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

Avatar image for putaspongeon
#51 Posted by PutASpongeOn (4897 posts) -

Nope:

1) Better gameplay

2) Better bosses (dark souls 2 is literally just a bunch of knight bosses)

3) Better level design

Just those 3 things alone put it leaps and bounds above dark souls.

We get it, you are a hipster who wants to hate on the more actiony bloodborne style, but honestly, that's how most skilled players played dark souls anyway, with iframe dodging.

Avatar image for thehig1
#52 Posted by thehig1 (7355 posts) -

@drummerdave9099 said:

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.

That's the beauty of dark souls, boss dofflcutly is subjective to the player and the class they have chosen to build. One boss may have given you endless troubles, were as another player might have beaten that boss first time, and vice versa.

@silversix_ said:

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

Bloodbourne is laggy, it runs at 30fps sometimes below that depending Whats going on screen.

With Dark souls games being in PC too there not laggy with the dsfix.

Alow Dark Souls 2 scholar of first sin runs perfect, easy the best game for how smooth it runs.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#53 Posted by jg4xchamp (61799 posts) -

No, because the combat is probably the worst in the series when it comes to Dark Souls 2, the level design is without question the worst of the bunch, and whatever "the bosses are uninspired" totally translates to Dark Souls 2, in fact it is worse in that regard since basically every dude in armor boss is basically the Purseur, with looking glass knight being the only one that has a neato gimmick (summoning from his shield). Dark Souls 3 is overly straight forward at times and is way too much of a circle jerk for its own good, but it's actively more enjoyable to play.

The lords of cinder themselves are an actual joy to fight, and the enemy designs were flat out more interesting, without ever resorting to lazy shit like the turtle enemies or those big black knights that basically never break their stamina. Dark Souls 2 may be more of its own game, but the core gameplay loop is compromised for large stretches.

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

@thehig1 said:
Bloodbourne is laggy, it runs at 30fps sometimes below that depending Whats going on screen.

Have you played Bloodborne? There are a few frame drops but on the whole it was much smoother than any title in the DS series.

Avatar image for thehig1
#55 Posted by thehig1 (7355 posts) -

@skektek: dark souls pc is 60fps

Bloodbourne is 30fps

Dark souls is smoother

That's how I see it anyway

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#57 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25509 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:
@mems_1224 said:

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

2 played like absolute garbage

Why though? What makes 3 better than 2?

Boss design is better than 2. World design is better than 2. Weapons have more special move sets than in 2. Many more weapons are actually viable in 2. Online play works much better. Password system for co-oping with friends. Obscurity is more prevalent, and more interesting than 2. Enemy design is better than 2.

I am not commenting on the lore, as I have not finished the game yet.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#58 Edited by lamprey263 (36209 posts) -

I really don't get all the shit talking of Dark Souls 2, then again I never played it on last gen consoles but the Scholar of First Sin version on current gen consoles was great. Anyhow, I don't have any issues with Dark Souls 3 either, the game is going through the rounds of finding and fixing bugs, working on balancing issues, and they'll likely add more content to it in form of new areas, bosses, weapons, armor, rings, etc. Right now, it's simply more Souls is how I see it. As for lore, story, covenants, I never followed that crap, didn't really think anybody else did either. If someone is going to nerd out about that, then you deserve a big fat wedgie.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#59 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25509 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

I really don't get all the shit talking of Dark Souls 2, then again I never played it on last gen consoles but the Scholar of First Sin version on current gen consoles was great. Anyhow, I don't have any issues with Dark Souls 3 either, the game is going through the rounds of finding and fixing bugs, working on balancing issues, and they'll likely add more content to it in form of new areas, bosses, weapons, armor, rings, etc. Right now, it's simply more Souls is how I see it.

2 is not a bad game. It just wasn't that great of a game. It's still a good game that I would recommend people play if they already played all of the other Souls games.

Avatar image for commander
#60 Edited by commander (15379 posts) -

@_Matt_ @Blabadon@Alucard_Prime@acp_45

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@lamprey263 said:

I really don't get all the shit talking of Dark Souls 2, then again I never played it on last gen consoles but the Scholar of First Sin version on current gen consoles was great. Anyhow, I don't have any issues with Dark Souls 3 either, the game is going through the rounds of finding and fixing bugs, working on balancing issues, and they'll likely add more content to it in form of new areas, bosses, weapons, armor, rings, etc. Right now, it's simply more Souls is how I see it.

2 is not a bad game. It just wasn't that great of a game. It's still a good game that I would recommend people play if they already played all of the other Souls games.

I haven't played sholar of the first sin, I played the normal version because I played the game at release. I watched videos from scholar of the first sin, it doesn't seem to look all that better but even then the technical side was really not the problem with this game.

For me it was the artwork and gameplay, type of enemies and lore in general, some say they like ds2 better, other's like ds1 better. Ds was by far the better game and bloodborne kinda sits in the midlle, I wore the stone armor in ds1 , had a large shield and weapon. Also had some magic spells.

So while bloodborne is piece of art, i still prefer the type of gameplay of the dark souls games, but if some people here say that ds2 is better than ds3, then I'm glad I haven't bough it yet. My question is this do you think ds2 is better than ds1 as well, and why do you think that.... Even a better question would be, is dark souls 3 like dark souls 1, because then that would be great (for me)

I'm planning to get the pc version, so I won't be able to sell it, still got ds2 as well maybe I should give it another chance... because the bloodborne style of play, imo, gets old fast. It kinda misses the whole rpg factor , if your character is always a speedy character no matter how you choose to customize your character.

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

@commander: IF you enjoyed DS1, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy DS3. I really like both. DS2 is great, but after over 100 hours in DS1 and finishing the game on my own without any outside help, not to mention dying a shitload of times.....it was a very fullfilling, yet agonizing experience at the same time. This experience kind of Dampened the effect of DS2, but DS3 is just amazing I'm finding for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Avatar image for ten_pints
#62 Posted by Ten_Pints (3908 posts) -

The one concept in dark souls II which they should have expanded on with the other games was the ability to change boss fights. Some of the boss fights you could you could change by doing things outside the boss room and some of the bosses would even fight you on the level. They should have added a puzzle element to it or just stuff to troll you.

A boss room with traps would be funny.

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

Dark Souls 2 was a good game but nowhere near any other Souls or Souls like titles from FROM. The slower combat is not what the game needed. Rated T was dumb in a souls game, gore fits the series perfectly. Almost every world (not all, tho. i did enjoyed many in that game) felt *alright* and nothing else. Enemies design was weak af *again, compared to the others in the series+BB+Demon's*. PVP was a clusterfuck with the stupid ass soul memory and the worst hitboxes seen in a video game *btw, they're still shit in dark souls 3...*. Did i enjoy the game? F*ck yes. I'd give it a 9/10. But that's as low as it gets when it comes to dark, demon's and BB.

Avatar image for waahahah
#64 Posted by waahahah (2462 posts) -
@Basinboy said:
  • 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.

I feel like you haven't played much of this game. It's more linear than the first but there are many shortcuts, and it's designed so you're constantly descending from lothric. It's a reasonably designed world as well, unlike ds2 where you look up at a windmill that is standing alone, only to find an elevator at the top of it to bring you to a castle in a volcano...

I'm not sure I'm willing to write off the lore just yet. The first game established the curse and age of dark/fire. The second game established that both are part of the cycle so it doesn't matter what you choose. I haven't really gotten a deep undestanding of the third game yet. I find it interesting though that many of the demons are petrified, and in the smouldering lake areas you see piles of demons.

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

@mems_1224 said:

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

2 played like absolute garbage

mems ?

Be Honest, how much are you enjoying DS 3? Happy about your purchase or regretting it? :)

Avatar image for Basinboy
#66 Edited by Basinboy (13930 posts) -

@waahahah: I've played the entire game at this point, excluding NG+ and covenant PvP activities (beat Soul of Cinder this evening). There are flavors of the labyrinthian design of the first DS but when you kill a boss, get a bonfire, then emerge on the other side to immediately find another bonfire waiting for you, you see the creases in the template FromSoft was using. And the path up until Irithyll is squarely in the drab portion of the color spectrum, which does it no favors.

DS3 does do a better job at providing branching paths than DS2, but thematically many of the areas are underwhelming. It hopefully will improve once the DLC is released, which did wonders for DS2 as a whole.

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

@indzman: it's a good game, just like the first

Avatar image for waahahah
#68 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@Basinboy said:

@waahahah: I've played the entire game at this point, excluding NG+ and covenant PvP activities (beat Soul of Cinder this evening). There are flavors of the labyrinthian design of the first DS but when you kill a boss, get a bonfire, then emerge on the other side to immediately find another bonfire waiting for you, you see the creases in the template FromSoft was using. And the path up until Irithyll is squarely in the drab portion of the color spectrum, which does it no favors.

DS3 does do a better job at providing branching paths than DS2, but thematically many of the areas are underwhelming. It hopefully will improve once the DLC is released, which did wonders for DS2 as a whole.

The problem with ds2 is it wasn't thematic it was a lot of cool concepts stitched together. Which is why I think ds3 works better, its a better designed world and more consistent along with spacial awareness. I love the fact that you can see the firelink shrine from the first game when crossing from anor londo to the catacombs. I also don't see a problem with the more drab feeling in the earlier areas as you're starting out in an undead villiage... which should be kind of drab. Irithyll is the one place that didn't fit, because you generally have snow at higher elevations... not lower. Thematicly I fealt it was great, you start in a grave at the top in lothric castle and slowly descend. You enter the undead villiage, to a swamp in faron keep, to catacombs which empties out into that basin Irithyll is located. You can look up and see the castle and cathedral of the deep.

I don't think an immediate bonfire soon after a boss was all that bad. Ds2 had bonfires all over the place, right next to and after bosses without any real rhyme or reason. The bonfires after bosses I felt like they were explicitly to get you out of the boss area, so dieing wouldn't return you there over and over again. More than likely bosses weren't intended to have bonfires like the first but were added in later. They definitely didn't follow ds2 with placement though.

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

@mems_1224 said:

@indzman: it's a good game, just like the first

:)

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#70 Posted by texasgoldrush (12936 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.

In fact, the Pilgrims of the Dark return as a questline that affects an ending.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#71 Posted by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@putaspongeon said:

Nope:

1) Better gameplay

2) Better bosses (dark souls 2 is literally just a bunch of knight bosses)

3) Better level design

Just those 3 things alone put it leaps and bounds above dark souls.

We get it, you are a hipster who wants to hate on the more actiony bloodborne style, but honestly, that's how most skilled players played dark souls anyway, with iframe dodging.

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Avatar image for DocSanchez
#72 Posted by DocSanchez (5339 posts) -

They are both much of a muchness. Neither is vastly better than the other. There are pluses and minuses. I did like in 2 how you could clear an area so the enemies stopped coming back. I didn't like how your health severely diminished every time you died making it harder. I'm taking three slow to get the most out of it but I still preferred the locations last game. Still, minor gripes, the games are a similar thrill.

Avatar image for DocSanchez
#73 Posted by DocSanchez (5339 posts) -

Oh, and given it's a sequel how can referencing previous games be "fan service"? Come on.

In Castlevania, is it fan service if they reference the Belmont family?

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#74 Posted by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

Dark Souls 2 was a good game but nowhere near any other Souls or Souls like titles from FROM. The slower combat is not what the game needed. Rated T was dumb in a souls game, gore fits the series perfectly. Almost every world (not all, tho. i did enjoyed many in that game) felt *alright* and nothing else. Enemies design was weak af *again, compared to the others in the series+BB+Demon's*. PVP was a clusterfuck with the stupid ass soul memory and the worst hitboxes seen in a video game *btw, they're still shit in dark souls 3...*. Did i enjoy the game? F*ck yes. I'd give it a 9/10. But that's as low as it gets when it comes to dark, demon's and BB.

For T rated game, DS2 sure was the darkest and most oppressive in the series. And really the blood in DS3 looks stupid, like undeads would not bleed that much.

DS2's enemy designs were better than DS1. DS2's had more attacks than DS1's enemies on average (but 3 beats both)

DS3's PVP and covenant system is far worse, and DS3 has major camera issues that DS2 did not have.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#75 Posted by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@waahahah said:
@Basinboy said:

@waahahah: I've played the entire game at this point, excluding NG+ and covenant PvP activities (beat Soul of Cinder this evening). There are flavors of the labyrinthian design of the first DS but when you kill a boss, get a bonfire, then emerge on the other side to immediately find another bonfire waiting for you, you see the creases in the template FromSoft was using. And the path up until Irithyll is squarely in the drab portion of the color spectrum, which does it no favors.

DS3 does do a better job at providing branching paths than DS2, but thematically many of the areas are underwhelming. It hopefully will improve once the DLC is released, which did wonders for DS2 as a whole.

The problem with ds2 is it wasn't thematic it was a lot of cool concepts stitched together. Which is why I think ds3 works better, its a better designed world and more consistent along with spacial awareness. I love the fact that you can see the firelink shrine from the first game when crossing from anor londo to the catacombs. I also don't see a problem with the more drab feeling in the earlier areas as you're starting out in an undead villiage... which should be kind of drab. Irithyll is the one place that didn't fit, because you generally have snow at higher elevations... not lower. Thematicly I fealt it was great, you start in a grave at the top in lothric castle and slowly descend. You enter the undead villiage, to a swamp in faron keep, to catacombs which empties out into that basin Irithyll is located. You can look up and see the castle and cathedral of the deep.

I don't think an immediate bonfire soon after a boss was all that bad. Ds2 had bonfires all over the place, right next to and after bosses without any real rhyme or reason. The bonfires after bosses I felt like they were explicitly to get you out of the boss area, so dieing wouldn't return you there over and over again. More than likely bosses weren't intended to have bonfires like the first but were added in later. They definitely didn't follow ds2 with placement though.

DS2 lets you see the next areas as well. You can see the Tower of Flame, the Forest of the Fallen Giants, the Shaded Woods, and Drangelic Castle from Majula. For the Tower of Flame area, you can see the Lost Bastille.

The problem with DS3 is that all the areas are rehash's of the first game. That's the problem. It lacks creativity, it plays it safe. DS2 on the other hand, has areas unique to the series.

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

@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:

Dark Souls 2 was a good game but nowhere near any other Souls or Souls like titles from FROM. The slower combat is not what the game needed. Rated T was dumb in a souls game, gore fits the series perfectly. Almost every world (not all, tho. i did enjoyed many in that game) felt *alright* and nothing else. Enemies design was weak af *again, compared to the others in the series+BB+Demon's*. PVP was a clusterfuck with the stupid ass soul memory and the worst hitboxes seen in a video game *btw, they're still shit in dark souls 3...*. Did i enjoy the game? F*ck yes. I'd give it a 9/10. But that's as low as it gets when it comes to dark, demon's and BB.

For T rated game, DS2 sure was the darkest and most oppressive in the series. And really the blood in DS3 looks stupid, like undeads would not bleed that much.

DS2's enemy designs were better than DS1. DS2's had more attacks than DS1's enemies on average (but 3 beats both)

DS3's PVP and covenant system is far worse, and DS3 has major camera issues that DS2 did not have.

ds3 has shitty camera, yes. Don't agree on anything else. DS3 pvp is amazing. I stopped progressing through the game cuz pvp is just so damn good and eats all my time.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#77 Posted by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@silversix_ said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@silversix_ said:

Dark Souls 2 was a good game but nowhere near any other Souls or Souls like titles from FROM. The slower combat is not what the game needed. Rated T was dumb in a souls game, gore fits the series perfectly. Almost every world (not all, tho. i did enjoyed many in that game) felt *alright* and nothing else. Enemies design was weak af *again, compared to the others in the series+BB+Demon's*. PVP was a clusterfuck with the stupid ass soul memory and the worst hitboxes seen in a video game *btw, they're still shit in dark souls 3...*. Did i enjoy the game? F*ck yes. I'd give it a 9/10. But that's as low as it gets when it comes to dark, demon's and BB.

For T rated game, DS2 sure was the darkest and most oppressive in the series. And really the blood in DS3 looks stupid, like undeads would not bleed that much.

DS2's enemy designs were better than DS1. DS2's had more attacks than DS1's enemies on average (but 3 beats both)

DS3's PVP and covenant system is far worse, and DS3 has major camera issues that DS2 did not have.

ds3 has shitty camera, yes. Don't agree on anything else. DS3 pvp is amazing. I stopped progressing through the game cuz pvp is just so damn good and eats all my time.

Its not as good as DS2, and the covenants are crap in DS3. Hell, the Blue Sentinels are useless once you unlock the Darkmoon. No arenas, the mad cult is stupid, and they turn required areas into places like the optional belfrys in DS2. No more punitive invasions with blue spirits either. And going back to invasions on "human" form is stupid.

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

@texasgoldrush: I don't know about you, but i've been waiting since Demon's Souls to do 1v3+ constantly. I don't care how good or bad the covenants are. All i want is to invade and annoy the flying **** of the host lmao. Arena was fun for ~5h in dark souls 2. Fight clubs or random invasions is where its at *for me*.

Avatar image for putaspongeon
#79 Posted by PutASpongeOn (4897 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:

Nope:

1) Better gameplay

2) Better bosses (dark souls 2 is literally just a bunch of knight bosses)

3) Better level design

Just those 3 things alone put it leaps and bounds above dark souls.

We get it, you are a hipster who wants to hate on the more actiony bloodborne style, but honestly, that's how most skilled players played dark souls anyway, with iframe dodging.

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#80 Posted by with_teeth26 (9625 posts) -

finished the game tonight, overall had a great time with it though I still think the second half was a bit weaker than the first. Still some good areas later on though like Lothric Castle and some parts of the Great Archive, especially the leadup to the boss fight in that area. I liked it more than Bloodborne overall since I really lost interest in that game after Rom The Spider or whatever that boss was called. DS3, like DS1, I enjoyed all the way through.

So pertaining to the topic, no, its definitely not worse than DS2

toughest boss fights for me were the Boreal Dancer and the Abyss Watchers though I never did find the Nameless King. I actually found some of the mini bosses gave me a harder time than the actual ones.

Some jerk invaded me right before the final boss, I whupped him good before my blue sentinel friends could show up.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#81 Posted by jg4xchamp (61799 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

Oh, and given it's a sequel how can referencing previous games be "fan service"? Come on.

In Castlevania, is it fan service if they reference the Belmont family?

Mentioning things is one thing, making me retread areas or entire gameplay scenarios to go "remember how fun this was in the old game" is lame as shit.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#82 Edited by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:

Nope:

1) Better gameplay

2) Better bosses (dark souls 2 is literally just a bunch of knight bosses)

3) Better level design

Just those 3 things alone put it leaps and bounds above dark souls.

We get it, you are a hipster who wants to hate on the more actiony bloodborne style, but honestly, that's how most skilled players played dark souls anyway, with iframe dodging.

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

Avatar image for putaspongeon
#83 Posted by PutASpongeOn (4897 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:

Nope:

1) Better gameplay

2) Better bosses (dark souls 2 is literally just a bunch of knight bosses)

3) Better level design

Just those 3 things alone put it leaps and bounds above dark souls.

We get it, you are a hipster who wants to hate on the more actiony bloodborne style, but honestly, that's how most skilled players played dark souls anyway, with iframe dodging.

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

The "knight" is being used very weirdly from you. Those characters are all different, you can't really call stuff like Dancer the knight architype. The point is that dark souls 2 is full of a bunch of giant knights with similar combat styles.

Avatar image for dakur
#84 Posted by Dakur (3275 posts) -

I liked Demon's Souls more than Dark Souls but that's as far as I've gotten with the series.

Avatar image for skelly34
#85 Posted by Skelly34 (2353 posts) -

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#86 Edited by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

The "knight" is being used very weirdly from you. Those characters are all different, you can't really call stuff like Dancer the knight architype. The point is that dark souls 2 is full of a bunch of giant knights with similar combat styles.

And in DS2, the knight bosses all fight differently. Second, due to the setting of DS2, having knight bosses is appropriate. In fact, wearing the equipment of one knight will anger another.

Many DS3 bosses are the humanoid archetype. The Dancer is actually one of the few more original bosses. Well, DS2 had them too.

And really DS3 bosses are even less original than DS2. You got Vordt, the Kings Pet, The Royal Deacons of the Vanguard, the Pinwheel Sage, the Lost Watcher, Pontiff Fume Knight, the Old Taurus Demon King, and Yhorm, the Giant Lord. Hell even the Princes take from the Throne Watcher and Defender.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#87 Posted by Vaasman (13868 posts) -

You know what this site really needs is a downvoting system.

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

@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:

and DS3 wasn't full of knight bosses? No, DS3 is that the bosses have flaming SWORDS!!!! Wow, variety.

The level design is no where near the quality of The Lost Crowns either.

And the online gameplay sucks compared to DS2.

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

The "knight" is being used very weirdly from you. Those characters are all different, you can't really call stuff like Dancer the knight architype. The point is that dark souls 2 is full of a bunch of giant knights with similar combat styles.

And in DS2, the knight bosses all fight differently. Second, due to the setting of DS2, having knight bosses is appropriate. In fact, wearing the equipment of one knight will anger another.

Many DS3 bosses are the humanoid archetype. The Dancer is actually one of the few more original bosses. Well, DS2 had them too.

And really DS3 bosses are even less original than DS2. You got Vordt, the Kings Pet, The Royal Deacons of the Vanguard, the Pinwheel Sage, the Lost Watcher, Pontiff Fume Knight, the Old Taurus Demon King, and Yhorm, the Giant Lord. Hell even the Princes take from the Throne Watcher and Defender.

It's very simple and easy for me.

I like DSIII more than DSII.

You can continue your rant.

But I just can't seem to agree with you.

Most of the things you go on about doesn't convince at all.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#89 Edited by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:

Glad you haven't played dark souls 3 yet and likely won't, makes this easier.

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

The "knight" is being used very weirdly from you. Those characters are all different, you can't really call stuff like Dancer the knight architype. The point is that dark souls 2 is full of a bunch of giant knights with similar combat styles.

And in DS2, the knight bosses all fight differently. Second, due to the setting of DS2, having knight bosses is appropriate. In fact, wearing the equipment of one knight will anger another.

Many DS3 bosses are the humanoid archetype. The Dancer is actually one of the few more original bosses. Well, DS2 had them too.

And really DS3 bosses are even less original than DS2. You got Vordt, the Kings Pet, The Royal Deacons of the Vanguard, the Pinwheel Sage, the Lost Watcher, Pontiff Fume Knight, the Old Taurus Demon King, and Yhorm, the Giant Lord. Hell even the Princes take from the Throne Watcher and Defender.

It's very simple and easy for me.

I like DSIII more than DSII.

You can continue your rant.

But I just can't seem to agree with you.

Most of the things you go on about doesn't convince at all.

Don't be a hypocrite about it. DS3 suffers the same things fans accuse DS2 of having.

And really, DS3 will have less of an impact than any other Soulsborne game.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#90 Posted by Juub1990 (8720 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: And here I was waiting for you to come defend DkS II again. We think it sucks. Got that through your head?

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#91 Edited by texasgoldrush (12936 posts) -

@Juub1990 said:

@texasgoldrush: And here I was waiting for you to come defend DkS II again. We think it sucks. Got that through your head?

and yet at least it has its own identity, DS3 doesn't.

DS3 will go down as the game that wore out the formula. It will not stand the test of time.

Funny how DS2 was better reviewed than DS3.

Avatar image for legendofsense
#92 Posted by legendofsense (317 posts) -

Dark Souls 2 for me is a love hate relationship. Hated how fast weapons degrade even post patch. Environment looked so washed out. Pursuer Knight? Really? Fighting him one time was cool. Fighting him again and again without any point got realllly old. This being said, still enjoyed a lot of the bosses even though Fume Knight raised my blood pressure to unhealthy levels. I think its true as someone said, your FIRST souls game is always going to be the most special. For me, Demon's Souls was that game. Would even buy a remastered version if it ever came out. Loving DS3 too!

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

@texasgoldrush said:
@acp_45 said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@putaspongeon said:
@texasgoldrush said:

I just whipped the Nameless King....and got the Dark Soul achievement, so I have played DS3.

Its just not as good as DS2.

Flaming Sword bosses: Abyss Watchers, Pontiff, Yhorm, Aldrich (well a spear), Dancer, Lorian, and the final boss. And that's why I use a Black Iron Greatshield.

The "knight" is being used very weirdly from you. Those characters are all different, you can't really call stuff like Dancer the knight architype. The point is that dark souls 2 is full of a bunch of giant knights with similar combat styles.

And in DS2, the knight bosses all fight differently. Second, due to the setting of DS2, having knight bosses is appropriate. In fact, wearing the equipment of one knight will anger another.

Many DS3 bosses are the humanoid archetype. The Dancer is actually one of the few more original bosses. Well, DS2 had them too.

And really DS3 bosses are even less original than DS2. You got Vordt, the Kings Pet, The Royal Deacons of the Vanguard, the Pinwheel Sage, the Lost Watcher, Pontiff Fume Knight, the Old Taurus Demon King, and Yhorm, the Giant Lord. Hell even the Princes take from the Throne Watcher and Defender.

It's very simple and easy for me.

I like DSIII more than DSII.

You can continue your rant.

But I just can't seem to agree with you.

Most of the things you go on about doesn't convince at all.

Don't be a hypocrite about it. DS3 suffers the same things fans accuse DS2 of having.

And really, DS3 will have less of an impact than any other Soulsborne game.

Ok. I'm not going to write a wall of text to prove to you why I like DSIII over DSII because I'm very sure it won't change your view whastoever. It's my subjective experience too, so I can't really force it onto people. If you liked DSII more or it's you favourite Souls game then fine. DSII wasn't a bad game and it never will be. I just like DSIII more than DSII at the moment.

I always go back to the previous games on a yearly basis....and I'm very sure that, from what I've played so far, DSIII might just be better than DS. IMO obviously.

Avatar image for smok3scr3en
#94 Edited by SMOK3SCR3EN (11 posts) -

@_Matt_: I know im a little late to this board but Ive spent the last 2 months playing dark souls 3 multiple times and enjoyed every minute. Polished gameplay, great mechanics amazing story, etc;, my freinds convinced me dark souls 2 was better so I bought it to play with them I am enjoying the game still but I am haveing nowhere near the same amount of enjoyment in ds2 that I had in ds3. I understand it's a graphical jump down but the mechanics feel sloppy to me where as ds3 just felt smooth. The difficulty isn't a problem it's Harder than ds3 that's for sure but that's not what is making ds3 a better game. The covenants work well being able to switch on the fly is a blessing , in dark souls 3 many areas connect together in a way that works well i know where I've been and what is left to go thru, in dark souls 2 I question every step I take whether or not I should be there already or if I've missed and optional boss fight, so maybe dark souls 3 is streamlined for more access but it still feels like the better game and story IMO

Avatar image for smok3scr3en
#95 Posted by SMOK3SCR3EN (11 posts) -

@indzman: I don't want to sound like a dick cuz you seem to like that fight but that was the worst boss or npc fight I've ever seen in a souls game, he went back and forth on a ramp that was it, the boss wasn't even a boss

Avatar image for thehig1
#96 Posted by thehig1 (7355 posts) -

@smok3scr3en: was dark souls 3 your first souls game?

Normally a person's first souls game is there favourite, its hard to recreate hat feeling when you first immeserse your self into a souls game because for future titles you know what to expect and are more prepared.

Avatar image for smok3scr3en
#97 Edited by SMOK3SCR3EN (11 posts) -

@thehig1: No in fact Dark Souls 1 was my first Dark Souls game I didn't beat it but I got through most of half of the game but I had to give the game back to my friend I bought Dark Souls 3 recently and beat it

Avatar image for clone01
#98 Posted by clone01 (27548 posts) -

Eh, I like 3 better. Just the environments, a good central hub, and I really did find DS2 was kind of cryptic. Maybe that's just me though.

Avatar image for robokill
#99 Edited by robokill (1392 posts) -

I'm with OP, but way more. I hated Dark Souls 3. I played through and beat every Souls he but 3. 3 I returned to GameSpot for MGS5 out of disgust before finishing it. Dark Souls 3 is a joke of a game, it's garbage. **** that cash grab of a game, it's insultingly bad.

You keep saying it played well... no it didn't, the gameplay was dogshit. They forced in mechanics from Bloodborne that ruined it.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#100 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (29247 posts) -

@_Matt_: Having recently finished Dark Souls, I ordered SOTF. I was a bit weary of this after hearing so much bad stuff about Dark Souls II on Youtube. The scores are a stark contrast between critics and fans. Knowing that Dark Souls 3 borrows heavily from Blood Borne I decided it was best to play DSII next. Get in as much traditional soul's play before the series gives in to the fast players who roll around like crazy.

Here's to the sword and shield!

Also I have to add, I got into Demon's Souls when it first released. Loved it before the dark souls phenomenon ever occurred. Even then, I would say Dark Souls is the superior game. That level design is the stuff of gaming legend.