For me, the fact that it's a controller centric game already puts me off. I managed to make the second one playable with keyboard and mouse, only to get further put off by certain mechanics and threats to get banned if I modded them out due to a forced multiplayer element I didn't care making it unfair or some other nonsense. And that's without getting into the whole "figure the plot out" side of things or the DRM.

I'm taking a clear pass on this one, thank you very much.
Personally, I find the whole "you play the game our way or you're having fun wrong" approach absurd. Why not have an optional un-iron man mode, like say XCOM does (only inverse)? The author might give a warning saying that the game is intended to play the default way, and the game may indeed not be nearly as enjoyable without that thing, but that's up to the player IMO. I once played FTL with saves, realized how boring it was that way and kept playing default after that, but making a pretty much perfect run on a perfect ship for once was still fun on its own way. Dark souls waves the banhammer if you try to do anything non-standard, which pisses me off. It shouldn't be anyone else's business how I have fun with my game, except it is because multiplayer is forced on apparently. The whole situation simply made me... annoyquit? Is that a thing?

That's the thing, Dark Souls, as a series, gives players more control over their experience than most other games. As I mentioned earlier, I actually chose to completely ignore any online components for my first playthrough of DS3, and also played the older games offline. And unlike most other games, the developers never try to "force" you into the online mode, instead they went the extra mile to make the pure single player/ offline experience feel as complete and satisfying as possible. Practically any multiplayer items and game elements are also available to offline players, in one way or another. And you also have full control over the game's difficulty -- not via some setting at the beginning of the game, but through every choice you make regarding your character and playstyle, such as your starting class, how you develop your character, whether you'll summon help for boss fights etc.

As for modifications and bans ( how do those work on Steam anyway? -- they block you from the game's online components or what? ), you can blame multiplayer cheaters for that. While people should be able to modify their personal gameplay experience, some will use such means to cheat in PvP matches, which ultimately ruins the fun for the whole player community. If you don't care about the multiplayer aspects, then I guess you could mod it all you like, but again, I'm not sure how Steam handles such things ( modding, game specific bans etc. ). Surely they can't entirely ban you from the game you've purchased? If I remember correctly, isn't there actually a Souls server specifically for people with modded games?

I like the premise of the Soul's series, but it's really the kind of game I'd prefer to play isolated and almost avoid everything being said on the internet about it. The whole community thing kills the game for me, it's not about "explore this brutal and mysterious world" it's about "getting good, playing with friends, comparing to others" wich isn't really what RPGs should be about. I'll surely play it in 6 years where everyone is doing something else.

You mean game depth comes from the head and not your fingers?...

What is this madness you speak.

You'll find that most gaming communities on the internet contain an element of extreme progress flaunting; that's not limited to Dark Souls, or even competitive games in general. I see this in the Stardew Valley reddit all the time. You always feel kind of inadequate posting in a community where some people are sinking 20x as many hours into the game as you are while min-maxing everything to the 9's. But you learn to get over it. It's entirely your choice whether you want to indulge in that level of obsession.

I'm loving DS3. I loved DS1, but not so much on DS2. I love the series overall. The Witcher is good. Dark Souls is a different animal though. I love the challenges. I just completed a no level run in DS1 (SL4). It's a very good game. I really with TW 3 had some better combat, but it's still a great game on its own merits.

haha so, there is at least one person for whom controller support is actually a downside. I too have shored up around keyboard and mouse. I look to Steam controller as a compromise. I still don't have one yet though. KI would have been a good reason but nowadays it seems like if a game is good there is no way they won't try to use it as a giant lever (penis) to move (****) you somehow. so I dunno about KI now.

anyway, yeah, controller, boo.

Dark Souls is a game, so is The Witcher and that's the only instance where I think both should be compared.
Two different experiences altogether. Both good.

I simply don't have one on my backpack, and I'm not going to buy (and more importantly, carry) one just for this one game.
Well, the thing that bothered me were the enemies stopping to respawn. Apparently, they don't to stop farming, because farming would be playing it wrong and that cannot be tolerated. And while I didn't care about online when it came to invasions and such (I never interacted with anyone directly), the whole blood marks seemed interesting and I kinda liked it.

I don't know how it works either, I just got the warning and annoyquited. After buying and not being able to play DS1, I played DS2 through steam shared library from a friend. I'm not risking my friend's game even a bit.

Intel i5 2,90Ghz with 6Go RAM and a GeForce GT720. Not really a gaming PC (it's more for work) but it can run most games pretty well. Framerate was the only issue as I didn't have much time to experience any blue screens or corrupted saves. Naturally, I had no problems with playing DS2 fully maxxed out :(

DS2's spawning mechanics were quite interesting, actually. If I remember correctly, each individual enemy would respawn up to 12 times. So there was enough room for item and soul farming, you just couldn't farm the same spot infinitely. I know the pros and cons of this, and other changes, are debatable, but ultimately every developer has to add certain rules and limitations to their game, or else it's not much of a game. I guess the closest thing to true player freedom would be the "sandbox" genre, and that's not for everyone either.

Anyhow, I don't know how far you got into the game, but later on you could use special items to reset areas, including enemies, bosses and unique enemies. At some point I just farmed certain bosses for souls instead of regular enemies, since it was a lot more fun ( and faster ). It was one of the best new mechanics in DS2. A shame they didn't keep it for DS3, as far as I can tell.

I just checked, and the listed minimum specs for DS3 include 8GB RAM and a GTX 750. The RAM probably isn't the problem, but your GPU is a good bit below the min requirements. I know that's frustrating, but it's not fair to blame the devs for that. You have to keep in mind that DS2 was optimized for the PS3 and 360, while DS3 is the first true "next gen" Dark Souls ( Bloodborne excluded ), optimized for the PS4.

I'm curious how it runs on the GTX 750, since I used one myself until about a year ago. It's a nice GPU, and I pretty much only upgraded because of Witcher 3. I have a GTX 960 now, which is "only" a Med or at best Med/High range card, but Dark Souls 3 runs smoothly at 1080p and maxed out graphics settings. I would guess on a GTX 750 performance is probably similar to the PS4 version. So overall, I don't think it's fair to claim the devs didn't optimize the game for low and medium range systems.

I didn't mind the limited spawns and bonfire ascetic system in DS2 either. It's usually one of the biggest negatives when you hear people talk about DS2 though. DS3 almost feels cheap with the amount of spots you can farm souls very quickly and forever.

There was this one area with 4 enemies. The first time I went in, they did me in. Then I went back in for my lost souls, died again. Then I went for REVENGE, I had nothing to lose. So I died a bunch of times, but I got the hang of it, and I managed to kill one before the other 3 killed me. Then I got to a point were I could reliably kill 2 of them. I think I got to kill 3 once before the first one stopped spawning and left me without being able to have the satisfaction of clearing that room. That's when I looked into why the enemies stopped respawning, mods and the whole banning deal which I found terribly infuriating. Coupled with the lack of story, I just had no motivation to keep playing the game. Great for whoever enjoys it, certainly not for me.

are you using one of them fancy folding keyboards?