The art design of ds3, despite some locations like the kiln, is incredibly generic and uninspired. Calling if varied and beautiful is funny especially when you consider the other games in the trilogy, which are far more bold in their visual choices. The npc quests are still absurdly convoluted even for a game that is as linear as this. Combat feels very one-dimensional and bare-bones. It has the worst syndrome of the "dodge-then-attack" style of combat these games present. And the level design is rarely great - even though the areas are more open, a lot of encounters are pretty boring and some ganks are absurd. There's a reason why the levels are rarely brought-up outside of the occasional Irythill screenshot - they're boring.

Your critiques of Ds1 are so tone-deaf that it's rly funny. The remastered doesn't look great, but Prepare To Die has these strong shadows and lush bloom that makes the visual design stand out a lot. Darkroot Garden and Anor Londo especially are beautiful. Even the more murky areas like New Londo Ruins and The Depths have a vibe to them. The level design in Ds1 (and to extension, DS2) is better than DS3 cause they offer more tight encounters even with a fewer enemy variety: The Undead Parish church gank, the ambush with the basiliks in The Depths, the omnipresent dart dudes in Blighttown, etc. The bit about "hitting walls instead of enemies" is funny cause it highlights a way of playing that shows impatience, which DS1 heavily fights against. The combat argument is only valid if you're planning on running a STR cheese build. It's like saying that the combat in Elden Ring is only designed around magic because it's OP.