Demon's Souls

>Demon's Souls
>Dark Souls
>Bloodborne

Why are these games so incredible?

>Dark Souls II
>Dark Souls III

Why are these games so incredibly disappointing?

>Dark Souls II
wasn't for me
>Dark Souls III
bland and short. no creativity in gameplay. less items, less weapons, less gameplay and less viable builds

Demon's Souls and Bloodborne suffer from unforgivable loading times. Dark Souls 1 also has the highest amount of incomplete/useless areas in the whole souls series, complete with a nigh unplayable netcode and backstab fishing from twinks.

Bloodborne's pvp was somehow wrse, by giving the players literally no reason to WANT to pvp, and making it a "each player can heal 20 times" shitfest, with no poise or weight, 100% of all builds have the same defenses, roll speed, and sometimes even endurance, only ever differentiated by the 10 or so weapons that are half decent, half or less for pvp.

Say what you want about 2 or 3, they dont just add pvp as a pointless addition, and instead they incentivize and reward player participation. 3's epidemic of invader ganking is kinda shit, but so long as you're within a popular soul level, you can create very high population worlds for players to invade you, often with very different builds.

I'm sorry, but Bloodborne's lack of build variety makes it literally my least favorite of the games, even if the chalice dungeons were hilariously fun.

The parry delay on med shields in ds3
The tomfuckery of input controls on pc in ds 2
THE FUCKING CRASH ISSUES DS3 HAS WITH PC, UNOPTIMIZED PIECE OF SHIT GAME

Your priorities for what makes a video game good are completely fucked

Only Dark Souls 2 was disappointing

Dark Souls wasn't incredible
Fuck off

Finished zones, build variety, and player interaction within a multiplayer game are fucked?

I dont much care for Sup Forums's echo chamber of praise for Bloodborne. It's not that great. It's literally worse than 3 in every way that actually counts.

i was actually far more disappointed in BB than i was in ds3 as my expectations were so much higher
>too short
>bosses too easy and largely forgettable
>broken ass npc hunter fights take forever without being super challenging
>chalice dungeons complete crap to pad out the game
>armor retarded looking and pointless beyond elemental defenses
>2 possible builds in the game completely kills replayability
>absolutely ridiculously long load times

in contrast, people constantly shitting on ds3 left my pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be mediocre at worst

Dark souls 2 had the most fun game world and dark souls 3 the best bossfights.

OP you simply have shit taste

Thank God, I thought I was the only one who was incredibly disappointed by DS3. Much more than by 2 to be honest

Yes, it was. Fuck you.

Shut the fuck up they're all good and have great things in each one even II despite what all the memeing faggots spout.

>multiplayer game

Souls games are and always have been singleplayer games with auxiliary multiplayer features. Only autists pretend souls is meant to be an esport. Go play a fighting game if you want a multiplayer game with actual balance, but then that might require some actual skill

That is true. Still, some of them were a big drop in quality compared to others, even if ultimately they were all still good games.

>Dark souls 2 had the most fun game world

"No!"
Bland poorly designed corridor after bland poorly designed corridor, linked together by nonsensical transitions with no attempt to form a coherent world. In short, Shit Souls 2 is garbage

>floating lava castle

Suck my ass, autismo. Invasions and summoning are both otpional things to increase the life of a game, think of them as minigames if you wish, but that doesn't prevent a huge portion of the playerbase from legitimately enjoying them.

Now if you're done being the sole judge and jury behind what makes games fun, I'm going to go back to testifying that Bloodborne is hilariously static and unfun to replay.

Continue wasting your life putting 1000+ hours into singleplayer game with obscenely unbalanced PvP and the worst netcode of all time. It's not my life, I don't care

He said fun, retard.

A floating lava castle is pretty fun.

why do people STILL say bloodborne has no build variety? are they retarded?

I am with user, is kinda sad too, but the moment I saw the weapon variety in Bloodborne, I knew only 2-3 builds were gonna be viable, the game is extremely shallow in that front.

Autism
>Dark Souls III
Sick bossfights and game world.

I haven't played much of 2 outside of my run I did on release, so I won't speak for the quality of the gameplay because I mostly don't remember, but 3 has all sorts of issues. Poise being tied to specific weapon types actively punishes people wearing heavier armor if they are not using a weapon type that has poise, as it takes stat investments to wear the armor and still do a light roll. Shields are garbage, you take entirely too much stamina damage when blocking, and many enemies have multiple hitting combos that will blow you wide open. Movement in general feels too fast, and with a huge emphasis on rolling the game has lost the feeling of being methodical and slow. Embers working the second you pop them no longer has the risk/reward factor turning human did in Dark Souls 1, where you could only use them at the bonfire and had to progress through the area to the boss if you wanted to summon. The removal of the healing gems is nice, but keeping the same estus upgrade system from 2 is a bad move. Being able to make the choice as a player to upgrade your checkpoints to provide more heals was a really cool system, all they have to do is make the resource you need to do so actually rare so making the choice to get those extra heals is a difficult one to make, at least in your first run. The rest are minor complaints, like how many of the offensive miracles are kind of ass and having to return to Firelink to level up and upgrade your shit when doing it from the bonfire worked perfectly fine.

even though it's disappointing, dark souls 3 is still a very good game
even dark souls 2 is a good game compared to most of the shit out there

You are right pvp is cancer and fucks with the sp balance. Think of how awesome hunters bone would be if it wasn't balanced for pvp

Sure, but the OP never said they aren't all good. He asked why the other two souls games are disappointing, which is a valid standpoint and is worth thinking about and comparing them to the others.

>Why are these games so incredible?
Original unique settings held together by a single director's vision

>Why are these games so incredibly disappointing?
Wringing a spent setting, muddled mess with multiple directors involved
Still played em both for 300 hours because of the improved co-op

I found Dark Souls 2 especially disappointing because I would have been satisfied with a game that included all of the exact same mechanics as DS1, just with new content (zones, enemies, bosses, and special weapons).

Why bother mucking with the mechanics that made Dark Soul such a hit? DS2 shouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Then, DS3 could have been more experimental instead of trying to recapture the appeal of DS1 after DS2 was such a disappointment.

I think that these games are a great example of the fact that the graphics actually DO matter
Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne all had an aesthetically pleasing and unique artstyle
Dark Souls 2's artstyle was unique, but I feel like they tried to create the ugliest game in the history of mankind
Dark Souls 3 usually looks good, but it has zero creativity, it just rips off the previous games

It's not really about the pure quality level of graphics though, it's mostly just about giving a fuck. DS2 looks bad in some places because the lightning is completely messed up and there are some very low quality textures right next to much better ones. Much older games, despite generally having worse graphics, still look more pleasing because of that because they're simply consistent in their quality

>even if the chalice dungeons were hilariously fun.

PvP cancer and le praise the sun XD fags ruined the series

DS1 was baby's first love. They learned the ins and outs of it and got gud. They suck the level designs dick for the first half of the game. Some outright hate Anor Londo and beyond. Most people didn't post lord vessel and cried about it being unfinished and the level design being shit. Sensible people didn't care too much but yes most of the 2nd half wasn't as interesting as the first half other than Tomb and New Londo. Lost Izalith is just an all around shitty area.

DS2 comes along and shits on those who couldnt git gud because they couldn't poise through everything anymore, they couldn't instantly heal up damage without consequence like before, they couldn't deal with more than 1 enemy on them, they couldn't figure out when to use R2s to hitstun and R1 to poke because they were so used to R1 mongo spamming, they couldn't learn how to dodge without ninja ring or parry without instant 1 frame startups(or 1 shots with hornet ring) or get free instant 1shot backstabs so they blamed the game for all their shortcomings and then nitpick at trivial shit like world design and consistency when the hallways and elevators are simply segues which all Souls games do anyway.

DS3 I don't see that much hate other than memeing about it being a rehash of 1 with too many references to 1 or being "too anime" despite circle jerking about Artorias while using ninjaflip rings and a Chaos Blade.

Except the real problem with DS2's healing isn't that there wasn't instant healing (even though estus and stacked lifegems were more than fast enough for nearly anything) but that the over abundance of lifegems trivializes the difficulty. And before you say "then just don't use lifegems", I've played through only using estus, and the amount of unavoidable damage from intended falls and nearly unavoidable traps (ogres in Aldia's keep) clearly shows that the lifegems are supposed to be an integral part of design, not a crutch for shit players.

And dealing with crowds of enemies isn't inherently bad design, but the enemy spam in DS2 often reeks of lazy copy-paste design with a lack of emphasis on careful enemy placement to provide an interesting challenge. Nearly every encounter in DS2 is either a horde of normal enemies, or a few normal enemies with unreachable or far off casters/bowmen pelting you with ranged attacks.

But DaS2 is the easiest game in the series behind Demon's

>Demon souls
>incredible
After playing Dark souls it becomes obvious that was the real game they wanted to make and des was nothing but a tech demo for them

>ogres at Aldia's
>unavoidable
Wut

They didn't care about multiplayer "balance".

"Nearly" unavoidable, though I probably should have specified for a first time player, if you know it's there it's not too hard to avoid. The ogre that bursts through the second door is probably going to be impossible to dodge if you don't already know that it's there, especially since it comes right after another ogre that pulls the same trick. And even worse, you can see the first ogre through the slot in the first door, while the second one is impossible to notice through environmental clues.

Lifegems are the best way to heal to be honest since flasks are worthless in 2. You only get 12 estus and they're extremely slow to use and don't heal that much and heal relatively slowly too, and immobilize you whereas gems you can use while moving at a slower pace allowing you avoid some attacks while healing a bit over time which was a needed compromise because if you're getting swarmed in a tight room like the Brume Tower trap room you're not going to get an estus off without getting punished.

I'd rather deal with hordes of enemies to keep me on my toes to prioritize threats, using line of sight, repositioning to avoid being surrounded, and manipulating enemies to stay behind the enemy I'm focusing than do standard boring 1v1s against some big armored knight or beast that devolves into circlestrafing and backstabbing or r1, dodge ez telegraph, r1 poke and repeat.

They definitely are the best way to heal, but they're way too good. With 99 lifegems you're fucking invincible, and you can start buying them for 300 a pop right after the first boss, and they never run out.

>>Dark Souls II
>>Dark Souls III
>Why are these games so incredibly disappointing?
They weren't. Well, maybe III a little.
That series is just that good.

Because you're a fucking memer redditor.

>Bloodborne's lack of build variety makes it literally my least favorite of the games
I think that's why I haven't feel the desire to replay it after getting the third ending, even when I already have 700 hours on DaS1, 600 on DaS2 and 500 on DaS3.

Currently playing DS3 which is my first in the series, I'm having fun.

>I think it's the novelty.

Many sequels that continue the original with a few tweaks here can be let downs, or playing a later one and going back feels clunky. I find that in games with multiple sequels, the first one I play is usually the best regardless of where it is in the series.

It's almost like different people have fun with different things.

I replayed vanilla 2 on Octuber 2017 and I tell you you're absolutely full of shit. Using only estus flasks is perfectly viable (I avoided buying lifegems because the online is almost dead so all your souls must be used on levelling up your weapons and stats). You're just have to be careful because you don't have a crutch to depend upon.

Imagine putting this much effort into showing other people you hate something.
What a pathetic life.

>DS II/III
I don't know why people are so pessimistic. They were definitely worse than their predecessors but they were still both enjoyable.

Shhh, don't provoke him. If you do he'll start flooding the thread with those 60-something Dark Souls 2 webms he has on his computer while posting how much he despises the game, foaming from the mouth.

>was nothing but a tech demo for them
>still much better design of levels and characters and armor and weapons than any DaS game
Nice shit taste

Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne were all stand-alone games created because From Software truly wanted to make them. Dark Souls II and III were uninspired cash-ins that Bamco wanted and had to be tied to Dark Souls I to a certain degree, thus preventing From Software's usual MO of starting from scratch to make a world its own thing.

>Imagine putting effort into your discussion on a board for discussing video games
Yeah what the fuck is wrong with that guy

>uninspired cash-ins that Bamco wanted and
Like first Dark Souls

Demon Souls is the culmination of the King's Field games and Miyazaki taking a risk in the industry, for a change.

Dark Souls was all the good from DeS and none of the bad, unfinished, but nonetheless with a heart of gold and an amazing execution where it shines.

Bloodborne is Miyazaki using all his knowledge to create his masterpiece, it's not perfect, but few games reach the overall greatness Bloodborne gracefully accomplished without really trying to wow you at every corner.

DaS2 and DaS3 are sequels fueled by autistic PvPfags that play the games because they are "muh hard", of course they are bland, nobody at FromSoft wanted to make them in the first place.