If the second half is so shit that it makes even DaS2 look good, why is it considered the best game in the series?

If the second half is so shit that it makes even DaS2 look good, why is it considered the best game in the series?

Because 2 jumps straight to the "four straight unfinished lines to a boss" shit without the open part before it.

Dark souls 2 was my first souls game (haven't finished it, last boss i fought was that bell guy that defends vendrick).
Now i am playing dark souls 3 and i am 7 hours in the game.
Dark souls 2 was a good game imo,
a good jump off point for a ''normie'' playing the game

>DaS2 good
Dropped

On your head as a baby

wasnt 3 the best one?

Because the first half shits on every game ever imagined.

Worse than BB and DaS3, better than DaS.

It's shit compared to the first half.
The second half is above average.

You guys know how Sup Forums has a lot of inside jokes we perpetuate for no reason other than it's a thing to do and kind of funny to see outsiders confused?

Like King of the Hill Online or Todd posting?

I still refuse to believe anyone actually likes From Software games like Dark Souls or Bloodborne. It HAS to be a meme or something. NO one can actually like these broken, poorly coded, generic-looking, pieces of mediocre shit... right? They barely escape the category of shovelware.

Is there some inside joke I am not aware of?

That's an incredibly loaded question that tries to put forth the idea that ALL parts of DaS2 are better than the worst parts of DaS1. They're not. The worst parts of DaS2 are as bad as the average shit in DaS2. Most of DaS2 is bad and only a few places even stand out.
see

>If the second half is so shit that it makes even DaS2 look good
The only actual shit about it is the 4cucks. Other than that, the second part is fine.

The first souls game you 'git gud' in, becomes the best to you.
Most people missed Demons souls and went straight to Dark souls, hence nostalgia makes them think it is better then it really is.
People who played Demons souls first and were lucky enough to play Bloodborne and it's DLC in its heyday think Bloodborne is the best with a special spot for demons.

what does playing Bloodborne when it was released vs playing it now matter?

Nobody has ever said the 2nd half of DS1 is worse than the entirety of DS2

More people online. Bloodborne pvp went to shit rather quickly, picked up for a while with the DLC release, then died again.

oh, right. i keep forgetting these games have multiplayer.

>If the second half is so shit that it makes even DaS2 look good

Stop.

No.

Just, no.

user, your shitposting for (you)'s only makes sense if the game you are trying to shitpost about isn't wildly popular in the videogaming community as a whole with the highest scores all around and only positive feedback from even the normies.

Except, you know, it doesn't.

I don't think anyone can think Demon Souls is anywhere close to the best, given how clunky, outdated and full of ridiculous FPS drops and bad coding it was.
Dark Souls was entirely a step up from it, and DeS was my first by all accounts.

Because admitting that the game has flaws would mean the "git gud" faggots can't spout smugness over having beaten le EPIC HARDEST GAME EVER.
Admitting that the qualities of Dark Souls which make it good are everything BUT the combat means admitting that beating it isn't a gaming accomplishment.

When telling someone that I prefer Demon's Souls because of the atmosphere and unique qualities, that person said to me "what's even the point of playing these games if you aren't in it for the challenge?" with some condescending picture.
And that sums up the Dark Souls fanbase. People with no comprehension of anything other than game mechanics. People who have no clue that Dark Souls is shallow mechanically and gets its quality from world design and aesthetics.

I've beaten every single one of these games. I do not consider the Souls games hard anymore. Every one of them after the first I played was easy to me, a few bosses exempted.
So it becomes clear that the people who tell me to "git gud" in response are just incredibly defensive about the fact that the only thing they know how to take from a game is its combat.

People who will endlessly spout apologism for the second half of Dark Souls because it was SO LE DIFFICULT BUT SO FAIR GIT GUD DUDE even though there are objective, insane drops in quality across the board in the second half.

The first half wasn't exactly stellar either.

because the final boss saves it.

Bloodborne appeals to the edgelord teenager I never quite grew out of being.

>tfw I never actually played DaS2

I got burnt out of the first as it came out so didn't pick it up. Then I kept putting off SotFS until BB came out and then DaS3.

Now I'm completely burnt out on souls so I'll probably never get round to playing it. Haven't even bothered doing the ringed city dlc.

It's dumb to say that the entire second half of DaS is shit. Tomb of the Giants is good, Duke's Archives is good, and of course the whole DLC is great. It's mostly Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith that sucks.

"Dark Souls' second half is bad" is a meme spouted by mindless parrots.

>Tomb of the Giants is good
>Duke's Archives is good
>the whole DLC is great

Tomb is a shitty gimmick area with lazily-designed enemies, nothing in there is actually interesting. They just dress is up by making it so you can't see two feet in front of you.
Duke's is trash, breaks half the rules of the game and throws you into rooms where you just run around solving puzzles while getting pelted from afar, which is horrible in a Souls game.
Neither has a good boss.

New Londo is okay but, as we all know, Four Kings are fucking awful, and the whole ghost gimmick really isn't that much of a step up from Tomb.
It's interesting to have enemies come from all angles, but getting gangbanged isn't interesting and neither is having to use consumables.

The DLC has three very good bosses, but the areas leading to those bosses are bland.
There are good items in those areas, and there's good atmosphere going on, but I've never in my life given a shit about exploring everything there is to explore in Artorias of the Abyss.

This is beyond the fact that some of these areas are blatantly unfinished. The grassy courtyard in Duke's is like a tech demo area.
You can literally see where the game's map/geography end when you're in Lost Izalith.

The Souls formula is one which is either great or horrible depending on the execution of each individual area. Even an area that's just okay ends up as a boring slog because the core gameplay mechanics don't hold it up.
If there's no intricate level design, or interesting gimmick, or bizarre enemies to fight, then it's just a boring action RPG that's easily broken with enough player knowledge.

>a meme spouted by mindless parrots

It certainly is parroted by a lot of people who don't know shit, but they're parroting people who actually do understand game design.

Bloodborne is easily the best without contestation in almost every regard. Weapons, movesets, combat, enemies, music, consistent level design, properly functioning mechanics, atmosphere, narrative are all best-in-series, while BB's bosses are comparably good to DkS3, and it's the only other game with some world interconnection similar to Dark Souls 1. The game has problems, but it has incredible strengths where it counts.

Dark Souls 1 in many ways is the worst game in the series.
>Worst movesets in the series, easily; completely dumbed down DeS's weapons with most feeling like shells of their former selves and having LESS usable moves somehow. Weapons like DBS and Estoc go from having a handful of good moves utilizing both stances to 1 good move in one stance with infinites up the ass.
>The MOST broken BSing in the series, thanks to poise.
>Poise, easily the worst combat mechanic conceived by From, took the fundamentals of spacing, timing, punishing, and rewarded poor playing, spaming attacks mindlessly, and min-maxing.
>Weak enemies and weak/simple bosses compared to the later games.
>Quite a few levels are garbage.
>Hilariously broken items, like DWGR, Hornet, Wolf, etc.
>Slow.
>Absolutely retarded mechanics native only to Dark Souls 1: weapons gain hit-stun as they level, meaning you can't effectively test a weapons moveset without maxing it.
>Absolutely retarded mechanics native only to Dark Souls 1: weapons in the same class have different attack recoveries, meaning you can have one large sword with an infinite while another can't even 2-hit.
>Absolutely retarded mechanics native only to Dark Souls 1: halberd-class weapons only, for some retarded reason, have specific whiff animations that make your character spaz out when you miss, also makimg the weapon unusable.
>Shitty narrative that goes nowhere made consequently worse by the sequels and sampled instruments in the OST.

The only thing Dark Souls 1 has is world interconnection.

Bb>3>1=2=SaS

Bloodborne manages to not place lamps (bonfires) everywhere without being tedious. farming 20 blood vials takes all of about one minute, and you'll rarely die to a boss while using all of them anyway, due to your low hp pool. haven't finished it

3 is a boss rush, but at least the bosses are good.

1 has too much fucking backtracking pre-Lordvessel. tracking out of Blighttown is different from tracking in, fine, but running all the way from Anor Londo to Vamos and back (when you realise giga ornie is resistant to lightning) means doing Sen's two more times which is hell. the endgame bosses and areas are all horrible except Sif.

2 has horrible weapon movesets and stat design and hitboxes, and most enemies can be strafed to death, but there're a fuckton of unique places to go, and poise is actually balanced.

Salt and Sanctuary has fantastic world design, even more interconnected than DS1, but super simple mob and boss movesets, platforming gimmicks like chain-breaking tiles and invisible enemies, and too much fucking knockback from enemies.

tfw DeS crashes in RPCS3 and my parents would kill me if I bought another console

out of five areas/bosses in the lategame, the only good one is Darkroot/Sif. izalith is shit, TotG is a long linear run-up to Nito with no enemies worth fighting, New Londo is only cool because of darkwraiths, and Crystal Cave is a run past stuff you can't fight safely up to hug-my-tentacles Seath.

Duke's Archives was dope.

lol why are you including Salt and Sanctuary into a Souls ranking?

>Tomb is a shitty gimmick area with lazily-designed enemies

Souls is built around gimmicks. Out of all the gimmicks they've done, making the area dark is fuck is one of the better ones. It instantly adds atmosphere and also forces you to play extra cautiously. There's also multiple ways to light up the area to make things easier. I agree that the Skeleton Beasts are poorly designed, but the other giant skeletons are pretty fair.

>Duke's is trash, breaks half the rules of the game and throws you into rooms where you just run around solving puzzles while getting pelted from afar, which is horrible in a Souls game.

You know you can just KILL the enemies, right? I don't think there's anything wrong with a few puzzles in a game focused on dungeon crawling, and they add an extra layer to the level design. Also "breaks half the rules" is an exaggeration, the forced death against Seath is "cheap" but at least is an interesting change of pace. Archives has great aesthetics, atmosphere, and reasonably intricate level design. The big weakness of the area is the lackluster enemy variety, though it at least is justified by the story (they're all Seath's minions).

>The DLC has three very good bosses, but the areas leading to those bosses are bland.

The only "bland" area is Royal Wood because it's essentially a rehashed Darkroot Garden. Oolacile proper has fairly strong level design with strong aesthetics and distinctly unique enemies. The Abyss is, in my opinion, one of the most striking areas of the game. It's the culmination of AotA's arc, you travel downwards through increasingly corrupt areas until you finally reach the source. I will never forget seeing the Humanity for the first time. That's the exact opposite of bland.

Also I never understood what the big deal with the Four Kings is, besides the fifth king bug. Is it a rather standard DPS race? Yes, but so are the Gargoyles. There's nothing offensively bad about them.

>Also I never understood what the big deal with the Four Kings is, besides the fifth king bug. Is it a rather standard DPS race? Yes, but so are the Gargoyles. There's nothing offensively bad about them.

Personally, I wasn't too fond of their designs which just didn't fit in with the rest of the game's aesthetics.