to make here

Trial and error, by its very nature, is about making mistakes and learning from them.

Once you've learned what there is to learn then, yes, the frequency of mistakes will be much lower.

It's kinda like the harder GTA missions. You have to play them first and fail - and then you'll know what to do, because you can effectively predict the future as you've seen it.

Since you don't really need much in the way of player skill once you've mastered it, then I can't accept it as a great challenge.

The question is if that's great gameplay. To some, it obviously is.

I can appreciate the formula, I just don't think it's worth my investment. I don't think there's a way to "be smart" about learning bosses beyond keeping your eyes open. You simply have to die a few times, at least, and then you know the fight.

It was exactly the same in World of Warcraft - except you had to wait for 39 other people to get it.

I remember being a member of several top guilds and listening to people boast after we defeated a boss.

Personally, I never understood it. It was merely a matter of learning simple patterns and then doing the obvious. The hard part was for people to listen and do what they were told.

To me, that's not a compelling challenge. It's pattern recognition and it has little to do with actual player skill.

Player skill, to me, was about maximising the tools you had available and performing above and beyond. For instance, to top the damage meters without endangering the raid was an interesting challenge for me.

Learning simplistic boss patterns - grinding your way back when you fail - is just tedious.

To each his own.

Pessimeister said:

I don't really understand this quote to be honest - playing and building a pure sorcerer or pyromancer was perfectly viable in the first two games. In fact, my first DS2 character was a Sorcerer. If it were any more viable - it'd be overkill/too easy!

I had a friend do the stress test and have seen a few of the videos. Looks excellent and I'll be naturally keen as a Souls fan to play, though perhaps not immediately. I'm also not fully won over yet by the extra speed in the combat. I like to be able to fully see what's going on!

Click to expand...

I don't play pure magic builds so I was basing that comment on second hand knowledge. A few people I know said they weren't able to play a pure magic build. ( i.e. No melee at all)

They said some spells just to took long to cast on very fast bosses and that they would often run out of spells before even getting to the boss. If this is not true I apologize as I was basing on what I had heard not personal experience.

As for twitch combat I thought that meant just fast paced action combat.

I didn't know twitch combat had to be non strategic or button mashing. If that's the case the dark souls combat would not be twitch combat.

A quick Google search has people giving twitch combat many different meanings.

Fast paced, requiring fast reflexes, dying quickly, switching between enemies quickly, etc. all this would describe dark souls combat to me.

If anyone has a definitive definition for twitch combat I'd be interested in hearing it.

Maybe I played a different version of Dark Souls, but I didn't think it was particularly fast paced or demanding when it comes to reflexes.

Not slow, either - but what I would call deliberate.

To me, certainly, something like Witcher 3 is much faster and more twitchy.

While I'm sure there's a way to justify calling it twitch combat, I don't think it's a good way of communicating what the game is about to someone who's not familiar with it.

DArtagnan said:

Maybe I played a different version of Dark Souls, but I didn't think it was particularly fast paced or demanding when it comes to reflexes.

Not slow, either - but what I would call deliberate.

To me, certainly, something like Witcher 3 is much faster and more twitchy.

While I'm sure there's a way to justify calling it twitch combat, I don't think it's a good way of communicating what the game is about to someone who's not familiar with it.

Click to expand...

Haha, you know there only one version.

Anyway, there are fights in dark souls where you don't need fast reflexes, mainly some regular mobs and even a few bosses. It does have deliberate gameplay, meaning you can't just run into areas and start button mashing. You need to progress slowly but once it combat it does require reflexes and quick thinking.

if your telling me you played through dark souls and at no point needed fast reflexes I just can't agree with that. You beat orstien and smough, manus, artorias and other bosses and it wasn't demanding on your reflexes? Even once you know their patterns it requires great timing and reflexes.