I don't know anything about the Dark Souls community, but heres my conundrum

I don't know anything about the Dark Souls community, but heres my conundrum
is it controversial to say 2 is a step down from 1? At least graphically? I beat 1, and got about 30 minutes into 2, and I "feel" like 2 is the prequel and 1 is the improvement. 2 looks straight up like the old Fable games to me more than a Souls game.
I think I'm gonna skip 2 and just get 3 during the winter sale 2bh

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UScsme8didI
strawpoll.me/14629381
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The art direction took a dive but the graphical fidelity is objectively better even if just by a little bit.

That's literally the least controversial thing anyone has ever said.

Dark Souls 2 is mediocre, and nobody would defend it because it's the only Soulsborne that Miyazaki wasn't involved in. Literally nobody has strong positive feelings for it. The only decent thing about it is the DLC.

2 is objectively better than 1. The graphics look a little plastic but apart from that it's better in every way. If you skip it you simply don't like video games.

Most people agree that 2 is WAY better than 1.

youtube.com/watch?v=UScsme8didI

...

...

I liked 2

2 is probably the best in the series. 1 has a shitload of flaws that got fixed in 2, but then 3 introduced a ton of new issues. If you skip it you might as well just skip 3 as well.

i think its time for some people to replay 1

>1 has a shitload of flaws that got fixed in 2, but then 3 introduced a ton of new issues
care to list a few examples?

It was a slog to get through and I couldn't have been more relieved to finish it. I never even continued on to the DLC cause I couldn't stand it any long. I still replay DS1 and 3 but I swear I will never come back to replaying 2 again. It's the shit stain on the underwear of Dark Souls

Consensus is that Dark Souls 2 is decent but a shit game compared to the first Dark Souls.

You will run across a vocal minority here on Sup Forums that will defend DS2 with their life. Just ignore them.

that's just not true, user, and you know it

>vocal minority
Most people see 2 as the superior game. It has the highest ratings for a reason. The vocal minority is the group that pretends 1 wasn't a buggy unfinished mess.`

This guy is memeing

blocked

he's right though 2 is much better than 1. only memelords and bandwagoners pretend that 2 is bad.

strawpoll.me/14629381

op here, curious what the consensus will be

2 vastly improved on stuff like the vegetation models so trees are now finally actual models instead of needles with two crossed bitmaps on top (or just two bitmaps in a lot of cases).
They still look like shit, sure, but at least they're one generation less behind now.

2>3>1

Souls games thrash are when compared to Bloodborne.

leave the thread fast

Dark Souls 2 defence force is here

Das2 had, after several updates and originally some outright broken strats, the best PVP. It was also slightly easier than 1, and the early game has a lot more variety and reward.

However, mechanically it feels very different. Slower, the combat was more about spacing and pattern recognition than the twitch dodging of 1. Also it didn't have any truly shit bosses like 4KANGZ or Bed of Chaos. Instead, it had a lot of mediocre bosses and some outright copy+paste jobbies.

3 is undisputedly the best dark souls, with the best of bloodborne and 1 packaged with only a few of the really good pvp mechanics dropped from 2.

BB > every Souls

DS1 > BB > DS3 > Nioh > Lords of Fallen > The Surge > DS2

see

>tfw pc fag
stop talking about bloodborne

apparently i only liked 2 because it was the new souls game at the time. when i go to replay it after playing any other souls game, the different game engine makes it seem completely unplayable to me, mainly because of the non-smooth movement (deadzones, too sensitive camera, lesser animations), but apparently i got used to it enough before to put 600 hours into it

i DID like it, but replaying it is like, the hardest thing ever for me

I unironically prefer 2 SOTFS because it was my second souls title (after DeS) and first one I've played on PC. It ran smoothly, and had better UI than DaS i couldn't get over of how the port is botched. But i still know that DaS1 is more popular.

I recently did and it's still better than 2 and 3

bloodborne is overrated as fuck. stops being difficult at all past the nightmare frontier
All the bosses are piss easy to begin with, hunters fights are stupidly broken on the other hand

DaS 3 > DaS 1 > DaS 2 > DeS > Bloodborne
There are actual good PS4 exclusives now, you don't have to keep pretending Bloodborne is good.

I'll summarize it for you. A bunch of sonybros who have played maybe one other game in the series ranking Bloodborne the best, a bunch of contrarians whose first souls game was DS2 ranking DS2 the best, normal people ranking DS1 or 3 the best, and like one or two hipsters voting for DeS

>my casual souls-like game is the best of the series

Bloodborne was designed to ease players into Souls games. It's souls combat but immensely more forgiving.

>letting other people tell you your opinion
This is why people who like DaS2 are objectively superior human beings and DaS1 dickriders are disgusting brainlet troggies.

Well it has some cool particles and cloth physics and it manages to look pretty good at times, but smaller areas look worse because of the shitty lighting. The game is still pretty good though and SotFS fixes some of the issues the original release had. It may not be DaS 1 but it's still worth playing.
Also skipping 2 to play 3 is just retarded, 3 is the worst one, it's just low fat BB with shitty weapon variety, something DaS 2 excels at.

I feel like people are just being contrarian, found a similar poll on ign with wildly different results
inb4 sperging because ign

3 is the worst purely because of the bosses. They all employ the same strategy after about the halfway point in the game. They're made difficult by having endless combos and only a 1-hit window to damage them without trading. Once you learn this, the bosses are piss easy slogs. They also fucked up heavy weapons in 3, they're outright inferior to fast weapons that aren't daggers.

>normal people ranking DS1 the best
lol fuck no. only kids who only watch youtube lore videos but have never played a souls game rank 1 as the best. 1 is a horrible buggy unfinished trashfire of a game. 2 is better in all regards, and so is 3 and BB and DeS.

Let's gooooooooooooooo

Slave Knight Gael>Nameless King>Pontiff Sully>Soul Of Cinder>Darkeater Midir>Champion Gundyr>Dancer>the rest

Bloodborne>=DSIII>Scholar>DaS>=DeS

Dark Souls, Demons Souls, and Bloodborne are the only good games.

Shadows Die Twice is going to be the next good game. Sequels are trash.

BB>>>>DS2>DS1>>>DS3
Bloodborne is the best game, especially since it stands by itself. Dark Souls 2 improved on Dark Souls 1 gameplay, but the quality is inconsistent (DS1 also suffers from this though). Dark Souls 2 can be clearly differentiated from Bloodborne in many aspects, especially combat.

Dark Souls 3 is the ultimate bastard child made to appease pc whiners who wanted Bloodborne, but got Dark Soulborne memelord edition.

>DaS2oddlers bridgading
>deny all criticism for their shitty game
>cherrypicks and scream "BED OF CHAOS" at the top of their lungs
pathetic lmao

maybe you should actually play 1

>s it controversial to say 2 is a step down from 1?

No. It's the modern day equivalent of Devil May Cry 2.
Right down to bringing in another director partway through development to try and clean up the big fucking mess the first one made.

Maybe you should. He's right, 1 is inferior to 2 and 3 by a huge margin. Half of the game is clearly unfinished, it had terrible buggy hitboxes, and awful gimmick bosses that the devs literally apologized for. It was fun, but it's objectively worse than every other entry in the series.

Shit I meant to type out DSII bosses.

Fume Knight>Burnt Ivory King>Sinh>Sir Alonne>The Darlurker>Throne Watcher and Defender>Nashandra

I notice people only hate 1 when they are terrible at it, people saying its "clunky" or "glitchy" kinda give it away. Your movement is almost as perfect as 3, and you get perfect rolling by not locking on, and any good player should know that you should play a lot of 1 without locking on.

You can't listen to many of these casual players about 1.

>Half of the game is clearly unfinished, it had terrible buggy hitboxes, and awful gimmick bosses that the devs literally apologized for. It was fun, but it's objectively worse than every other entry in the series.
Why did you describe Dark Souls 2?

From what I know even 60 fps remaster with improved UI wouldn't really fix DaS 1 because the second part of that game is rushed garbage

Aktschually Miyazaki has gone on record to state that returning to DSIII was what he wanted because given BB's setting, he couldn't do other things he wanted.

Wew, I was about to give you a serious reply before I realised it was cheap bait.

I can't actually remember gimmick bosses from DSII.

using the word ‘objectively’ doesn’t make you factually correct, so many people use it on here for different opinions it has become a meaningless term

>getting to beat down shitty players with ladles while on my account and character named boyardee

I enjoyed it.

its literally only the ds2 fags using it incorrectly in this thread

You meant to type 2 instead of 1, right? 2 is the perfect one that casuals can't handle. 1 is just inferior.

The DLC areas are a massive step up

Dark Souls 2 has the most content, the best magic and faith, the best backstab, guard break riposte, and parry riposte animations, and the best hub.

It's better than 3 but worse than 1.

They're using it correctly. You're in the wrong here, das1babby.

That's not controversial at all. You'll find that opinions on DS2 are divided, but generally most people (On Sup Forums, at least.) are very disappointed with it. I know I was. Despite that, it's a decent game with all the patches and DLC.

My heart still hurts thinking about what this game could have been.

Scholar saved DS2, the vanilla game is the most shitty sequel I ever played, they got so many this wrong.

>Dark Souls 2 has the most copied and pasted assets
fixed that for you, blue smelter demon

Vanilla DaS2 is better than DaS1. DaS2 with the DLC is the best game in the series.

You can even see how ds2 fags always say dlc bosses as the best of the game. The base game is is so disappointing.

DaS2 is the game scrubs like the most, because instead of requiring you to learn and discover how things work on your own and carving your own path within it's ruleset, it is a game of a binary state where you either know about it's own set of arbitrary rules or don't.
Once you know about them, that's it. You now have a +500% exp gained towards gitting gud.

Except it looks better, the bosses are better, the enemies are more varied, the world is more consistent, the characters have better plot lines and the level design is superior by a huge margin.
DaS 2 improved the combat a lot, most weapons are viable, powerstacing makes dual wielding way better and magic and poise were rebalanced. The item system was improved and the covenants are better. However the world is all over the place and the story and characters all draw from the first game although I liked how they managed the cyclic nature of the DaS universe. If combat was the only thing in the series I'd agree SotFS is the best one but it's not.
The DaS 3 came out and they forgot all the improvements DaS 2 implemented. Fuck.

also king's pet, which they reused a boss on a fucking dlc

Velstadt, Lost Sinner, and that giant spider were all pretty neat. Too many humanoid bosses though.

Other way around, actually. DaS2 is the game true Souls veterans prefer because it offers the most challenge and the best gameplay. The only people who hate on 2 are casual babbies who couldn't git gud and still cry little baby tears over "ambushes" because they think they shouldn't have to learn how to crowd control.

>it is a game of a binary state where you either know about it's own set of arbitrary rules or don't.
I think that describes the whole Souls formula 2bh

>Except it looks better, the bosses are better, the enemies are more varied, the world is more consistent, the characters have better plot lines and the level design is superior by a huge margin.
If you typed that out with a straight face, I would think that you are actually someone with Downs Syndrome

>They're made difficult by having endless combos and only a 1-hit window to damage them without trading.
Yeah this is a huge problem that I hope they remedy in future ARPGs. From DeS to Scholar, these things were fine because the most combos a boss ever got was Fume Knight. He's a great fight because it flows well whether you roll or shield. He has combos but within the game's mechanics you can avoid getting hit and punish him accordingly.

DSIII added enemies, as well as bosses, who have attacks that involve flurries of hits. And they did nothing to revamp the player's mechanics to compensate. DSIII tows the line smack dab between DaS and Bloodborne. It's far more action oriented than Souls, but far less movement inclined than Bloodborne. Weapon Arts were a big step in the right direction, but they didn't have time to really refine it. There should've been attacks with weapon arts that give you a boost of poise, and can stop enemies and bosses dead in their flurries. But they don't really do this because of how poise functions in DSIII. It's a skeleton for what could be a wonderful action game with amazing art direction. But it's just that. A skeleton.

Still my favorite Souls game.

This is my opinion. Except I hate the slow animations, roll stat, and floaty combat in 2. The rest of the gameplay mechanics are cool though.

also, ADP
are we really discussing the possibility that ds2 is good in something?

Not only humanoids but armored humanoid wich means a lightning mace turns the game into a cakewalk.

they were so desperate to create a new Artorias lol

It's good in most ways. It's a great sequel and improves upon the first game by a lot.

>Except it looks better, the bosses are better, the enemies are more varied, the world is more consistent, the characters have better plot lines and the level design is superior by a huge margin.
Both have elements that are done better and worse in their respective titles. Benhart's plotline goes nowhere. He's just a dude with a fake Moonlight Greatsword. The reward is him fighting with you against Nashandra and/or the Throne Watcher/Defenders. Vengarl's plotline is cool, he realizes that life isn't all about fighting. Lucatiel's is cool, too. But then there's Cahrillion, Rosabeth, Saulden, and others that don't go fucking anywhere. The only person whose plotline goes nowhere in DaS is the sorcerer who you rescue from a locked door in the Undead Burg. All of the characters' endings in DaS help with the games theme of shit being fucked over and everything ending.
>Bosses
Some are better, some are worse. That simple. Dragonrider should've been a normal enemy.
>World is more consistent
Fuck no.
>Level design
Depends on what you're looking for.

As much as people shit on 2, that doesn't mean it did EVERYTHING wrong.

all three are bad but 2 is the best one

That's a pretty baseless assumption, friendo. Velstadt is very much is his own guy, as is The Lost Sinner.

This. They're all heavily flawed games, but 2 is heads and shoulders above the rest. King's Field is the better series overall desu.

>slow animations
No way, they're just a millisecond slower than DS3. You're right about everything else.
DS2oddlers would say ADP and Soul Memory is an improvement because it adds challenge

The world is much more consistent in DaS 1, what are you smoking?
Also I didn't like that you had to summon NPCs to continue their stories, I don't like summoning because it makes the game too easy, boss AI just break against several players.

Dark Souls world is more consistent than Dark Souls 2.

>LotF > DS2
Oh come on, DS2 isn't THAT bad

Objectively correct

Nope. All 3 are good and 3 is the worst one but still good overall.
I feel discussing wich one is the best is kinda pointless since I like all 3.

Oh shit I thought user was implying DSII had a more consistent world.
>Also I didn't like that you had to summon NPCs to continue their stories, I don't like summoning because it makes the game too easy, boss AI just break against several players.
I think this was patched out. I never summoned Lucatiel and I get her end to the story. Same with Benhart, actually. You just have to talk to them at the right spots.

1 takes a massive fucking cliff drop in quality after you ring the bells
at least 2 is consistent all the way through

I think 2 is better UNIRONICALLY

>3 is the worst one
>when it has more consistent content than Copy and Paste Ornstein 2

>more consistent

What does that mean? DS2 is literally an incomplete frankenstein game. There are many words you can use to describe it, but "consistent" doesn't seem like one of them.

I said earlier in the thread that III is a skeleton for a really great game, but it's otherwise still really good and my favorite.

I mean, I'm pretty sure they saw how popular Artorias was and they tried to recreate ''a cool guy in a armor boss type'', you have Ivory King, Reime, Velstat, Lost Sinner, Persuer, Looking Glass Knight, Old Dragonslayer, Dragonrider (what a patetic boss btw), Throne Watcher/Defender and Sir Alonne. That can't be a coincidence, c'mon.

I realized the Dark Souls 2 storylines were utter shit when I saw Benhart in the giant's dream.

>Except it looks better
If you're blind maybe, everything in DaS2 looks like it's made out of clay