I'm like 5 years late to the party, but jesus christ...
This game is literally crack once you get past the first 3 hours or so of "wtf am I doing?!!" It's weirdly appealing to my (unhealthy) unwillingness to quit anything.
Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?
Unfortunately, no.
DS1 is the best.
>Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?
Not really, but they're still good games.
Play Demon's Souls and Bloodborne and it gets even better.
Play one and you've played em all, so do with that what you will
I had the same feeling when I played the first
I dropped the second
I'm pretty sure I'll like Bloodborne but I'm broke
Dark Souls 1 is the strongest. Falls off a bit after Oreo & S'mores, but overall holds up.
Dark Souls 2 had strong PvP, but weak PvE that presents a quantity over quality approach to bosses. Area design is questionably odd at times, and the DLC ended up being better than the main game entirely.
Dark Souls 3 has great gameplay, but overall it feels like they played it too safe with its development. The world is also painfully linear. Bosses were good though.
I really wish we could get a new Kings Field game, like a first person Soulsbourne or something.
Dang. So it sounds like 3 is the only one that is worth it. Could I honestly just skip 2?
They're all worth at least a playthrough if you're enjoying the first game. What you should really play next is Bloodborne though.
You type like a Redditor, fuck off back there.
DS1 = Bloodborne > DS3 > DS2
If you like DS1 you'll probably like DeS more than DS2 and DS3 which are basically traditional fantasy adventure shite, bland as fuck
Just play them all and form your own opinion, you fuck.
If you like the first you'll find enjoyment in all 3. Plus if you got a ps4 then you'll be able to play bloodbourne which is also really good. But you should know this thread is basically gonna devolve into people arguing which game is the best and that means they're gonna use hyperbole arguement and tell you yo never play which ever game they like the least. In all honesty every game in the series is worth atleast beating on NG+. Like personally I liked 2 the least by a pretty good margin, but I still probably put in 40 hours since it was still a great game. Oh and bonus points as well if you have a ps3, then you can play demon souls which was also really good (although it hasn't aged as well as the rest and is definitely the most obscure and confusing of all the games) Oh and the majority of bosses in demons isn't up to par with the majority of the others, but it's still a good game if you enjoy the combat and the challenge and the gameplay in general really. They're all worth playing user, don't listen to the negative nancies who just want you to play their personal favorite in the series.
Dark souls 2 is the worst mainly due to broken hit boxes but it's still fun.
Demons souls can be frustrating because there are no checkpoints at all and going through the levels blind can make them seem longer than it really is.
Id say 3 and bloodborne got most of it right
>Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?+ 0 post omitted.
eh.
The core mechanics get better(also worse in case of Dark Souls II) and everything subtle that really makes you love the first game(and DeS) will get removed.
There's always Demon's Souls after Dark Souls - as long as you're willing to cope with having to play on PS3 and dealing with carry weight.
You try 2, see if it clicks, it probably doesn't and you'll play it for as long as you can be arsed to.
>also worse in case of Dark Souls II
>implying
Dual wielding was good shit, fag.
It's easier to pick out the things Dark Souls II did right than the things it fucked up.
That list is much shorter.
You will enjoy dark souls 2. But you may not like it as much as the others or you may like it even more. There are plenty of people I know who think it's the best in the series and plenty of people (like myself) who thinks it's the worst, and then others who just put it somewhere in between. You really should just play them all if you like the series, none of the games are outright bad, all of them are really fun and worth a NG+ and 40ish hours of playing. The only issue you'll have is that the online community is only really alive for bloodbourne and dark souls 3. With only diehards playing the rest of them. The pvp aspect was always really cool because someone would randomly invade your game and try and kill you while you were trying to get through a section. So unfortunately you'll likely miss out on that for the most part in anything but the newer games. But yeah, they're still all worth playing especially since I'd assume the older titles aren't 60 anyways, so definitely worth picking up.
Bloodborne and demons souls are both great, even better in my opinion, dark souls 3 isn't bad either
one tip for bloodborne though, go into it 100% blind and it'll blow the other games away
>The only issue you'll have is that the online community is only really alive for bloodbourne and dark souls 3.
This is not really accurate. While dying, the matchmaking server keeps DaS2 active enough at least in spots and with DaS1 and DSCM you'll never have to wait for online action.
Good luck with Demon's Souls though.
This. I had a way better experience dual wielding caesti in Dark Souls 2 than doing anything else in Dark Souls 3.
...
I've been waiting for hours to help someone with O&S. I could swear the online was complete my dead in DS1.
Dark souls 1 was the only experience where this was true. I would regularly get invaded in the first two areas (undead burg and undead parish) on every single new character I started, but in Dark souls 2, invasions were pretty rare, and I think in Dark Souls 3 I cant' even remember being invaded because I never once went around with an entourage of 2 or 3 phantoms summoned like a gigantic faggot. The stupid systems they put in place to prevent invasions from being a regular thing really ruined the series.
Honestly OP, you played the best game in the series first.
As said, DSCM. You could have just checked if anyone was in that area.
Getting summoned is really spotty though and has always been. It's good in the sense that at least there's less summoning overall in the game. In DaS2 and 3 you can rely on certain areas having hosts with several phantoms or to just be able to find as many summons as you want.
>bloodborne
>a souls game
nice try kiddo.
Don't even start this arguement you autistic faggot.
>Bloodborne
I mean it's worth playing but doesn't really fit the bill here.
(You)
This
I am so fucking sick of people lumping them into the same category just because Fromsoft carried mechanics over.
Its just something they fucking do. The Dark Souls / Bloodborne HUD is from fucking Kuon, but people don't mention that do they?
I'll take semantics for 600!
>semantics
Uh, no it isn't.
You need look no fucking further than the god damn title.
You'll like it. If DS1 and 3 are the albums best songs, 2 is still a decent filler song. Or if DS1 and 3 are 9-10/10, DS2 is 8/10. Or DS2 is like Silent Hill 4 when compared to three previous games.
>because Fromsoft carried mechanics over.
But this is what makes them similar. And they didn't "carry mechanics over", they took Dark Souls, removed map, enemies, items and gear and started making different ones.
It literally is semantics tho. Because yeah, factually it isn't a souls game. As in its a different game, different universe, different name.
But if you don't have autism you'll probably figure out that the gameplay is fairly similar as is the world building and design philosophy in general.
They use the same system for a lot of their games. Their obscure horror game Kuon already has a lot of things that you recognize in Souls games, magic system is basically the same for instance. Basically what made that system really work was 3rd person camera and free camera controls, suddenly the "clunky" gameplay of Kuon improved by a lot.
if you like the mechanics in this game, youll probably like all the games in the series, including demons souls and bloodborne,
They're essentially parallels to eachother. Refusing to lump them together is just a side effect of autism that makes it difficult for you to recognize things that aren't TECHNICALLY true.
...
Arbitrarily deciding which games should be lumped together is FAR more autistic.
The term Soulsborne is the epitome of autism.
Well I guess the good part of this thread is now over.
>Arbitrarily
It's not arbitrary though, they all share a good amount of the same mechanics and other aspects.
>going on an autistic rampage
>calling others autistic
yep, that's autism
>Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?
No, the third one is garbage.
>It's not arbitrary though, they all share a good amount of the same mechanics and other aspects.
So do a fucking dozen other Fromsoft games you stupid nigger.
You don't call Fallout 4 and ElderOut FallScrolls game, you dumb cunt.
DS1 - 9/10
DS2 - 8/10
DS3 - 5/10
>So do a fucking dozen other Fromsoft games you stupid nigger.
As much as Bloodborne and Souls? No, they don't.
You have to be fucking retarded.
Be sure to check out Demon's Souls if you already haven't.
Can you rephrase that in the form of a food analogy?
Just play em all. DS2 is not a great dark souls game. Its still a fantastic game though
don't listen to the memers here on Sup Forums yes it stays this good, the more you play the series the more you want of it.
after clocking well over 2k hours across the series i could easily pick up any game in the series and put in a few hundred more.
If they were dishes in a restaurant, DS1 and DS3 would be 4 star meals with perfection broken in only some minor ways. DS2 would not be anything spectacular, but it would be a solid dish and there would be a lot of it. All of them would leave you with full belly and satisfied feeling.
They all capture different qualities of the first game in some way and improve greatly on them, but never manage the same blend of every good element the first game has.
DS2 has the appeal of getting new equipment and testing out new kits and the game caters to that aspect. Feels a bit off from DS1 in all other aspects though and regardless of your build you always feel like a glass cannon. Also the music that plays in the hub really overstays its welcome. I'd play it last in the series since it focuses on end-game enjoyment and replayability and the story is pretty detached from anything going on. Also there's the chance you dont get on with the game and prevent yourself from trying the other two.
Bloodborne somewhat relives the "wtf is going on" feeling DS1 had with the few changes in mechanics and feels fresh due to the new setting. Although the main quest can feel a bit short, there are a lot of missable areas and the dlc evens the length out. Play it third because it'll be a fresh coat of paint and offer new difficulty. Play the catacombs once for the story then never again.
DS3 feels like a smoothed out Dark Souls 1 mechanically, but the overall feeling of the game is underwhelming compared to DS1. The areas aren't as interesting or capture my interest in the history lost (one area is called the profane capital which implies something great, but it was the most disappointing area in the series for me), the bosses and enemies aren't quite as iconic or interesting unless they're throwbacks to the first game.
That being said, where DS3 is high, its at it's highest in the series. It never gets as low as DS2 or a couple of bosses in Bloodborne, but it can leave you wanting. Hopefully the next dlc addresses some of that.
I also suggest playing with a shader because the color palette was directed by the same poo gas technician bethesda hires.
tl;dr
Play in this order
DS1 > DS3 > Bloodborne > DS2
Demon souls can go wherever.
>Its the a Dark Souls game
>Its the most fantastic game of the 3
>its not a great dark souls game
wat
Saying "its the worst Dark Souls game" doesnt mean the game itself is bad. It just means the standard of quality is so very high that merely "good" makes it the worst of the franchise.
Yes, theyre almost pretty much the same thing
Fanbabbies will try to tell you otherwise with asinine differences, but theyre consistently the same thing
DaS - 9.5/10
DaS2 - 7.5/10
DaS3 - 6/10
>mfw going into the sewers on day 1 and punching the fags that joined the rat covenant to death with glorious double caestus
I was set on a caestus build long before it became apparent that it was op as fuck
that glorious stunlock that ensured you could empty an entire stamina bar into someone off of a single hit
more like
>DaS: 8.5/10
>DaS2: 7.5/10
>DaS3: 8.0/10
DS1: 9/10
DS2: LoF/10
DS3: 8.5/10
DeS: 9/10
DaS: 8/10
DaS 2: 5/10
DaS 3: 7/10
BB: 10/10
>Shitting on DS2
didnt read lol
DaS 10/10
DaS2 7/10 without DLC, with 8.5/10
DaS3 6.5/10
I wonder what your reaction is going to be when you face the 4Cucks? :3
Don't parry Gwyn.
Dark Souls 2 was made by From Soft's B team and was made as a cash in, while Miyazaki was working on both 3 and Bloodborne. It has it's moments, and the DLC was far better than the main game, but it lacks the charm of Demon Souls and Dark Souls. It feels like a bland copy of them. Worth giving a shot, but don't set your expectations too high.
3 is Dark Souls fused with Bloodborne. It has a lot of references/fan service to the older games, depends how you look on it. It's a return to the DaS 1 supreme level design, solid bosses, though the atmosphere isn't as top tier as was in DaS 1.
Bloodborne, if you have a ps4, is a great game and my favorite in the series. Fresh gameplay, solid boss design ruined by some retarded, almost Bed Of Chaos one, though it's saved by DLC that gives you tons of weapons to fuck around with that were missing in vanilla, 3 greatest boss fights in the game, and some of the best ones in the entire series, and it also has top tier level design (for the most part), and unbeatable atmosphere.
>DaS2 7/10 without dlc
>7/10 without dlc
>7/10
It's a fucking 4 or a 3 without it, and with it it's barely a 6. DLC can't fix all the shit vanilla had. DaS 3 is better, at least a 7, though I wouldn't go higher than an 8.
>DaS2 over DaS3
it's time to stop being a contrarian faggot
fuck off das2cucks
>Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?
No, not on the Dark triology. At this point only
Bloodborne is worth playing
After you are done with both of those and want more of the same but more stale, full of pandering and "hey! remember this? xDD" Then go for DaS2 and DaS3
The level of quality varies but in general all the games are very good. You'll get a huge amount of playtime out of Dark Souls 2 and 3, though they're not quite as cohesive as the holy trinity of Fromsoft Souls games: Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne.
I told you to fuck off a while ago.
DeS - 4/10
DS1 - 7/10
DS2 - 5/10
DS3 - 7/10
BB - 8/10
All FUCKING wrong.
DaS vanilla 9.5/10
DaS PTDE 10/10
DaS2 Vanilla 5/10
DaS2 SOTFS 7/10
BB 9/10
BB TOH 10/10
DaS3 9/10
DaS3 GOTY 9.?/10
DS1>DaS3>>>>>>shit>>>>>>>>DAS2
>DaS3 9/10
Demon's Souls - 1
Dark Souls - 2
Dark Souls II - 3
Bloodborne - 4
Dark Souls III - 5
Just started and i just got to the MLB and i dodged it for like a minute but got hit by the triple spell and died.
This fight is just dodge until it lands then wail on it right? I'm assuming that. If so it will be easy the next time i was just really nervous thinking i was fucked as melee.
BB > DaS3 = DaS1 > DaS2SOTF
I never played DeS but i assumed it would also be =
Demons Souls- 7.5 out of 10
Dark Souls - 8.9 out of 10
Darks Souls 2- 6 out of 10
DARK SOULS 2 SINS OF THE FIRST SCHOLAR - 1000 OUT OF FUCKING 10
Dark Souls 3 - 8 out of 10
What did he mean by this?
don't listen to the meemers don't skip 2
its a great game
Scholar of the first sin. You fucking mongoloid.
Also, it's arguably worse.
The enemy placement is plain bad.
T. I hate games that don't give me 10 years to think because my reaction times are shit.
>DaS3 9/10
HAHAHhhaHAhahaHAh ahAH AHah AHAH AH AAH HA h AH Ah AH AH A AHAHAH H AH AHA H AhAH AHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH HAH AH AHh AhahaHA
someone managed to make something out of it
I'm proud
Nothing will ever match the sense of wonder you get from your first Soulsborne playthrough, but 3 is pretty sweet as well. 2 is alright
I had to watch a walkthrough to learn how to defeat the Hydra and that dragon on the bridge.
I dropped when I went to the library and that place with invisible crystal floor. Honestly, I really wanted to find more about that flooded ruins.
The game is good, but I just dropped for some reason.
Pretty much, unless you have some form of ranged attack that lets you hit it while it's flying as well. A bow or crossbow is easy enough to wield.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEEHEHEEEEEEHEHEHEEHHHHHHEEEEH EHH EHE EHHEHEHE EH
Depends on what you enjoy about DS1. If you like the gameplay, Ds3 does it better, if you like digging around for story Ds2 is better. All three are good in my opinion though.
Yes, if by trilogy you mean Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne.
Play BB last since with DLC it's literally an unparalleled masterpiece that the director will probably never match again.
Demon's Souls will feel a little barebones in comparison to Dark Souls, but it makes up for it with faster combat that was tuned a little better and one level that is easily the best in the series in terms of atmosphere.
Play Dark Souls 2 and 3 only after annhilating the proper trilogy of DeS/DkS/BB.
If you're going to skip any of them skip 2.
DS3 is solid as fuck, just less impressive to those of us who've played all the Souls games and see all the returning elements for what they are. For a new player you'd probably love it.
Bloodborne is, for me, the best of the lot.
And Demon's Souls is the most difficult, weird and interesting, and it's where it all started.
DS2 is just... a decent game with some poor decisions and terrible visuals. That's it. It's good... just not in comparison to the amazing others. Build-fags and PVP-ers seem to like it, but I'm not one of those.
Massive parts of the combat were a straight pull from Tenchu. Everything from movement-state attacks, canned BSes/Ripostes, rollings, even the fucking AI is the same.
Listen carefully, skeleton... the only people who like DS2 are memelords.
>Does it stay this good for the whole trilogy?
Nope. It doesn't even stay that good for the whole game. It falls apart after anor londo.
>If you like DS1 you'll probably like DeS more than DS2 and DS3 which are basically traditional fantasy adventure shite, bland as fuck
This is factually wrong.
When i played des after das1 all i could think about was
>damn this shit is so fucking ass compared to das1, barely any good levels, bosses are lazily made and magic is not even fun since it just trivializes everything and boy fuck this healing system
>And Demon's Souls is the most difficult
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This guy is bullshitting you, the game is a joke in diffculty compared to any other souls.
Compare penetrator to someone like pontiff
The. Old. Hunters. 10/10.
DkS1: AotA
DeS = DkS1
BB
DkS2 GOTY
DkS3 = DkS3: AoA
DkS2
Unknown where the last few bits of DLC will put DkS 3, but I believe it's current position is correct for now because it does not elevate the game.