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

PvP is king in DS2, people are flocking back to it because DS3's PvP is forever absolutely broken.

And the souls fans are not the smartest tools in the shed. SOFTS is the best Soulsborne game overall, and has the best level design (not world design though, DS1 wins there). And the storytelling is tops, Aldia adds such a new dimension to the game's storytelling.

DS1's level design isn't great, especially the second half. Don't confuse it with world design, in which the first game did well. DS2 levels are more dynamic and have more factors to deal with than DS1 or DS3, especially its DLC.

And DS2 actually has a real NG+, unlike DS1 and DS3.

But the Covenants in DS3 are worse. Yes, you can flip them on a fly, but in what they do, they are a step down. And two covenants do one thing...lame. And DS2 had better covenant "culture".

DS2 is slower because of equip load, the more you wear the slower you go and it does that in intervals. In DS3, you have the 70% rule, if you are under it, you aren't weighted. This breaks the game and makes DS3 much easier than past games.

DS3 is disgustingly linear. Its the most linear Soulsbourne game. And NG+ in DS3 sucks.

Your friends are right, DS2 is better.

I agree about the late game areas in DS. You're also right about the difference between world design and level design. The four lord soul stages in DS are gimmicky and betray the game's first half. 1. Can't see a thing in the dark! 2. Invisible floors! 3. Hope you know what to do with this ring rofl! 4. Lava Level with not one, not two, not three, but FOUR terrible boss battles!

Thank goodness for Artorias of the Abyss DLC.

DS2, and especially SOTFS, is closest to passing the "Ultima Underworld" test in the series with its level design.

And on contrast, the later areas in DS2 are stronger than they are in DS1. Aldia's Keep is an excellent level in where its only as hard as you make it, and you have choices here that can even effect the game.

DS3 is a HUGE step back in level design. The problem wit h fans is that they think that good level design mostly has to do with shortcuts and "spiral" level design, not how the levels actually play.

DAT NOSTALGIA THO!

Those world connecting moments are so cool they sort of steal the show. We all remember that elevator ride to firelink shrine. A moment we try to relive again and again in souls games.

DS1 never had a moment where dragons get mad at you for breaking their eggs. They would break the bridge while you were on it, killing you. That's what I am talking about what DS2 does well.

Hell, DS2 lets you relive a battle in the past.

Goes to show that DS1 had world design but DS2 had level design.

You have me excited to take the plunge into dark souls 2.

@Bread_or_Decide:

I was like, this sh*t again? Then I realized it was the same thread from months ago. Then I went to the last page, and texasgoldrush galore...

You regurgitate this same stupid comment in every Soulsborne related thread. Please find some new material.

if we are talking about covenants classes dark souls 2 > 3

but game wise 3 > 2

Way to prove the point tool.

No it isn't.

DS3's gameplay is unbalanced and broken, favoring greatshields with straight swords or katanas over every other class, magic is broken on both sides, poison is useless, the world design is linear (even Miyazaki admits it), NG+ is a joke, and the lore is the worst in the series. Also levels are less dynamic than they were in DS2 and areas of past games are recycled.

DS3 is a rush out cash in.

a typo....whoopdie doo.

Mmm, not really a typo when you do it every time you refer to the game.

Anyways, I'm just messin with ya man. Personally I think Scholars of first The Sin is pretty cool.

ok...

SOTFS is like Thief Gold, its makes a great game better.

With that version DS2 (and the weapon degradation bug fixed) is a near complete experience.

I've played Bloodborne and most of DS3. I have started the other three and I am at varying stages in them, so my thoughts, for what they are worth, are this.

Demon's Souls is my least favourite. Picked it up on PS+, gave up after about an hour and deleted it. Came back to it after enjoying Bloodborne but still found it as terrible as I did the first time. Beat the first boss but couldn't be bothered to masochistically fight my way any further.

I like DS1 but I am being held up by a boss but unlike Demon Souls I can be bothered to persevere. DS2 is okay but lacking in the atmosphere of the other games - beaten a couple of bosses.

DS3 is my favourite of the series. I like the design of the place and the feel of the combat. Enough to have my main game being delayed by another two builds.

But remember all the Souls games are better than The Order 1886.

The expansion/season pass content for Darksouls 2 was 10+

@Bread_or_Decide: definitely in agreement with you guys about level design being superior in Dark Souls 2.

It's been a few months since i created this thread, and now I've completed Dark Souls iii I can honestly say I'm still off the same opinion that i prefer 2 over 3. I wonder if future dlc will change my mind as dlc is usually the strongest points in the dark souls games.

What DS2 bashers really don't get about DS2's level design is that it is actually the least linear of the series. Outside of some of the pathway levels (such as Hiede's Tower, Harvest Valley, Shaded Woods, and Shrine of Amana), the level design gives you multiple routes to the end. Iron Keep gives you 2 paths in both sections...an easy way and a hard more rewarding way. The Gutter is pretty open, one of the most open levels, and Aldia's Keep is basically a playground of curiosity. And DS2 does optional areas better as well. The Pharros Crypts can be skipped pretty much, for example.

DS3 on the other hand is very linear in both world and level design. Outside of Undead Settlement, I cannot think of a level that didn't ferret you through, with shortcuts to mask the level's linearity. Instead of a branch, its a spiral again, and more restrictive in that the world design isn't a spiral like in DS1. Even Irithyll is a giant linear fest, with tons of shortcuts to mask the fact that it plays linear.

Dark Souls II was a good bit of fun, I don't get all the hate for it. Dark Souls III was good too, but a very different feel. I felt enemies were far more agile in Dark Souls III, whereas they telegraphed their attacks in Dark Souls II a lot more. But, about equally in both games it just comes down to learning the enemies patterns and behaviors.

I never played Dark Souls II when it released on the Xbox 360 and PS3, but I played the Scholar of First Sin edition and I really liked it. I played that for the first time and Darks Souls III back to back, Dark Souls II had a lot more content because it had all the DLC in the latest edition.

The online in Dark Souls III really made it a breeze. I relied more on it for Dark Souls III than I ever did for Dark Souls II, except for the end boss I sure needed help there. That last area in Dark Souls II was also an excellent grinding area.

For some reason in Dark Souls II I experimented more with the different armors and big weapons, in Dark Souls III though I picked a knight class, never bothered to get another pair of armor it just seemed the most balanced of them, and then I stuck to a relatively basic weapons, nothing too exotic, and it worked.

I remember one big criticism of Dark Souls II was the ability to fast travel, some people really hated that idea, but if that's going to be the reason why people hate Dark Souls II and not Dark Souls III, that just doesn't make as much sense to me because people didn't complain about fast travel in Dark Souls III this time around.

Another criticism that I heard people complain about Dark Souls II was that the first game was a lot more lonely in tone, whereas in Dark Souls II there's that main hub area with friendly NPCs which gave a sense of respite. Dark Souls III had that too, yet nobody made a stretch to make that sound like it was utterly awful.

Er, uh, well, a lot of that stuff is explained simply by the fact that Dark Souls 1 and 3 were the same developer. Dark Souls 2 was not.

The series has progressively gotten worse. Or, maybe I jsut tire of it. IDK. Demon's souls was amazing. Dark Souls 1 was just as epic. DS 2 was a step down and DS3 continues that trend. Not bad games, per se, just not the same novelty.

did not play DS2 but DS3 is on par with bloodborne IMO. I had a blast with my 40 hour playthrough.

Not only that, the polish on the game in SotFS is unparalleled in the series. Coming from playing Demon's, the game's upgraded features and endless variety of viable playstyles makes it a title you almost cannot exhaust. For Dark Souls 3, we can't say this. Also, the fundamental problems with the multiplayer in 3 make it hard to believe it will ever be fixed via patches.

The same team made all games. This B-team stuff is easily refuted by reading the credits screen.

It was especially cemented in their recent "fixes" to 3, which really amounted to little in multiplayer. The game doesn't have features that bring me back to playing it after beating it once. 2, however, still has so much I've yet to try out.

Yes.

Something must be wrong with some1 thinking DkS2 is better than DkS3. Dark Souls 3 has excellent campaign and lore. No lore in DkS3? I think you're mixing it with DkS2. It may have problems in pvp but name me one Soulsborne game that didn't? Ya'll already forgot the quad buffed Havel scrubs from DkS2? Now that, that was bullshit. Fromsoft haven't even released any major balance patches (i believe it'll be out close to the release of the 1st dlc) and there haven't even been a dlc out. So calm yo titties, DkS3 pvp is perfectly playable as is and its only getting better with time. Gun/parry spam, bloodtinge builds from BB, quad buffing monsters, WTF hitbox and insane lag from DkS2, backstab fish/lag stabs from DkS1 and infinite combos (headbutt for example) from Demon's Souls were all waaaaaaaaaaay worse than anything currently present in Dark Souls 3.

Wrong

DS2 revolves around Vendrick. He is the center of the lore, like Allant was in Demon Souls. Even the DLC about other kings centers around him. DS3 on the other hand, has erratic and scattered lore, relying on nostalgia instead of telling a more original tale. And DS2 had the best story of the series, especially with Aldia. And DS3 lacks identity, unlike DS2. Its so reliant on DS1 that it forgets to be its own thing.

DS3 has been sloppy with lore. For example, Karla. They actually had a daughter of Manus be just a shopkeeper. It is so random and disconnected.

And DS2 is far more balanced than DS3. DS2 had number issues, which could be fixed. DS3 PvP is conceptually flawed because of the super lenient equip load. You cannot patch that without breaking the game.

What a maroon, really hit a nerve eh, Good, good let it flow... lol Plus get a clue, I said that 3 months ago, this thread may be older than you. lol :P

I'm curious if its an act, or if he's really that much of a pretentious twit.

@clone01: He's the real deal, no actor is that dedicated.

DS2 is a kitchen sink. That's what the entire game felt like for me. I found DS2 to be the easier game even compared to Bloodborne. I liked the DLC a lot though.

DS3 felt more focused on it's environment perhaps because it has a few areas that have linear parts but the atmosphere is heavy just like it was back in DS1. Big positive in my books.

DS3 is easier, especially with a great shield with its lenient 70% equip load. A black iron greatshield makes the Dancer a joke. The Nameless King is easy with a greatshield as well, especially Havel's.

DS2 has a better atmosphere as well. It is desolate and has more natural settings than the other games. It is definitely the most oppressive of the Souls games. And the seaside locations are unique to the series.

Dark Souls 3 is horribly broken game mechanically.. In which they broke poise yet still designed the game around poise? Wrap that one around your head.

Darks Souls 2 strengths:

Covenants

Bonfire ascetics

PvP areas

Dark Souls 2 weaknesses:

Level design

Boss design

Life gems

Soul Memory

Repairable life protection rings

Lagstabs

Lore

Enemies stop respawning

Level Design - best in the series, especially DLC. Do not confuse with world design. The levels in how they play is tops in the series.

Boss Design - doesn't have the best bosses but the worst bosses are just meh, not the hair pullers DS1 and Ds3 worst bosses are.

Life Gems - because you have less estus, its a good trade off. It doesn't make the game easier than DS1 or Ds3 though. And DS3 has speed healing. No more poor healing mistakes that gets noobies killed in DS2.

Soul Memory - fixed with agape ring

Repairable life rings - gone in SOTFS

Lagstabs - DS1 had them as well, and DS3 has major camera issues.

Lore - BEST IN THE SERIES......Aldia an dthe DLC change everything and Vendrick is a great central figure, better than Gwyn. Also has its own identity, unlike DS3.

Enemies stop respawning - then join the Champions Covenant, unlimited respawn there.

Did he just called DS2 lore the best in the series?

Arguing about which Dark Souls game is the best is like arguing about whos the Smartest Kardashian.

Yeah you can do it but what would be the point ? :s

The level design is linear tripe that doesn't make sense with disjointed segways from one to level to another (an elevator from the top of a windmill to the bottom of a mountain?). Most of the levels felt empty and sterile (all the rooms were either empty or served no function in Drangleic Castle, Iron Keep, etc) . You didn't get the feeling that you had stepped into a world that was once lived in. Not all the levels were horrible, there were flashes of brilliance, certainly the DLC levels were better.

Life gems were so cheap that you could essentially buy an infinite amount of them and always keep your HP topped off. Definitely made the game much much easier.

The Agape ring was a band-aid when we needed a tourniquet and cauterization. Thankfully DS3 removed that tumor. It was a needless restriction that only served to limit coop.

Life rings - we are comparing DS2 and DS3. SOTFS is a different, and improved, beast. I'm sure DS3 with have amazing DLC and an "ultimate edition".

I don't remember lagstabs being as much of an issue in DS1 (or DS3 or Bloodborne).

I love the idea of the Champions Covenant but it shouldn't have to be used as a band-aid to fix another part of the game.

Wrong. DS2 is actually has some of the least linear levels in the series, outside of pathway levels, they give you multiple ways of going through the level. And do not confuse world design with level design. And no, the levels themselves make sense. And DS2 is more wasteland type levels, of ruins and forests, instead of urban areas.

But life gems do not save you if you need to heal badly in a fight, and estus flasks heal slower than they do in DS3. A bad heal and you are dead. Not so in DS3.

DS1 has hitbox and weapon through walls problem. DS1 has some clipping issues. DS3 has camera problems.

I like the respawn limit, and many do. But they have an outlet for people who don't like it or need to farm. The game gave you the tools.

Lets now look at DS3

Absolute shit New Game Plus

Bad Covenants

Unbalanced PvP

Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards

Terrible lore, lacks its own identity, has no central figure.

Ripoff boss fights (and more so than DS2)

Terribly linear level design, whatever you think of DS2, DS3 is worse

No truly original area, everything is a riff from the other games

The only challenge it does provide are from enemies and bosses that bludgeon the player

@silversix_ said:

Did he just called DS2 lore the best in the series?

Scholar of the First Sin is.

No DS3 is superior to 2. Neither is as good as DS1 or DeS however

How so? They broke a lot of things

Broke PvP, broke covenants, broke hexes, broke early game mages, broke poise, broke equip load, broke new game plus....and rushed out a game with linear level design and lack of originality.

Outside of how HP is treated with humanity and matchmaking, nothing in DS3 is better than DS2

Replaying dark souls 2 again, that's something I'm not going to do with 3

Still play 3 because it's PvP is more active, but I still think 2 is the better game

@thehig1: I haven't replayed 3 either. I tried playing as a mage, and I realized the game punishes you very hard for trying to diversify your style (away from anything that is a quality build). Also, NG+ is awful compared to 2. It's a roll back to Dark Souls 1, but not even that because at least there were features in NG+ in Demons and Dark 1. 3 just lets you play through the game again with marginally stronger enemies.

Also the pvp in 3 can't even touch 2.

@X_CAPCOM_X: my thoughts exactly

I agree with most of what Texas gold rush has said in this thread, especially on the level design

DS3 is an objectively better game overall. You have to rely on the DS2 DLC to even make an argument otherwise. Soul memory was awful and the level design was a huge step back. DS3 bosses absolutely destroy the DS2 bosses (overall, DS2 had some stand out fights but most were filler).

No, it isn't.

Lets analyze here. The PvP in DS3 is busted, it is completely broken. And here is what Soul Memory actually did, prevent twinking. DS3, with its removal, is now a twinkers paradise. Soul memory prevented twinking for the most part because every soul you get counts. Nevermind that invaders will always be lower in soul memory than the host, people want to ignore this.

DS3's level design was crap and really lacks the "theming" that DS2 levels had, which altered how the game was played. And really, outside of that craptacular level Farron's Keep, and maybe the Grand Archives, the levels lack the themes of the first two games that made them unique. And DS3 is far worse with the ganks than Scholar of the First Sin.

And DS3 bosses.......its flame sword fest. Its ridiculous.

Twinking wasn't a problem for people who aren't garbage (forgetting they scale invasions with weapon upgrades now too, which does a better job of preventing it...). Get invaded and killed, great now you have a 10 minute time before you can be invaded again, that's the worst case scenario.

But the bolded: This is why everyone thinks your opinions on games are absolutely hog wash. The level design in DS3 is far better. High wall, Undead settlement, Cathedral of the deep....first three areas of the game which DS2 might be able to touch only with Lost Bastille or the DLC (Vanilla DS2 is hopeless in comparison). The fact that you can refer to the Grand Archives and Farron's Keep as 'crap' and tell me that DS2 had anything above 'OK' level design is astonishing. If you want to rip on DS3 level design as being bad why not pick the actual bad levels like Catacombs of Carthus or false Izalith catacombs? You've gone on the record praising Aldia's Keep as great level design and spent years of your life actually defending Dragon Age 2. lol and don't even talk about a gank squad with the boss of the first DS2 DLC. Second only to dual kitty boss in Frozen Throne DLC for worst souls boss ever (seems to be a theme with DS2 DLC requiring one trash boss).

You must get off to having terrible taste in video games or just going against the grain for the sake of it.

But it isn't fun being invaded at level 10-20 with a guy that has a +10 boss weapon (DS1) or awesome late game accessories (DS3) in the first two areas of the game. That's twinking, and its cheap and unfair. And in DS3, phantoms can be twinks as well. its poor game design. And talk about crappy PvP, DS3 is horrendous. Players are going back to DS2 to PvP, and I see far more workable builds in PvP in DS2 than DS3. In DS3, a long sword with a great shield and you get to win most fights. Nevermind invaders constantly invade into a gank. Oh, and PvP are chug fests now.

DS3 levels are boring. They are a step back in the level design department. This is a fact. They are far less unique in gameplay mechanics, in level mechanics, in originality, and are far more linear than DS2 as well. DS2 also has good levels like Forest of the Fallen Giant, Dragon's Aerie, Shaded Woods, Lost Bastille, No Mans Wharf. Brightstone Cove (outside bonfire placement), Undead Crypt, and the DX11 version of Shrine of Amana. Hell, even the Gutter is decent. Aldia's Keep works because it is a level of switches and changes, with choices that impact not only the level, but the game. It also has a unique theme to it, as no other souls game has a zoological laboratory. DS3 on the other hand, fails the "Looking Glass" test. Nothing you do in the level matters, the levels never change from your actions (well outside ringing the bell for Nameless King, but that's brief). It was a game rushed out the door to cash grab.

And that gank fight in the DLC and those twin tigers, they are designed as co-op bosses. They are meant to be co-op.

And NG+ in DS3 is flat out, lazy. There goes the replay value.

And really, DS3 is everything you hate about DS2, but worse. It does more things wrong than DS2 ever did, and flat out goes away from what DS2 did right.

DS3 is FLAT OUT, the worst Soulsborne game, busted PvP, boring PvE, no heart, no real identity, a cash grab that takes from everything else.