My first thought is to make sure that "bonfires" and "bonfire" is consistent; I feel like it's a little loosey goosey with respect to when it uses one or the other.
I feel like the "positive reception" bit could go at the beginning of the paragraph, since all of the paragraph deals with positive reception to it.
I feel like "many Easter eggs" is a little exaggerative for five games; maybe use several instead.
Which source is used to verify that Dark Souls 3 allows upgrading, leveling up, and repairing gear? I'd also appreciate if you could double check that the existence of these features is verified for 1 and 2 as well.
I believe that this is technically (or partially depending on how you want to look at it) confirmed when the Polygon article states,『Those bonfires were to enable players to perform various functions, though many of those functions sound like the type of things players can do at Dark Souls’ bonfires already (level up, reverse hollowing, etc.)』in terms of Dark Souls III. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Appearances
"In the Dark Souls series, many of them are scattered throughout different locations and range from close proximity to each other to far away to give off appearances of being scattered throughout different locations." Is this dev info, that they intentionally made them scattered? If so, I think it'd work better in Characteristics, and also could stand to be pared down.
I feel like the YouTuber info is given too much weight. For example, this line: "known for investigations of cut contents of games produced by FromSoftware" is not really valuable, the fact that a source is being cited for what he said should be adequate for context. I would also recommend reducing the discussion of the YouTuber's theory as best you can, if possible to a brief summary, as I think that a theory with that much elaboration would need to be something more widely adopted and accepted.
While Valnet sources are not unusuable, is it possible to replace them with better ones?
I generally tried to minimize Valnet source usage outside of reception (just done so a bit more), but there are some areas where I can't find better sources to replace them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see FandomWire listed on WP:VG/RS. The source doesn't seem bad so I won't ask for its removal, but I'd recommend getting more opinions by bringing the site up on WT:VG/RS.
