If you play it for a bit I think you'll find the exploration incredibly rewarding, and the gameplay should grow on you more as well.

>>334629386
It's a triple A series that actually plays like a video game. You can carelessly walk off ledges, losing is a very distinct possibility, and it takes a certain threshold of skill to make it through to the end. Also, the paths through the game aren't obvious, exploring is fun because walking on buttresses, narrow ledges, and whatnot is fun.

That said, the game is needlessly cryptic and in the first dark souls, some of that stuff just feels like shitty design they retroactively legitimized because of the git gud faggots

Tedius, terribly designed, terrible combat which surprised me given the amount of praise it gets. An RPG with no story, lore is mostly autistic speculation.

It's the gold standard for "hardcore" gaymurs. I "got gud" and it wasn't very fulfilling. I feel like most Soulsfans just enjoy the feeling of beating a hard boss encounter and tend to overlook the poor design.

I appreciate that the game not only encourages but practically requires its players to become experts. Having only a limited number of heals between bonfires means you have to spend a fair bit of time learning each combat encounter along the way so you can pull it off flawlessly or nearly flawlessly every time. When you reach a new area you'll probably find a new enemy, take some hits, move on a bit, find more new enemies, and die. It can seem overwhelming, but the knowledge and experience stays with you and by the time you manage to finish, the section that was giving you so much trouble will feel trivial. That's a great feeling of accomplishment that's entirely player-driven, and I love it.

>>334630096
>terribly designed
>terrible combat

Elaborate.

I didn't care for it, and I'm not entirely sire why. I never had any significant complaints with the game, but somehow the experience never became particularly compelling. I kept finding myself wishing I was playing King's Field or Shadow Tower instead.

>>334630491
Step aside, boys, alpha hipster coming through

>>334630437
nearly every (99%) of normal monster encounters can be defeated with circle strafe backstabs, that's pretty terrible design

the world design is decent before Anor Londo, that's when the game goes from a 7/10 to a 4/10.

>>334630746
Circle strafe backstabbing every enemy to death is absurdly tedious. It CAN be done, I don't see how it invalidates the game's combat.

>>334630746
I'm curious what you thought of Bloodborne, if you played it. In Bloodborne you have to do a charged R2 on an enemy's back to open them up for a backstab.

>>334629386
>What do you like about the series
Nothing. it plays like ass and provide no pleasure. I'd rather try to finish dragon's lair on the nes.

File: lad].png (37 KB, 639x154) Image search: [Google]

37 KB, 639x154

>>334630879
because encounters that would've been challenging (havel, black knights, anor londo knights) and fun are rendered pointless and become a grind after a while. The entire game loses its magic once you know how to effectively cheese every encounter. Why would I cripple myself with redundant combat mechanics when a mechanic I've been using all game long works just fine?

>>334630983
only played DaS, haven't touched the DLC and probably won't. Am trying to play DS3 but finding it difficult to adjust to a different control scheme.