Did Dark Souls lose its charm after 2?

I ask this because I don't know. I also ask this because I wanna know which Dark Souls I should get. Dark Souls 2 or 3? There's also a definitive edition of DS2 on ps4 which I heard has more stuff than the original and is said to run at 60fps. But then there's DS3! Decisions, decision.... I just don't wanna go into DS3 knowing that it's inferior to DS2. That type of thing has been known to happen in some franchises, y'know!

So, SW, is there anything lacking in DS3 that you loved in DS2? Or would you say that Dark Souls has improved alot more with part 3?

You know who is going to be in this thread soon. By the way, DS3 is superior.

Well genre fatigue got to me and I couldn't enjoy Dark Souls 3 as the previous entries.

Dark Souls 3 along with the two sp DLC's

Dark Souls is probably the only series I could play a new game every year and beat it. I love the series.

DS3 was way better than DS2.

Dark Souls 2 main game wasn't as great, but it's DLC was pretty good.

Lots of things are missing in 3 compared to 2. Offhand weapon use is pathetic in 3, cancelling is gone, viable casting and/or hybrid builds are gone, small sign soapstone, continuous multiplayer, sensible pvp (big lols), etc. etc.
It also loses its identity a lot trying to be a combination of BB and Dark Souls 1.

3 deliberately took steps back for some reason. It's a great game, but the meat of the game that makes you stick around, the multiplayer and pvp, are just not there. I finished it and found no reason to really go back.

The entire series is great.

No it isn't

DS3 is a linear mess that shoehorns Bloodborne style speeds without knowing how it works, its derivative, plays it safe, and takes no risks. Its h sort and the DLC is weak. Also covenants, PVP, storytelling, and NG+ are huge step back from DS2.

Easily the weakest of the series.

I definitely preferred 3 over 2, I could not bring myself to get through even half of the 2nd, the game is good its not that, I think it is because I spent so much time with DS1 that I was not compelled to play DS2 as much. DS3 felt more fresh to me overall, and I was able to finish it but even near the 2Nd half I felt it dragged on a little.

That's just me though, I think it stems from how much time I spent with DS1 I think around 200 hours on my own without any help whatsoever from the internet.

Its inferior.

Less open level designs, more linear progression, recycled levels and bosses, weaker build systems, faster combat causes balance issues, bad PvP, weaker covenants, stripping of gameplay systems that DS2 added such as light and water systems, lack of a true NG+ that adds more to the game (and the DLC makes what it did add irrelevant), and weaker DLC. Dumber storytelling as well that relies on being as nihilistic as possible.

DS3 takes a more Japanese linear action direction instead of the more Ultima Underworld respect your surroundings of their past games.

@texasgoldrush:

So DS2 had backtracking or was it more open-ended in terms of the overall scope of the levels? I'm all for linear as long as it's good. Also, the repeated level design thing might not really apply to me though since I never played any Dark Souls game before. Unless you mean they literally reuse the same levels as you progress. That would be problematic.

The order I played the games in was: fool around in 1 and not get very far, 2, 1, 3, and Demon's. Haven't played Bloodborne yet.

I'd rank them 1, Demon's=2, 3. But they're all great.

I vote 2 first. It gets a lot of hate, but I think 2's world is more fun to experience.

I felt the DS2 base game is the weakest thing From have made in this style. Just had a lot of annoying areas that weren't very enjoyable to go through. Can't speak to the DLC though.

DS3 I really liked, obviously the formula is pretty familiar now but i felt this game executed it very well.

It was more open ended in the scope of the levels, and they could be played in difference ways due to more interactivity than DS3. Player interaction took a large hit with DS3, along with the levels more linear design. The only backtracking you would do is opening a different path or getting items you missed. And it is suggested you backtrack to an area to defeat a boss you can't really take the first time through.

Which version? There are two versions you know.

I can't be bothered to link my own thread, but 2 is far better than 3 in my opinion. 2 has far more depth and longevity, as well as a more interesting world

Non of them beat Demon's Souls IMO. The true magic lies on the first one for me.

@texasgoldrush: **** off. Nobody agrees with you.

Dark Souls lost its charm with 2 and regained it again with 3

Dark Souls 3 is a much better game than 2 imo.

DS1 > BB > DS3 > DeS >>>> DS2

More linear progression than 2? Oh hell NO

2 was definitely the most linear Souls game and thats not even debatable. DS3 still had a fair amount of shortcuts. DS2 levels were literaly go from point A to B and return to Majula. Rinse and repeat

I think the magic system and shield combat in DS2 were much better. DS3 has a wonderful level design. DS2 was the most linear than 3. That said I enjoyed the core gameplay and PVP in DS2 a bit more.

For me,

DS1 > Demon Souls > DS2 = DS3

Possibly DS2 had the best online community as I remember playing it. DS3 community though was without any shrewd of honor - chaotic online brawling when covenants gang up on single online players.

WRONG

Many levels have multiple paths in DS2 like the Lost Bastille, Iron Keep, the Gutter, etc, and many others have huge exportable side areas. DS3 does have shortcuts, but the level progresses linearly. Very seldom does it have an optional area to explore outside the linear path.

And DS3's level "chart" would look like an L. Saying DS2 is more linear is simply not knowing what you are talking about.

lost its charm after the 1st, bloodborne was good though. Both ds1 and BB are masterpieces, ds2 and ds3 are not even close

How is DS1 a masterpiece? It fails in many areas and so does BB.

@killered3: I prefer the environments & setting in DS2, particularly the Crowns DLC areas. Plus the lore in DS2 is fantastic, while it's not quite as sharp in DS3.

That said, both the DLC packs in DS3 are phenomenal.

Nah, I think it's still cool. I've only played the first and third and really liked them both.

Would totally repurchase them if they released a trilogy or something for Switch.

i'm still trying to find the charm in the series :S.

I can just tell you a few things..

The graphics are great with a really nice gothic artstyle, the designs of characters, equipment, enemies, bosses are all very imaginative and cool looking.
The gameplay is challenging, but fair. Very solid. There's no handholding and other things that make other games mundane or annoying.
The games are long. Takes a while to beat.
The games have very impressive level design with areas that unlock and gets connected in cool ways.
The games doesn't try to give you a "deep" story and shove it down your throat. This saves the games from having a really bad story, like most games that try to have a good story, has. It becomes interesting instead.

If you've played the series and don't see the qualities that it has, you're pretty much just ignorant, sour for dying or have a bad taste in games.

Dark Souls is, in my opinion, one fine example on why the japanese fucking owns everyone else when it comes to making games.

FACTS.

Ironically, the only game to come close to Demon's Souls isn't even a souls game but the indie title Salt and Sanctuary.

I've put almost 200hrs in that game. I can't believe it's a parody imitation because the of all the Souls games I rate it # 2 after Demon's Souls and I consider Demon's Souls to be one of the top 10 best games ever made.

TC, if you haven't played Salt and Sanctuary, I say skip DSII and DSIII and get S&S and be prepared to be shocked in the most satisfying way.

Hasn't had charm since Demon's Souls

You and I definitely didnt played the same game... I beat all the bosses, including optional bosses, did pretty much almost all of the "sidequests" and I dont remember these "huge explorable side areas" u talkin about. And even if there are they were just as linear as the main ones

btw, if you dont believe me, see here

Very seldom does it have an optional area to explore outside the linear path.

Maybe. But contrary to DS2, its areas were visually stunning and interesting to explore. DS2 areas, wich I still believe its a way more linear game than DS3, were unremarkable, boring, uninteresting and filled with easy/boring to fight bosses and enemies. If I do remember more than 3 or 4 bosses of DS2 I would be impressed with myself.

Dark Souls 3 is my favorite in the series, so I would say no.

I played every one of them in order of release (started with Demon Souls, obviously) and love them all but prefer DS3 to DS2 it just feels better and obviously looks better.

Bloodborne leaves all of them for dust though, amazing game.

I liked the second and third games, I tried to get into the first game, made a lot of progress but never beat it, hit a dead end after accidentally killing an important NPC and the game got way too difficult and I didn't feel like starting over. I didn't even bother with Dark Souls 2 last gen but gave it a try this gen after really like Lords of the Fallen, played it right before Dark Souls 3 released and then followed up with Darks Souls 3, had a great time with both.

I really don't understand many people's displeasure with the later games, though again, never beat the first so I don't quite have the same frame of reference to appreciate the changes between games. I also had the advantage of playing the current gen version of second game with all its DLC and better presentation.

Play them in order. That's what I recommend. Scholar of the First sin first then Dark Souls 3.

I enjoyed DS, skipped 2 and got tired of this type of game after Bloodborne. Nioh won me over however.

Sorry, but DS3 areas are recycled from the original and Bloodborne. Its a tacked on cash grab sequel rushed out the door while the iron was still hot. Even the bosses and their attacks are recycled.

I tried to get into ds2 after playing ds3, and it just felt clunky as hell.

I much prefer ds3 to ds2.

Hey cainetao11, try Salt and Sanctuary, I promise you'll impressed or I'll give you a cookie.

Any of you who truly understand Souls games would know that the first installment of each Souls franchise - Demon's, Dark and Bloodborne were all made to be standalone games. The lore and context of the games were also made with no sequel in mind, and when left in that way, they stand strong. Demon's Souls and Bloodborne had the benefit of standing alone, and for that exact reason, the lore of those games remain coherent and intact. Dark Souls would have shared that same coherence if it ended at 1. But alas, 2 and 3 came in, and by the 3rd one, new lore had to be introduced which somewhat contradicted the lore from the 1st game, and made it look like it was trying too hard to stay relevant to the first game, while at the same time adding some spice to it.

That's what commercialization does to a franchise. But to answer the thread question....yes....of course. As far as souls games go, Dark Souls did start losing its charm over time. But whether you feel the decline was after 2 or 1 depends on what you wanted from a Souls sequel. DS2 had a fresher take than DS3, but also didn't bother expanding on DS1's lore. DS3 tried expanding on DS1's lore, but felt like pandering as a result. Whether you feel that a DS sequel should go on a different tangent or not is entirely subjective.

Areas recycled from the original? You have ONE little small section in Anor Londo (wich was an awesome nod to DS fans). Nothing else. Wtf you talkin about? And the areas had some BB inspirations and religious themes, sure, but areas recycled from BB? Wtf? We did not only played one different game, now it seems it was two different games...

Even the bosses and their attacks are recycled.

Yeah, contrary to the recycled Ornstein, recycled Queelag (oh, now its a scorpion, how original), recycled The Rotten (basically just another leechmonger). the recycled Bellfry Gargoyles, the recycled Royal Rat Authority (just anothe Sif but worstly done), the recycled Dragonriders, two Giant bosses, etc, etc, etc of Dark Souls 2.

Sorry, but you clearly have no f clue wtf you're talkin about

edit: btw, dont think I actually remembered all those DS2 bosses. I literaly had to google the DS2 boss list again. And dont even make me talk about the trully horrid Darklurker boss fight design. It was like it was made by complete amateurs

@appariti0n:

DS2 felt clunky compared to DS3? So then did the combat get better in Dark Souls 3?

And not to mention that DS2 bosses were mostly of the knights in armour variety

Ive played DES and DS2 and i see a lot of what you mention....but i cant get along with the combat. DS2 is just turning into grinding it out.

sooo yeah....i probably fall under sour for dying. i would probably enjoy the games a lot more if i could nerf the enemies by 20% so i could go off exploring without thinking "im going to lose 300,000 souls after turning this corner". after 5 hours in DES and 12 in DS2 i think im going to throw the towel in. not for me.

@killered3: In my completely subjective opinion, and I'm obviously not alone here, the combat did indeed feel "better" to me.

A very large part was the parry/riposte system.

After the satisfying crunch of doing some epic damage after a successful parry, and being invulnerable to damage during that window in DS3, DS2 felt like an epic step back, where you have to parry, wait for the mob to fall down, meanwhile other things are still beating on you.

I do

That's interesting that you say that. For me it did. Too much too soon. Too much of the same. After 2 I did enjoy Bloodborne cause it was slightly different. And then went on to Nioh. Now I will rather play Hollowknight than Dark Souls 3.

What also held back my hype for Dark Souls sequels, was the DLC. So when I play a game I tend to finish playing it pretty quickly. Usually I am done playing a game within a week, maybe 2 weeks. If it's really good maybe a month. And they release their DLC after that period. After I'm 'done' with it. I had my fill. I don't remember the controls, where it left me, any of the details. That creates a pretty hefty barrier to go back into the game to play some tacked on stuff that may be good, but it's still tacked on.

I guess I don't like the feeling of never being sure that I finished a game because there could be more DLC along the way, so I cross the game off my list when I feel I'm done with it, and probably never look back. That is also why I never played any of The Witcher 3 DLC. I know I should, but I just can't bring myself to do it. And if they release a sequel the DLC detracts from that because I feel that if I wanted to play more of that game I could play that DLC. I just won't.

If the DLC content was instead worked into the sequel, the odds of me buying the sequel would have most definitely improved.

Being invulnerable during that window is stupid. Its just another thing DS3 does to dumb down the game. In DS3, you can panic heal, which gets you killed in DS2.

And when you get to PvP and actual balance, the "better" combat works against the game.

You call it stupid, I say it made the combat flow better, and feel less clunky.

I never gave two shits about PVP balance, that was always a side distraction for me.

I'd rather play Street Fighter or Tekken if I really want well balanced PVP.

The meta game of pvp in all of the souls series is very very simplistic by comparison.