whats the better game?

[bambooya]

i never played dark souls before and yes i know that the game is very hard so i won't be like "ohh no its eazy as ♥♥♥" anyway im trying to deside between Dark souls III or Dark souls Remastered or maybe Demon souls on the PS5. what do you think is the better game?

[The Great Brambino]

If you have a PS5 already, start with Demon's Souls. From there, if you prefer faster hack-n-slash-ish gameplay go for DS3. If you prefer more methodical clunky-ish gameplay, go for DS1.

[aaa]

DS1 or DS2

[sqrt_cos_pi]

I think that Dark Souls III is much harder than the original Dark Souls. The enemy path tracking in DS3 is way more accurate (to an almost unfair degree in a few cases). Combining that with how much harder it is to stagger enemies in DS3 compared to the first game and the overall increase in the movement speed of everything made some of the latter portions really challenging for me, to the point of not being fun anymore. Others will almost certainly disagree and probably insult me for this opinion. But I love the original Dark Souls as well as Demon's Souls. I think the difficulty of those games is way overblown and overhyped. As long as you pay attention and take the games on their terms, you will be fine. You will still die a lot but you will learn the systems and will be able to develop strategies to meet the challenge. I kinda feel that the team at FromSoft leaned into that difficulty hype as the series went forward to its detriment. I'd still say Dark Souls III is better than a lot of other games out there in terms of atmosphere, character, and aesthetic. But I will always prefer the original Dark Souls and Demon's Souls over the later entries.

[LOOKMH]

If u want Atmosphere go for Demons Souls, if u want great map design and worldbuilding go for DS1, if u want fast and flashy action go for DS3. All 3 have their strenght and are good games. I personally prefer Demons Souls but its also the least beginner friendly because of the World/Character-Tendency System. Technicly DS1 is always a good starting point for beginners and from there u can dive back in the past with Demons Souls or continue the series with DS2,DS3 and Bloodborne to see what u like,

[Bofalogist]

Dark Souls 3 is the best game for sure. The only souls game I haven’t played is Demons Souls, but all of them are fantastic and you can’t go wrong with any.

[𝙷𝚘𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊]

Escrito originalmente por Yorki:

bloodborne

This.

[Varagonax]

Escrito originalmente por bambooya:

i never played dark souls before and yes i know that the game is very hard so i won't be like "ohh no its eazy as ♥♥♥" anyway im trying to deside between Dark souls III or Dark souls Remastered or maybe Demon souls on the PS5. what do you think is the better game?

Its purely opinion. I think, in terms of the darksouls trilogy, that DS3 is the best in terms of general quality and ease of access. Darksouls 1 is a lot clunkier, with issues that are glaringly abundant, but its roughness has a charm to it. DS2 is a good game, and would have been fine as a soulsclone but its a canon entry. It had troubled development and if you look, it shows. Its probably the most forgiving entry, with all the healing items.

Then there is bloodborne. It departs from the series in a lot of ways, but primarily in that it heavily rewards aggressive play, even more so then darksouls 3, and that it has guns... lots of guns. I'd hazard a dart at the board that its probably the most difficult game of the bunch. Its also the most modern setting, with a stronger influence of eldritch horror.

I know nothing of sekiro outside of it being like bloodborne, but inverse. It apparently heavily encourages counterplay as opposed to aggressiveness, with a lot of fights almost requiring accurate parry and block mechanics.

My favorite is DS3. I think it has the best dlc's, the coolest weapons (the whirligig saw is a close contender), and the best outfits. The pvp is unbalanced, sure, but compared to DS1 you actually stand a lick of a chance if you get invaded by a sweat. At least in DS3 you can actually see when a backstab is about to happen without needing to be trained by youtube sensei and a trip to the shaolin temples in china.

[Gared]

I played Dark Souls III first and then moved on to Dark Souls Remastered.
Dark Souls (remastered) is moody, with better story delivery and things you care about.
It's branching paths make you feel lost in the most heroic sense. You stop and check every new thing you find. Shortcuts are god-sent. Shopping for stuff is more meaningful and rings are rare and wondrous. I'm so glad I picked up that poisonbite ring in the beginning - it mattered a difference between life and death for me on many occasions.
And shopping makes you plan ahead for your adventure.

Dark Souls III is quality of life decisions, better PVP and Boss fights. DSIII is also a corridor-adventure - you just go straight forward. Open shortcuts and forget about them, unless you want to grind. Shopping is redundant, you don't need most of the stuff. Rings and trinkets are plentiful.
DSIII is devoid of unique features for some reason:

• Ghosts being completely immune to regular physical damage, requiring an approach, buff or unique weapon.
  
• Tiny creatures that appear when you leave and forget an item somewhere. They attack you with barrages of magic and carry that item.
  
• Curses having much more serious ramifications even after you respawn, so you learn to be in real terror of ever becoming cursed, instead of just dying in DSIII. You'll have to find methods of removing that curse
  
• Pitch-black locations requiring a light source
  
• Possibility of getting infected with a parasite
  
• Skeletons that continuously reassemble until you find out why, or use a blessed weapon. So you can either come back later or press on through constantly rising skeletons.

The list goes on.
This is mostly not present in DSIII whatsoever, or become less serious. Like every skeleton having a chance of maybe reassembling once or twice. Or curses not having lasting effects anymore.

I enjoyed DSIII a lot, but Dark Souls Remastered has a unique flair and sense of true hero arc.

[redeyes]

ds1 then 3 then 2...throw in bloodborn demonsouls and sekiro inbetween waterever....id probs do sekiro last ♥♥♥ that game is solo and different combat

[Varagonax]

Escrito originalmente por Arkendight:

• Ghosts being completely immune to regular physical damage, requiring an approach, buff or unique weapon.
  
• Tiny creatures that appear when you leave and forget an item somewhere. They attack you with barrages of magic and carry that item.
  
• Curses having much more serious ramifications even after you respawn, so you learn to be in real terror of ever becoming cursed, instead of just dying in DSIII. You'll have to find methods of removing that curse
  
• Pitch-black locations requiring a light source
  
• Possibility of getting infected with a parasite
  
• Skeletons that continuously reassemble until you find out why, or use a blessed weapon. So you can either come back later or press on through constantly rising skeletons.

Not saying your wrong but there are reasons they stopped doing these things, mostly.

-Ghosts were interesting but ultimately caused more issues with players not understanding or missing out on items. Not being thorough, or not reading your items and an entire area is suddenly full of angry ghosts you cant hurt but can hunt you through walls.
-Vagrants are a neat idea, but ultimately most never saw one. The idea was neat, but in the end the rarity of the thing (and how buggy it could be) meant that it never achieved enough popularity to make it into different games.
-Curse's latter effect impeded gameplay in a way that players felt was offputting. Semipermenant health loss in a game where 20 health can mean the difference between failure and success was an issue. There was also a chance players wouldn't be aware of how to reverse its effects, so the devs had to implement changes to protect players from themselves. Its pretty common in iterative design to remove problems people might not understand. And it affected newer players worse then old ones. If you dont efficiently level, having less health meant the effect was more drastic. 50% of 200 is 100; 50% of 1100 is 550.
-The parasite is a neat trinket, but it wasn't really used. Notice how fan faves make it into every sequel, but the never used get replaced. That, and it didn't do anything outside of minorly annoy players. Not a design worth reimplementing. DS2 might have tried, at some point, with the parastic spiders, but they eventually decided it wasn't worth it. People just don't like looking ugly that much, which is why in ds2 they tried to make dragon boys look decent. Turns out people like awful dragon appearances.
-People just werent clueing in on why they skellies kept coming back. That and without looking into it, most people never knew about the auxiliary effects of enchantments. In fact, if you look it up on steam global achievements, most people never got around to doing enchanting efficiently (and most people gave up the game entirely around anor londo). So, as is commonplace in iterative design, they decided it wasn't a mechanic worth keeping around, especially if you didnt know what was going on and the enemies never stopped. It just got tedious and annoying, which darksouls typically try's not to be.

[HTJA]

Escrito originalmente por Varagonax:

Its purely opinion. I think, in terms of the darksouls trilogy, that DS3 is the best in terms of general quality and ease of access. Darksouls 1 is a lot clunkier, with issues that are glaringly abundant, but its roughness has a charm to it. DS2 is a good game, and would have been fine as a soulsclone but its a canon entry. It had troubled development and if you look, it shows. Its probably the most forgiving entry, with all the healing items.

That 'clunkiness' of Dark Souls and original Demon's Souls can be alleviated with lock-on toggle. Considering the lock-on points on some enemies and bosses, that is probably how the developers meant to the game to be played as well.

At least for me personally it made a massive difference. Went back to PTDE after I was slightly disappointed about the game world of Dark Souls II, even though at that time I mechanically preferred it because of the omnidirectional roll and such. Had terrible time at first, but at some point I just started to play the game differently and stopped defaulting to lock-on, instead of treating it like a situational tool that has pro's and con's just like playing without lock-on. Mixing those two together is almost an art and once you get good at it, the combat actually flows rather beautifully.

But of course from the perspective of new player that makes the game more difficult, and not necessarily in a good way.

[Varagonax]

Escrito originalmente por Hautautuja:

Escrito originalmente por Varagonax:

Its purely opinion. I think, in terms of the darksouls trilogy, that DS3 is the best in terms of general quality and ease of access. Darksouls 1 is a lot clunkier, with issues that are glaringly abundant, but its roughness has a charm to it. DS2 is a good game, and would have been fine as a soulsclone but its a canon entry. It had troubled development and if you look, it shows. Its probably the most forgiving entry, with all the healing items.

That 'clunkiness' of Dark Souls and original Demon's Souls can be alleviated with lock-on toggle. Considering the lock-on points on some enemies and bosses, that is probably how the developers meant to the game to be played as well.

At least for me personally it made a massive difference. Went back to PTDE after I was slightly disappointed about the game world of Dark Souls II, even though at that time I mechanically preferred it because of the omnidirectional roll and such. Had terrible time at first, but at some point I just started to play the game differently and stopped defaulting to lock-on, instead of treating it like a situational tool that has pro's and con's just like playing without lock-on. Mixing those two together is almost an art and once you get good at it, the combat actually flows rather beautifully.

But of course from the perspective of new player that makes the game more difficult, and not necessarily in a good way.

The clunkiness Im referring to has nothing to do with the lock on the way you think I am refering to it. Although, Its even present WITH it, as I find myself trying to run backwards while locked on (you cant) and that the dodging is janky.
Input queuing, limited movesets, how your characters rotation can be "laggy" so if you wiggle back and forth you can actually increase your backstab window ect. I have way more hours in ds1 then it looks like on steam, the vast majority of hours I spent on xbox 360 when the game was still relatively new. I remember playing when DWGR was beyond broken, where the knights in the forest respawned so you could get close to 20k souls a run without the silver serpent ring, before the backstab meta in pvp was a defined thing. Am I an expert? Nah, man, I barely consider myself good (not great) at darksouls. But if there is one thing I can say with absolute certainty, its that after coming back to darksouls 1, darksouls 2 and 3 spoilt us.

[ADarkRaccoon]

DS1 <3 always Cleric

[Mr. Oibyr]

DS3 is just recycled bosses from 1 and 2, sped up. I do love it's selection and graphical improvements, but it is the most linear and imbalanced DS. It is also "broken" because of bow glitches(weapon-art/spell/buff swapping). I was able to panic roll with the speed so high...why isn't there more "Dante" cosplayers, lol.

DS1 is slower, but feels less like DMC. It has (less)broken stuff, but the speed punishes panic rolls more often and a pure sorcerer is actually a stable build, unlike DS3(let's just say; pick "fire gem" as the starting item).

DS2 is too "swarm happy" for me and I never played Demon Souls. Play 1 first...or 3.

[Mr. Oibyr]

Escrito originalmente por ADarkRaccoon:

DS1 <3 always Cleric

Is that "ds1 heart always cleric" or "ds1 lesser than 3 always cleric"?