Dark Souls 2 is better than Dark Souls 3? (potential spoilers for both games)

Me for saying that DS3 is a rushed cash grab? Sorry, but it basically is.

@texasgoldrush: I guess I meant better gameplay in DS3 in terms of more fluid. Playing DS3, then going back to DS2, it plays so damn slow. But I definitely think the devs were sorta running on empty in the DLC department for 3. The three DLC areas in 2 just had more varied environments overall, imo. But I don't think they dropped the ball too hard as the SoulsBorne games are still better than 95% of most games released nowadays. So I guess both 2 and 3 have cool features that make me coming back to them equally. I admit it is hard to play through the first Dark Souls now though as the gameplay feel much more outdated compared to the newer entries.

To each his own.

The fluidness of DS3 is a problem and breaks the balance of the gameplay. Had it not been rushed out, they could have had this balance. It feels like a bad mash up between DS and Bloodborne with an identity crisis, more than a concise change. The new fluid nature breaks PvP as well. And far too many DS3 enemies and bosses rely on bludgeoning for its challenge, resulting in difficulty spikes.

^^This. Shut the f*ck up. texasgoldrush is an annoying, pretentious twit.

LMAO, take it easy on texas guys :D

If you don't wanna discuss with him, just don't quote him, that's it.

@clone01: he usually is, but in this thread, he's mostly right - save for the cash grab stuff; virtually every sequel is.

God no. DS2 is still better than 99% of games out there but it's definitely the worst DS game. DS3 is amazing imo.

personaly DS1 > BB > DS3 > DeS > DS2

DS3 has some of my favorite bosses in the franchise and some of the hardest aswell (Pontiff Sulyvahn, Abyss Watchers, Twin Princes, Nameless King, Dancer of the Boreal Valley, Soul of Cinder) and the fvckin soundrack is ace *

DS2 was very forgettable to me. Darklurker was the only boss who gave me problems and its only because its a cheap badly designed boss

edit: necro thread?

DS3 is more so than most, because of how much it rehashes elements, feels rushed out the door, and has elements that looks to be cut from Bloodborne.

Games like DS3 make game series go downhill.

The souls series are more than just boss fights. DS2 and especially SOTFS (there are two versions of DS2 that people seem to forget) is overall as a package, better than DS3. DS3 may have better highlight bosses, but that's it.

I found Dark Souls 2 to be much more challenging myself, but I also thought Dark Souls 3 felt really streamlined. Still challenging, but more accessible.

I thought the online was handled better for Dark Souls 3, it was easier to summon teammates to help with bosses. Dark Souls 2 has less people playing, and those that do play it are only there to mess up your day.

When I played each though probably effects my experiences I had with the online. I played Dark Souls 2 just before Dark Souls 3 released and I played Dark Souls 3 right at release. The online wasn't as vibrant then for Dark Souls 2 at the time, and it was my first proper playthrough of a Souls game so difficulty might have been my perception of the learning curve. Never did finish the first game, would like to try again and have it to revisit via BC. Closest I've come to playing through such a game prior was with Lords of the Fallen, it was like a Souls game on training wheels, definitely a nice first step in acquiring a taste for such a games.

Online is terrible outside of getting summons in DS3. For invading, you run into gank squads because somehow they idiotically made it to where only "human" players get invaded unlike anyone could in DS2, so players would summon phantoms for invasions. The covenants suck, and the PvP is unbalanced. Also, they took away the sin system, punitive invasions, and rat style pulls.

DS3 online is a step back in almost every way and the PvP community mostly went back to DS2.

DS2 also has two versions. The SOTFS version has more players than the vanilla version.

haha...He replied on this board when I told him to shut up with the oh so witty reply "why don't you?" He either deleted it realizing it was too infantile even for him, or the mods pulled it. What a piece of work.

The best Dark Souls is what ever one you played first.

Not really, Demon Souls was the first if you count it.

And your the idiot who always tries to "follow" me to troll. Get over it, not shutting up.

@texasgoldrush: WTF are you trying to accomplish? I see you in this thread trying to pass off your poor tastes as reality. DkS II sucks. None of your rambling will make us think otherwise.

DKS3 sucks....get over it, DKS3 drops the ball where DKS2 doesn't. Level design where systems matter, NG+ with actual added difficulty, covenants that matter, good PvP, nonlinearity for most of the game, player defined difficulty, and unique lore.

DKS2 bashers seem to be some of the biggest hypocrites in gaming, because the truth is, where DKS2 struggles, the entire series struggles and DKS3 has everything people hate about DKS2.

@texasgoldrush: I think it is, Dark Souls 2 is my favourite because I played it first.

That first souls experience doesn't get replicated.

Playing your second and third souls games, your prepared and normally deal with it all easier.

I do think Dark Souls 2 is best in the franchise, but I'll admit it's likely because it was my first souls experience

Kid, this thread is a year old and you came back to defend DkSII. Nobody gives a **** of what you think. It's still widely regarded as the worst entry in the series by fans. None of the shit you say will change that. We think it sucks. You spewing your opinion with poor argumentation won't change our minds. You like it? Cool. Good for you. You're just looking like a tool arguing back and forth hollow points with people who clearly don't share your views.

I still stand by my original opinion that Dark Souls 2 is better than Dark Souls 3. Even now I would rather jump back in and replay 2 than 3.

How so? Your magical make believe fanbase?

Get over it, there are so many logical points in areas where DS2 is far better than DS3, and no amount of say from the idiot fanbase will change that. Nevermind there are two versions of DS2 that people seem to forget.

I played DS2 as the third game and Scholar as the fourth. Scholar is the best in the series.

I recently went back to play DS2 with a friend. I immediately wanted to go back to DS3. Lol

@texasgoldrush: this thread is evidence plenty disagree with you.

I agree scholar of first sin is the best, but it's the best because it was my first.

You can't get first souls experience back

@texasgoldrush:

>Act like he doesn't see that the fanbase thinks DkSII is the worst

>Proceeds to call the fanbase idiots

>Doesn't realize he admits he obviously sees the fanbase considers DkSII as the worst because they disagree with him

>Still thinks his "logical" reasons are facts and not just shit he thinks.

Oh look how DkSII is considered by far the worst of the Dark Souls games

https://strawpoll.com/brgc6e1

Almost 9,000 votes.

@texasgoldrush: "You're," not your, pretentious twit. But I get it, if I was an insufferable know it all like yourself, and this was my only means of human contact, I probably wouldn't shut up either.

Self selection poll, second Demon Souls is last place, not Dark Souls II (once again, TWO VERSIONS). Lastly, the poll doesn't didn't ask what the worst game was.

Try again.

1. Demon's Souls is the first entry, is very obscure and sold the least. The games didn't get famous until Dark Souls. We're also talking about the Dark Souls games which Demon's Souls isn't part of.

2. Doesn't matter. Even if you combine the two versions, DkSII is still far and away last.

3. Semantics. DkSII is the least liked game of the series lol, therefore considered the worst. What kind of stupid conclusion is that?

The result is right in your face. You're fighting for a lost cause. DkS>DkSIII>>>>DkSII

Moving the goalposts are we?

1. Demon Souls definitely counts as a Soulsborne game, and Dark Souls is rooted in it. And no, Demon Souls is famous.

2 and 3. Its not semantics, your poll doesn't prove what the worst game in the series is. And self selection polls are highly flawed anyway.

1. Did you see me talking about Bloodborne? No you haven't because Bloodborne isn't part of the Dark Souls series. Doesn't matter if it's a Soulsborne game. It's not part of the trilogy. Just like Demon's Souls isn't.

**** no Demon's Souls isn't famous. It sold a paltry 1.7 million copies compared to DkS which sold 5.6 million and DkSII which sold over 3 million.

2. I argued the fanbase considered DkSII the worst of the Dark Souls games. Who votes in these polls? We got almost 9,000 votes from people who played the games and in the trilogy, DkSII is considered the worst. You're trying to bring down Demon's Souls with it when nobody except for you is talking about it and it is still to this day very obscure and got famous because of Dark Souls.

Edit: I'm not trying to "prove" DkSII is the worst game of the series. I'm trying to prove it is considered the worst by fans. If you think it's the best, more power to you but you're in the minority. It's widely considered the worst.

I really don't see what all the hate regarding Dark Souls 2 was about, then again I played the Scholars of First Sin Edition on my Xbox One, not the version released last gen. But I remember then that people were upset with it. Then again, gamers were on their worst behavior toward the end of last gen, still bad this gen, but seriously they shit on everything great over the existence of one tiny blemish. And it's a total mob mentality.

Why is a seven-month old thread bumped a few days ago?

@onesiphorus: because the zombie apocalypse is imminent.

You are not proving anything. Your poll doesn't even consider what the worst is. That's not the question it asks.

Demon Souls has probably sold more than that as of 2017. And it is a well known game. And sorry Demon Souls and Bloodborne are connected to the Dark Souls series. Hell, DS1 reuses a Demon Souls boss as a normal enemy. They count.

ROFL this is just pathetic. "You are proving 1 is bigger than 0, not that 0 is smaller than 1."

Doesn't matter. They're not part of the same series. The series is clearly defined as DkS. Don't shift the goal posts.

1.7 million was in 2015. How much more do you think an 8 year old game sold in the past two years?

No, it is you shifting the goalposts. First you give me a poll that covers the "Soulsborne" games, second, you drew a conclusion that DS2 is the worst according to fans based off a favorite game in the series poll, erroneously drawing a conclusion from info not provided to you.

Like it or not Demon Souls opened the door for Dark Souls. It won GOTY at Gamespot, for example. Its a well known game. It counts. And many thing s in Dark Souls come from Demons.

@texasgoldrush: This is truly hilarious. Not only are you dense but you're really shifting the goal posts and have been fighting a losing war. I'm through with you. You're a waste of time.

LMAO Dark Souls 3 ahead of Demon's Souls.

There are 3 masterpieces in the series: Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne.

Dark Souls 2 is bastardization of the formula, still a good game but nowhere close the quality of the other 3.

Dark Souls 3 is just a game designed by committee devoid of any soul, as ironically as it sounds.

How about when you site a poll, make sure the information in it actually represents your argument. And once again, self selection polls are mostly useless anyway.

Much like your asinine posts.

To be entirely objective, i think the argument about whether Demon's Souls is better than Dark Souls 2 entirely depends on the chronology in which you play the games. Demon's Souls is a personal favorite for me and many others, but we cannot deny the fact that the game being the pioneer Souls game plays a huge factor.

If we think back about what we liked about Demon's Souls, words like 'innovation' and 'unprecedented atmosphere' come to mind. Unfortunately for Dark Souls 2, 3 and Bloodborne, those two aspects had the 'been there done that' vibe, and all those games could do was improve and improvise.

However, if we asked someone who never played a Souls game to say....play all the games in the series backwards.....like Dark Souls 3, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 2, 1 then finally Demon's Souls.....I wouldn't be surprised that he/she might come to a very different conclusion than most of us. Playing a version with refined mechanics and moving to the ones with less refined mechanics might take a toll on the player.

It's the same analogy as asking some millennial teen to watch The Dark Knight first, then watch Batman 89. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he'd swear that Batman 89 is inferior in all aspects. But if you asked the opinion of someone who was around during 1989, the sentiment will be very different. Without Batman 89, there might not have been The Dark Knight. The whole notion of pioneering and innovation will come in to influence the sentiment.

Terrible analogy, The Dark Knight trilogy is made by Nolan, a infinitely better director than Burton. Demon's Souls is a Miyazaki game, and it shows, despite being older; mechanic refinements are not everything, in fact they're only the tip of the iceberg, Dark Souls 2 is directed by a random guy that doesn't understand or have the competency to make a game of Miyazaki standards, probably no one in the industry does. So even if Demon's Souls is a bit antiquated by now, it's artistic values cannot be compared with some ordinary games like Dark Souls 2 or 3 that were only made because Bandai Namco needs to milk the franchise.

Dark Souls 2 is for jabronis.

So by your logic, Dark Souls 3 is 'objectively' inferior to Demon's Souls irrespective of Miyazaki's involvement solely because the development of Dark Souls 3 was motivated by milkage. How is that different than someone postulating that the 'The Dark Knight' is objectively and unarguably inferior to Batman 89 solely because Warner Bros. wanted to milk the Batman license, which basically takes the capability of the director completely out of the equation?....which obviously you don't agree with?

What you're essentially doing is trying to impose objectivity to something which is subjective; by correlating the capability of the creators in a very selective way while at the same time ignoring it whenever it favours your argument.

Now, I'm not saying that objectivity in how good or bad something is completely doesn't exist. But Dark Souls 2 is by no means a bad game. We're not comparing Demon's Souls to Big Rigs here. But Dark Souls 2 was solid enough of a game that nobody should be able to say that it's the worst Souls game hands down.

I'm not saying that just by looking who made the movies and games, i actually played and watched them. I don't think Dark Souls 2 is the worst Souls game, 3 is imo, it just tries to evoke the greatness of the past games, it has no identity, but both are not in the same league of DeS, DaS and BB, which doesn't mean they're bad games, they're good action games, the problem is that Miyazaki's trilogy are some of the best games of all time.

Masterpiece tier: Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne, basically the games that Miyazaki created.

Good tier: Dark Souls 3, Dark Souls 2 and Nioh.

Average tier: The Surge and Lords of the Fallen.

Demon Souls and Dark Souls are actually far more uneven than Scholar of the First Sin. In fact, the last third of Dark Souls is very unfinished. Demon Souls has some difficulty spikes, poor boss fights, and systems that weren't great. And Dark Souls has some terrible level design and some horrible boss fights. Bloodborne also has this unevenness. Dark Souls has great world design, but boy is that game uneven.

The ONLY Soulsborne game that is mostly even throughout is Scholar of the First Sin (not vanilla DS2). DS2 also has the best character system in the series and the best build variety. Also SOTFS (not DS2 vanilla once again) has the best level design that reacts to your choices.

The Lost Crown Trilogy is the height of the series.

@texasgoldrush said:

Demon Souls and Dark Souls are actually far more uneven than Scholar of the First Sin. In fact, the last third of Dark Souls is very unfinished. Demon Souls has some difficulty spikes, poor boss fights, and systems that weren't great. And Dark Souls has some terrible level design and some horrible boss fights. Bloodborne also has this unevenness. Dark Souls has great world design, but boy is that game uneven.

The ONLY Soulsborne game that is mostly even throughout is Scholar of the First Sin (not vanilla DS2). DS2 also has the best character system in the series and the best build variety. Also SOTFS (not DS2 vanilla once again) has the best level design that reacts to your choices.

The Lost Crown Trilogy is the height of the series.

You sir have no taste. Lore, music, atmosphere, attention to detail means shit to you it seems, the game just need to be a good combat simulator. Try Devil May Cry i guess.

Those mean jack when you want to play the game repeatedly.

I stopped caring about lore and atmosphere when I picked up Dark Souls 1, and I realized that it was basically just cashing in on Demon's souls success. Most of the lore is recycled from demon's souls in one or another way anyway. It makes DkS1's story come off as lame. The game itself though is wonderful.

Dark Souls 2 is the one game that contributed most of the novel advances to the dark souls series, and it did so successfully with style. Even the setting starts out attempting to distance itself from a demons souls carbon copy. 3 deliberately backpedals on some of the design improvements in 2 for some odd reason.

The lore in DS2 and especially Scholar is the best in the series, and actually has a philosophical point unlike say, DS3, and is executed better than DS1.

Dark Souls II, in my view, has 3 major issues.

1. Inflation of boss numbers.
There are simply too many bosses in DS2, to the point where it cheapens the overall experience. Whereas something like the Dragonrider would've been a non-respawning miniboss in DS1, in DS2 he is a boss, and twice at that. Or the Prowling Magus and Congregation. In the other games, just a room filled with enemies, in DS2 a boss. There's some great fights in the game (mostly in the DLCs), like Sinh, Fume Knight, and the Pursuer, but too many bosses are either forgettable and easily killed on the first attempt or just follow the template of a big guy in armor with a big weapon.

2. The healing system.
Lifegems kinda broke the game for me. DS1 had the perfect healing system. You get your set amount of Estus, representing how many mistakes you can make before you have to start over. Simple and efficient. With lifegems, a great amount of tension is removed. Some of my favourite, most memorable moments in all DS1 and DS3 are when I'm nearly out of Estus, far from the bonfire, and I've to decide whether I should keep going and risk my souls or just start over with a filled flask. Venturing further into levels, with barely any health, not knowing where I'm going, just hoping for that next shortcut or bonfire is just an amazing, tense experience. In DS2 there is no such tension, because you have essentially unlimited lifegems which you can use to heal after fights and you save your Estus for battles.

3. Level design.
This can be broken down in three categories of its own.
I) The first is world design, and I know many were disappointed because the world isn't interconnected as DS1's is, but I don't really have that big of a problem with this. Here, my issue is with how nonsensical the world feels. in DS1 a real effort was made to make it all feel like a real place. When you see a location in the distance, that level is actually there; it all fits. DS2 is a mess in this regard, most notably with the infamous ascent from Earthen Peak to Iron Keep. But just think of how the levels connect. Think of how many of the levels are separated by long, lifeless, grey, boring corridors. There's no clever, simple transition like from Duke's Archives to Crystal Cave or from New Londo Ruins to Blighttown via the rickety bridge in the Valley of the Drakes - if these two levels were in DS2, you would come to the end of Blighttown, and there would be a corridor like the one between Heide and Majula, or Majula and Huntsman's Copse, or Majula and Forest of the Fallen Giants, or Huntsman's Copse and Harvest Valley, or Heide's and No Man's Wharf (you get the point), and that corridor would lead to New Londo.

II) Then there is the simple stuff. The micro level design, just the ordinary rooms. In the other Souls games there is so much detail and clutter and the spaces feel lived-in and real. In DS2 so many rooms are, again, just boring grey rectangles. The castles don't feel like castles, the villages like villages, the churches like churches, and so on, because it's all just grey rectangles.

III) Finally, and with the lifegems, this is the big one, the overall design of each level. Simply put, not enough shortcuts, too many bonfires. The levels in no way loop around, they're all more-or-less different shapes of long, linear corridors. Think of Cathedral of the Deep in DS3, how that one bonfire in the chapel is used for the entire, huge level, from the graveyard outside the Cathedral, to the Cathedral rooftops, to the huge interior of the Cathedral. If that level were in DS2, there would be a bonfire after you open the rooftops gate to the interior, and there would be another where you can get kicked down by Patches.


When people say the DLCs "fixed" DS2, the only think they do better then the base game is what I put under 3. III) and most of 1. (but each DLC has one awful boss in it). The lifegems are still there, as is the rest of the level design.



Dark Souls 3 has none of these issues, and it's by far the better game.