Unpopular opinion
Dark souls 2 scholar of the first sin > Dark souls 3
Strictly scholar of the first sin though. Completed both and they really made it a much better game
One is still obviously the best.
But I just feel the environments/lore/mobs are much better.
Anyone agree or care to debate?
Bloodborne> Dark Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Demon Souls > Dark Souls 2
This is the master list.
All other lists are incorrect.
When you put 2 at the end does that include scholar or have you not played that?
Never played demon souls or blood borne. But don't have a console so can't play blood borne and can't get my hands on demon souls
I havent played DS3 but I have played both DS1 an DS2:SOTFS. IMO DS2:SOTFS is is far improved an better then the first. Graphics are better, Has intruiging lore which doesnt take 10 playthroughs to find. the inventory system is amazing in DS2 an overall I got more hours an enjoyment out the second DS then any of the others
Well it's assumed that SOTFS is objectively better than vannilla dark souls 2. It fixed some of the lore problems of the game and included the DLC which is some really solid souls. But all in all it still suffered from some backwards gameplay mechanics that remained in SOTFS edition
You're baiting.
DS1 was good all around, the only thing that they fucked up was the instant-backstab and the following meta born out of that.
DS2 has a slower and more punishing experience, still has the best PvE content and build variety/fashion souls, it was SHIT before the DLC's and patches tho.
DS3 is the most boring PvE so far, but it introduced some good stuff expanding on DS1 combat style (chain combos, weapon arts, mix-ups, more reliable kicks/guarbreaks and backstab cancel) but fucked up on the build variety (quality everywhere) and weapon balance. Hopefully it gets better from DLC's and future patches.
Yeah I definitely agree on the improvements of scholar. You prefer scholar to 1?
I suppose I just prefer 1 because of the nostalgia and it's where I started. But I have played a lot more scholar than number 1 and 3 combined so I agree with you that I've got more enjoyment out of it than 1.
Backwards gameplay mechanics? If you're saying the mechanics aren't as good as 3 then I definitely agree with you. After being on a DS3 binge I struggled to adjust back to the choppy mechanics in Ds2SOTFS
genuinely not baiting, I think SOFTS is my most played an favorite of the souls games, but like I said I havent played 3 (althought I've seen enough to get the idea) SOTFS is my favorite.
Yugioh>Magic the Gathering>Pokemon TCG
Gr8 thanks for input m8
I can agree the rolling in SOTFS is harder then DS1, I do prefer scholar to one because I played both back to back before 3 came out. So I never really had that special feeling towards the first. So I like SOTFS more since its more well polished.
>there's literally people in here that haven't beaten Bloodborne 14 times
>>>>>>>>>>>>out
"After being on a DS3 binge I struggled to adjust back to the choppy mechanics in Ds2SOTFS"
Had the same issues. I bought DS1 and SotFS on a bundle sale. Played SotFS first and then 1 and then 3.
Rolling and parrying timers were really difficult to re-adjust to.
DS2 gameplay was very "video gamey" animations were choppy and static, nothing flowed, dodge rolling fucking sucked, backstabs were gone, kicking was gone, and everything overall felt bland and boring, not to mention the level design and map was shit. Think about if I mapped out dark souls 2 on a piece of paper, each area would have these ravines between them connected by a bridge or something equally stupid. No real like world or continent is like that.
Omg the rolling timers are the most annoying. The amount of times I've died on scholar because I think I can instantly roll after attacking a mob haha
I never played Dark Souls 2.
I got Scholar of the First Sin and just could finish it. It wasn´t too hard, it was just boring. The level designs were poor, 3 ridiculous poison levels (not sinister, not macabre, not difficult, just ugly , unoriginal and annoying), all npcs uninteresting, the bosses very very very disapointing aaaaand the kick was gone.
It has some good aspects, but on all of the above Dark Souls 3 handles it way better than SotFS (although I admit, the friendly NPCs are interesting partially because they were reheated from the frist game).
Who the hell plays dark souls games for realism lol?
Yeah man this game is shit because the map doesn't look like a real map. And omg that dragon looks nothing like a real one...
The strongest part about dark souls 3 is the NPCs.
I hope you're not being Sirrus :^)
You're literally a retard. The first game was hailed for its breathing, real world feel. Dark souls 2 feels like your parading around video game mcfantasy land chopping zombie men who have no reason to be there other than to impede your progress
At least it's not Dark Rolls 3.
Seriouly it's so annoying to fight agaisn't people that just spam roll without being penalized because it takes NO FUCKING STAMINA
sure I can agree with everything but what you said about the map. But thats kinda why I liked it. I just casual played dark souls when I was stoned so I wasnt really in it to play 10 times unlocking everything like other people do.
ds2 would have been the best if it was not for the broken hitboxes, estus gem fuckup, and retardedly designed places like iron passage. one of the main reasonsi wont repöay ds2 is ava the kings pet+ frozen wastes, first fight i seriously said fuck you im summoning help with a clean consciousness.
Just because it slightly rode off the coat tails of one doesn't mean we can discount each interaction. The stories flowed better, the voice acting was better, and their stories were more interesting
Bloodborne is better than ds1 though. I mean the majority of its bosses were tuned down, but the combat was intense in pve and pvp on a low leveled character
M8 you missed the joke and you missed the quads. Nice pic tho
Wow man calm self.
I do agree that the mobs seem to be there just to impede your progress tho
Yeah but that's what most dex builds do in pvp anyway. On all 3 games
Yeah I agree in the broken hit boxes. They still didn't fix the rapier hitbox. Got invaded earlier and he hit me from 10 foot away
The gameplay doesn't support the story in the aspect of the world, it's part of what made the other games so good, gameplay and story were essentially one. It felt great getting lost and discovering a new way to go instead of running down the linear passageway
Bloodborne is the best. Best setting, story, and gamplay mechanics. Hands down.
Fuck me
...
1 is best pve/story pvp is broken
2 is best pvp but has shitty pve aside from the 3 DLCs whitch are quite big so its worth
3 is best at nothing maybe the 2 dlcs and/or patchs will fix that pvp is cancer and pve is only fun the first time around
havent played BB or Demonsouls
so for pvp players
2>3>1
Pve/story players
1>2>3
All the games are really good and deserve a play-through if they do not compare to their to their counterparts in any aspect
honestly i hated ds2 pve, but alteast i finished it.
as for ds3 the input lag on rolls with the faster combat with the shitty camera in some fights really made the overall bad controls in darks souls more apparent. poise is garbage/still disabled and everything is quality builds with loads of impractical weapons with the faster combat style. then we have the texture popping, ds3 broke the immersion for me a few times to many. It ds2 felt cheap, ds3 felt hollow as fuck, hopefully the dlc can remedy some of that
I just finished dark souls 1 and put 70 hours into it.
is dark souls 2 SOTFS worth $40? I don't care for lore or pvp. just the story
i have to agree with this, ds3 lacks something, hoping for good dlc
>I don't care for the lore
>just the story
40$? 25$ on steam?
unless you are in it for the pvp soley, otherwise you are gonna get alot of frustration, and not the good kind of it,
Just play 3
>spending money for specific cards
>game
>gambling [x]