Is Dark Souls 3‘s More Compact Adventure Better Than DS2‘s Epic Sprawl?

As a long-time Souls devotee with over 1000 hours combined across the series‘ punishing worlds, I receive this question often from newcomers: is Dark Souls 3 shorter than DS2? After journeying across their rich landscapes many times over, I can decisively say yes – DS3 offers a more action-packed quest than its already massive predecessor. But does this streamlined approach enhance or diminish the experience?

Main Story Length – DS3‘s Brisk Pace

Let‘s examine the numbers. DS3‘s base game campaign clocks in around 32 hours according to HowLongToBeat. Its four great souls quest comes in on the lighter side for Souls – especially compared to DS2‘s sprawling 44 hour medieval epic.

For those unfamiliar, collecting four special souls to unlock a final area is the backbone of these games‘ structure. And DS3 wastes little time sending players on this journey.

You rapidly traverse visually stunning, intricately crafted lands like the cursed Undead Settlement, smoldering Catacombs of Carthus, and of course fan-favorite Anor Londo. Compared to DS2 these areas feel more dense with shortcuts, hidden paths, and rooftop acrobatics condensing distance. This amplifies DS3‘s brisk sense of momentum as you topple meticulously designed bosses like the Abyss Watchers and Pontiff Sulyvahn.

Completionist Length – Still Less Than DS2

What about for us obsessive types striving for full completion across every possible side activity? The numbers say it all:

So even for us crazy hollows combing through every crack and crevice, DS2 still takes the cake at a staggering 120 hours for 100% completion. Areas like Black Gulch, Shrine of Amana, and Frigid Outskirts are languid gauntlets – especially when factoring in DS2‘s more methodical combat.

Still, 97 hours is no mere walk in the park. DS3‘s outstanding DLC areas like The Ringed City add dozens of hours alone. I‘d argue there‘s more replayability in exploring DS3‘s intricately layered levels compared to DS2‘s sprawling breadth. But in terms of sheer volume DS2 is king.

Level Design – Interwoven vs Massive

A key philosophical shift between DS2 and DS3 was FromSoftware‘s return to intricately interlinked world design. DS2 contains standout locales like the forested ruins of Shaded Woods and the ominously sinking Shulva, City of Sin. However FromSoft president Hidetaka Miyazaki wasn‘t directly involved in development, instead working on Bloodborne.

His fingerprints were all over DS3. One of Miyazaki‘s greatest talents is crafting landscapes that double back on themselves elegantly. DS3 achieves this via iconic moments like:

• Taking elevator shortcuts between the High Wall of Lothric and the Undead Settlement
• Unlocking ladder paths connecting Irithyll Dungeon to Irithyll proper
• Finding clever ways to navigate Irithyll‘s rooftops
• Descending from the Profaned Capital back down through Irithyll in a looping descent

This amplified density means that while DS3‘s landmass is smaller, traversing it repeatedly never grows old. You continually discover new ways to sequence break earlier areas. DS2‘s more stratified, detached levels have their appeal – but DS3‘s clever intricacy adds replay value making up for its shorter length.

Combat – DS3‘s Furious High

DS3‘s combat strikes a riveting balance between DS1‘s methodical pace and Bloodborne‘s rapid aggression. The resulting tempo is utterly intoxicating. DS3 trades DS2‘s tankier, poise-focused medieval clashes for furious exchanges emphasizing dexterity and fluidity.

In my 257 hours across 4 playthroughs, I never once grew tired of DS3‘s infectious, adrenaline-surging battles. Late game boss fights like the exhilarating Slave Knight Gael provided an unparalleled rush. DS2 has its charms but can‘t compare to DS3‘s relentless combat highs.

This addictive intensity offsets DS3‘s reduced scope. I‘d rather have 30 hours of engrossing, heart-pounding showdowns than 50 hours of sluggish back-and-forths. Few games satisfy my craving for responsive melee combat like DS3. I‘d replay favorite bosses like the Abyss Watchers and Dancer of the Boreal Valley endlessly given the chance!

The Lore Implications

I‘m fascinated by fan theories suggesting DS3‘s relatively compact quest directly plays into its central lore themes. A popular Reddit thread analyzes how DS3‘s crumbling lands, converging timelines, and references to waxing/waning flame cycles reflect a world nearing its decaying demise. Unlike DS2‘s broad, grand kingdoms, DS3‘s shrinking scope supports its narrative ending.

Perhaps this metaphorically mirrors the series itself concluding its epic trilogy. By explicitly tying DS3‘s compact length to the lore in this manner, I find deeper appreciation for its abbreviated-yet-poignant journey. Miyazaki and his team seem masters of implying narrative details through carefully considered game design choices.

So Is Shorter Better?

In closing, I can decisively say DS3 offers a more condensed quest than DS2 – around 75% the length by conservative estimates. This amplifies its action and lore payoffs by maintaining intense momentum. Interconnected environments and feverish combat prevent the shorter experience from ever growing stale over multiple sequential playthroughs.

However I still adore slowly unraveling DS2‘s sprawling saga across differently themed kingdoms linked by subtle throughlines. Its languid pace lets me soak in gorgeously somber vistasbefore punctuating the tension with meticulously crafted fights versus foes like Sir Alonne and Fume Knight.

So ultimately both approaches have great merit. Recent rumors suggest a DS2 remaster may emerge soon. I welcome the chance to re-experience Majula‘s melancholy while awaiting the next evolution in the series that forever changed my gaming tastes. Miyazaki‘s unique genius lies in crafting journeys that utterly absorb us whether they last 30 hours or 50. If DS3 is any indicator, even his shortest adventures leave lifetimes worth of impressions.