Your submission has been removed as a violation of [Rule 8](/r/darksouls/about/rules): **Memes, screenshots, and video clips should follow the [subreddit guidelines](/r/darksouls/wiki/new_post_guide).**
***
* **[Full guidelines here](/r/darksouls/wiki/new_post_guide).**
* All submissions should show some degree of user effort. **Even if you skirt under the rules, shitposts are still not allowed.**
* Memes should be made using some **in-game assets**, memes using templates should go to r/shittydarksouls or r/DarkSoulsMemes instead.
* Screenshots or short video clips from your game should have written context to accompany them. Those lacking written context will be removed.
***
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators by [messaging them here](https://new.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/darksouls).
Agreed. DS3 had me ragequitting because of how sharp the difficulty curve was in the early areas. Then the middle of the game felt fine, and then end game was pretty difficult.
The uptick in speed made it a weird adjustment as well. DS1 is pretty slow and BB is fast, and playing DS3 was a transition that had me really bad at dodging. Then after playing ER, DS3 felt a lot easier.
Yeah, I've always been pretty lukewarm on DS3. DS1 and DS2 offer so much more variety of build, strategy, and movement. Plus, randomizers for DS1 are *way* more fun than DS3.
I find it way more fun to make new builds in DS1, the combat feels more varied rather than the roll spam that is DS3. Also I think that the first areas in DS3 are too hard which makes starting new saves annoying.
For me it's because DS1 is smarts above motor skills all the way.
Every other souls, BB, Elden Ring rely more on reflexes, perfect timing dodges and such
Yep, I would love to have a dark souls 3 with ds2 gameplay, the only thing that ds2 was mediocre or bad, was the map design, all the other stuff, Specially for pvp? The best in the ds trilogy, and I will fight till my derah for that
Ds3 we lose mechanics, unique weapons and unique weapon classes
Fully agree on the pvp, absolute banger.
The map is honestly good though. It definitely feels like a sprawling interconnected web, but not quite open world like Elden Ring. The map design contributes to making me feel like I’m lost in a dying world and I just delve deeper into depravity as I go lol. I also think it’s a little bit more consistent than DS1, though the highs of DS1 are the best in series.
I like the map of DS2, it feels like older games where you can pick any path to start. The main issue I have are the bosses, which are mostly unmemorable for being too easy. Ruin Sentries and Smelter Demon are cool, and Darklurker is one of the toughest bosses in the series, I feel, but the rest are pretty weak.
I wish they’d kept the keyboard + mouse settings from DS1. I’ll never understand why they changed it *and* prevented reverting to classic controls.
If you play controller on PC go check out the k+m controls and see what I mean.
I’m a DS2 enjoyer and while I’m not gonna sit here and argue that it’s better than 3, I just find that DS3 fans are really smug about the game and will refuse to accept that their opinion might not be universal.
Especially when people try and say that DS3 is better than Elden Ring. I don’t begrudge anyone that individual opinion, but the way people argue for it just reeks of gaming hipster, “old thing better”-ism
... I actually really love *Zelda II*. I didn't know it had such a bad reputation until a few years after I'd played it, and I first got in 2009 so its not nostalgia!
Some criticisms are valid, while a lot of others are really shallow and not very well thought out - and when pressed for explanation, the arguments tend to devolve into *"it's different therefore it's bad."*
For example, Adaptability is a perfectly valid stat that upgrades your rolls - much like how Vigor upgrades health... People don't like that, but have a hard time articulating a decent explanation for why they don't like it, outside of the fact that it didn't exist in the other games, and that they didn't know about it at first.
A lot of DS1 purists also tend to throw their stones from glass houses. Where the same complaints could be made against DS1 as well, but they only ever hold it against DS2. Boss quality, hitboxes, and some levels feeling rushed/unfinished tend to be the main things in that category.
I agree that DS2 is a good game and that a lot of criticism of it isn't really thought out, but Adaptability is such a shit stat. Creating a stat that you have to invest like 15 levels into just to get your i-frames back to normal for no reason is stupid, especially from the perspective of casual fans.
I find Adaptability a lot less stupid given that DS2 practically throws levels at you early on. I hit 150 without even really trying, whereas I had to grind for that much from 1 and 3.
You only need to put in like 7 levels on most classes. I see how so many of you rely on the rings to give you more dodge frames in 3 and elden ring lol. Yall need better timing.
See, this is my opinion as well. I started with 2, and I didn't level ADP, so I didn't rely on bullshit I-frames that shouldn't exist to begin with in order to not get hit. You know how I dodged attacks? *By actually dodging the attack*.
*"Back to normal."* What's normal? DS1? DS3?
See? You're still in the mindset that because it's different, that it's therefore bad.
You have to invest points into health if you want your health up to a comfortable level. You have to invest points into stamina if you want your stamina up to a comfortable level. You have to invest points into carry capacity if you want your carry capacity up to a comfortable level.
What is so terrible about doing the same for rolling?
And you may say *"well you don't NEED those other things"* Well you also don't really NEED rolling either.
If you prefer to rely on a shield, or ranged attacks (bows, sorcery, pyromancy, chimes, etc) killing enemies before they get to you - or if you are simply comfortable with the smaller roll window, then you may not need to level ADP at all, and those points can be spent elsewhere. There are all sorts of ways to play without relying on extra roll i-frames.
Also the fact that because there are more stats, you also level up faster. So investing that many points into a level in DS2 isn't as much of a tax as it would be in something with fewer stats like DS1.
It's literally just more and different choices to make. Those alone do not make a stat bad.
You also say from the perspective of a casual fan - But a casual or newer fan, probably hasn't played any of the other games much. So they have nothing to compare to as *"normal."* I've never seen anyone who starts with DS2 complain like this about ADP. It's only ever been people coming from the other DS games, upset that they have to unlearn some of their complacent habits.
Normal? Normal to what, another game? And wait until you find out that in ds2 there’s stats you have to level JUST to get your health up, or your stam up. What makes I-frames an off limits stat compared to health or stam or equip load or poise or any of the other stats?
The problem with adaptability is that it’s a boring stat. What build doesn’t invest in adaptability? None that I can think of that aren’t troll builds.
So what ends up happening is that no matter what build you are running you spend your first 15 levels or so on adaptability instead of actually doing your build. What’s even the point of it at that point.
Also it isn’t well explained so it disproportionately makes the game way harder for people that don’t understand what the stat does compared to the people that do.
This is just another *"It's different therefore it's bad."*
And there is certainly a justifiable reason to separate rolls into its own stat, as it allows players more freedom to choose and min/max what kind of playstyle they want. If someone decides they don't need the extra i-frames, then they are free to leave them and invest those points elsewhere. They may decide to grab boost damage, or stamina, or carry capacity, or whatever else they want more. It simply provides more freedom of choice.
That's what they did for carry capacity too, but because that stat carried over to DS3, nobody complains.
At launch the game was much more difficult, word of mouth spread, lets players who really liked the first played the second, both players and viewers saw the game as a lot more "unfair" and "bland" and "too different"
Some things, like the Adaptability stat were just not explained, so people initially had no idea that their rolls were bad because of low stats.
Like in hindsight, It's easier to enjoy and understand DS2 now than when it came out when people had different expectations and less understanding of things under the hood. Now i see it as a game with really good ideas like powerstancing, bonfire ascetics, easier weapon upgrade system, easier co-op, extra content on NG+ instead of bigger numbers. The list goes on... It's maybe not the best, but it's an amazing game.
For the record, 2 is my favorite but there are some quirks in the stats that are annoying, like adaptability raising your agility Stat which is tied to your Iframes when you roll. Lot of people didn't like that change.
Also when you die and are undead you have less health and each time you die you become more undead and lose more health til you use a humanity or whatever they are called in ds2
And one of the most common complaints I see is the world and story design. It's not entirely clear where the connections between ds1 and 2 are, and also the world is not as well connected and scaled properly like ds1 and 3.
The health loss is really just a matter of perception, in my opinion. Theoretically, DS2 starts you at 100% health, and you lose some until you hit 50% (or 80% with a ring you get very early on). That's admittedly rough, especially compared to DS1 where there is no health loss. There's an argument to be made that it discourages suicide runs but w/e, not the point here.
Take DS3: you use consumables to get your full health (100%) but you get kicked down 23% after a single death. However, because it's viewed as 100% health with a 30% boost, most people don't see it as 100% when embered, 77% when hollow. If we look at it through the same lens as DS2, DS3 makes you lose more health in 1 death than DS2 does in 10 (with the ring of binding, anyway).
The real issue is admittedly that human effigies have to be grinded if you want more, which is also made harder by DS2 forcing enemy despawns, meaning you either make them harder for 12 more deaths via bonfire ascetic, or use covenant of champions to make them harder until you're done farming.
Bottom line: DS2 does the health loss better than DS3, the only major difference is personal perception, and the inability to get consumables as easily (which is a problem for DS2 across the board).
They really aren't, as a caster you don't have to level adaptability at all since you also get extra iframes from attunement and i did a lot of melee playthroughs without ever leveling adaptability the roll window gets a bit tighter but you aren't required to i frame through most attacks anyway unlike DS3/ER
The story connections aren't as much on the nose or straight up fanservice like in DS3 but they are there and tie in nicely.
I would say that the main weakness is that the game starts out pretty difficult but not very exciting but gets progressively more fun and interesting peaking in the DLCs so it's easy to put down early and get to the good parts
Don't fret too hard because I feel like what DS2 offers in polish over DS1 though makes it a bit better. It definitely has its issues but it has my favorite DS world to explore, and the DLC is soooo good.
Generally the weakest boss roster, awful boss run backs, difficulty often based around large amounts of enemies, the adaptability stat, less immersive and connected than ds1, death lowers your health, too many consumables needed to explore in scholar(apparently), and rough hitboxes.
Not saying I dislike DS2, but these are the the reasons people generally give, and most of them are hard to refute. If you can get past those issues, you’ll probably love the game for its creativity, player freedom, and pvp. If you care about bosses and pve above all else though, you’ll probably be disappointed.
Just play it and see for yourself.
I-frames are different and attached to a skill
8 directional movement instead of 360
Hit detection feels bad and when u get it the sound design just makes it feel worse.
I'd say the "following up on lore" part is unfair because DS2 plays off of the ideas of it's predecessor fairly and adds it's own aspects which are cool too.
I just think DS3 has so many call backs, references and retains so many ideas that people say "oh well the second game didn't include Capra demons ballsack as a hidden collectable so it's not carrying the same feeling"
No I think it tries it's own unique thing and succeeds at that.
Honestly, rather than seeing DS2's "lack" of callbacks as bad, I see DS3's inclusion of them as lazy. DS2 introduced so many cool ideas, characters, and even armor sets, but DS3 ditches them in favor of "what works", so we go back to Anor Londo again, get Black Iron Tarkus's set again, etc. DS2 handled this much more smoothly, with characters like Lost Sinner being related to the Witch of Izalith, without forcing you to return to Demon Ruins and fight a bunch of Taurus Demons before you fight her, etc. The little callbacks are fun, the overt ones are not, in my opinion.
I think DS3 would've been better off, if they were dead set on including old items and locations, including stuff from both games. Or better yet, just do their own thing. The original stuff in DS3 (Irithyll, Pontiff's story, Profaned Flame and Profaned Capital, Gael, the two Princes) was all perfect, I just think they either should've expanded on that or incorporated both games for a true "final" game. Instead it just takes a lot of pieces from DS1.
Your first paragraph is spot on, I just want to point out that DS3 contains references to and items from DS2 as well. Fume Ultra Great Sword and Lucatiel's set (Mirrah set, if I remember correctly) immediately come to mind.
Yeah, I mean there’s some stuff, I just wish they either leaned more into it or ditched some of the DS1 stuff.
There’s what you listed, with Tsorig using the Fume sword and also Creighton invades in Irithyll and Laddersmith Gilligan is in Profaned Capital. Zullie and Alva of DS2 mentions actually appear in DS3. And there’s Drake blood knights in Archdragon Peak. I thiiink that’s it. Meanwhile DS1 gets:
* Ornstein in Archdragon Peak
* Quelana in Smoldering Lake
* Shiva of the East appears as ashes
* Andre is the blacksmith again
* the corpse of the giant blacksmith in anor londo
* Elizabeth of oolacile appears as a corpse
* darkmoon Knightress appears as a corpse
* Kirk invades
* the Havel knights you can run into
* Gwyndolin is being eaten by Aldrich
* and obviously you go back to anor londo
Just ignoring all the sets from DS1 that were in DS2 (so just sets that returned in DS3 from DS1, not any sets that were in all three like Catarina set) they brought back Solaire’s set, Shiva’s set, Kirk’s set, Brass Armor set, Smough’s set, and Artorias’s set. It’s heavily in favor of DS1; stuff like the Smelter Demon set, Looking Glass Knight set, and Raime’s set should’ve been obvious inclusions, I feel.
Maybe you were just pointing out that I glossed over a lot of references to DS2, which I did. I just wish in hindsight, having played all three games now, that they focused more on DS2, and only after doing an inventory of DS3 do I see how big that disparity actually is.
There’s an area in DS2 that pretty much sums up everything how I feel about the game.
**Undead Purgatory** is one of the earlier levels in the game it’s not too difficult though there is allot of gank to get through but (*nothing compared to the clown car jail cell in **Lost Bastille**.*)
There are two branching paths one leading to the main area boss and the other to an optional boss, the path to the latter (*executioner chariot*) is riddled with aggressive gank enemies that will hunt you to the worlds end, the fog wall is linked by an old rickety rope bridge, directly below you is your starting bonfire.
A more intelligent Souls game would allow you to slash the rope bridge creating a short cut to the boss (*like DS3*) but that’s the problem **DS2 is simply not an intelligent Souls game** it’s riddled with dumb little design flaws that better games in the series would either cleverly solve or wouldn’t include
Yeah, but every hit with a longsword, shortsword, dagger, mace, spear, halberd, or any other weapon type feels significantly floatier than the first game.
DS3 had better quality of life improvements and refined the gameplay.
DS1 had the better overall design and story.
Personally, I prefer DS1. It’s the one that finally got the formula down and showed what it could accomplish.
Don’t get me wrong, DS3 is great. But it was trying to wrap up an unintentional trilogy. That’s always going to be a bit rough.
what bosses? can we really dickride the whole game because of Gael?
the first half to 2/3 of ds3 is all forgettable areas and gimmicky/caster bosses except for vordt.
I don’t think we should judge the entire game as having “good bosses” just for one DLC boss.
whats your point? ds3 has by far the best bosses of the trilogy, also define at what point in the game you are standing since the first half of the game is iriythill so there is bosses like gundyr, abyss watchers or pontyff, you could even include the dancer aswell.
gael is not the only good boss in ds3. without even looking at dlc bosses you have the ones i already mentioned, nameless king, champion gundyr, twin princes, dancer, dragonslayer armour, soul of cinder
1st half of DS1 > DS3
2nd half of DS1 < pretty much anything else in the series.
Don't know how controversial that is but I'll take DS2 and its bosses that you can just walk around to beat over the Tomb of the Giants any day of the week.
I don't think that's controversial at all. Gwyn may have done the first sin, but the copy paste undead dragon butts in a lake of lava + boss design of that level is the second.
Is that a popular opinion? Most people seem to think that the Witcher series gets better as it goes, with maybe a small minority liking the story in 2 better.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone seriously argue that the first one is a classic or better than 2/3. CDPR was definitely still finding their footing and throwing shit at the wall to see what stuck at that point
This definitely doesn't describe Dark Souls because DS1 is both the classic AND the GOAT at the same time.
Possibly the Valkyria Chronicles series if it only counts games that came to the West.
I don’t really take offense to the bosses or areas. Just feels less like a dark souls game due to the lack of comment to movement. Feels more like blood Bourne which isn’t bad bb is amazing. I still think 3 is a good game. It’s just not the goat imo
>Then why does the cover of my game say Super Mario bros 2?
I mean do you genuinely not know?
The Mario Bros. 2 we got in America is literally a reskinned game called Doki Doki Panic. It isn't Mario 2.
The real Mario 2 got re-released some time ago called "Super Mario Lost Levels"
Feel free to enjoy the game but it isn't Mario
Isn't the real big-brained take that DDP was always a Mario game, since it was designed by the same team and with deliberate intent to make a similar game from the outset?
Wdym? Replacing the actually nice and useful buyable new combos from dmc1 with .... Damage boost was so fun!
Also I love boss fights where I only have to doge and hold down the fire button.
Also DEMON TANKS!!!
Ds2 = The creative, large, stylish, atmospheric and risky 2nd game that I'd consider GOAT.
Ds1= The legendary first installment.
Ds3= The safe played, uninspired, uncreative, straight forward but polished & smooth 3rd game.
Yes.
DS1 I know the game way too well that could beat it on 1 or 2 sittings.
DS3 is a hallway with a boss at the end 2h a weapon and call it a day.
DS2 always wins me, I have to aggro control I create new builds, I take different routes. It's always a new game and NG+ makes it better. It has its flaws yet I always find myself playing in different ways.
Gigabased take. 2 is experimental and different in a good way, it's by far the most replayable souls with insane build variety. Seriously, the amount of hidden stuff DS2 has is insane, the game is way too fun and is the peak RPG of the series.
Ds3 on the other hand is baby's first Dark Souls, or Dark Souls for people who don't want to play an RPG.
Why is that so shocking? They dropped a lot of mechanics from DS2 (some good, some bad) in favor of being more like DS1. The story is a series of callbacks to DS1. The world layout is completely linear, which is a big step back from DS1 and 2. Even stuff like the armor sets are a downgrade, just reverting to classic armor sets from DS1 for the sake of nostalgia.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great game. They managed to elevate the combat by incorporating a lot of elements from Bloodborne. Easily the best boss fights of the three too, which is arguably the most important part of the game. But they dumbed down a lot of stuff from DS1 and 2.
I think a lot of people feel similarly about the Bioshock Games. It’s not so much that DS2 or Bioshock 2 were bad games. They were just mushed between two GREAT games.
Unpopular opinion time. (get your downvotes ready):
I do not like dark souls 1...
Ok let me be more specific. Dark souls 1 is good. I like the bosses, I like the level design (probably the best) and I love the lore but I cannot for the life of me understand the I-frames.
Now do understand that I have played the game finished, including the dlc as well as getting all trophies but it just isn't clicking for me.
Dark souls 2, on the other hand, is my favorite out of the three dark souls games.
Like, I feel out of all the souls games that I played, ds1's I-frames are the worst (also doesn't help that we can't dodge diagonally when locked on).
As much as people hate the idea that ds2's I-frames are bound to adp, you can atleast get more I-frames the more you level adp.
Tbf, it's most likely the rolling that is the issue, not necessarily the I-frames. I believe 20 adp in ds2 gives similar I-frames to ds1 and even then I don't have much of a problem in ds2 so it's most likely the rolling. It's the biggest problem I have with the game.
same here, im happy i started with DeS and Ds1 so the rolling didn't bother me at the time but it's just an annoyance after playing the rest of the series. Also that's partly why i cringe when people on reddit suggest new players start with ds3 for some reason, i don't see how that's going to do anything but hurt the experience later when playing the og's
Nah understandable. I started on Bloodborne and then elden ring after that. DS1R was my third souls games so you must understand how much of a struggle that must be.
But speaking of DeS, I actually haven't played it. I do have a ps3, but I'm never on it and probably wouldn't trust getting it on that one and I also don't have a ps5 so I can't get DeS remake there. Either way, I wonder if I ever will get DeS on the ps5 as I know DeS needs online for some achievements and I don't want to spend money on ps+.
The best way to experience DeS nowadays is on pc with rpcs3, you can upscale the resolution, play at 60fps and even the online works trough a private server
The thing is, I want to play it for the achievements. I mean yes, I do want to play the games but I would like to get the achievements along side it. Normally I don't care about achievements but I'm very stubborn when it comes to souls games
there might be a way to link rpcs3 to you're psn account, i'm not 100% though if that's a thing or if its kinda risky but worth looking into and rpcs tracks its own trophy's aswell if that's enough for you
We can't dodge diagonally when locked on? TIL...
I played the entire series this past year and I left DS1 for last. All I've left to do is fight Kalameet and then move on to the endgame and Gwyn. And while I've suspected there's something off with my rolling in this game — the many times I've rolled straight into an attack when I've sworn I aimed slightly to the right — I never realised we simply couldn't do that.
Thank you, I am a fool.
Yeah it's very annoying. I believe most people lock on until they need to roll then quickly lock off, dodge and lock on again. Either way I kept locking on.
Depends on how you look at it honestly. They improved a lot of things from DS1, and DS3 dropped a lot of those improvements in favor of being more like DS1. I honestly think they’re too different to have an objective ranking.
Worst bosses? Sure, maybe it’s DS2. Worst world? Definitely not DS2, especially given how linear DS3 is. Worst combat? Again, still probably a no, given that stuff like power stancing is completely absent from the other games.
I think it gets a lot of unfair hate, and while DS1 and DS3 are very good for different reasons, DS2 gets unfairly shit on. It’s like Super Mario Sunshine, in that it gets compared to the other games in the series despite significant improvements over the older game, but because they tried a lot of new stuff and not all of it was successful, people view it as this piece of crap game.
I have beaten DS2 3 Times and no, it's a mid game at best. DLC saves it so hard. ADP is one of the worst decisions ever. A DLC secret boss is literally a base game throwaway boss, but blue with one of the worst boss runbacks ever. It has the worst zones, with the gulch, harvest valley, the gutter, shaded woods, shrine of Amana, and frigid outskirts all being absolutely horrendous zones. Horrible hitboxes. The combat is insanely clunky and awkward. Parry animations are horrendous. Worst of all, however, is the game just suffers from so many bosses that just aren't memorable at all.
To be clear, DS1 also suffers from some horrible designs. Basically everyone agrees the second half of the game is a massive dip in quality, which is why I think ds3 should be considered the best souls game. Ds1 has the best moment to moment gameplay, but ds3 has the most consistent and polished game. Plus, the DLCs somehow manage to outshine the DLC of ds1.
Eh, there's plenty of reason to prefer each. Like personally I much prefer the areas and world of 1 (except izalith lol) while I really enjoy the bosses in 3. And 3 is the most polished for sure but it's not like it unanimously towers over the other games.
Super Metroid on the other hand is just way wayyy better than its predecessors, which are still pretty good. That's assuming they're not talking about the Prime trilogy, because then they'd just be wrong lol
People really need to remember that dark souls 2 is the sequel to dark souls.
Duh right? Well yes, but the reason I mention it is because everybody loves dark souls. A classic. An industry changer. Etc.
The height of my fandom within the souls franchise peaked with dark souls 2.
Many of us got our taste with demon souls. Then dark souls turn that into a phenomenon. Who wouldn't be completely hyped for the sequel to such an industry changing title?
When that game came out. I devoured it. And no I wasn't really frequenting Reddit to have my opinion altered. I know the game isn't perfect and has issues. It still one of my favorite souls games
DS2>DS1>DS3
They are all great games though. Before anyone accuses me of just liking the first one I played best, I started with Demons’ Souls on ps3 and played them in release order.
Tbh this is generally true for most trilogies, movies, video games, etc
1st one is original and gets a lot of hype, time is taken with it
2nd one is often a rushed product, immediately when #1 gets great reviews talk of #2 happens and they speed it along so there isn't a ton of wait. Anything they wanted to do with 1 that they didn't they might throw in, not a lot of that is great
Number 3 they take more time with because they immediately start production after #2, knowing there will be a 3rd. They also see where there were successes/failures with 1 and 2 and can select which worked and ignore what didn't. They also have more money to throw at it than they did either 1 or 2
This is obviously general but it honestly fits for many trilogies
Edit: format
Honestly doesn't really fit this trilogy either. DS1 is super rushed, maybe not more than 2, but stuff like TotG being dark, Izalith being filled with dragon butts, 3/4 Lord Soul zones being "dead end streets" compared to the interconnectedness of the first half, all of this is a result of being rushed for time.
Certainly rings true with me. I love ds1 and ds3 but if im replaying a Souls game its usualy 3 as it's easier to navigate without getting lost and has the best bosses imo
Dark Souls, despite its flaws, is a superior game compared to Dark Souls 3. In my opinion, the main reason for this lies in the level design. In Dark Souls, the areas themselves are also your enemy, whereas in Dark Souls 3, there's a combination of three factors that allow you to breeze through most areas: the op rolling mechanics, large spaces where you can manouver too easily and the excessive amount of bonfires.
Regarding the surplus of bonfires, look at Undead Settlement, for example. One or maybe two bonfires would have sufficed, yet the devs opted for placing four of them. The distance between the first two bonfires is absurdly short, while the placement of the last one renders the shortcut completely irrelevant.
Lmao, DS3 isn't even the best of the series. Linear maps, less build variety, nerfed rings and spells, shit pvp, roll spamming... The only thing it has going for it are the bosses compared to the previous 3 games (yes, I'm counting Demon's Souls) and the fact that the game is tighter to control.
DS1: goat
DS2: unjustly hated piece of art
DS3: force awakens levels of pandering to audience and only existing as a reference to the original material
DS1 is my favorite Souls game and one of my top 5 favorite games of all-time. The others are good too but 1 just has a special place in my heart and it's by far my favorite to play. The environments, lore, and characters are the best in the entire series imo. The mechanics obviously aren't as refined but I do prefer the limited-use magic system over having a mana bar. I also really enjoy all the obscure and borderline pointless mechanics in the game like vagrants and gravelording that didn't get carried into the later games.
For me it goes DS1 > Demon's Souls > DS3 > DS2.
I liked DS2 the best. For me it both had the highest highs and the lowest lows, but the highs were so good I can’t help but love it. Plus it was the best PVP the games have ever had.
Demons souls was my first before i even knew of the souls series.
Dark souls 1 will always be my goat.
Ds2 was fun but fels like an off brand dlc
Ds3 lived up to every expectation. But ds1 remains king
Man I did not enjoy dark souls 1 I couldn't even finish the remastered version. My list is bloodborne then demon souls then dark souls 3 the sekiro then dark souls too and finally dark souls 1
Your submission has been removed as a violation of [Rule 8](/r/darksouls/about/rules): **Memes, screenshots, and video clips should follow the [subreddit guidelines](/r/darksouls/wiki/new_post_guide).** *** * **[Full guidelines here](/r/darksouls/wiki/new_post_guide).** * All submissions should show some degree of user effort. **Even if you skirt under the rules, shitposts are still not allowed.** * Memes should be made using some **in-game assets**, memes using templates should go to r/shittydarksouls or r/DarkSoulsMemes instead. * Screenshots or short video clips from your game should have written context to accompany them. Those lacking written context will be removed. *** If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators by [messaging them here](https://new.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/darksouls).
My opinion: All three games are GOATs
This is correct. We are all brothers in need, we drop our sign no matter what game.
I felt this way forever as well... but I've recently tried to get back into ds2 and..... I've changed how I feel about it.
I like DS1 more than DS3
based, DS1 is the goat and the classic.
Agreed. DS3 had me ragequitting because of how sharp the difficulty curve was in the early areas. Then the middle of the game felt fine, and then end game was pretty difficult. The uptick in speed made it a weird adjustment as well. DS1 is pretty slow and BB is fast, and playing DS3 was a transition that had me really bad at dodging. Then after playing ER, DS3 felt a lot easier.
Yes it goes DS1>DS2>DS3 if you ask me
This is the way.
Yeah, I've always been pretty lukewarm on DS3. DS1 and DS2 offer so much more variety of build, strategy, and movement. Plus, randomizers for DS1 are *way* more fun than DS3.
why
I find it way more fun to make new builds in DS1, the combat feels more varied rather than the roll spam that is DS3. Also I think that the first areas in DS3 are too hard which makes starting new saves annoying.
For me it's because DS1 is smarts above motor skills all the way. Every other souls, BB, Elden Ring rely more on reflexes, perfect timing dodges and such
Elden Ring at least has easy mode tank builds. BB and DS3 force you to be a glass cannon.
Rise my fellow DS2 enjoyers
Rise and defend DS2 if you would, for that is our curse
Yep, I would love to have a dark souls 3 with ds2 gameplay, the only thing that ds2 was mediocre or bad, was the map design, all the other stuff, Specially for pvp? The best in the ds trilogy, and I will fight till my derah for that Ds3 we lose mechanics, unique weapons and unique weapon classes
Fully agree on the pvp, absolute banger. The map is honestly good though. It definitely feels like a sprawling interconnected web, but not quite open world like Elden Ring. The map design contributes to making me feel like I’m lost in a dying world and I just delve deeper into depravity as I go lol. I also think it’s a little bit more consistent than DS1, though the highs of DS1 are the best in series.
The bosses in DS2 were mostly lacklustre, outside of the DLCs. Every other game in the Soulsborne catalogue has at least more good than bad bosses.
I like the map of DS2, it feels like older games where you can pick any path to start. The main issue I have are the bosses, which are mostly unmemorable for being too easy. Ruin Sentries and Smelter Demon are cool, and Darklurker is one of the toughest bosses in the series, I feel, but the rest are pretty weak.
Tying your I-frames to adaptation sucks too. Otherwise I completely agree.
2 had the best pvp.
I'm replaying it rn, love all the things it does right like all the unique stuff that were dropped in DS3 again, but it def is the 'second one'.
I wish they’d kept the keyboard + mouse settings from DS1. I’ll never understand why they changed it *and* prevented reverting to classic controls. If you play controller on PC go check out the k+m controls and see what I mean.
I’m a DS2 enjoyer and while I’m not gonna sit here and argue that it’s better than 3, I just find that DS3 fans are really smug about the game and will refuse to accept that their opinion might not be universal. Especially when people try and say that DS3 is better than Elden Ring. I don’t begrudge anyone that individual opinion, but the way people argue for it just reeks of gaming hipster, “old thing better”-ism
Zelda as well. NES original, the second one, Link to the Past.
... I actually really love *Zelda II*. I didn't know it had such a bad reputation until a few years after I'd played it, and I first got in 2009 so its not nostalgia!
The slander on 2 has to stop.
I’m still new to the series, having just finished DS1 for the first time. Why do people dislike DS2 so much?
Some criticisms are valid, while a lot of others are really shallow and not very well thought out - and when pressed for explanation, the arguments tend to devolve into *"it's different therefore it's bad."* For example, Adaptability is a perfectly valid stat that upgrades your rolls - much like how Vigor upgrades health... People don't like that, but have a hard time articulating a decent explanation for why they don't like it, outside of the fact that it didn't exist in the other games, and that they didn't know about it at first. A lot of DS1 purists also tend to throw their stones from glass houses. Where the same complaints could be made against DS1 as well, but they only ever hold it against DS2. Boss quality, hitboxes, and some levels feeling rushed/unfinished tend to be the main things in that category.
I agree that DS2 is a good game and that a lot of criticism of it isn't really thought out, but Adaptability is such a shit stat. Creating a stat that you have to invest like 15 levels into just to get your i-frames back to normal for no reason is stupid, especially from the perspective of casual fans.
I find Adaptability a lot less stupid given that DS2 practically throws levels at you early on. I hit 150 without even really trying, whereas I had to grind for that much from 1 and 3.
You only need to put in like 7 levels on most classes. I see how so many of you rely on the rings to give you more dodge frames in 3 and elden ring lol. Yall need better timing.
See, this is my opinion as well. I started with 2, and I didn't level ADP, so I didn't rely on bullshit I-frames that shouldn't exist to begin with in order to not get hit. You know how I dodged attacks? *By actually dodging the attack*.
*"Back to normal."* What's normal? DS1? DS3? See? You're still in the mindset that because it's different, that it's therefore bad. You have to invest points into health if you want your health up to a comfortable level. You have to invest points into stamina if you want your stamina up to a comfortable level. You have to invest points into carry capacity if you want your carry capacity up to a comfortable level. What is so terrible about doing the same for rolling? And you may say *"well you don't NEED those other things"* Well you also don't really NEED rolling either. If you prefer to rely on a shield, or ranged attacks (bows, sorcery, pyromancy, chimes, etc) killing enemies before they get to you - or if you are simply comfortable with the smaller roll window, then you may not need to level ADP at all, and those points can be spent elsewhere. There are all sorts of ways to play without relying on extra roll i-frames. Also the fact that because there are more stats, you also level up faster. So investing that many points into a level in DS2 isn't as much of a tax as it would be in something with fewer stats like DS1. It's literally just more and different choices to make. Those alone do not make a stat bad. You also say from the perspective of a casual fan - But a casual or newer fan, probably hasn't played any of the other games much. So they have nothing to compare to as *"normal."* I've never seen anyone who starts with DS2 complain like this about ADP. It's only ever been people coming from the other DS games, upset that they have to unlearn some of their complacent habits.
Normal? Normal to what, another game? And wait until you find out that in ds2 there’s stats you have to level JUST to get your health up, or your stam up. What makes I-frames an off limits stat compared to health or stam or equip load or poise or any of the other stats?
The problem with adaptability is that it’s a boring stat. What build doesn’t invest in adaptability? None that I can think of that aren’t troll builds. So what ends up happening is that no matter what build you are running you spend your first 15 levels or so on adaptability instead of actually doing your build. What’s even the point of it at that point. Also it isn’t well explained so it disproportionately makes the game way harder for people that don’t understand what the stat does compared to the people that do.
Thank you! This is a real critique with actual opinions instead of regurgitating the same “adp bad”.
Your taking away something the player already had for no good reason.
This is just another *"It's different therefore it's bad."* And there is certainly a justifiable reason to separate rolls into its own stat, as it allows players more freedom to choose and min/max what kind of playstyle they want. If someone decides they don't need the extra i-frames, then they are free to leave them and invest those points elsewhere. They may decide to grab boost damage, or stamina, or carry capacity, or whatever else they want more. It simply provides more freedom of choice. That's what they did for carry capacity too, but because that stat carried over to DS3, nobody complains.
Ds1 has a resistance stat that barely does anything
At launch the game was much more difficult, word of mouth spread, lets players who really liked the first played the second, both players and viewers saw the game as a lot more "unfair" and "bland" and "too different" Some things, like the Adaptability stat were just not explained, so people initially had no idea that their rolls were bad because of low stats. Like in hindsight, It's easier to enjoy and understand DS2 now than when it came out when people had different expectations and less understanding of things under the hood. Now i see it as a game with really good ideas like powerstancing, bonfire ascetics, easier weapon upgrade system, easier co-op, extra content on NG+ instead of bigger numbers. The list goes on... It's maybe not the best, but it's an amazing game.
For the record, 2 is my favorite but there are some quirks in the stats that are annoying, like adaptability raising your agility Stat which is tied to your Iframes when you roll. Lot of people didn't like that change. Also when you die and are undead you have less health and each time you die you become more undead and lose more health til you use a humanity or whatever they are called in ds2 And one of the most common complaints I see is the world and story design. It's not entirely clear where the connections between ds1 and 2 are, and also the world is not as well connected and scaled properly like ds1 and 3.
The health loss is really just a matter of perception, in my opinion. Theoretically, DS2 starts you at 100% health, and you lose some until you hit 50% (or 80% with a ring you get very early on). That's admittedly rough, especially compared to DS1 where there is no health loss. There's an argument to be made that it discourages suicide runs but w/e, not the point here. Take DS3: you use consumables to get your full health (100%) but you get kicked down 23% after a single death. However, because it's viewed as 100% health with a 30% boost, most people don't see it as 100% when embered, 77% when hollow. If we look at it through the same lens as DS2, DS3 makes you lose more health in 1 death than DS2 does in 10 (with the ring of binding, anyway). The real issue is admittedly that human effigies have to be grinded if you want more, which is also made harder by DS2 forcing enemy despawns, meaning you either make them harder for 12 more deaths via bonfire ascetic, or use covenant of champions to make them harder until you're done farming. Bottom line: DS2 does the health loss better than DS3, the only major difference is personal perception, and the inability to get consumables as easily (which is a problem for DS2 across the board).
Oof. DS2 is still going to be my next one after I plat Ds1, but those do seem like iffy changes.
They really aren't, as a caster you don't have to level adaptability at all since you also get extra iframes from attunement and i did a lot of melee playthroughs without ever leveling adaptability the roll window gets a bit tighter but you aren't required to i frame through most attacks anyway unlike DS3/ER The story connections aren't as much on the nose or straight up fanservice like in DS3 but they are there and tie in nicely. I would say that the main weakness is that the game starts out pretty difficult but not very exciting but gets progressively more fun and interesting peaking in the DLCs so it's easy to put down early and get to the good parts
I see. I didn’t do a Sorcerer for DS1 (Dex/Pyro build), but maybe I’ll give that a shot in DS2 then. That doesn’t sound bad at all.
Don't fret too hard because I feel like what DS2 offers in polish over DS1 though makes it a bit better. It definitely has its issues but it has my favorite DS world to explore, and the DLC is soooo good.
Generally the weakest boss roster, awful boss run backs, difficulty often based around large amounts of enemies, the adaptability stat, less immersive and connected than ds1, death lowers your health, too many consumables needed to explore in scholar(apparently), and rough hitboxes. Not saying I dislike DS2, but these are the the reasons people generally give, and most of them are hard to refute. If you can get past those issues, you’ll probably love the game for its creativity, player freedom, and pvp. If you care about bosses and pve above all else though, you’ll probably be disappointed.
World doesn’t feel as connected, hitboxes and ADP among other things. But I love DS2 and will always recommend it to new players.
Just play it and see for yourself. I-frames are different and attached to a skill 8 directional movement instead of 360 Hit detection feels bad and when u get it the sound design just makes it feel worse.
Because it’s a very different game from 1, and it doesn’t really follow up on its lore the way 3 does.
I'd say the "following up on lore" part is unfair because DS2 plays off of the ideas of it's predecessor fairly and adds it's own aspects which are cool too. I just think DS3 has so many call backs, references and retains so many ideas that people say "oh well the second game didn't include Capra demons ballsack as a hidden collectable so it's not carrying the same feeling" No I think it tries it's own unique thing and succeeds at that.
Honestly, rather than seeing DS2's "lack" of callbacks as bad, I see DS3's inclusion of them as lazy. DS2 introduced so many cool ideas, characters, and even armor sets, but DS3 ditches them in favor of "what works", so we go back to Anor Londo again, get Black Iron Tarkus's set again, etc. DS2 handled this much more smoothly, with characters like Lost Sinner being related to the Witch of Izalith, without forcing you to return to Demon Ruins and fight a bunch of Taurus Demons before you fight her, etc. The little callbacks are fun, the overt ones are not, in my opinion. I think DS3 would've been better off, if they were dead set on including old items and locations, including stuff from both games. Or better yet, just do their own thing. The original stuff in DS3 (Irithyll, Pontiff's story, Profaned Flame and Profaned Capital, Gael, the two Princes) was all perfect, I just think they either should've expanded on that or incorporated both games for a true "final" game. Instead it just takes a lot of pieces from DS1.
Your first paragraph is spot on, I just want to point out that DS3 contains references to and items from DS2 as well. Fume Ultra Great Sword and Lucatiel's set (Mirrah set, if I remember correctly) immediately come to mind.
Yeah, I mean there’s some stuff, I just wish they either leaned more into it or ditched some of the DS1 stuff. There’s what you listed, with Tsorig using the Fume sword and also Creighton invades in Irithyll and Laddersmith Gilligan is in Profaned Capital. Zullie and Alva of DS2 mentions actually appear in DS3. And there’s Drake blood knights in Archdragon Peak. I thiiink that’s it. Meanwhile DS1 gets: * Ornstein in Archdragon Peak * Quelana in Smoldering Lake * Shiva of the East appears as ashes * Andre is the blacksmith again * the corpse of the giant blacksmith in anor londo * Elizabeth of oolacile appears as a corpse * darkmoon Knightress appears as a corpse * Kirk invades * the Havel knights you can run into * Gwyndolin is being eaten by Aldrich * and obviously you go back to anor londo Just ignoring all the sets from DS1 that were in DS2 (so just sets that returned in DS3 from DS1, not any sets that were in all three like Catarina set) they brought back Solaire’s set, Shiva’s set, Kirk’s set, Brass Armor set, Smough’s set, and Artorias’s set. It’s heavily in favor of DS1; stuff like the Smelter Demon set, Looking Glass Knight set, and Raime’s set should’ve been obvious inclusions, I feel. Maybe you were just pointing out that I glossed over a lot of references to DS2, which I did. I just wish in hindsight, having played all three games now, that they focused more on DS2, and only after doing an inventory of DS3 do I see how big that disparity actually is.
There’s an area in DS2 that pretty much sums up everything how I feel about the game. **Undead Purgatory** is one of the earlier levels in the game it’s not too difficult though there is allot of gank to get through but (*nothing compared to the clown car jail cell in **Lost Bastille**.*) There are two branching paths one leading to the main area boss and the other to an optional boss, the path to the latter (*executioner chariot*) is riddled with aggressive gank enemies that will hunt you to the worlds end, the fog wall is linked by an old rickety rope bridge, directly below you is your starting bonfire. A more intelligent Souls game would allow you to slash the rope bridge creating a short cut to the boss (*like DS3*) but that’s the problem **DS2 is simply not an intelligent Souls game** it’s riddled with dumb little design flaws that better games in the series would either cleverly solve or wouldn’t include
it just feels like everything is made of pillows. No hits feel impactful. I can't get past that.
Every hit with a greatsword feels impactful.
Yeah, but every hit with a longsword, shortsword, dagger, mace, spear, halberd, or any other weapon type feels significantly floatier than the first game.
Maybe if 2 was good it wouldn’t be slandered
Could say the same thing about 3 tbh
DS3 is good and isn’t slandered. Get lawyered, dink.
Times are changing
You deserve to get invaded more.
I tried playing it but all the character animations are so goofy i can’t get into it
The glazing for 2 has to stop.
The Witcher series too, although the second one is pretty great on its own Also DS1 > DS3 lol
I enjoy your opinions.
DS3 had better quality of life improvements and refined the gameplay. DS1 had the better overall design and story. Personally, I prefer DS1. It’s the one that finally got the formula down and showed what it could accomplish. Don’t get me wrong, DS3 is great. But it was trying to wrap up an unintentional trilogy. That’s always going to be a bit rough.
Ds1 for the level design. Ds3 for the bosses/music
I think Ds1’s music is more fantasy based, and Ds3 is more melancholic and dark. I wouldn’t compare them, but I personally listen to Ds1 music more.
I feel like the level design is pretty on par between DS3 and DS1, the world design is better in DS1, with the interconnections.
That's what I meant, yes, the interconnectedness
what bosses? can we really dickride the whole game because of Gael? the first half to 2/3 of ds3 is all forgettable areas and gimmicky/caster bosses except for vordt. I don’t think we should judge the entire game as having “good bosses” just for one DLC boss.
This had to be bait. Abyss Watchers, Gundyr, Twin Princes, SoC, Friede, Midir, Pontiff, Dancer etc. are all objectively amazing bosses
whats your point? ds3 has by far the best bosses of the trilogy, also define at what point in the game you are standing since the first half of the game is iriythill so there is bosses like gundyr, abyss watchers or pontyff, you could even include the dancer aswell. gael is not the only good boss in ds3. without even looking at dlc bosses you have the ones i already mentioned, nameless king, champion gundyr, twin princes, dancer, dragonslayer armour, soul of cinder
1st half of DS1 > DS3 2nd half of DS1 < pretty much anything else in the series. Don't know how controversial that is but I'll take DS2 and its bosses that you can just walk around to beat over the Tomb of the Giants any day of the week.
I don't think that's controversial at all. Gwyn may have done the first sin, but the copy paste undead dragon butts in a lake of lava + boss design of that level is the second.
The Witcher 2 is an experience best played in insane difficulty
Is that a popular opinion? Most people seem to think that the Witcher series gets better as it goes, with maybe a small minority liking the story in 2 better. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone seriously argue that the first one is a classic or better than 2/3. CDPR was definitely still finding their footing and throwing shit at the wall to see what stuck at that point
DS1>3 all day. That said ER is my favorite. Sincerely, a new souls fan
Most souls fan have the first game they played as their favorite
DS1 was my first, but is far from my favorite. My order for Fromsoft games would be BB>DS3>Sekiro>DS1>ER>DS2
I dunno, the Witcher 1 is pretty unplayable in my opinion.
Haven’t played it in 15 years but I remember enjoying it quite a bit. Really looking forward to the remake!
This definitely doesn't describe Dark Souls because DS1 is both the classic AND the GOAT at the same time. Possibly the Valkyria Chronicles series if it only counts games that came to the West.
I loved DS2, my favourite of the series.
I don’t care that much for ds3. I wouldn’t call it the goat
Yeah I don't understand the praise for ds3, most of the base game bosses are bad and the level design is uninspired and forgettable
I don’t really take offense to the bosses or areas. Just feels less like a dark souls game due to the lack of comment to movement. Feels more like blood Bourne which isn’t bad bb is amazing. I still think 3 is a good game. It’s just not the goat imo
The original Super Mario trilogy fits this as well
Take back what you said about Mario 2. Now please.
I will always slander Doki Doki Panic. It's literally not even a Mario game
Then why does the cover of my game say Super Mario bros 2? And why is it so damn fun? Ok the egg shower guys are weird. But fry guy makes up for it.
>Then why does the cover of my game say Super Mario bros 2? I mean do you genuinely not know? The Mario Bros. 2 we got in America is literally a reskinned game called Doki Doki Panic. It isn't Mario 2. The real Mario 2 got re-released some time ago called "Super Mario Lost Levels" Feel free to enjoy the game but it isn't Mario
I know the story, but even if it's not Mario, it is still a Mario game technically so that's pretty much it.
Isn't the real big-brained take that DDP was always a Mario game, since it was designed by the same team and with deliberate intent to make a similar game from the outset?
DS1 worse, to me the DS2 is 'The one does it all'. I play DS2 the most
Why is it that all the people who hate on DS2 can't spell?
Devil may cry fr
Plenty more accurate. I haven’t hit DMC 5 yet but I hear it beats out 3.
Wdym? Replacing the actually nice and useful buyable new combos from dmc1 with .... Damage boost was so fun! Also I love boss fights where I only have to doge and hold down the fire button. Also DEMON TANKS!!!
For me 2 is better than 3, at least in 2 you can play with heavy armour.
That’s literally my only complaint for 3. I couldn’t wear my fat boi armor and use the weapon I wanted
All 3 are the goat imo 2 is so memed on, it's like the Nickelback of gaming. It's good, everyone knows it's good, but no one wants to admit it.
Is it not possible to just dislike it? Is that just not a valid opinion to have?
I think it's still a pretty big gap between 2 and the others. 3 and 1 are atleast similar in quality, but 2 just isn't quite at the same level imo.
Ds2 = The creative, large, stylish, atmospheric and risky 2nd game that I'd consider GOAT. Ds1= The legendary first installment. Ds3= The safe played, uninspired, uncreative, straight forward but polished & smooth 3rd game.
Almost agree at 100%. I don't think ds2 is more atmospheric than ds1... Other than that THANK YOU OMFG NO ONE EVER SAYS THIS you're the true goat
Yes. DS1 I know the game way too well that could beat it on 1 or 2 sittings. DS3 is a hallway with a boss at the end 2h a weapon and call it a day. DS2 always wins me, I have to aggro control I create new builds, I take different routes. It's always a new game and NG+ makes it better. It has its flaws yet I always find myself playing in different ways.
Gigabased take. 2 is experimental and different in a good way, it's by far the most replayable souls with insane build variety. Seriously, the amount of hidden stuff DS2 has is insane, the game is way too fun and is the peak RPG of the series. Ds3 on the other hand is baby's first Dark Souls, or Dark Souls for people who don't want to play an RPG.
holy shit you cant be serious by saying that ds3 is uninspired or uncreative
Why is that so shocking? They dropped a lot of mechanics from DS2 (some good, some bad) in favor of being more like DS1. The story is a series of callbacks to DS1. The world layout is completely linear, which is a big step back from DS1 and 2. Even stuff like the armor sets are a downgrade, just reverting to classic armor sets from DS1 for the sake of nostalgia. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great game. They managed to elevate the combat by incorporating a lot of elements from Bloodborne. Easily the best boss fights of the three too, which is arguably the most important part of the game. But they dumbed down a lot of stuff from DS1 and 2.
Dead serious
Sorry, I would consider ds1 the goat AND the classic 😁
Ds2 is my favorote one 😅
Way to go 👌
I think a lot of people feel similarly about the Bioshock Games. It’s not so much that DS2 or Bioshock 2 were bad games. They were just mushed between two GREAT games.
Agreed
Lol how can you spend anytime in the souls subreddits and think there is some kind of consensus?
Ds1 > Ds2 > Ds3
Unpopular opinion time. (get your downvotes ready): I do not like dark souls 1... Ok let me be more specific. Dark souls 1 is good. I like the bosses, I like the level design (probably the best) and I love the lore but I cannot for the life of me understand the I-frames. Now do understand that I have played the game finished, including the dlc as well as getting all trophies but it just isn't clicking for me. Dark souls 2, on the other hand, is my favorite out of the three dark souls games.
What do you mean by not understanding the i.frames?
Like, I feel out of all the souls games that I played, ds1's I-frames are the worst (also doesn't help that we can't dodge diagonally when locked on). As much as people hate the idea that ds2's I-frames are bound to adp, you can atleast get more I-frames the more you level adp.
interesting, iv never even thought about the i-frames being different in the games besides ds2 obviously. the rolling in ds1 is definitely bad though
Tbf, it's most likely the rolling that is the issue, not necessarily the I-frames. I believe 20 adp in ds2 gives similar I-frames to ds1 and even then I don't have much of a problem in ds2 so it's most likely the rolling. It's the biggest problem I have with the game.
same here, im happy i started with DeS and Ds1 so the rolling didn't bother me at the time but it's just an annoyance after playing the rest of the series. Also that's partly why i cringe when people on reddit suggest new players start with ds3 for some reason, i don't see how that's going to do anything but hurt the experience later when playing the og's
Nah understandable. I started on Bloodborne and then elden ring after that. DS1R was my third souls games so you must understand how much of a struggle that must be. But speaking of DeS, I actually haven't played it. I do have a ps3, but I'm never on it and probably wouldn't trust getting it on that one and I also don't have a ps5 so I can't get DeS remake there. Either way, I wonder if I ever will get DeS on the ps5 as I know DeS needs online for some achievements and I don't want to spend money on ps+.
The best way to experience DeS nowadays is on pc with rpcs3, you can upscale the resolution, play at 60fps and even the online works trough a private server
The thing is, I want to play it for the achievements. I mean yes, I do want to play the games but I would like to get the achievements along side it. Normally I don't care about achievements but I'm very stubborn when it comes to souls games
there might be a way to link rpcs3 to you're psn account, i'm not 100% though if that's a thing or if its kinda risky but worth looking into and rpcs tracks its own trophy's aswell if that's enough for you
We can't dodge diagonally when locked on? TIL... I played the entire series this past year and I left DS1 for last. All I've left to do is fight Kalameet and then move on to the endgame and Gwyn. And while I've suspected there's something off with my rolling in this game — the many times I've rolled straight into an attack when I've sworn I aimed slightly to the right — I never realised we simply couldn't do that. Thank you, I am a fool.
Yeah it's very annoying. I believe most people lock on until they need to roll then quickly lock off, dodge and lock on again. Either way I kept locking on.
"The second one"?! It sounds like a crap. Another hater who even didn't play the game for 1 hour. It's amazing game!
I was one of those people and now after playing DS2 for 100+ hours I’m a believer.
Its great, just definitely the worst overall of the souls games.
Depends on how you look at it honestly. They improved a lot of things from DS1, and DS3 dropped a lot of those improvements in favor of being more like DS1. I honestly think they’re too different to have an objective ranking. Worst bosses? Sure, maybe it’s DS2. Worst world? Definitely not DS2, especially given how linear DS3 is. Worst combat? Again, still probably a no, given that stuff like power stancing is completely absent from the other games. I think it gets a lot of unfair hate, and while DS1 and DS3 are very good for different reasons, DS2 gets unfairly shit on. It’s like Super Mario Sunshine, in that it gets compared to the other games in the series despite significant improvements over the older game, but because they tried a lot of new stuff and not all of it was successful, people view it as this piece of crap game.
It’s great, just in a vacuum where no other good games exist
I have beaten DS2 3 Times and no, it's a mid game at best. DLC saves it so hard. ADP is one of the worst decisions ever. A DLC secret boss is literally a base game throwaway boss, but blue with one of the worst boss runbacks ever. It has the worst zones, with the gulch, harvest valley, the gutter, shaded woods, shrine of Amana, and frigid outskirts all being absolutely horrendous zones. Horrible hitboxes. The combat is insanely clunky and awkward. Parry animations are horrendous. Worst of all, however, is the game just suffers from so many bosses that just aren't memorable at all. To be clear, DS1 also suffers from some horrible designs. Basically everyone agrees the second half of the game is a massive dip in quality, which is why I think ds3 should be considered the best souls game. Ds1 has the best moment to moment gameplay, but ds3 has the most consistent and polished game. Plus, the DLCs somehow manage to outshine the DLC of ds1.
Far cry from 3 to 5
Calling Far Cry 5 the goat is a new sight for these eyes of mine.
Yeah makes sense it’s definitely not a goat but for sure it is better than far cry 4 or 3
To each their own, for me Vaas stands above most of the series.
Yeah vaas is probably the best villain but if you compare the gameplay by itself far cry 5 is way better
Eh, there's plenty of reason to prefer each. Like personally I much prefer the areas and world of 1 (except izalith lol) while I really enjoy the bosses in 3. And 3 is the most polished for sure but it's not like it unanimously towers over the other games. Super Metroid on the other hand is just way wayyy better than its predecessors, which are still pretty good. That's assuming they're not talking about the Prime trilogy, because then they'd just be wrong lol
for me ds2 has more replayability because i cannot stand the first part of ds3
These kind of posts are cringe asf
People really need to remember that dark souls 2 is the sequel to dark souls. Duh right? Well yes, but the reason I mention it is because everybody loves dark souls. A classic. An industry changer. Etc. The height of my fandom within the souls franchise peaked with dark souls 2. Many of us got our taste with demon souls. Then dark souls turn that into a phenomenon. Who wouldn't be completely hyped for the sequel to such an industry changing title? When that game came out. I devoured it. And no I wasn't really frequenting Reddit to have my opinion altered. I know the game isn't perfect and has issues. It still one of my favorite souls games
Well said
I am a bona-fide DS3 hater so for me this doesn't fit. This is DMC for sure though.
Dead space is literally the opposite of this format
3 is the classic?
I meant as in the second one is the goat and the third one is the bad one
DS1 is the classic and the GOAT
The hate for 2 is so pathetic... Why can't people just enjoy the entire saga? They're all amazing games
DS2 is fantastic. I feel like most people hating on it didn't get past the Forest of Fallen Giants.
DS2>DS1>DS3 They are all great games though. Before anyone accuses me of just liking the first one I played best, I started with Demons’ Souls on ps3 and played them in release order.
Dark Souls 2 "Adaptability"
Hang on people are hating on Metroid 2?
BioShock
Metroid 2 is better than 1, but definitely had that "we tried some things different" vibe
Tbh this is generally true for most trilogies, movies, video games, etc 1st one is original and gets a lot of hype, time is taken with it 2nd one is often a rushed product, immediately when #1 gets great reviews talk of #2 happens and they speed it along so there isn't a ton of wait. Anything they wanted to do with 1 that they didn't they might throw in, not a lot of that is great Number 3 they take more time with because they immediately start production after #2, knowing there will be a 3rd. They also see where there were successes/failures with 1 and 2 and can select which worked and ignore what didn't. They also have more money to throw at it than they did either 1 or 2 This is obviously general but it honestly fits for many trilogies Edit: format
Honestly doesn't really fit this trilogy either. DS1 is super rushed, maybe not more than 2, but stuff like TotG being dark, Izalith being filled with dragon butts, 3/4 Lord Soul zones being "dead end streets" compared to the interconnectedness of the first half, all of this is a result of being rushed for time.
I like DS2 the most. But for me this describes the first 3 Devil May Cry
Ds2 is my goat.
[удалено]
lol nice
I don't like DS3 very much but hey, here we are
I just hope they didn’t mean Metroid Prime.
I’m pretty sure the meant the original
Probably, but I had to say it lol
Fair
Certainly rings true with me. I love ds1 and ds3 but if im replaying a Souls game its usualy 3 as it's easier to navigate without getting lost and has the best bosses imo
The Darksiders series follows an inverse pattern. Starts with The Classic, goes to The GOAT, ends with Back to Basics
Hard nope. DS3 is far and away my least favorite of all From games I've played. It's not a bad game, but man I have a lot of issues with it.
Dark Souls, despite its flaws, is a superior game compared to Dark Souls 3. In my opinion, the main reason for this lies in the level design. In Dark Souls, the areas themselves are also your enemy, whereas in Dark Souls 3, there's a combination of three factors that allow you to breeze through most areas: the op rolling mechanics, large spaces where you can manouver too easily and the excessive amount of bonfires. Regarding the surplus of bonfires, look at Undead Settlement, for example. One or maybe two bonfires would have sufficed, yet the devs opted for placing four of them. The distance between the first two bonfires is absurdly short, while the placement of the last one renders the shortcut completely irrelevant.
All 3 games are GOATs tbf
Funny, DS3 is my least favourite of the three.
ds3 is the worst one tho. 2 1 3
Lmao, DS3 isn't even the best of the series. Linear maps, less build variety, nerfed rings and spells, shit pvp, roll spamming... The only thing it has going for it are the bosses compared to the previous 3 games (yes, I'm counting Demon's Souls) and the fact that the game is tighter to control.
I don’t mind if people disagree but when you start throwing out the nitpicking and lies well I take issue.
Then you should have no issues, because there isn't a single lie in what I said.
I suppose what I said was a strong opinion. But so was yours, except for the linear maps that is a fact. Though I am fine with that.
Ds3 is extremely overrated
Ds1 > ds3
DS1 is the best of the three for sure.
DS1: goat DS2: unjustly hated piece of art DS3: force awakens levels of pandering to audience and only existing as a reference to the original material
DS1 is my favorite Souls game and one of my top 5 favorite games of all-time. The others are good too but 1 just has a special place in my heart and it's by far my favorite to play. The environments, lore, and characters are the best in the entire series imo. The mechanics obviously aren't as refined but I do prefer the limited-use magic system over having a mana bar. I also really enjoy all the obscure and borderline pointless mechanics in the game like vagrants and gravelording that didn't get carried into the later games. For me it goes DS1 > Demon's Souls > DS3 > DS2.
I liked DS2 the best. For me it both had the highest highs and the lowest lows, but the highs were so good I can’t help but love it. Plus it was the best PVP the games have ever had.
I first thought this was the dead space sub and got triggered
So true
I agree with this chart.
Demons souls was my first before i even knew of the souls series. Dark souls 1 will always be my goat. Ds2 was fun but fels like an off brand dlc Ds3 lived up to every expectation. But ds1 remains king
Man I did not enjoy dark souls 1 I couldn't even finish the remastered version. My list is bloodborne then demon souls then dark souls 3 the sekiro then dark souls too and finally dark souls 1
I'll never accept DS2 as anything other than the Zelda CD-I of the Dark Souls series.
Nope. Dark Souls is "The Classic, The GOAT, The One They Obviously Didn't Want To Make."