I didn't say "better". I said "more enjoyable to me".
Hence "Falka pls".
It was a few years ago so can not be sure, but I think that DS1 had better design of areas, which didn't require so much running. At least I don't recall it as a chore like in DS3.
Pretty sure it's the nostalgia talking. Except for the much higher inter-connectivity of DS1 (missing this in DS3 is indeed a real shame), it actually required effectively more running because you'd be without teleports for most of the game.
Tell me then what I'm missing.
Lore, finding secrets, dealing with traps and ambushes, dealing with risk, rewards and progression. The true quality of this franchise is not the combat system itself but in level design. A huge majority of the difficulties that most players trip on are not resolved through a better mastery of the combat system but rather by approaching each problem in the correct way, which depends on your knowledge of the game universe, not really of its combat mechanics.
The thing is, the game offers a world that can be explored in a variety of ways, some more rewarding and some easier than others, and you have to make choices without knowing all the consequences. I think it is more important to allow people to "fail" to do a quest rather than making sure they 100% everything like everyone else. An authentic journey is ultimately more personal and more valuable than one that was dictated by an abstract need of completion. Even though I'm pretty sure every school of game design would tell you is it abhorrent, the possibility of making errors along the way without realizing makes your own playthrough much less of a dull, controlled experiment. It confronts you with things that were not necessarily intended and transforms you into a genuine explorer.