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

Avatar image for _Matt_
#1 Posted by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

Ok, before I get hate, I just want to start by saying I have not yet completed Dark Souls 3 (probably at about 65% through, just reached Anor Londo , and I am so far really enjoying it, this is by no means a hate thread.

With that out of the way, and with what I have so far played of DS3, I am actually inclined to say I feel DS2 is better in a lot ways.

For starters, whilst I'm not 'disappointed' per say in DS3, it definitely at times feels a little lazy, especially when compared to how much DS2 clearly tries to push the franchise forwards.

One such example is covenants. Back in the day in Dark Souls 1, there were 9 covenants, each representing a different moral alignment.

While they had different stances, the way you went about the covenants themselves changed very little - they were all purely based around either summoning or invading, and ranking up by doing X number of them. In the day this was fine, but now in 2016 we have DS3 which has covenants (to what I have discovered so far) almost identical to this; nearly all covenants from what I understand in DS3 once again rely on either invading or being summoned.

This would be fine, but then look at DS2. DS2 clearly tried to push covenants forwards. In DS2 not only do you have the summon and invasion covenants, but you also have a covenant dedicated to the hardcore players, which makes the game not only harder, but also removes the ability to summon allies and makes you more likely to be invaded. Another covenant is dedicated to conquering whole new dungeons inaccessible to others that acts as its own questline.

Not laziness as such this time, but another reason I feel DS3 falls short of DS2 is that it has maybe too much 'fan service'.

Don't get me wrong, I love a little fan service, but DS3 is just screaming "Hey look how much I am like Dark Souls 1 and nothing like Dark Souls 2!" I mean everything from painting of Dark Souls 1 characters, to a large chunk of Anor Londo appearing, to complete armour sets and references to Dark Souls 1. We get it, Dark Souls 1 is often praised more than Dark Souls 2, but making every possible reference to Dark Souls 1 and making people forget about Dark Souls 2 won't make Dark Souls 3 any better! It feels almost like they're trying to ride of DS1 glory, as if they can't create it again themselves so they have to remind people of it!

My next point is depth. Dark Souls 3 feels like a compromise in depth of mechanics compared with previous Souls games.

Dark Souls has always encouraged experimentation. Experimentation with builds, playstyle, equipment, covenants, etc. etc. While this is still true in Dark Souls 3, it feels somewhat less deep than Dark Souls 2. Suddenly encumbrance is almost a non issue. Where there used to be fast-medium-heavy rolls depending on your encumbrance, now there is only fast and slow, with the cut off being 70% encumbrance. This means that you barely need to even consider your equipment for you to be able to roll quickly, and there is very little in terms of penalisation for those wearing heavier armour. This removes some possibilies in terms of builds, what's the point in wearing the lightest armour if you're not even going to be able to roll faster than those wearing medium weight armour?

Along with this, Dark Souls 3 seems to have stripped a few of the weapon types that were available in Dark Souls 2. Where are the lances? Lances in Dark Souls 2 were maybe not the most common weapon types, but darn were they fun to use; and in a Souls game it feels important to offer options.

Finally, identity. Dark Souls 3 feels like a bastard child of Demon's Souls, all of Dark Souls, and Bloodborne all in one.

While it is good they tried to use the best features, it seems to make Dark Souls 3 have a bit of an identity crisis. As mentioned previously, the game mechanics seem to have been stripped in complexity a bit, similar to how Bloodborne was a bit more shallow to allow more people access.

At the same time though the atmosphere and art direction just no longer seem to match. Maybe this is just to do with the Bloodborne engine, but all the time I've been playing it so far the atmosphere just 'feels' far more like Demon's Souls, but 'looks' straight out of Bloodborne, what is even going on?

So all of this has made me come to realise just how great Dark Souls 2 actually is. Dark Souls 2 usually gets all the criticism, but it could be that some of that criticism is simply that Dark Souls is not and could never be Dark Souls 1; and this could be why Dark Souls 3 decided to be so similar to Dark Souls 1, backstepping over some of the advancements found in Dark Souls 2.

What are your thoughts? Is Dark Souls 2 actually better than Dark Souls 3, or am I just a madman?

As I said earlier in the thread, I am still enjoying Dark Souls 3 immensley, in fact the combat, which I haven't touched upon here is easily the best and most polished in the series; but just something has been nagging me about this game since I started playing.

TL;DR:

Dark Souls 2 feels like a more advanced and developed game than Dark Souls 3, with a clear identity of what it is and with great depth and longevity that are partially stripped from Dark Souls 3. Come at me (sun)bro.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#2 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -

3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2

2 played like absolute garbage

Avatar image for charizard1605
#3 Posted by charizard1605 (82718 posts) -

I have not yet played Dark Souls 3 (or really, much of any Dark Souls game), but from what I am getting from a quick skim, it appears there are two issues at play here:

  • The success of Bloodborne seems to have led to some sort of streamlining to Dark Souls, which seems to be a departure from what I understand was a dizzying array of options available to the player in the previous two games
  • The poor player reception of Dark Souls II seems to have led From to overcompensate in the other direction, meaning not only have they retconned Dark Souls II out of the lore and story as much as they can, they have also filled the game with far too many overt references to the first game, and they have tried to not take anything from Dark Souls II- including some of the genuine mechanical improvements that it brought with it to the table

I may be wrong, of course- my total playtime across all Souls games (not counting Bloodborne here, naturally) is less than what would be needed to complete one of them. But that is the impression I seem to get from reading the OP.

Avatar image for Blabadon
#4 Posted by Blabadon (33030 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

  • The poor player reception of Dark Souls II seems to have led From to overcompensate in the other direction, meaning not only have they retconned Dark Souls II out of the lore and story as much as they can, they have also filled the game with far too many overt references to the first game, and they have tried to not take anything from Dark Souls II- including some of the genuine mechanical improvements that it brought with it to the table

Nope.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#5 Posted by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

@Blabadon said:
@charizard1605 said:
  • The poor player reception of Dark Souls II seems to have led From to overcompensate in the other direction, meaning not only have they retconned Dark Souls II out of the lore and story as much as they can, they have also filled the game with far too many overt references to the first game, and they have tried to not take anything from Dark Souls II- including some of the genuine mechanical improvements that it brought with it to the table

Nope.

Care to elaborate sir?

Avatar image for _Matt_
#6 Edited by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2

2 played like absolute garbage

Why though? What makes 3 better than 2?

Avatar image for skektek
#7 Edited by skektek (6501 posts) -

No Virginia, DS2 is not better than DS3.

From performs a lot of tweaking and calibration to balance the play. You are comparing a mature title that has had 3 DLCs and even a re-release to. Even considering that DS3 is a still better.

One of your complaints about covenants is that DS2 had a "hardcore" covenant (Company of Champions). The problem is that the benefit of this covenant is negated by OP unlimited use items that remove most of the challenge (Aged Feather and Ring of Life Protection), not to mention unlimited Life Candy.

You have no room to complain about art direction. DS2 was a complete mess. It was a fragmented world where one area didn't flow organically into another. "Hey, look at me. I'm in a poison swamp. Let's take an elevator up from the top of a windmill to the bottom of a volcano, Hur de durr." In DS3 you can see where you have been and where you are going. There are legitimate landmarks. This level of coherence is rare in DS2, and generally only hinted at in skyboxes. The Lost Crowns levels (the best areas in the game) are entirely detached from the rest of the DS2 world.

Avatar image for thehig1
#8 Posted by thehig1 (7332 posts) -

@_Matt_: I agree, I have completed dark souls 2 and played scholar of first sin up to aldias keep.

Im just past the abyss watchers in dark souls 3, so I might he around half way.

I like dark souls 2 better so far pretty much the reasons you gave.

I was late to get into souls games, I tried dark souls 1 after dark souls 2 and couldn't get into, the game felt to rough and the frame rate being awful made it unplayable. The game nearly stopped during the asylum demon fight.

Avatar image for Litchie
#9 Edited by Litchie (24154 posts) -

I wish I had played DS2 enough to comment on that. I'm at least 50% through DS3 right now, and I really get much of what you're saying. I've played but not finished DS1, and there really is lots of fan service in DS3. It hasn't really annoyed me, but I can imagine it does to others.

Interesting read about the covenants, something I didn't know about DS2 either. And the depth. I personally think there seems to be a shitload of depth in DS3, but I can't compare it to DS2 as I haven't played it enough.

I guess since DS2 and 3 are supposed to be good games, it comes down to which one you like the level design and enemies from the most. I've heard some people complain about the gameplay in DS2, like the first reply you got in this thread. Personally, I thought it was great in DS1 so I'm not sure about that one..

All I know is that DS3 has been pretty awesome so far.

Avatar image for ten_pints
#10 Posted by Ten_Pints (3880 posts) -

A lot of people take a shit on Dark Souls 2, I thought it was just as good as the first one and graphically a step ahead as well.

The only minor complaint was that the areas didn't really seem to flow well into each other, but that was kinda explained by time in the game being messed up. Things you looked at in the distance were not exactly right and the distance between locations were shorter than they should have been, and some locations like the Iron Keep made no sense at all.

The way Bloodborne is done is best, everything interconnects and what you see you can walk the full distance to get to. Not played DS3 yet, still trying to finish BB.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#11 Posted by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

@skektek said:

No Virginia, DS2 is not better than DS3.

From performs a lot of tweaking and calibration to balance the play. You are comparing a mature title that has had 3 DLCs and even a re-release to. Even considering that DS3 is a still better.

One of your complaints about covenants is that DS2 had a "hardcore" covenant (Company of Champions). The problem is that the benefit of this covenant is negated by OP unlimited use items that remove most of the challenge (Aged Feather and Ring of Life Protection), not to mention unlimited Life Candy.

You have no room to complain about art direction. DS2 was a complete mess. It was a fragmented world where one area didn't flow organically into another. "Hey, look at me. I'm in a poison swamp. Let's take an elevator up from the top of a windmill to the bottom of a volcano, Hur de durr." In DS3 you can see where you have been and where you are going. There are legitimate landmarks. This level of coherence is rare in DS2, and generally only hinted at in skyboxes. The Lost Crowns levels (the best areas in the game) are entirely detached from the rest of the DS2 world.

I don't really take issue with the tweaking and calibration, that's a non issue anyway, there's nothing technically flawed with DS3.

These OP unlimited use items aren't exactly easy to get hold of, and nor do they remove the time it takes to heal which can be just as much the problem when getting slaughtered. But that aside, it was still a great covenant idea for those who wanted to take the game a step further. And the dark covenant with their individual dungeons was cool too; so my point still stands that the covenants in DS2 are more interesting and varied.

And I agree, the World design in DS2 is flawed, to the point where that is easily the game's biggest flaw - areas did not logically connect up and it really brought me out of the game immersion wise. The levels themselves though in DS2 were great if you ignore the interconnectivity. While I agree the interconnectivity is important, I would also say it's not the be all end all, and would rather have many varied environments and less connected (Dark Souls 2) than less varied environments and more connected (Dark Souls 3)

My argument though in DS3 was with the art design, not the World design. The visuals themselves just don't quite match up to what I would expect from a Souls game. The architecture just looks like it was copy pasta'd from Bloodborne, and the colour palette is a bit more muted than Souls like in Bloodborne. But then the soundtrack feels more at home in Demon's Souls.

Avatar image for Blabadon
#12 Posted by Blabadon (33030 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:
@Blabadon said:
@charizard1605 said:
  • The poor player reception of Dark Souls II seems to have led From to overcompensate in the other direction, meaning not only have they retconned Dark Souls II out of the lore and story as much as they can, they have also filled the game with far too many overt references to the first game, and they have tried to not take anything from Dark Souls II- including some of the genuine mechanical improvements that it brought with it to the table

Nope.

Care to elaborate sir?

Dark Souls 2 wasn't retconned out of the lore at all - there's quite a few references to it here - and there are plenty of QoL changes that come over from DS2, including the 70% encumbrance barrier.

Avatar image for _Matt_
#13 Posted by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@_Matt_: I agree, I have completed dark souls 2 and played scholar of first sin up to aldias keep.

Im just past the abyss watchers in dark souls 3, so I might he around half way.

I like dark souls 2 better so far pretty much the reasons you gave.

I was late to get into souls games, I tried dark souls 1 after dark souls 2 and couldn't get into, the game felt to rough and the frame rate being awful made it unplayable. The game nearly stopped during the asylum demon fight.

I was pretty early into Souls games, and I do love them all, but just so far it seems DS2 is better.

@Litchie said:

I wish I had played DS2 enough to comment on that. I'm at least 50% through DS3 right now, and I really get much of what you're saying. I've played but not finished DS1, and there really is lots of fan service in DS3. It hasn't really annoyed me, but I can imagine it does to others.

Interesting read about the covenants, something I didn't know about DS2 either. And the depth. I personally think there seems to be a shitload of depth in DS3, but I can't compare it to DS2 as I haven't played it enough.

I guess since DS2 and 3 are supposed to be good games, it comes down to which one you like the level design and enemies from the most. I've heard some people complain about the gameplay in DS2, like the first reply you got in this thread. Personally, I thought it was great in DS1 so I'm not sure about that one..

All I know is that DS3 has been pretty awesome so far.

Don't get me wrong, there is still a load of depth to Dark Souls 3, it just feels somewhat streamlined when looked at side by side with Dark Souls 2 and even to an extent, Dark Souls 1.

And yes, I would agree that DS3 is definitely pretty awesome :)

Avatar image for _Matt_
#14 Posted by _Matt_ (10493 posts) -

@Blabadon said:
@_Matt_ said:
@Blabadon said:
@charizard1605 said:
  • The poor player reception of Dark Souls II seems to have led From to overcompensate in the other direction, meaning not only have they retconned Dark Souls II out of the lore and story as much as they can, they have also filled the game with far too many overt references to the first game, and they have tried to not take anything from Dark Souls II- including some of the genuine mechanical improvements that it brought with it to the table

Nope.

Care to elaborate sir?

Dark Souls 2 wasn't retconned out of the lore at all - there's quite a few references to it here - and there are plenty of QoL changes that come over from DS2, including the 70% encumbrance barrier.

While the 70% encumbrance does exist in DS2, it does also have more depth to it. For instance when below about 50% encumbrance in DS2, your stamina also recovers faster. From what I can tell this is not a thing in DS3. Not to mention that love it or hate it, adaptability in DS2 gave options for those that liked to take advantage of rolling rather than blocking which provided more depth and flexibility.

Avatar image for sts106mat
#15 Posted by sts106mat (24889 posts) -

haven't played 2 because i could not get far enough into 1.

Loving dark souls 3 though.

Avatar image for EvanTheGamer
#16 Posted by EvanTheGamer (1531 posts) -

I prefer DS2 because its the one I started with and played the most.

DS3 is really cool but plays too much like BloodBorn and so far they really made the magic and projectile weapons really weak which blows big.

So my opinion right now is that DS3 plays faster and has a better story but DS2 has better gameplay and weaponry. Plus you can't upgrade armor in DS3, lame. Pyromancy Flame in DS2 upgrades with Fire Seeds which is good while in DS3 it takes titanite which is weird and not as cool. Upgrading in general is more expensive and less efficient in DS3.

There's lots of other things I could mention but won't since this isn't a review. Overall, DS2 is a better experience but DS3 is still AAA in it's own right and worth playing.

Avatar image for pyro1245
#17 Posted by pyro1245 (5167 posts) -

I loved DS2. They could have kept all DS2 mechanics except for the adaptability and I would have been happy.

DS3 does seem like a step backwards as far as the mechanics. The level design of DS3 is pretty great though, waaay better than DS2.

I haven't finished 3 yet. I hope there is a significant amount of end game material. I loved how DS2 added lots of extra enemies and items in NG+.

Also they removed powerstancing?.... saddness.... I hope there is a dual demon's great hammer weapon somewhere. I also liked the way you could level up the bonfires in DS2....

DS2 had it down when it came to replayability and versatility. I hope DS3 holds up.

Avatar image for Alucard_Prime
#18 Edited by Alucard_Prime (10107 posts) -

I only got to the Gutter Area in DS2 SSin edition. I couldn't bring myself to finish the game before DS3, and the main reason for that is I just felt it was an inferior experience to DS1.

Areas were not as memorable I felt, tons of platforming in some areas, which the first game also had but I don't know I just felt a little underwhelmed while playing it. It felt like very similar to DS1 except it added very little to distinguish itself.

DS3, on the other hand, immediately felt better the moment I started playing it. The gameplay feels tighter overall and the overall art design just stood out more. Also, the enemy variety just seems better in DS3.

The differences may not be huge on paper, but for me DS3 felt a lot better and fresher overall than DS2. I still enjoyed my time with DS2, but once I got to the gutter with so much platforming to do I felt like taking a break so I wouldn't be too burnt out by the time ds3 came out . Certainly I feel very compelled to keep playing ds3, at the swamp area now and loving it.

Avatar image for SecretPolice
#19 Edited by SecretPolice (35358 posts) -

Demons Souls 3 or 5 hmm, tallest midget contest? lol :P

My son is a huge fan and tells me DS 5 is the best.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6
#20 Posted by deactivated-5a44ec138c1e6 (2638 posts) -

I don't really feel the same but I understand what you are getting at. I guess you're saying that DS3's identity is faded or neglected because it's trying to constantly reference to or give the player fan-service instead of something new or fresh. But to me these games need to be and stay the same. If they don't then they become something else. There's no room for the level of evolution one would expect from one game to it's sequel in the Souls games. Dark Souls II did feel like it was trying to move away from it's predecessors. Some would obviously think it's a good thing..others not so much. I didn't know what to think at the time since I was really enjoying my time with Dark Souls II regardless of the motives behind its design choices. Yes, it didn't feel as memorable all round as Dark Souls was.....but I really like the feel of the Souls games and Dark Souls II definitely still had it in full throttle.

A problem I picked up with Dark Souls II after replaying Dark Souls and Bloodborne....is that the weapon choices kind of drowns the player....I found a good analogy somewhere the other day: It had a kitchen-sink feel.

But Dark Souls III:

I feel like this game is actually "difficult" again. Dark Souls II was close to something of a breeze in comparison to Dark Souls. Bloodborne was also a tougher cookie than Dark Souls II was.

I guess it's true that these games can't make it's formula feel fresh....but at the same time I feel like Dark Souls and Bloodborne wasn't trying to update it's formula or move away from it's predecessors, like Dark Souls II did. The same is Dark Souls III now. It's just kind of drenching itself in the "overused" formula that dates back to Demon Souls. This might sound lazy or have a direct connotation to something like "rinse repeat" similar negatives but I never actually have a problem with it...in fact it's exactly what I want. Another game that gives me hundreds of hours to play in a dark world where I quench my masochistic cravings. Yes please. These games should just give us what it knows we want. There shouldn't be any distancing from previous games... This is how I feel.

Because of all this... Dark Souls II, while not being a bad game at all, just isn't as good as the others.

Avatar image for drummerdave9099
#21 Posted by drummerdave9099 (4139 posts) -

So far Dark Souls 2 SOTFS is the only game in the franchise I've played. Loved it. I will surely get to the other games at some point in the next 20 years lol.

Dark Souls 2 had great variety. I really didn't mind that the areas didn't "connect well," they all stood out from eachother and nearly all of them are quite memorable. I'd say my biggest gripe was the boss difficulty seemed like a roller coaster ride, rather than each one getting progressively difficult.

Avatar image for silversix_
#22 Posted by silversix_ (26347 posts) -

No. 3 is on par with BB and that was much better than DkS2. Other than atrocious hitboxes (i don't understand thing one. In BB they were almost perfect and the game wasn't laggy at all *the only Souls like title without lags*). Now we're back with lag as if this was a Dark Souls feature lmao. But god damn is the pvp nice in this

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#23 Edited by uninspiredcup (34429 posts) -

Dark Soul 2's expansion content was great.

Avatar image for Fairmonkey
#24 Posted by Fairmonkey (1472 posts) -

Dark souls 2 was 5hit and i have no desire to replay it. The world design and enemy design was completely half assed. Dark souls 3 is better in every way at this

Avatar image for darklight4
#25 Posted by darklight4 (2092 posts) -

The weapon degradation in DS2 stopped me from finishing the game.

DS3 feels a lot better it's less sluggish more like BB's combat which I prefer.

The covenants I like how you can switch on the fly so if I'm doing co op I go sunbro. If I invade I switch to mound makers or Rosarias fingers.

Aquiring enemy weapon/armour is easier too although some like to hold onto their stuff like the silver knights who won't drop their weapons for me.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#26 Posted by with_teeth26 (9594 posts) -

I think the TC's criticism is valid but DS2 just had worse level design and encounter design and lacked imagination. DS3 is more atmospheric and more fun to play imo. It also lacks imagination in some areas and just falls back to aping previous games, but it at least does a good job of aping them.

I also think the way upgrading weapons works, and how straightforward it is to get special items/weapons from boss souls, is the best of any Souls game

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#27 Posted by freedomfreak (51243 posts) -

I really didn't like Dark Souls 2. And I hated the way the combat felt. Like hitting tree trunks made out of weird jello.

And I don't mind Dark Souls 3 doing a lot of references. We've had 3 Souls games, so I think it's fine to reference some stuff, but it can be oh so blatant at times.

Dark Souls 2 felt like they just shoved a whole lot of nothing into one game. Just look at some of the bosses in it. Downright weird and unecessary.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#28 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

In some ways I actually think Dark souls 2 had better level design, It definitely had larger areas for sure. It's really strange that DS3 is a game built for current gen yet it feels like a stepback technically in a lot of ways.

DS3 plays A lot better than DS2 tho, DS2 was layered with so many bullshit systems like a seperate stat that increased your invincibility frames when rolling, fucking seriously that was stupid.

I think I might give DS2's expansions a try I never played them.

I really kind of wish they would of just went full Demons Souls with the level design, instead of having interconnected areas which to be honest aren't very well done, this is DS2 tier at best I wish we would of just got wildly different areas.

Also this is a strange complaint but did Bonfires feel way more frequent in this game than past titles in the series? I swear most areas especially the ones later on you can walk 2 or 3 rooms and there's already another bonfire. It kind of kills the sense of risk.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#29 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

Although magic and miracles is woefully underpowered in this game compared to 2. I know in 2 Dark was especially powerful but here everythings been nerfed to shit including heavy weapons.

Dex or a quality build is just so strong this time around since Poise isn't an issue.

Avatar image for indzman
#30 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

Avatar image for Shmiity
#31 Edited by Shmiity (6279 posts) -

My only gripes with DS3: Having a central hub NPC to level up is so tedious, just let us do it at bonfires. You also cant upgrade armor. It really lowers the mathematical strategy I put into the souls games. I guess my overall complaint is that recalling Demon Souls features that were inferior to Dark Souls was a bad idea. In DE souls you couldnt upgrade armor, and there was a central NPC to level up. These were trashed in Dark Souls 1- and worked far better. I become frustrated with Miyazaki's tendency to go back to Demon Souls. It was a nice start but Dark Souls 1 is far better.

Also- DS2 plays like total shit compared to the other souls games. The level design is horrendous, and it totally missed what it means to be a dark souls game. Dark Souls is not about being hard or dying over and over again, it's about exploration, loneliness, and discovery. DS2 missed this big time. (Lowering max health on death, obnoxious enemy damage, same-y boss design throughout, etc)

DS3 has very deep NPC and sidequests, far better level design and enemy balancing, and stronger boss design.

BTW 70% weight limit before fat rolling was a DS2 implementation.

Avatar image for skektek
#32 Posted by skektek (6501 posts) -

@SecretPolice said:

Demons Souls 3 or 5 hmm, tallest midget contest? lol :P

My son is a huge fan and tells me DS 5 is the best.

You should try picking up a controller and playing a game some day. You may like it.

Avatar image for charizard1605
#33 Posted by charizard1605 (82718 posts) -

@indzman said:

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Avatar image for howmakewood
#34 Posted by Howmakewood (5955 posts) -

DS2 combat is the worst out of the series that alone makes DS3 superior game

Avatar image for indzman
#35 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Avatar image for charizard1605
#36 Posted by charizard1605 (82718 posts) -

@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

Avatar image for silversix_
#37 Posted by silversix_ (26347 posts) -

I have finally received some hatemail, my life is complete. Spiked Mace did good in da pvp'z lol

Avatar image for indzman
#38 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

Avatar image for charizard1605
#39 Posted by charizard1605 (82718 posts) -

@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles,

DEMON SOULS > BLOODBORNE > DARK SOULS > DARK SOULS 3 > DARK SOULS II

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

I know, and I've never once said I have, I've made it very clear in all my posts in this thread that I haven't played any Souls game, and I have not purported to hold an opinion on any of those games, as I have not played them, and having an opinion on them would be dishonest.

Avatar image for indzman
#40 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:

But you haven't even played Bloodborne?

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

I know, and I've never once said I have, I've made it very clear in all my posts in this thread that I haven't played any Souls game, and I have not purported to hold an opinion on any of those games, as I have not played them, and having an opinion on them would be dishonest.

I know, I only missed BLOODBRNE. As i said i put Bloodborne from forming a opinion from user reviews , gameplay vids. But since you insists games which i personally never played i shouldn't rate also, i'll go with you:

Then Demon Souls > Dark Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls II.

:)

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#41 Posted by freedomfreak (51243 posts) -

demon's best tho for real

Avatar image for indzman
#42 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:

demon's best tho for real

This level design, music and boss fight ( Garl Vinland and Maiden Astraea_ alone make Demons Souls at NO 1 position XD. Sooo Epic and sad at same time lol .

Loading Video...

Avatar image for charizard1605
#43 Posted by charizard1605 (82718 posts) -

@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

Seen plenty user reviews from online and freinds, Bloodborne is rated 2nd best after Demons Souls :)

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

I know, and I've never once said I have, I've made it very clear in all my posts in this thread that I haven't played any Souls game, and I have not purported to hold an opinion on any of those games, as I have not played them, and having an opinion on them would be dishonest.

I know, I only missed BLOODBRNE. As i said i put Bloodborne from forming a opinion from user reviews , gameplay vids. But since you insists games which i personally never played i shouldn't rate also, i'll go with you:

Then Demon Souls > Dark Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls II.

:)

Far better :P

I want to play Demon's Souls, but dredging out that PS3 fills me with more dread than an average Souls playthrough...

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#44 Posted by freedomfreak (51243 posts) -

@indzman: Yeah, Astraea is by far my favorite boss in the franchise. Only boss I gave a darn about. It was just so cool.

Avatar image for indzman
#45 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:

Okay, but you can't just rank any game over other games that you have played unless you play it yourself. Right now, your rankings are a bit suspicious, given that the Sony exclusives seem to be prioritized over other games- including Dark Souls, which even I know is widely considered to be the best game out of all the Soulsborne ones.

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

I know, and I've never once said I have, I've made it very clear in all my posts in this thread that I haven't played any Souls game, and I have not purported to hold an opinion on any of those games, as I have not played them, and having an opinion on them would be dishonest.

I know, I only missed BLOODBRNE. As i said i put Bloodborne from forming a opinion from user reviews , gameplay vids. But since you insists games which i personally never played i shouldn't rate also, i'll go with you:

Then Demon Souls > Dark Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls II.

:)

Far better :P

I want to play Demon's Souls, but dredging out that PS3 fills me with more dread than an average Souls playthrough...

Chaz , i doubt you will get into Demons or Dark 1 and II now since your starting game was Bloodborne. You may want fast paced combat after Bloodborne , might get bored with other games slower combat.You just can't go wrong with Demons Souls 3. Get Dark Souls 3 next :)

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#46 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:
@charizard1605 said:
@indzman said:

I stand corrected on Souls games from my own opinion as i played all the souls. Demons is the best as it started it all, Dark Souls comes next as world and gameplay was much improved upon Demons Souls, Dark Souls 3 as it got mix of all souls/ bloodborne game, Dark Souls II coming last :)

BTW Chaz, you haven't played any souls games also HeHe

I know, and I've never once said I have, I've made it very clear in all my posts in this thread that I haven't played any Souls game, and I have not purported to hold an opinion on any of those games, as I have not played them, and having an opinion on them would be dishonest.

I know, I only missed BLOODBRNE. As i said i put Bloodborne from forming a opinion from user reviews , gameplay vids. But since you insists games which i personally never played i shouldn't rate also, i'll go with you:

Then Demon Souls > Dark Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls II.

:)

Far better :P

I want to play Demon's Souls, but dredging out that PS3 fills me with more dread than an average Souls playthrough...

Demons is def the best game in the series. Probably because Miyazaki wasn't under any pressure to perform and conform to trends and had the freedom to just make the game he wanted to make with his A team.

Also my fave lore next to Dark souls 1.

Avatar image for indzman
#47 Edited by indzman (27735 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:

@indzman: Yeah, Astraea is by far my favorite boss in the franchise. Only boss I gave a darn about. It was just so cool.

I cried. Protagonist was Harsh :(

Avatar image for indzman
#48 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

Also Dark Souls 3 DLC's are yet to release , knowing how FROM makes awesome DLC's ( They even made DS 2 DLC's more fun than Vanilla game) , it will own DS 2 easily again lol.

Avatar image for Basinboy
#49 Posted by Basinboy (13919 posts) -

I had a similar thought last night as I was cleaning up the remaining optional areas with only Soul of Cinder remaining. But looking back, I was nowhere near as enthused about DS2 until it received its DLC expansions, and I have difficulty assessing it since there are now two iterations (DS2 Vanilla and SOTFS).

I'll give DS3 some time to simmer before I make a final conclusion but it's a mixed bag for me. Summary of my thoughts are bulleted below (some unmarked spoilers FYI):

  • Most glaring issue is back-to-back bonfires as you transition from one area to another. Very reminiscent of DS2 design and indicative that zones were built in isolation from one another. Also, progression from one area to another is still more like DS2 (i.e. linear) than DS, though some zones are exceptions (Archdragon Peak is a damn triumph). DS3 is more like DS2 while BB is more like DS, in terms of level design.
  • Boss and enemy designs, generally, lack variety and leave me wanting. Other than Nameless King and the 3 Lords of Cinder fights, the other creatures feel lackluster compared to the bosses in other entries. I'm still chewing on the bosses from DS2, since the base game likewise has a lot of uninspiring designs (though the DLC took some compelling strides in rectifying that complaint).
  • I've been quite letdown by the lore to this point, though it's because I'm still unwrapping it all (plus I still need to see the various endings). I blame, primarily, the NPCs, though I missed several on my playthrough. I'll reserve judgment for the time being but the lore and environmental storytelling is a step down from where the series has been, even in DS2 (though lore always hits its peak in the DLC for these games, IMO).
  • The addition of critical arts has been, generally, not as impactful as I had hoped. Perhaps it will once I begin to delve into PvP more, but for the most part I just ignored used Ashen Estus and FP moves in favor of maxing out my stamina and two-handing weapons with the highest DPS.
  • I didn't mind using Firelink Shrine as a hub (or the hub-mentality generally), but I still think DS handles leveling up (and bonfires) the best of all the games.
  • Overall, the evolving objectives the series has given the player are absent in DS3. For example, in DS, your initial objective is to Ring the Bells, then to retrieve the Lord Vessel, then to collect the Lord Souls, and then proceed to supplant Gwyn and link the fire or usher in the age of dark. In DS2, you are tasked with lighting the primal bonfires, then with pursuing Vendrick and understanding why he chose to not link the fire, and then with supplanting him on the Throne of Want or discarding the throne in favor of seeking a separate future (possessing the crowns of the 3 kings). With DS3, all you have to do is return the Lords of Cinder to their thrones by force, then you are transported to the final boss arena. It's far less compelling, comparatively, and the narrative never seems to evolve because there are no objectives that coincide with it. A misstep, in my estimation.

My criticisms are not so pointed that you should think I dislike DS3. I very much enjoy the game: it plays great and successfully recreates the same feeling of risk/reward that its predecessors possessed. But comparatively, I find the game is far less in scope than every other game in the franchise, which is unfortunate. Since there are two major DLC packs incoming in the future, I am optimistic the game will be elevated to the god-like tier of its brethren, since each game in the franchise has been significantly improved by the additional content releases.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#50 Edited by Vaasman (13817 posts) -

I really need to get off system wars, you people are just ridiculous.