Report: Dark Souls 3 will debut at E3 2015; Bloodborne director heads project
According to a new report, Dark Souls 3 will be making its debut at E3 2015.
Dark Souls 3 will be making its debut at this year’s E3, according to a report published today.
According to a source familiar with the matter, Bandai Namco will be announcing Dark Souls 3 at this year’s biggest gaming event, E3. It’s unknown as of now what platform will be used for the announcement, but we wouldn’t be surprised if the announcement becomes a part of Sony’s E3 presentation considering how much more popular the series is on its platforms, in addition to the popularity of Bloodborne.
The director of Demon’s Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne, Hidetaka Miyazaki will once again be heading the team for Dark Souls 3.
As much as we enjoyed the Dark Souls series, we’re hoping Miyazaki-san will deliver some of the improvements Bloodborne has made in Dark Souls 3, primarily the ability for our hero to move a little more nimbly. Although, we would still like to be able to warp to other campfires. It’s absurd the amount of time our Hunters have spent in the Hunter’s Dream just to get from one point to another.
[Via VG247]
-
Shacknews
replyDaniel Perez posted a new article, Report: Dark Souls 3 will debut at E3 2015; Bloodborne director heads project
-
http://i.imgur.com/M7RYRBm.gif
They better release it for PC at the same time as the consoles! -
[deleted]
-
Unfffffffffff
-
-
-
-
Really? Dark Souls 2 is over one year old; it stands to reason that From would want another entry ready for next spring/summer.
-
Demon's Souls: 2009
Dark Souls: 2011
Dark Souls II: 2014
Bloodborne: 2015
Dark Souls III: 2016?
Plausible. They obviously work hard to churn out his quality at that pace. And we know they have two teams now, too as DS2 and BB were developed in parallel.
-
-
-
-
Sony already announced they are working on a Bloodborne expansion
-
-
[deleted]
-
FUCK. YES. Give me the world design of Dark 1 and BB mixed with the character depth of Dark 2 and I might never play another game... until Dark Souls 4.
-
its going MMO David. with a ton of minigames similar to Mario party.
-
-
Not trying to thread shit, but Miyazaki had better not regress the series' mechanics. Whether you love it or hate it, Dark 2 implemented a number of features that I simply could not imagine doing without now: more weapon options (and thus character builds) and being able to hang around a game after defeating the final boss are just two of many.
-
Well if we're getting into it they already regressed it in many ways with DS2. Soul Vessels which render multiple characters pointless, bonfires every 10 steps, enemies that disappear after you die to them too many times, etc.
I like Dark Souls 2 but to me it took more steps back than forward. Not that it didn't move forward as well in some ways.-
That's what I'm focusing on: the "move forward as well in some ways." I've never said it was perfect! But I do prefer it over BB for reasons I've regurgitated long enough.
-
-
-
SIDEJACK: Bloodborne took my Souls virginity. And even though I've beaten the game and our relationship is over, like any person who has had their cherry popped, I cannot let go. My question is this: do you guys think I'll enjoy that new version of DS2? I'm thinking of grabbing it on PS4.
I love love love Bloodborne.-
-
Yeah. The fundamentals of BB aren't that different from those of the core Souls games.
-
Without question, yes.
Us Souls nerds love to debate which From game is the titsyest but every single one of them is a chapter in a gaming experience like no other. -
I think the best thing for you to do would be to play them in order from here. Straight up go Demon's to DS1 to DS2. But if you don't want to play them all you really should play DS1 before any of the others. It's all opinion but mine is that it's the best total package game in the series. None of the games are perfect but to me DS1 is as close as they come.
-
-
Bloodborne is a massive change in combat from any of the previous games. All three of them are going to feel really slow paced after Bloodborne. Demon's Souls will feel the most slow paced for sure but I'd at least recommend trying it. Play part of the first world (it uses a hub world system) and see if you like it.
DS2 is by far my least favorite game in the series but I still thinks it's a great game that's worth playing. But to me the choice between Dark Souls 1 and 2 is very clear. The first one is just so much better.
So yeah do what you want but for me you should either play Demon's first or Dark Souls and then Dark Souls 2.-
Demon's is definitely worth playing for the atmosphere alone. Some of the systems are pretty primitive compared to Dark Souls 1, but the ambiance and tension will suck you right in.
-
If the atmosphere and exploration was your favorite part of BB, I'd say play Demon's first, as that's it's strongest suite too. Otherwise play DS2 if you wished there was more PvP than BB, or DS1 if you like a well balanced mode-point between the two.
For the record, my personal taste puts BB 1st over all, then probably DS2 for its accessibility and multiplayer, then Demons then DS1, but they're all pinnacles of video game design.-
-
You're right, but it works. It's more fantasy for sure, but i wouldn't call it "generic". Not even close.
And shield based combat is a whole different animal than what Bloodborne did. It's neat in it's own way. -
I'd argue Demon's Souls is more unique in atmosphere than Bloodborne because Bloodborne is basically gothic horror + cthulhu mythos type stuff. I absolutely love it but his sources of inspiration feel easier to pin down in Bloodborne than any of the other games. Demon's Souls in particular is all over the place with the lore and design because it takes place in 5 totally separate worlds that don't connect directly to each other rather than one unified world.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was thinking that maybe Dark Souls could be a series about more diverse role play, where Bloodborne could be a series more focused on streamlined action.
It's clear there were some clear design divergences between Bloodborne and both DS1/2. Whether it was for the better has been a topic of much debate. But I think they were trying for different goals.
Will DS3 continue the trend of MORE that DS -> DS2 represented? Or will they simplify and polish like DS2 -> BB represented?
It'll be interesting to see where this game design lands. -
Good, after DS2 I don't think I'd bother with another souls game unless he was at the helm
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
