I love Dark Souls 3.....but there are a few areas it does worse than Dark Souls 2.

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

I like Dark Souls 3 more in a variety of ways than Dark Souls 2.......

But DS3 is a definite step back in a variety of ways, from the number (and effectiveness) of Sorceries, to simplified Covenants with fewer Rewards (and no PvE Covenants to speak of.

To fewer weapons, with fewer move sets, too many weapons share the same move set and the same "Special Skill", such as how in DS2 the Claws and Caestus had different move sets, now they have the same move set.

To fewer clothing and armor options, and no longer being able to Power Stance......which offered entirely NEW movesets (and didn't make you try to block with the left hand blade).

I believe a proper sequel is equal to or better than what came before it, and sadly DS3 fails in a fair number of areas in that regard.

[Black Snake]

I have to agree with OP. Luckily the weapon and armor count, as well as boss count should be fixed by the time the DLC's drop. (DS2 had 105 armor sets, 252 weapon, and 40 bosses) (DS3 has 70 armor sets, 200 weapons, and 19 bosses)

Things Dark souls 2 did better than DS3:

-Covenants meant something and could not just be changed on the fly. There were major drawbacks to leaving some covenants. And covenants like the champions covenant were there for people looking to challenge themselves.
-New Game+ added new enemies, weapons, armor, rings as well as bosses changed up. There was so much incentive to go into new game plus. All dark souls 3 did was give us new rings and more souls. Though most players get to SL Meta (120) before they beat it.
- Co-op actually made the game more challenging and wasn't just an easy mode. Summoning could actually ruin your run if your summon died at the beginning of a boss fight leaving you to fight a harder boss alone. Also certain bosses would go into phase 2 earlier making for a more challenging fight.
-Power Stance

[TisEric]

Originalmente postado por gentlemanintacta:

I like Dark Souls 3 more in a variety of ways than Dark Souls 2.......

But DS3 is a definite step back in a variety of ways, from the number (and effectiveness) of Sorceries, to simplified Covenants with fewer Rewards (and no PvE Covenants to speak of.

To fewer weapons, with fewer move sets, too many weapons share the same move set and the same "Special Skill", such as how in DS2 the Claws and Caestus had different move sets, now they have the same move set.

To fewer clothing and armor options, and no longer being able to Power Stance......which offered entirely NEW movesets (and didn't make you try to block with the left hand blade).

I believe a proper sequel is equal to or better than what came before it, and sadly DS3 fails in a fair number of areas in that regard.

Fine ill debate you.

1 - Magic , it's now more inline with melee.
In DS1 spells were powerful , i used spells on my quality build and did more damage
than my power attacks with 0 stat investment.
In DS2 magic was op as ♥♥♥♥ , faith got turned into support only.
In DS3 early magic is a bit lacking yet it does good enough damage but at range.
The range makes the whole difference in the playstyles ,
since all mobs are super agressive.
being out of their attack range allows you to spam bolts with minimal danger.
You get your super magic later.

The only thing ill agree on is that Faith based magic sucks and that the game
lacks in spell variety.

2 - Disagree , there is a very good range of weapons for most weapon types.
There are lots of movesets and usually weapons in the same type have different
weapon arts. DS2 had the same "issue" you are describing all weapon types had the
same movesets even unique weapons had the same movesets.
Power stancing was gimicky as all hell again most weapons
even in power stance had one of 3 movesets,
the light weapon set , the heavy set and the UGS set.
Only a hand full of weapons had unique sets or stances.

3 - Armors are around the same ,
you find most clothing if you exolore all the nooks and cranies in the levels.
The lack of armour abilities is the only complain i have about it.


Edit - Covenents - I personally think covenents were very under developed in all 3 games.
There is little poing in being in any of them outside of rollplaying.
I think DS3 is a fantastic sequel , it takes bits and pieces from DS1 , DS2 and BB
and meshes these parts well with one another.
The narritive is lacking but it's generally a good time.

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

Originalmente postado por EmpirePhoenix:

Originalmente postado por gentlemanintacta:

I like Dark Souls 3 more in a variety of ways than Dark Souls 2.......

But DS3 is a definite step back in a variety of ways, from the number (and effectiveness) of Sorceries, to simplified Covenants with fewer Rewards (and no PvE Covenants to speak of.

To fewer weapons, with fewer move sets, too many weapons share the same move set and the same "Special Skill", such as how in DS2 the Claws and Caestus had different move sets, now they have the same move set.

To fewer clothing and armor options, and no longer being able to Power Stance......which offered entirely NEW movesets (and didn't make you try to block with the left hand blade).

I believe a proper sequel is equal to or better than what came before it, and sadly DS3 fails in a fair number of areas in that regard.

Fine ill debate you.

1 - Magic , it's now more inline with melee.
In DS1 spells were powerful , i used spells on my quality build and did more damage
than my power attacks with 0 stat investment.
In DS2 magic was op as ♥♥♥♥ , faith got turned into support only.
In DS3 early magic is a bit lacking yet it does good enough damage but at range.
The range makes the whole difference in the playstyles ,
since all mobs are super agressive.
being out of their attack range allows you to spam bolts with minimal danger.
You get your super magic later.

The only thing ill agree on is that Faith based magic sucks and that the game
lacks in spell variety.

2 - Disagree , there is a very good range of weapons for most weapon types.
There are lots of movesets and usually weapons in the same type have different
weapon arts. DS2 had the same "issue" you are describing all weapon types had the
same movesets even unique weapons had the same movesets.
Power stancing was gimicky as all hell again most weapons
even in power stance had one of 3 movesets,
the light weapon set , the heavy set and the UGS set.
Only a hand full of weapons had unique sets or stances.

3 - Armors are around the same ,
you find most clothing if you exolore all the nooks and cranies in the levels.
The lack of armour abilities is the only complain i have about it.


Edit - Covenents - I personally think covenents were very under developed in all 3 games.
There is little poing in being in any of them outside of rollplaying.
I think DS3 is a fantastic sequel , it takes bits and pieces from DS1 , DS2 and BB
and meshes these parts well with one another.
The narritive is lacking but it's generally a good time.

1. I wasn't talking about the effectiveness of Soul Arrow and it's variants I suppose I should say, but more about how things like Farron's Hail, and Crystal Rain are hot garbage versions of Soul Spear Barrage and Soul Shower respectively, and the other more divergent function Sorceries don't work well either, from White Dragon Breath having poor damage, to Homing Soul Mass not dealing as much damage as it should for it's FP cost, and yes, as you agreed, there are fewer types of spells to work with as well.

2/3. There are about 30 fewer armor sets, and 40 fewer weapons, in DS3 than there were in DS2. And as for move sets, virtually all Striaght Swords and a few Greatswords have the same basic moveset, and the same "Stance" special skill. As a example for differing move sets, in DS2 the Claws and Caestus had entirely different move sets, and also unique move sets if Power Stancing, in DS3 both the Claws and the Caestus have the same move set.

Ah, and you didn't respond to my mention of Covenants being simplified and fewer in number, especially with there not being a single PvE covenant. In DS2 each Covenant had four ranks including the starting rank, and a reward for each rank, in DS3 there are only three ranks including the starting rank, and you only get rewards for the second and third rank after the starting rank, and the rewards sometimes don't make the most sense, for instance why is "Warmth" the final reward for the Mound Makers?. And the Pilgrims of Dark had it's own little story, area, and even a hidden boss.

[MONZUN]

i've to agree too.. i liked dark souls 2 much better.. there are things in dark souls 3 that are better than in its predecessor but overall dark souls 2 felt better.. more epic.. much longer (i'm ingame at 42 hours playtime and already in lothric castle -.- i'm doing a 100% run and will most likely be finished at around 55 hours playtime.. it took me 112 hours for a 100% dark souls 2 run and this playtime was much more fullfilling) and the gameplay systems worked better.. dark souls 3 has more bugs (which is obvious because its brandnew) and the gameplay systems don'T work together that well.. like the shields are completely useless.. so far i've always had a shield in the left hand but i haven't used it once in the game -.- not a single time because dodging was 10 times better in every single situation in this game :( that alone is incredibly disappointing.

furthermore its not worth to 2hand onehanded weapons because at least my raw astora sword at +3 when i tested it did 181 dmg and with 2handed it did 188 dmg which is ridiculous especially because with 2handing it i can do one light attack less because it takes more stamina (and basically i loose dmg on that.. so its not worth 2handing onehanded weapons -.- at least not the one i tested it with).

furthermore the balance in ds2 was better (even in the vanilla version). there were less cheap deaths and lame situations in which skill doesn't matter but only luck -.- ds3 had more of those and some that even felt unfair.. like the room with the aldrich covenant.. those 2 wolfs were way too brutal lol.. maybe the hardest thing i've done in this game so far.. worst thing was that for the first time in this game both were aggroed if you aggroed one only -.-

in my opinion ds3 has many more problems than ds2 had.. the graphics are amazing compared to all other souls games but thats about it.. otherwise ds2 was better in most aspects

[MOOEY]

Although I think some of your points are fair, I'll bring some of these points that might make things easier to understand.
DS2 was created by the "b" team because Miyazaki was the director for bloodborne during its development. Because of that, you'll find many noticable changes ds2 had over 1, some of which were better, and some fo which were worse. I think in terms of the amount of weapons and armors, ds3 is definitely smaller in this case, obviously. However, that doesn't degrade the quality of the game. There are still plenty of armor and weapons to choose from. DS3 had a lot more variety and even had more types of weapons, but again, this was a b team design, not miyazaki's. twinblades make no sense in a world that is suppose to be based on medevil dark fantasy. Another point is that DS2 had a ♥♥♥♥ ton of humanoid style enemies. DS3 definitely has less, which can be argued is the reason why we don't have as many armoursets than in 2. And again, despite not having as many, we still have a bunch that honestly look really cool. Quality over quantity.
Magic sucks in this game. I agree. Oh well. I guess you just gotta deal with it I guess. I hate it too but what can ya do? Make it op like faith was in the release of ds2? Where you could legit 4 shot a boss with lightning arrows?
No PVE covenants sucks, I agree. but ouside of the Pilgrims of Dark covenant, what other covenants were really that great in DS1 or 2 that stood out like that? None at all. In fact, it's hardly a covenant. It's just a quest that calls itself a covenant. You enter dungeons that eventually lead you to darklurker. Covenants should be for PVP or gaining optional items, like spells and weapons. Everything thats PVE should be questline and progression based. It really makes no difference whether the game made a questline a covenant or not.
Powerstancing was gimmicky. Yeah it was an option, but I can't see much of complaint on how it was that much more diverse, when we have dual wielding specific weapons that are way more diverse in moveset.
Weapons having repeated moveset are no different than in DS2. you must have selective memory.

Now let me go into (imo) what DS3 did better than ds2, which is a lot of ♥♥♥♥.
-Gameplay feels much faster, similar to what DS1 had.
-Guys in armor fights are actually fun. Only a select few (mostly the dlc bosses) from ds2 were actually legitimately good fights.
-Lore isn't as ♥♥♥♥ as in ds2.
-Far more interesting NPC's than in DS2, who had basically 2 interesting npc's in Lucetiel and...idk, the Emerald Herald?
-Far more interesting bosses that aren't just ♥♥♥♥♥♥ looking. Some are bad, obviously (such as ancient wyvern and Deacons of the deep), but none are AS bad, or worse than DS2's royal rat vanguard and Magus and the congregation....
Imo, the pros outweigh the cons easily.

[TisEric]

Originalmente postado por gentlemanintacta:

1. I wasn't talking about the effectiveness of Soul Arrow and it's variants I suppose I should say, but more about how things like Farron's Hail, and Crystal Rain are hot garbage versions of Soul Spear Barrage and Soul Shower respectively, and the other more divergent function Sorceries don't work well either, from White Dragon Breath having poor damage, to Homing Soul Mass not dealing as much damage as it should for it's FP cost, and yes, as you agreed, there are fewer types of spells to work with as well.

2/3. There are about 30 fewer armor sets, and 40 fewer weapons, in DS3 than there were in DS2. And as for move sets, virtually all Striaght Swords and a few Greatswords have the same basic moveset, and the same "Stance" special skill. As a example for differing move sets, in DS2 the Claws and Caestus had entirely different move sets, and also unique move sets if Power Stancing, in DS3 both the Claws and the Caestus have the same move set.

Ah, and you didn't respond to my mention of Covenants being simplified and fewer in number, especially with there not being a single PvE covenant. In DS2 each Covenant had four ranks including the starting rank, and a reward for each rank, in DS3 there are only three ranks including the starting rank, and you only get rewards for the second and third rank after the starting rank, and the rewards sometimes don't make the most sense, for instance why is "Warmth" the final reward for the Mound Makers?. And the Pilgrims of Dark had it's own little story, area, and even a hidden boss.

Oh sure i agree some spells are just poorly made both damage and casting sometimes are just weird. I think the later patches could fix those tho there isn't a real issue with them outside the damage for the most part.
The problem stands out because of the lack of general spells especially early game.

Yeah , there are fewer sets of both armour and weapons but i find the general quality of the weapons and armours in DS3 to be better , i switched between various swords , UGS' and shields often throughout DS3 while in DS1 i used 1 weapon and 1 shield for the whole game and in DS2 i used 2 weapons , a fire longsword you get at the first area and the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ UGS.
There was never a reason for me to switch weapons instead of upgrading my current ones.
Even Katana weapons were kinda bad because of the speed nerf they got.

I think it comes down to DS2 being a bigger game in scope , they really streached out the game with areas being very long and linear with dead ends and just padded a lot of it with weapons , enemies , armours to kinda occupie the space.

Weapons sets are pretty bad in both games i think , every long sword swings , every straight sword swings and pokes and every UGS has that weird swing back and forth.
Weapon arts however let some weapons be more unique than others even non boss weapon arts feel good. Power stancing added some extra move sets sure but it was still very samey.


Covenents , ive put an edit in my previous post but i think they were pretty lacking in all games. DS2 had more of them sure but they didn't really add much and DS3 follows suit. covenants are like salad dressing to the PvP stuff.

I would love a Dlc that expands apon coveants in general.

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

Originalmente postado por Seath The ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Although I think some of your points are fair, I'll bring some of these points that might make things easier to understand.
DS2 was created by the "b" team because Miyazaki was the director for bloodborne during its development. Because of that, you'll find many noticable changes ds2 had over 1, some of which were better, and some fo which were worse. I think in terms of the amount of weapons and armors, ds3 is definitely smaller in this case, obviously. However, that doesn't degrade the quality of the game. There are still plenty of armor and weapons to choose from. DS3 had a lot more variety and even had more types of weapons, but again, this was a b team design, not miyazaki's. twinblades make no sense in a world that is suppose to be based on medevil dark fantasy. Another point is that DS2 had a ♥♥♥♥ ton of humanoid style enemies. DS3 definitely has less, which can be argued is the reason why we don't have as many armoursets than in 2. And again, despite not having as many, we still have a bunch that honestly look really cool. Quality over quantity.
Magic sucks in this game. I agree. Oh well. I guess you just gotta deal with it I guess. I hate it too but what can ya do? Make it op like faith was in the release of ds2? Where you could legit 4 shot a boss with lightning arrows?
No PVE covenants sucks, I agree. but ouside of the Pilgrims of Dark covenant, what other covenants were really that great in DS1 or 2 that stood out like that? None at all. In fact, it's hardly a covenant. It's just a quest that calls itself a covenant. You enter dungeons that eventually lead you to darklurker. Covenants should be for PVP or gaining optional items, like spells and weapons. Everything thats PVE should be questline and progression based. It really makes no difference whether the game made a questline a covenant or not.

Now let me go into (imo) what DS3 did better than ds2, which is a lot of ♥♥♥♥.
-Gameplay feels much faster, similar to what DS1 had.
-Guys in armor fights are actually fun. Only a select few (mostly the dlc bosses) from ds2 were actually legitimately good fights.
-Lore isn't as ♥♥♥♥ as in ds2.
-Far more interesting NPC's than in DS2, who had basically 2 interesting npc's in Lucetiel and...idk, the Emerald Herald?
-Far more interesting bosses that aren't just ♥♥♥♥♥♥ looking. Some are bad, obviously (such as ancient wyvern and Deacons of the deep), but none are AS bad, or worse than DS2's royal rat vanguard and Magus and the congregation....
Imo, the pros outweigh the cons easily.

Heh, unless you prefer to Play a Sorcerer build, then the magic being pretty bad is a very big con, such as how Farron's Hail and Crystal Rain are hot garbage versions of Soul Spear Barrage and Soul Shower. And even the PvP covenants are worse, as there are fewer of them, three of them are for a single mechanic, and they only have three ranks including the first, with only two rewards, while in DS2 each Covenant had 4 ranks including the starting rank, with a reward for each, and even had special areas set aside for PvP combat.

And what about weapon movesets? Most straight swords have the same moveset and the same "Stance" special skill, and as a example, in DS2 Ceastus and Claws each had their own unique move set, and when Power Stanced another unique move set, in DS3 they have the same move set.

[Black Snake]

Originalmente postado por mOnzun:

furthermore the balance in ds2 was better (even in the vanilla version). there were less cheap deaths and lame situations in which skill doesn't matter but only luck -.- ds3 had more of those and some that even felt unfair.. like the room with the aldrich covenant.. those 2 wolfs were way too brutal lol.. maybe the hardest thing i've done in this game so far.. worst thing was that for the first time in this game both were aggroed if you aggroed one only -.-

that was just your bad luck. I've deffinetly managed to only pull one. you just have to be patient. I will say though, I love how some of the same things people ♥♥♥♥♥ about in DS2 nobody says anything in DS3

Dudes in Armor bosses (more than 50% in dark souls 3)
Lack of Weapon movesets
Having to warp back to the hub to level
Mobs that swarm in numbers (Every souls games have large mobs)

[MOOEY]

Originalmente postado por gentlemanintacta:

Originalmente postado por Seath The ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Although I think some of your points are fair, I'll bring some of these points that might make things easier to understand.
DS2 was created by the "b" team because Miyazaki was the director for bloodborne during its development. Because of that, you'll find many noticable changes ds2 had over 1, some of which were better, and some fo which were worse. I think in terms of the amount of weapons and armors, ds3 is definitely smaller in this case, obviously. However, that doesn't degrade the quality of the game. There are still plenty of armor and weapons to choose from. DS3 had a lot more variety and even had more types of weapons, but again, this was a b team design, not miyazaki's. twinblades make no sense in a world that is suppose to be based on medevil dark fantasy. Another point is that DS2 had a ♥♥♥♥ ton of humanoid style enemies. DS3 definitely has less, which can be argued is the reason why we don't have as many armoursets than in 2. And again, despite not having as many, we still have a bunch that honestly look really cool. Quality over quantity.
Magic sucks in this game. I agree. Oh well. I guess you just gotta deal with it I guess. I hate it too but what can ya do? Make it op like faith was in the release of ds2? Where you could legit 4 shot a boss with lightning arrows?
No PVE covenants sucks, I agree. but ouside of the Pilgrims of Dark covenant, what other covenants were really that great in DS1 or 2 that stood out like that? None at all. In fact, it's hardly a covenant. It's just a quest that calls itself a covenant. You enter dungeons that eventually lead you to darklurker. Covenants should be for PVP or gaining optional items, like spells and weapons. Everything thats PVE should be questline and progression based. It really makes no difference whether the game made a questline a covenant or not.

Now let me go into (imo) what DS3 did better than ds2, which is a lot of ♥♥♥♥.
-Gameplay feels much faster, similar to what DS1 had.
-Guys in armor fights are actually fun. Only a select few (mostly the dlc bosses) from ds2 were actually legitimately good fights.
-Lore isn't as ♥♥♥♥ as in ds2.
-Far more interesting NPC's than in DS2, who had basically 2 interesting npc's in Lucetiel and...idk, the Emerald Herald?
-Far more interesting bosses that aren't just ♥♥♥♥♥♥ looking. Some are bad, obviously (such as ancient wyvern and Deacons of the deep), but none are AS bad, or worse than DS2's royal rat vanguard and Magus and the congregation....
Imo, the pros outweigh the cons easily.

Heh, unless you prefer to Play a Sorcerer build, then the magic being pretty bad is a very big con, such as how Farron's Hail and Crystal Rain are hot garbage versions of Soul Spear Barrage and Soul Shower. And even the PvP covenants are worse, as there are fewer of them, three of them are for a single mechanic, and they only have three ranks including the first, with only two rewards, while in DS2 each Covenant had 4 ranks including the starting rank, with a reward for each, and even had special areas set aside for PvP combat.

And what about weapon movesets? Most straight swords have the same moveset and the same "Stance" special skill, and as a example, in DS2 Ceastus and Claws each had their own unique move set, and when Power Stanced another unique move set, in DS3 they have the same move set.

Having fewer pvp cove's =/= being worse. Blue sent's were terrible in 2, and being apart of the rat covenant was stupid because you literally had to beat the boss of the area the covenant is located in invade the AREA THE COVENANT IS LOCATED IN. Again, you're taking quantity over quality, which to me is a personal opinion thing, but I prefer quality (even if its not much better) than quantity.
DS2's straightswords also had very similar movesets. Which is why they were regarded as some of the best weapons in the game for PVP no matter which version you got for the most part. They were just all good because they all had the same moveset. Twinblades had the same movesets for the most part. Most greatswords had the same swing. Some ultra greatswords differed. I dont wanna get into every weapon, but basically, DS2 was not as diverse with its movesets are you claim. Plenty of them repeated, like in DS1, and ds3. Your ceastus example is fair but so what? They're in the similar weapon category and just because they share the same moveset obviously doesn't mean they're the same in effectiveness. Again, powerstancing being gone sucks but that's not really a fair point to claim how ds2 had better features. Most people in PVE and even PVP for that matter didn't powerstance unless they were gimmicky.

[MOOEY]

Originalmente postado por Black Snake:

that was just your bad luck. I've deffinetly managed to only pull one. you just have to be patient. I will say though, I love how some of the same things people ♥♥♥♥♥ about in DS2 nobody says anything in DS3

Dudes in Armor bosses (more than 50% in dark souls 3)
Lack of Weapon movesets
Having to warp back to the hub to level
Mobs that swarm in numbers (Every souls games have large mobs)

Because dudes in armor in ds3 are actually fun for the most part, unlike in 2 where many of them were slow, lumbering, and not as aggressive. Take bosses like Dragonrider, old dragonslayer, etc. Which is also why you see DS2's dlc bosses getting praise, even though 3 of them are dudes in armor. Because they were fun fight (Fume knight, Sir Alonne, Burnt Ivory king).
Lack of weapon movesets wasn't a complaint in ds2.
Warping back to the hub world is literally in every soulsborne game except ds1. People complaining about it in this game are simply basing this complaint on the entire series, not ds3. Mobs that swarm in numbers aren't bad. You saw that in ds1 too. What the issue is relies on hard types of mobs swarming. Some areas like that exist in ds3, like with some of the silver knights, and so on. But none are as bad as some of the ambushes in ds2. I will agree though that bad mob placement is still a lingering issue, but it's not as bad as it was in ds2 to me.

[Rezonus]

poor sunbros, completely ignored by OP as a PvE covenant.

[Sahel]

Armour is wonky,
Poise seems very badly done,
The game is arguable even easier than DS2,
Normal attacks usually outshine all other attacks.
Rarely do I die in this game because I make a mistake, the game seems very forgiving.
I like the increase in pase, but I dislike the seeming decrease in damage, armour effectiveness.
I also feel like less builds and weapons are viable.

However as DS2 did over DS1, the game runs better, looks better, plays smoother, it definitely adds more than it's lost. It's just dissapointing to see it make a step back (IMO) in so much areas.

On a side note:
The *Fewer rewards* offered by covenants intended or not, seems to increase peoples chances to help out as a blue sentinel which is a mayor plus.

And it's console peasant not pesent or peasent, stop embarassing everyone.

[Rezonus]

Originalmente postado por The Boss:

Armour is wonky,
Poise seems very badly done,
The game is arguable even easier than DS2,
Normal attacks usually outshine all other attacks.
Rarely do I die in this game because I make a mistake, the game seems very forgiving.
I like the increase in pase, but I dislike the seeming decrease in damage, armour effectiveness.
I also feel like less builds and weapons are viable.

However as DS2 did over DS1, the game runs better, looks better, plays smoother, it definitely adds more than it's lost. It's just dissapointing to see it make a step back (IMO) in so much areas.

On a side note:
The *Fewer rewards* offered by covenants intended or not, seems to increase peoples chances to help out as a blue sentinel which is a mayor plus.

And it's console peasant not pesent or peasent, stop embarassing everyone.

I think someone actually figured out that poise isnt even there.

[???]

I'm not a fan of how the lightning spears only work at close range now. I miss being thor with a big hammer and thunderbolts out the ass. Now I might as well just drop the thunderbolts and hit everyone with the hammer.

[Hunubul]

You can't compare the 2 if you only say how DS2 is better. you also have to mention how is DS3 better, or is equal (comparing only changes). WE ONLY COMPARE MECHANICS! BUGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW GOOD A GAME IS UNTIL IT BREAKS THE EXPERIENCE/WON'T BE FIXED. And DS3 WILL BE fixed.

DS2 better in:
-Weapons, power stance (more weapons, a BIT more variety)
-spellcasting was better (was more potent, and if there was no lagg, it was easy to dodge still, now it's impossible to hit with it, and even if you do it deals 0 damage. Then you finally get enemy hp down, and he uses estus. Yes, I'm talking pvp, pve spellcasting is the same in all games)
-was bigger, more stuff
-can't make high equip load character in DS3
-Was more free, you could go in different directions, you could skip areas, etc (interconnection)
-There was arena
-NG+ changes

DS3 did better:
-boss design
-enemy variety
-weapon art is good
-PvP works better, except for bugs, but it's a new game, DS2 had bugs when it came out too
-LORE (characters in DS2 had no depth, boss lore was also lacking, DLC fixed some of this)
-STORY (DS3 gave meaning to DS2 story, but however we look at it, DS2 story is completely unnecessary to understand 1-2 story)
-There are no havelmonsters
-No SM matchmaking
-Looks better than DS2
-Covenants (you have to arena to get red cov rewards in ds2... covs not working in ds3 is a bug that will be fixed)
-arguably atmosphere (graphics, bossfight, music, all in all DS3 delivers a souls experience. It doesn't have to be hard, I don't get why people get upset because it's easy.. And it's not tHAT easy. You have done 2 other souls game, you have the experience already, it becomes easier, it's just how it is, not the games fault.. Also more HP just makes it tedious, so the HP of bosses are fine)

SAME:
-poise, sucks in both games

So there are differences. You can't really compare which is better, because it's just an opinion, not fact. You like DS2 better? Play that, and STFU, there's that possibility. But it doesn't make DS3 worse. DS2 was a great game, but as a piece of art, DS3 is much better. Doesn't really matter which is more fun to play, both has it's values, and you can't really say one has MORE value. Because it's different.

But DS1 is still best in my opinion. As much as I like all 3 games, it still has the best atmosphere and lore. Story didn't really matter, it was just some mythical ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and DS3 is what made the story story-like.