>le Dark Souls is the better Zelda
Why are casuals doing this? It has nothing in common with Zelda and today when people play Zelda they're expecting a lighthearted adventure, beautiful, colorful places, feel good melodies, crazy NPCs, gimmicky fights, many puzzles and 10/10 polishing, also some more Zelda lore puzzle pieces. What does Souls have to do with any of this?
It is good when Souls games are too hard for casuals, but not when Nintendo games are too hard for casuals.
You say all of that like it's a good thing. Zelda has become too campy. The puzzles are made for 4 year olds. The combat has barely changed since the N64 20 years ago.
Nothing. The ones claiming that are shitposters and both series can't be more different from each other.
Zelda is an adventure game focused on puzzles and exploration with some combat.
The Soulsborne games are adventure games focused on combat and exploration without any degree of puzzle solving.
A more accurate example of a better Zelda game is the first Darksiders.
Well, it obviously is a good thing for people asking for it, I guess? I'm asking for exactly this.
Because the people that say this are 80s kids who still don't realise that the first zelda is total wank
>buh muh freedom
Ahh yes who can forget the great puzzles from all the souls games
Why are you making this post?
Your rump sore?
>It has nothing in common with modern Zelda
fixed. It has more in common with traditional Zelda than Aonuma Zelda does. The people who disagree are the retards like who think Legend of Zelda has always been about puzzles.
I don't know about the first one but the second one is so boring I didn't care to finish the 3rd dungeon. Well, theyre more like mini-dungeons I guess but fuck that was a bad Zelda ripoff.
What's so good about the first one?
>A more accurate example of a better Zelda game is the first Darksiders.
First Darksiders does literally nothing better and it's quite unpolished (can hold onto some ledges and to some you can't and just die). Also awful music, setting and art.
Not to mention it's outrageous and cheap, they literally copy/pasted the Zelda dungeon formula, it's 100% the same. At least Okami really tried its own thing with all dungeons being completely unique and not following any formula. Okami which I would agree is better than all specific 3D Zelda games.
>What does Souls have to do with any of this?
Zelda and Souls are RPGs to people not into RPG. Casuals.
What's wrong with it? Saw someone make the comparison for the 500th time two minutes ago and couldn't reply to him because thread was already dead.
Thanks for the bump, I guess.
I -REALLY- don't get when people complain about the puzzles.
Explain to me why they are an issue.
If they're too easy, you can pass them no sweat, right?
Mainly saw this comparison made on NeoFAG before I left this libtard shithole for good.
And for some reason they always have Naruto avatars.
I wouldn't say Okami exceeds any one 3D Zelda, but it certainly is a more interesting game than Darkstalkers. And prettier than some Zeldas too.
I think it's a much better game than Skyward Sword in terms of both presentation and execution
They're obviously looking for things to criticise actually well polished and good games. Probably the only AAA series left that still does actual dungeons and puzzles instead of just "here, have dark corridor with one shortcut."
ALTHOUGH Skyward Sword definitely had too many puzzles because Nintendo was dumbe nough with this game to put puzzles and obsctales everywhere into the overworld which is just wrong. Puzzles mainly belong in dungeons.
They seem to understand this with Zelda U again, though.
>Also awful music, setting and art
That's rich coming from Zelda, one of the most generic fantasy settings ever created.
I would argue the souls series shares more with castlevania rather than zelda other than the z-targeting. Zelda focuses much more on dungeon crawling and puzzle solving than its combat, which is the majority of the souls games appeal. Zelda however could learn from the soul series by expanding on the combat, lessening the handholding from previous installments, going back to its roots of exploration and dungeon crawling rather than a linear narrative like skyward sword. Overall both games set out to provide different experiences.
It's also a million times better than TP and I like TP. It's crazy how much optional stuff Okami has, music, NPCs (literally every single NPC in Okami is unique, btw, every single one you meet), unique dungeons, never following a certain formula, much better combat etc.
maybe in the first 2 games
"Hyrule" in Skyward Sword was a whole dungeon on itself. Skyworld was the actual overworld. And Aonuma talked about changing the dungeon progression for SS, which he did do.
I've almost never heard this argument.
I wouldn't really compare the two games desu.
Zelda is more about puzzle solving whilst Dark Souls is more about mastering the combat system and winning tough bosses.
I don't see how Zelda's setting is generic since they pretty much do whatever they feel like instead of clinging to Tolkien shit which most RPGs do. Look at Witcher 3, even the new DLC map looks just like a generic realistic field, they didn't even care to put some fantasy stuff into this world.
>le
Why are faggots doing this?
Even if it's "ironic" it's still as retarded as the real non-ironic thing, whatever that might be at this point.
Yeah, that's why most people hate it. No one asked for this shit. Even 2D Zeldas have way less obstacles in the overworld and more freedom than SS, fuck.
This game almost single-handedly ruined the whole reputation of this series.
Dark Souls is all about walking from mob to mob in a dark setting wtihout any puzzles or vertical moevment. It's focusing completely on combat. Although combat usually boils down to "press dodge button when enemy attacks, attack enemy twice, repeat." No music, only boring characters, no variety in the world.
Meanwhile Zelda is the action adventure genre on LSD.
That said, I don't get it either. Must be autists.