Diablo® III

How Diablo 3 can learn from Dark Souls

Posts: 221
Two things before I begin
1. I realize that Dark Souls and Diablo are entirely different franchises (especially given that DS is currently console only and Diablo is one of the PC's signature games.) That being said, they have more commonalities than differences. They are both cooperative dark fantasy dungeon crawlers centered around challenging boss fights and powerful loot, and they both have the potential for enormous replayability. I think it's useful to compare the two because, unlike D3, Dark Souls has been highly acclaimed for its minimalist but effective storytelling, and a lot of what made DS great could be somehow applied to Diablo.
2. The following contains massive spoilers about Dark Souls, and some minor D3 spoilers. (Of course, if you haven't completed either game yet, you probably won't understand what I'm talking about in the first place.)

Now that that's out of the way, here are eight things that Blizzard could learn from Dark Souls.

1. Maintain some level of ambiguity

This is really the main problem with D3, and most of the following suggestions stem from it in some way.

It wouldn't be fair to say that Diablo 3 shoves the plot down your throat. Diablo 3 drags you into a dark room, ties you to a chair, beats you with the plot until it breaks to pieces, and then slowly forces the jagged remains down your esophagus as Deckard Cain leans over your shoulder and raspily narrates the whole scene in your ear. D3 is a game, not a novel - and even the lengthiest novels have many ambiguous points (so long as their author is the least bit competent.) I'm not saying that there's no room at all for speculation over the plot, but D3's storyline is just not sophisticated enough to hold the player's interest, especially given that Diablo is supposed to be Blizzard's "dark fantasy" franchise. You are good. Demons are bad. You kill the demons. The end. That's pretty much it.

Now, I realize that pretty much any plot can be crudely reduced to a few sentences; it's the individual intricacies of a story that make it worth reading, of course. But D3 severely lacks such intricacy, and rather than trying to expand the storyline by chucking more walls of text at the player, it's imperative that Blizzard reduces the quantity of writing. To use a cliche but valid saying: show, don't tell.

Dark Souls exemplifies the power of showing more and telling less. Apart from the opening cutscene, which is more of a prequel than anything, you're never given a lengthy explanation of the plot; it's not even clear who you are or what you're supposed to be doing. You learn more and more as the game goes on, but most of the information is either gleaned from the one-sentence flavor text on items or the similarly laconic responses of NPCs (who may or may not be telling you the whole truth).

Most importantly, it always feel like you're experiencing the plot. I'm not sure exactly how to express myself here; obviously, you experience the plot in D3 as well, but in Dark Souls it's just more... visceral. I think part of it is that the world itself is the most important aspect of Dark Souls. In Diablo, the environments are mostly just a backdrop for your character's exploits; while the zones are aesthetically diverse, it feels like Blizzard just went down a checklist of the coolest environments and tried to cram in as many as possible. The desert zones, for instance, only differ from the earlier dungeons in that there are tougher monsters and prettier backdrops. I realize that it's a lot harder to inspire a feeling of awe (or fear) when the maps are randomly generated, but it's crucial in any game that the environment tells a story on its own. In Dark Souls, the overwhelming sense of desolation and loneliness that creeps over you as you enter Anor Londo for the first time cannot be evoked through dialogue - and in fact would be destroyed by it. There are no lengthy monologues or cutscenes, but a single glance at the city's austere beauty makes its history painfully clear.

How can a Diablo game achieve the same effect? It's a good question, and not one that I'm entirely sure how to answer (the folks at Blizzard are the ones getting paid, after all). But D3's environments already have a lot of potential, and I think it's just a matter of adjusting the presentation a bit (Act IV, for instance, could be drastically improved just by cutting down the amount of talking and adding some haunting music in the background.)
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
2. Reduce the dialogue

That includes both narratives pertaining to the plot and the banter with the followers. Any sense of uncertainty or fear that D3 might inspire is nullified by the ceaseless chit-chat, and the majority of the lines that are spoken aren't even the slightest bit memorable. Some of the exchanges are pretty witty, and I'll even admit to laughing a few times, but humor in a game like this should be even more scarce than it already is - and when it does show up, it should be as black as possible. In any case, there are just too many throwaway dialogues; Blizzard really needs to prioritize quality over quantity.

In Dark Souls, even the most important NPCs only have a handful of lines, but you aren't likely to forget them. I can recall a good amount of the conversations in word-for-word detail, and the writing and voice acting are of such high quality that I still listen to everything the NPCs have to say on my fourth playthrough. Again, there are a few good lines from D3, but in most scenes I'm just focusing on how fast I can click the "X" button.

The journals scattered around are nice, but I don't feel that they have been exploited to their full potential. Much of the stories follow a similar mold, and the delivery over four or so separate journals kind of kills any immediate interest the player might have. I would reduce the total number of journals, while attempting to make each one as fascinating and frightening as possible (Bioshock's audio diaries are a good example of a successful implementation of this sort of narrative device.) Furthermore, the majority of journals should stand on their own, revealing very little individually. There should be a couple of persistent storylines, but they must be sparse enough that the player actually cares about them.

Even without actually changing the writing, though, the game would benefit simply from removing a good chunk of the dialogue. Talking to an NPC should be a brief respite from an otherwise barren world, not a constant occurrence - you appreciate the assistance of other characters a hell of a lot more if they don't follow you around 24/7. Which leads to my next point:

3. Depopulate the world

Now this might bring up some lore issues. Unlike Lordran, a world almost totally devoid of living inhabitants, Sanctuary still has quite a few people in it. D3's reliance on NPCs clustered in hubs makes DS's scattered layout impossible, and let's face it; an empty Caldeum would be just plain weird.

That's no excuse to for the current population of the game, though. A good deal of the characters are entirely superfluous, and removing such characters can only be a good thing. Even if the hubs remain relatively unchanged, the player shouldn't be nearly constantly accompanied by quest characters.

Followers are a bit of a tricky case. On one hand, they eliminate any sort of suspense in a case of comic relief gone awry; on the other hand, they are pretty nice to have from a gameplay perspective. I think the simplest solution would be providing a Torchlight-esque animal companion as an option. That way, you would receive all of the practical benefits without having to hear the Templar rant about how glorious he is for the five hundredth time.
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
4. Cut the cutscenes

D3's cutscenes are awesome. And that makes me sad, because Blizzard's awesomeness reserves could be put to much better use elsewhere. For me, each wrinkle on Decard Cain's painstakingly crafted face represents a quest, or a boss, or a monk animation that will never be.

Resource allocation aside, though, cutscenes just aren't the be-all-end-all of storytelling that Blizz seems to think they are. Apart from the fact that they are only really worth watching once, they disrupt the flow of the gameplay and further serve to eliminate any atmosphere. Again, D3 is a game. Stop trying to make it an action movie. Cutscenes can have a powerful effect, but just like anything else, they lose their power when they are overused. The closing cutscenes are particularly problematic; while they clearly have had the most work put into them, they feel almost laughably out of place and ruin what should have been the most suspenseful act. And as much as I hate to join the WoW-bashing brigade, it's painfully clear that the grandiose style of these cutscenes is inherited straight from WoW - and not D2. It's not even the content that is the problem, so much as the presentation. The same scenes could be reworked to be much darker and more atmospheric while still conveying the exact same plot points.

The cutscenes in Dark Souls, on the other hand, are effective because they are quite limited, and every one manages to invoke a powerful feeling of suspense. As opposed to the constant chatter of D3, only the opening and closing cutscenes actually have narrative in DS, and that does an excellent job of reinforcing their importance. Furthermore, DS proves that silent cinematics can be very effective on their own. About a fourth of the boss fights are initiated by such cutscenes, and they are all quite brilliant (if minimalistic.) Despite the lack of loud noises or fancy particle effects, these scenes succeed in both frightening the crap out of the player and setting the mood for the fight to come. Imagine how much more intense things would be if Diablo's first and only appearance was face to face with the player before the final fight.

5. Learn how suspense works

Diablo 3 is about as suspenseful as watching a needle slowly move towards a balloon. Sure, there's a loud noise at the end, and a five-year-old would probably be pretty amused, but suspense relies on uncertainty - and not the magnitude of the climax.

The previous points all have to do with this to some degree, but I think that the single most urgent change here is to minimalize the on-screen presence of the bosses. As it is, you pretty much always know exactly who you are going to fight and what the outcome will be. To make things worse, Blizzard seems to have decided that having the boss talk to you for the entirety of the act makes them somehow more frightening. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only does it make the fights predictable and boring, it greatly reduces the intimidation factor of the enemies. Hearing boss #7 tell you how painful they will make your death isn't exactly suspenseful when the past six bosses have said the exact same thing despite being total pushovers.
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
6. Make the bad characters more sympathetic

For a franchise that is supposed to be "gritty" and "dark," the unambiguous boundaries between good and bad in this game are quite problematic. Slaying nameless packs of mobs is obviously going to be the heart of any dungeon crawler, but bosses should have some sort of unique backstory. Sure, bosses like Leoric have pretty detailed lore behind them, but pretty much every story is the same; some dude gets driven to madness by power and turns into a ruthless monster.

Dark Souls has its fair share of heartless brutes as well, but a lot of the bosses are quite sympathetic, and perhaps even have motives purer than those of the hero. Examples:

-Priscilla, a half-dragon crossbreed who, in her immense isolation, was drawn into an alternate universe where her only companions are hideous monsters. She doesn't even attack you, instead insisting that she means no harm and simply wants to be left alone.
-Sif, a noble wolf who tirelessly defends the grave of his long-deceased master. Towards the end of the fight, he starts to grow weary and limp around, causing many players to look for a way to spare him (which can't be done.)
-Quelaag, who lost everything when she was transformed into a hideous hybrid of human and spider. After killing her, you find out that she was only trying to protect her blind, severely ill sister who is confined in an adjacent chamber. (What's your heroic motivation for invading Quelaag's lair and slaughtering her? Ringing a !@#$%^- bell).
-Even the final boss, Gwyn, is really just a tortured old man who lost all of his power and glory as a result of a noble sacrifice. Killing him is more an act of mercy than anything else.

In Diablo 3, on the other hand, we have:

-The Butcher: An evil demon.
-Belial: An evil demon.
-Azmodan: An evil demon.
-Diablo: An evil demon.

Yah.

7. Make the good characters less sympathetic

That is NOT to say that every NPC should betray you, which Blizzard seems to think makes for a compelling plot. Rather, both player and non-player characters need to be given independent motivations. Currently, either a character is good and aligned with the player, they are evil and want you dead, or they just sit there and sell stuff.

Again, Dark Souls provides an example of how to do this well. The intentions of most NPCs are shrouded in mystery, and the player is frequently called to question their own actions. Furthermore, NPCs clearly have their own lives, separate from either helping or hurting the hero. Entire side stories play out between NPCs regardless of the player's involvement, and there are actually tangible repercussions of this (certain characters dying or going away, etc.) Some of the NPCs will lie to you or try to tempt you, and unlike in D3, they aren't revealed as bad guys three seconds later, when they turn into demons.

Now, I understand that somebody like the Monk or the Templar is probably going to have pretty pure motivations. But characters like the Wizard and the Scoundrel are supposed to be mostly in it for themselves... so why do they continue to risk their lives in an attempt to save the world, when there are much easier ways of attaining their goals elsewhere? It would be awesome if each character had a distinct plot arc, but since that's unlikely, I would just recommend writing the plot in such a way that the hero's motives aren't so clear cut. Ambiguous morality is an expectation of modern fiction, and while cliche heroism will probably remain acceptable in games like WoW, I expect more of Diablo.
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
8. Make the hero feel powerless

Obviously, an unprepared player is going to feel pretty powerless in Inferno, but I'm not talking about gameplay here. Rather, I'm suggesting that Blizzard needs to demote the player from a practically omnipotent slayer of evil into a mere warrior who, by some miracle, manages to survive the near-impossible ordeals that are thrown at him. Sure, it's suggested at the end of the game that evil will return at some point, but that just means that you'll get to save the world again in the expansion pack. A believable plot needs to retain some level of hopelessness, or at least de-trivialize the act of saving the world.

Dark Souls achieves this partially through its high difficulty, but also through the scale of the environments and the quality of the writing. As mentioned earlier, the hero is almost always alone, and even when NPCs ensure you that you are the "chosen one," and that defeating Gwyn is your destiny, you still constantly feel like the underdog. (There's a particularly brilliant subversion of the "chosen one" trope in the beginning of the game, where the crestfallen knight implies that there have been several such "chosen ones" in the past - all of them now dead)

---

Well, I’m too tired after writing all this up to provide a conclusion, but thanks for reading if you’ve made it this far, and please share any similar suggestions/criticisms that you may have.
Edited by Quark#1810 on 5/22/2012 1:44 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
Bump.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,072
I agree with most of what you wrote. I felt the exact same thing when playing through the story: the cinematics felt more action oriented and far less dark than Diablo 2's, the companion/crafter/lorebook writing felt bland and not worthwhile, and the bosses' constant chitchat with the player character felt cheesy and entirely unintimidating.

The only thing I'm hesitant about in your suggestions is attempting to make the villains more sympathetic. In other games and stories the narrative is often strengthened by doing this, but the villains in this game are the Lords of Hell. How can you be made to sympathize with terror, sin, and lies incarnate?

Maybe another solution is to instead expand on HOW they do evil things and WHAT evil things they do. We already know that Diablo's modus operandi is usually to possess someone, corrupt them, release demons throughout the land, and enjoy the terror this causes. That's pretty cool, we're being shown that he's evil and how specifically he goes about sowing evil. What was needed in D3 was more of what Azmodan and Belial do to wreak havoc.
Reply Quote
I played both game but can you have a conclusion, please. It's really too long.
Reply Quote
That was insanely well written.

"Diablo 3 is about as suspenseful as watching a needle slowly move towards a balloon. Sure, there's a loud noise at the end, and a five-year-old would probably be pretty amused, but suspense relies on uncertainty - and not the magnitude of the climax."

Bravo.
Reply Quote
Posts: 80
There can be no change at Blizzard until Metzen is overthrown or strokes out. The man is a writing hack who has mailed it in and is just stacking cash at this point. He doesn't care about his franchises, he doesn't care about the quality. It's pretty obvious that D3's plot was mailed it before it even started. And no one at Blizzard has the balls to stand up to Metzen.
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Shaman
8225
Posts: 318
05/23/2012 01:49 AMPosted by Chrono
How can you be made to sympathize with terror, sin, and lies incarnate?


Simple, you flesh them out. You make them feel like actual characters and not caricatures or stereotypes. If the Evils are prone to infighting, for example, why don't we see that? To use an analogy, Megatron is obviously a great villain, but Starscream is the character that really fleshes out the Decepticons. Starscream creates division, politics, factions, and personalities.

This is why people liked Imperious versus Tyrael and the general "fleshing out" of the Angirus Council. It helps create multidimensional characters that you can be attached to, root for, hate, etc. I hope Imperious won't simply be another Blizzard "he went crazy, kill him for loot" boss, because that would a waste of a character.

There is so much potential for a very rich universe in Diablo 3, and it's always hinted at while you play. Zultan's references to ancient empires, Enchantress speaking of how the world was thousands of years ago, the Templar and his Order, Shen and all of his wandering sights, etc. The Scoundrel spoke of Kingsport so much that I was hoping we'd actually get to see it. Sadly, no.

While Diablo is basically a "kill stuff, collect loot" game, there is so much potential for a rich story and great characters, that it is a shame that the campaign was so linear and focused.

Blizzard can do better. Starcraft isn't exactly amazing writing either, but the storytelling is fantastic (which is why I usually like Blizzard's "crappy writing"). I don't just want to play Heart of the Swarm for the new units and maps, I want to see more of what happens to Raynor, Kerrigan, and the rest of the cast. I felt bad watching Findley get screwed over by Mengsk, and I want to see the bastard finally get what's coming to him.

In Diablo, I felt none of this, except that Leah really got screwed over and that Adria was an obvious !@#$%. The rest of the cast, including my own character, I hardly felt anything for. Except Shen. Best character in the game, in my opinion.
Reply Quote
Hey man great post. The only thing is comparing Dark Souls and Diablo 3 is like comparing Transformers to Pan's Labyrinth.

Something like Dark Souls comes along once in a great while. I've played all of Froms game since back in the KF games....and they never made a world like that....probably never will again.

Can't really even mention D3's atmosphere in the same breath....D3 is great....Dark Souls is special.
Reply Quote
Posts: 20
I can't help but feel you are grabbing a lot of points from an article written over at Forbes/games a few weeks ago about the similar topic using Dark Souls as a benchmark.

But nonetheless Dark Souls is a different type of storytelling, and that game itself is probably more about gameplay than the relationship between the gamer and the game than the gamer and the story.
Reply Quote
Ok, I read almost all of them now and I agree with you in many point.

Dark Soul make you fall in to their world. It is world of Dark Soul and it is charming more than Diablo 3.

I have ever fell in to many game Lore such as Skyrim and Warcraft. They're charming. I cannot stop myself to find something to read about them.Like a child, I want to drop down into their world.

That is what lack in Diablo 3. I never want to read anything more about it.

and yes, the story. I think we are not hopeless enough. I want the story to be dark and hopeless like in Batman : The Dark Knight . I want to feel powerless. I want to be rescue in from the darkest corner of despair. Like when I tried to kill the Lich King and Tyrion help us in the final moment.

Diablo 3 is very good game. I cannot deny that but it cannot be remembered if they continue the story like they did now.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1

In Dark Souls, even the most important NPCs only have a handful of lines, but you aren't likely to forget them. I can recall a good amount of the conversations in word-for-word detail, and the writing and voice acting are of such high quality that I still listen to everything the NPCs have to say on my fourth playthrough. Again, there are a few good lines from D3, but in most scenes I'm just focusing on how fast I can click the "X" button.



"Hey dearie. You left me high and dry for a while there. I thought maybe you'd forgotten about me. You back for more of my moss then? Plenty of it. Freshly peeled. Just for you. uh hu hu hu"

Amazing post. I always thought D3 was really missing something but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Some rotting lady that sells you moss is more memorable than the ending cinematic.

SPOILERS

...oh wait, what was it again? Tyrael? New dawn or something? Sun-powered self-repairing buildings?
Edited by staramune#1451 on 5/23/2012 7:44 AM PDT
Reply Quote
The way I see it is that they wanted to add a lot more direct, interactive story in Diablo III. The problem, in my opinion, is that the game(main story wise) is just too short, and thus the story feels very rushed. I feel like we go from A to C, without the pit stop at B. I didn't feel connected with a lot of the characters, and outside of Magdah - almost every new enemy we meet dies very quickly thereafter. Maybe it was a design decision to develop a short campaign and focus on the replay-ability. But I feel the quest feature takes away from that - but who knows.

I liked the underlying story, having a hard time swallowing how it was delivered though. For example, the way Cain is killed just doesn't feel right. Both the timing within the story and how he meets his fate. For me, Belial is where I was most disappointed. I wanted to go through the second act questioning everyone I met. I wanted to actually be surprised who the Lord of Lies truly was or at least have multiple characters be plausible candidates. There was only one.

Also I felt the constant chattering and threatening that many of the bosses do throughout the act was a poor decision. Like countless people have said, it just felt lame and cheesy. I'd rather them actually develop the characters through their actions/legions.

Overall I am enjoying the game as a whole, I just think that due to game play decisions they failed to deliver the story in an epic or convincing fashion by trying to convey too much in a limited amount of time. The franchise has always had story in it, but the game play always felt like the central part. It's clear they wanted to make the story more integrated and important in D3, and I was a fan of that idea, just not on it's delivery.
Edited by Meegs#1360 on 5/23/2012 8:03 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Nice read . The Major problem with the Boss in D3 is that they never shut up. For Belial case it`s was more necessary but , they never creeped me out like in Diablo. The music and the atmosphere don`t cut it either. I see a lot of cartoony blood and that fine. But it`s never grossed me out like the pit of dead human bodies in Andariel chamber (After hearing about the 100 virgin sacrifice lol. I just imagined what happened here) or the creepy music in diablo 1. Good horrors movies don`t reveal to much detail. People fear more the unknown.

The first game gave more a feeling of uneasiness has you explored those dark humid crypt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sARLbsAPyA

Diablo seem so much more evil in the first diablo because you never really see him.. You just hear tale about his existence and he`s incarnate of evil. What killed Azmodan were the big floating head following you. He ended up more has a comic relief than a Prime evil. Or in Act IV diablo talk to you... WHAT? Diablo never talked to you like that in both previous game!! Hell .. He did not even talk in those cinematic.

I know there`s intelligent not just mindless beast .. But all the chitchat you have with em remove their creepiness. I just can`t get over the big floating head LOL.
Edited by Fishu#1741 on 5/23/2012 8:54 AM PDT
Reply Quote
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on a couple of points, there. Not all bosses are evil demouns out to drink your blood and damn your soul. While the four you mentioned are indeed hellspawn with a desrie to rend flesh, what about Zoltan Kulle? He was a Horadrim mage who doesn't care about the Eternal War. He just wants to use his black Soulstone to become a god. The character goes through all the trouble of putting him back together on the suggestion of Adria and Tyriel - despite Kulle mentioning how all your allies are just using you for their own goals, and then kills him so that they can have the soulstone themselves.

Mahgda - some sort of sorceress who leads The Coven - a group dedicated to working for their demon master Belial. She wants to bring Hell to Sanctuary, by the looks of things, and doesn't have any qualms about kidnapping, torture and slaughter of humans. You kill her purely out of spite and revenge - she was not a demon.

And the point about making the hero feel powerless? The hero is a Nehpalim - the descendent of both angels and demons, with the potential to outstrip both. With the Worldstone destroyed, and the power limitation wards that were in place on it shattered, Humans the world over are discovering a newfound power within themselves. It's because of this that the character is powerful. But, despite this, you can still get killed in a single blow by some of the more powerful creatures out there. Why, I recall having my Sorceress on 95% health while fighting against Azmodan, taking a fireball to the face, and dieing on the spot
Reply Quote
Posts: 221
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on a couple of points, there. Not all bosses are evil demouns out to drink your blood and damn your soul. While the four you mentioned are indeed hellspawn with a desrie to rend flesh, what about Zoltan Kulle? He was a Horadrim mage who doesn't care about the Eternal War. He just wants to use his black Soulstone to become a god. The character goes through all the trouble of putting him back together on the suggestion of Adria and Tyriel - despite Kulle mentioning how all your allies are just using you for their own goals, and then kills him so that they can have the soulstone themselves.

Mahgda - some sort of sorceress who leads The Coven - a group dedicated to working for their demon master Belial. She wants to bring Hell to Sanctuary, by the looks of things, and doesn't have any qualms about kidnapping, torture and slaughter of humans. You kill her purely out of spite and revenge - she was not a demon.

And the point about making the hero feel powerless? The hero is a Nehpalim - the descendent of both angels and demons, with the potential to outstrip both. With the Worldstone destroyed, and the power limitation wards that were in place on it shattered, Humans the world over are discovering a newfound power within themselves. It's because of this that the character is powerful. But, despite this, you can still get killed in a single blow by some of the more powerful creatures out there. Why, I recall having my Sorceress on 95% health while fighting against Azmodan, taking a fireball to the face, and dieing on the spot


Whether the bosses are demons are some other equally nasty foe is irrelevant. My point was merely that the enemies in this game tend to be very cliche, one-dimensional bad guys.

Kulle was one of my favorite characters, and I agree that his motivations were more ambiguous than the others. However, I feel that they didn't take his storyline to its full potential, and few of the other bosses even have such potential in the first place.

Again, I wasn't referring to gameplay when I said the player should feel powerless. Even if the hero kills all the bosses with ease, a well-written story can still cause the player to feel powerless in terms of their ability to make a lasting change on the world. Dark Souls does this well because there is always a "so what?" attached to everything you do. You are the chosen undead... so what? You ring the bells of awakening and open Sen's fortress... so what? Even after slaying Gwyn and linking the fire, your only reward is to spend years burning alive until the cycle repeats itself and a hero comes along to slay you.

Dark? Yes. But it sure as hell beats the happily-ever-after ending of D3.
Reply Quote
I don't really know what to say other than this is a really bad idea. They both share similarities, but saying you should rip out the entire story of Diablo 3 just because Dark Souls doesn't really have one or doesn't attempt to present it to you is stupid.

Of all things that Dark Souls does good and you argue for the one thing it doesn't even really attempt to do.

The similarities between the 2 titles are that they are both co-op and are both designed to be played repeatedly. The one thing I think Diablo 3 could learn from it is that Dark Souls is actually challenging on your very first playthrough, whereas Diablo 3 is a cakewalk and anyone who can left click a mouse can beat it on normal.

The last thing that comes to mind when thinking about Dark Souls is the story. Hell, even in it's minimalist state, it still makes mistakes like when it says all the dragons were destroyed... okay well then why am I still fighting dragons?
Edited by zma1013#1491 on 5/23/2012 10:44 AM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]