Are we talking about the boss of the starting area, or the first area’s boss?
Died once to the tutorial boss (lol git gud). The first area boss took me quite a few tries.
I’m inflating my playtime a lot by standing around and looking at things. I’m 5 hours in and just starting the second area.
The tutorial boss is what I meant; surprised to see that quite a few folks had trouble with that fight. As with Dark Souls 2, I’m wondering whether any of the Souls games stand head and shoulders above the others or if it just depends on which one you played first.
For me it was my approach to the fight. I was whacking on the boss on close combat but after the transformation I decided to attack from range with fireballs (cause, you know, it looks big and scary and keep away) but it has huge range and damage and that’s a bad idea. When I did the opposite, fireballs first, then close in after the transformation, I killed it extremely fast.
I was wondering about that guy at the top of the stairs littered with bloodstains. He made swift work of me the first time, the second he was defeated by level geometry. he ran right off the edge trying to get at me, which made me realize this game hasn’t changed that much, has it
anyway i’ve got it now and it’s a pretty great weapon. it’s also probably spoiled me on picking anything else up for a while.
I was happy to discover my favorite Dark Souls weapon right near the beginning of the game (the Claymore). Though I’m considering trying something new this time.
The tutorial boss gave me trouble until I realized that I could easily get a free hit in after he jumped.
So I need a Titan X to run this acceptably, welp that’s gonna delay my playthrough some
Lowest possible settings, lowest possible resolution, my machines aren’t even having that
Dark Souls 3 is the Dark Souls Total Conversion Mod for Bloodborne.
Why the lords of cinder have absconded is really interesting imo, but at least at the part i am now (~2/3rds through) it’s hamstrung by unabashed fanservice. the writing feels pretty inconsistent, i think (“knowest thou of that soppy gossip?”)
presentation/production/pacing/polish-wise, Demon’s, Dark, and Bloodborne are definitely ahead of Dark 2 and 3, and Dark and Bloodborne are both probably ahead of Demon’s in terms of overall combat balance / boss design / storytelling richness, though of course Demon’s makes up for it for basically pioneering the game structure (and feeling more like a dungeon crawler). they’re all somewhat inconsistent when it comes to level design other than Bloodborne (which, probably as a result of being so tight, is also the least broadly generous and most challenging and straightforward) and possibly Dark 3 though I’m not far enough along to say, and only Demon’s made this feel like a virtue given how deliberately lopsided the different areas were.
Dark 2 is the worst at everything except it has a lot of nice extraneous narrative threads. Dark 3 is a lot better put together than Dark 2 but still poorly distinguished otherwise.
chipping in to say DS2 has the best pvp and I will not hear otherwise
everything else does kinda suck though
king’s field 3 has the best pvp
I was ready to pounce on your dismissal of Dark Souls 2 until you mentioned the tighter narrative structure, which is its strong point for sure. However, I’ll posit that DS2’s DLC is the best in the series and combined with the regular game makes the overall experience on par with DS1.
This game is pretty good.
dark souls 3’s approach to narrative does actually make me miss 2 a little bit (although bloodborne was certainly as narratively strong and more), but I still wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s on par with any of the miyazaki-directed titles by any stretch.
2 had a lot of fun kusoge stuff and was genuinely mysterious at times; I’m getting very little of that from 3, though it’s still pretty darn good. if anything there are elements that seem prohibitively well-designed, like finding the first-tier sorcery, pyromancy, and miracle trainers all in the same area, and the blacksmith and fire keeper just hanging around your hub (which sees NPCs take up symmetrical positions).
no one seems to be nearly as bothered as I am about how poor of an impression is made by the starting area in 3. you literally start at a dead end apropos of nothing, and the tutorial area is just sort of there. every other game in the series at least makes an effort towards oh-so-you’re-waking-up-dead, how’s-it-going?
it’s a bit slavish about being a sequel, too, which is unusual, seeing as 2’s whole conceit of the past repeating itself was relatively subtle (when it wasn’t muddled by things like fighting ornstein for no reason to unlock a convenant), whereas 3 is like hey here’s your grass crest shield, you take it easy.
From’s production cycle is still really impressive and these games are still near-on untouchable for being well-designed, challenging action RPGs made on a reasonably large budget and having such consistently thoughtful art and world design, but this one feels a lot more like a bunch of assets thrown together in a familiar engine than the others have.
Oh no, this is exactly the opposite of what I wanted to hear about the game.
But @DJ mentioned that it plays with the series lore a fair bit, too. I’m excited to see how that is developed.
also the dual daggers in this game are so much less fun and viable than the blades of mercy in bloodborne 
i played Dark 1 > Demon’s > Dark 2 within weeks of eachother and genuinely believe the first two are equally great for different reasons. 2 is divisive and i’m never quite satisfied with either my own feelings on it or the discourse around it – seems very love-it-or-hate-it, and i tend to flip-flop. it really depends on what you go to the series for i suppose, and what you’re in the mood for. Ultimately i find the change in movement and combat physicality the most jarring, it just doesn’t “feel good” in the same way the prior two do. wish there was a better term i could use because now i’m all self-conscious about gamefeel (thanks dumb gameplay debate thread from two months ago!!).
How’s the inter-level design in this? i hear the world’s not the return to Lordran form you might hope for, but i didn’t really expect it to be so that’s no dealbreaker – i’m OK with Dark 1’s world being a glorious standout. Demon’s doesn’t have an interconnected world and doesn’t feel lacking because of it.
interconnectedness is not so great but individual levels are quite good
I think I liked 2 the best cause I could be a boxer in a kilt. I feel like I’m stuck being a sword and shield knight guy in 1 and 3. I wish 2 had had levels more like 3 though.
I will admit that playing 3 has bought out some of 2’s charm to me in retrospect. I think I’d still rather play 3, but I was a little disappointed at how much easier the first level seemed once I found that broadsword. Tried the curved swords that came with my class for a while, but enemies are so aggressive continued use seemed foolish.