• Zoot_
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hot take but I’d rather play ds2 and I think this is an insult to ds2. 'Ate elden ring simple as.

    • evdo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      I praise DS2 for going in a slightly different direction than “DS1 cycle forever, nothing matters”. Also, somehow, Elden Ring had worse balance and bosses than DS2.

      • Rat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I always hated the cycles thing. It was just a way to explain more sequels and it cheapens the endings of dark souls 1. As much as I like the dark souls sequels it would have made much more sense to leave it at 1 tbh.

        • evdo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Or make the others prequels! There’s plenty of stuff to explore in the past. The Undead hunts? All the big kingdoms? Anyway, DS3 kinda rubs it in further by giving you the opposite of whatever ending you want (at least for the basic two). If you link, it just fades anyway. If you leave the flame to die, it just goes “lol, I’m back” later. Kind of ruins the “maybe this is the last one” narrative.

      • Zoot_
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        100% everything is named something stupid and they arent at all memorable. Thank you for saying it.