The DS1 vs. DS3 ongoing debate

[ZeroSbr]

So obviously people compare these two a lot, since DS3 hearkens back to DS1 a lot more than DS2 does. A lot of people still prefer the original over DS3 for various reasons, but the most common ones that I have seen are:

-DS1 map design being "better" (interconnected/less linear)
-DS3 is easier/for casuals

I'd like to address each of these points separately. First, the map design point:

I do appreciate how DS1's game world is more interconnected than the other games in the franchise. It adds believability and immersion to the game. However, I don't think it really makes the game any less linear than DS3 (unless you get the Master Key gift, and even then you have to be quite skilled to skip ahead to the later bosses and beat them). Players, especially newer players, tend to go through the areas in a certain order regardless of the map design because the game essentially guides them with its difficulty curve. I highly doubt, for example, that people new to the Souls franchise would clear the DS1 Catacombs first before getting to Undead Burg.

The reason DS3's game world isn't all interconnected like DS1's is because it doesn't have to be in order for the world to be believable. Rather than waste the player's time by forcing them to trek to Andre every time they want to infuse a weapon until they unlock fast travel, DS3 removes that issue altogether by placing Andre in the hub and giving the player fast travel from the moment they access the hub. This is a huge improvement rather than a downgrade, if you ask me.

Secondly, the difficulty point:

DS1 is difficult in a different way. PvE requires the player to be more methodical with their rolls than in DS3, since you can't just roll 5 times to get away from an enemy due to it taking more stamina than in DS3. However, shields and poise are a lot more effective in DS1, which means rolling to get away isn't nearly as necessary. I also noticed when I replayed DS1 for a few minutes that there is a slight pause at the end of every roll rather than it being a continuous motion like in DS3. It seemed to make it easier for enemies to catch me between rolls too, which means rolling is that much less effective than simply raising a shield.

Backstabbing and parrying actually seem to be a lot easier to do in both PvE and PvP. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DS1 and 2 PvP consisting of "lagstabs" is a well-known meme within the community as a whole. The biggest reason it's so easy to do is the fact that when the backstab animation starts, there's no way to escape it unlike in DS3 where you're given a window of time to roll away. Because backstabbing is so easy, a lot of the humanoid enemies are easy. You wait for them to swing, you roll, and you backstab. People complain that DS3 is a R1-spamfest, but at least you still need to keep in mind how long your weapon is and how fast you can swing it, as well as the swing hitboxes. In DS1, these aren't even factors to consider for a lot of enemies.

Besides, Weapon Arts are useful and have made a difference in plenty of PvP/PvE situations. I don't get why people continue to bash DS3's PvP as though it's bad. It actually has some of the best PvP I've ever seen in this genre.

In conclusion, I'm inclined to say that DS3 is somewhat more difficult than DS1. There's just more options in combat thanks to WAs, and the game definitely encourages the use of them, especially in solo play.

[Jacopo Beanman]

lol what is this thread ds2 best game

[John Titor]

PuttyGod a écrit :

AlmightyDunkle(Away for a bit) a écrit :

Both games are pretty fun in their own way tbh.

That's entirely too fair and open-minded for this forum. Get out.

Both games suck and you should all burning hell.