Dark Souls 2 SOTFS will always be my favorite because it was my first Souls game. Followed by Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, and then Dark Souls 3. I thought Dark Souls 3 bosses really fell flat for the most part, and while the worlds were good, it was such a linear game.
Dark Souls 2 is better than Dark Souls 3? (potential spoilers for both games)
@texasgoldrush said:
@brenobnfm said:
@jhcho2 said: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.
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
@brenobnfm said:
@Vatusus said:
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
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.
Demon's Souls was actually the first souls game I played and while I loved it I thought it was short and the bosses were, for the most part, uninspired (Phalanx? Armored Spider? Dragon God? Storm King? Pff). Yes DeS was the pioneer but that alone doesnt make it the better game. DS3 had some of the most memorable bosses for me and the more gothic vibe ala Bloodborne was superbly done and that ost is ace. Its my personal preference
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@brenobnfm said:
@jhcho2 said: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.
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@brenobnfm said:
@jhcho2 said: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.
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
Humanoid isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about basically just a tall knight with a normal attacking sword/weapon.
Dark Souls 3 had humanoid bosses, but they either cloned or morphed into a 2nd form, which dramatically changed the fight.
Dark Souls 2 had 3 dragonrider bosses, copied Ornstein from DS1, Veldstadt(which had one stage and was a boring knight), and Prowling Magus and Congregation(which was incredibly boring compared to the Arch Decon fight in DS3)
All of these bosses had only one stage, and were fairly boring in terms of actually fighting. At least all the DS3 bosses(except for the last Gunhdyr fight) had a 2nd stage which was different and surprised you.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@brenobnfm said:
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.
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
Humanoid isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about basically just a tall knight with a normal attacking sword/weapon.
Dark Souls 3 had humanoid bosses, but they either cloned or morphed into a 2nd form, which dramatically changed the fight.
Dark Souls 2 had 3 dragonrider bosses, copied Ornstein from DS1, Veldstadt(which had one stage and was a boring knight), and Prowling Magus and Congregation(which was incredibly boring compared to the Arch Decon fight in DS3)
All of these bosses had only one stage, and were fairly boring in terms of actually fighting. At least all the DS3 bosses(except for the last Gunhdyr fight) had a 2nd stage which was different and surprised you.
Here is a big giant buzzer sound for your comment on Veldstadt. He has two phases to where he powers up halfway through the fight and gains new attacks. Get your facts straight. Prowling Magus is basically a miniboss with a soul payout less than the first boss of the entire game. And sorry, Deacons of the Deep is a ripoff of not only that fight, but Royal Rat Vanguard. DS3 bosses have copy paste attacks from other Souls games, outside of a few bosses like the Dancer or the Nameless King. And oh boy the DLC is bad at this.
Another buzzer sound for claiming all DS2 bosses have one stage. The Executioners Chariot says hi. DS2 has more bosses with second phases than DS1 did.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
Humanoid isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about basically just a tall knight with a normal attacking sword/weapon.
Dark Souls 3 had humanoid bosses, but they either cloned or morphed into a 2nd form, which dramatically changed the fight.
Dark Souls 2 had 3 dragonrider bosses, copied Ornstein from DS1, Veldstadt(which had one stage and was a boring knight), and Prowling Magus and Congregation(which was incredibly boring compared to the Arch Decon fight in DS3)
All of these bosses had only one stage, and were fairly boring in terms of actually fighting. At least all the DS3 bosses(except for the last Gunhdyr fight) had a 2nd stage which was different and surprised you.
Here is a big giant buzzer sound for your comment on Veldstadt. He has two phases to where he powers up halfway through the fight and gains new attacks. Get your facts straight. Prowling Magus is basically a miniboss with a soul payout less than the first boss of the entire game. And sorry, Deacons of the Deep is a ripoff of not only that fight, but Royal Rat Vanguard. DS3 bosses have copy paste attacks from other Souls games, outside of a few bosses like the Dancer or the Nameless King. And oh boy the DLC is bad at this.
Another buzzer sound for claiming all DS2 bosses have one stage. The Executioners Chariot says hi. DS2 has more bosses with second phases than DS1 did.
You should try reading again, I said "these bosses", not all bosses. And not all the bosses are bad in DS2, it only had more than a few boring knight bosses with no tricks. Some bosses were decent in DS2, not saying all of them were bad; I'm simply saying DS3 had more interesting bosses.
Also, counting Veldstadt's spell as a form shift is incredibly lame.
So here's a giant buzzer for you, because that's not really nerdy to say at all. Lol But continue to get defensive, and putting words in my mouth.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
It's consistent because every 2nd boss is a knight in Dark Souls 2. ;) Bleeding originality from all wounds.
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
Humanoid isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about basically just a tall knight with a normal attacking sword/weapon.
Dark Souls 3 had humanoid bosses, but they either cloned or morphed into a 2nd form, which dramatically changed the fight.
Dark Souls 2 had 3 dragonrider bosses, copied Ornstein from DS1, Veldstadt(which had one stage and was a boring knight), and Prowling Magus and Congregation(which was incredibly boring compared to the Arch Decon fight in DS3)
All of these bosses had only one stage, and were fairly boring in terms of actually fighting. At least all the DS3 bosses(except for the last Gunhdyr fight) had a 2nd stage which was different and surprised you.
Here is a big giant buzzer sound for your comment on Veldstadt. He has two phases to where he powers up halfway through the fight and gains new attacks. Get your facts straight. Prowling Magus is basically a miniboss with a soul payout less than the first boss of the entire game. And sorry, Deacons of the Deep is a ripoff of not only that fight, but Royal Rat Vanguard. DS3 bosses have copy paste attacks from other Souls games, outside of a few bosses like the Dancer or the Nameless King. And oh boy the DLC is bad at this.
Another buzzer sound for claiming all DS2 bosses have one stage. The Executioners Chariot says hi. DS2 has more bosses with second phases than DS1 did.
You should try reading again, I said "these bosses", not all bosses. And not all the bosses are bad in DS2, it only had more than a few boring knight bosses with no tricks. Some bosses were decent in DS2, not saying all of them were bad; I'm simply saying DS3 had more interesting bosses.
Also, counting Veldstadt's spell as a form shift is incredibly lame.
So here's a giant buzzer for you, because that's not really nerdy to say at all. Lol But continue to get defensive, and putting words in my mouth.
DS3 bosses are however once again, patchworks of other Soulsborne bosses and that cannot be denied. There is very little originality to them outside maybe the Dancer. At least many DS2 bosses are more original. And DS3 absolutely fails in its gimmick fights. DS3 bosses really aren't that interesting either outside a couple fights.
Veldstadt's spell changes the fight, it counts.
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
And DS3 isn't guilty of this? Knight bosses now with flaming swords!!!!
DS3 actually has more humanoid bosses percentagewise than DS2. Nevermind that almost every DS3 boss is a mishmash of prior bosses in the series.
Humanoid isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about basically just a tall knight with a normal attacking sword/weapon.
Dark Souls 3 had humanoid bosses, but they either cloned or morphed into a 2nd form, which dramatically changed the fight.
Dark Souls 2 had 3 dragonrider bosses, copied Ornstein from DS1, Veldstadt(which had one stage and was a boring knight), and Prowling Magus and Congregation(which was incredibly boring compared to the Arch Decon fight in DS3)
All of these bosses had only one stage, and were fairly boring in terms of actually fighting. At least all the DS3 bosses(except for the last Gunhdyr fight) had a 2nd stage which was different and surprised you.
Here is a big giant buzzer sound for your comment on Veldstadt. He has two phases to where he powers up halfway through the fight and gains new attacks. Get your facts straight. Prowling Magus is basically a miniboss with a soul payout less than the first boss of the entire game. And sorry, Deacons of the Deep is a ripoff of not only that fight, but Royal Rat Vanguard. DS3 bosses have copy paste attacks from other Souls games, outside of a few bosses like the Dancer or the Nameless King. And oh boy the DLC is bad at this.
Another buzzer sound for claiming all DS2 bosses have one stage. The Executioners Chariot says hi. DS2 has more bosses with second phases than DS1 did.
You should try reading again, I said "these bosses", not all bosses. And not all the bosses are bad in DS2, it only had more than a few boring knight bosses with no tricks. Some bosses were decent in DS2, not saying all of them were bad; I'm simply saying DS3 had more interesting bosses.
Also, counting Veldstadt's spell as a form shift is incredibly lame.
So here's a giant buzzer for you, because that's not really nerdy to say at all. Lol But continue to get defensive, and putting words in my mouth.
DS3 bosses are however once again, patchworks of other Soulsborne bosses and that cannot be denied. There is very little originality to them outside maybe the Dancer. At least many DS2 bosses are more original. And DS3 absolutely fails in its gimmick fights. DS3 bosses really aren't that interesting either outside a couple fights.
Veldstadt's spell changes the fight, it counts.
It's like a little kid crying that his opinions don't count as facts. Okay, man. You continue to think DS2 bosses are more interesting. We'll agree to disagree.
@DragonfireXZ95: Keep enjoying the mediocrity than. DS3 is in the same boat you claim DS2 to be in. And once again, at least most of DS2's bosses are more original than DS3's, despite many being knight bosses. Keep whining all you want about knight bosses and being a hypocrite, as DS3 has more than their fair share.
Also doesn't change that DS3 is overall a linear experience that shows that the series is tired, with dumbed down gameplay, lack of balance, and poor meaningless lore.
DS3 is a type of game that kills series in the long run, but at least FROM Soft has the sense to shelve the franchise for awhile.
@vixalazio said:
@texasgoldrush: You are the definition of a smelly overly-obsessed virgin loser, no doubt :D
No, I just want the series to actually be good, instead of being dumbed down like DS3.
Well it's good to see @texasgoldrush's being wrong streak continues.
You're at least consistent.
I haven't played DS3, but in the past 3 months, I managed to finish DS1 and then DS2: SotFS edition.
DS1 and it's DLC were ridiculously better than SotFS' "Hey, let's just add a shitload of trash enemies and recycle a bunch of old characters as bosses and call it a day."
The sunken king's DLC was decent (barring the lazy "ganksquad" gauntlet).
Crown of the old iron king's "Lol, mult-tiered gauntlet." was annoying and again a phoned in addition.
Crown of the ivory king's near infinite flying electric antlered horse rape in whiteout conditions was indefensible lazy trash. I really think they were just taking the piss out of the fans at this point. There was no actual craftmanship, just a big middle finger to the fanbase with a "pay me, bitch" hand extended.
I'm not saying DS2: SotFS is a bad game, it's likely better than the original DS2; if only for its hamfisted attempt at expanding the lore, but DS1's DLC felt cohesive and made sense without resorting to, "Oh, so you all like a challenge, eh? Well deal with all these assholes and some recycled dumbasses who are now bosses all at once, tough guy!"
DkS1 is still my favorite. I liked 2 but the soul memory mechanic ruined the online fight clubs that made the first game so much fun. I played the third once and uninstalled, It was just old by that point...nothing bad about it I remember in particular.
Edit: I played mostly for the online duels...and I was that asshat in the undead parish with maxed out pyromancy 1-shotting new people and trolled sens fortress with the force miracle. Good times.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment