Dhruv_hanom
Member
I'll have to go with Dark Souls 1.
So now that the dust has settled a bit - Dark Souls 1 or 2, which is better?
- Thread starter onken
- Start date
DoubleTake
Member
This. If anyone cares to watch a lets play they need to go watch a person called Kay play through the Souls games on YouTube. She starts out with Dark 1 and progressively gets better throughtout the lets play and ends up loving the game. Before she started playing she wasn't that avid of a gamer but she echoed these exactly same complaints about 2 when she played.Now she's playing Demons and she's commented a couple of times how the game feels more correctly balanced or fair which was missing in 2.
Something just feels off about the whole game and its evident there is something off when people who don't play video games often can notice it.
A lot of the people who prefer DKS2 say because of the pvp and greater options which is understandable, opinions and all that. But imo Souls games are offline experiences with online capability sprinkled on top(if that makes sense). Dark 2 lacks everywhere that doesn't pertain to coop/pvp which automatically knocks it down multiple pegs when compared to its predecessors.
Haunted
Member
I can definitely see the argument for DS2 being the best in the series, with the UI improvements, technical excellence (well, compared to the other 2), best online system and most variety in content. I understand where the people arguing that are coming from, but I think the interconnected world design of DS is just such a triumph... it means a lot when I'm judging all three, I guess it's a priority for me.
edit: that said, if the next two DLCs are of similar quality and length as Crown of the Sunken King is... oh boy. Might be time to re-evaluate, because that level design was brilliant.
Dark has higher highs and lower lows, but if you take the median, it's just of a higher quality than Demon's. Demon's is very simple and basic compared to the latter two titles, it feels limited and small in comparison. It's still a fantastic first attempt, but acting as if it's understood to the best of the three is laughable. You can't talk away the advancement and improvements of the latter two games, even with nostalgia glasses. Not that GAF polls are anything to go by, but the one we had recently showed that a majority of people had Dark Souls as the best entry in the series and I agree with that.
edit: that said, if the next two DLCs are of similar quality and length as Crown of the Sunken King is... oh boy. Might be time to re-evaluate, because that level design was brilliant.
haha
Dark has higher highs and lower lows, but if you take the median, it's just of a higher quality than Demon's. Demon's is very simple and basic compared to the latter two titles, it feels limited and small in comparison. It's still a fantastic first attempt, but acting as if it's understood to the best of the three is laughable. You can't talk away the advancement and improvements of the latter two games, even with nostalgia glasses. Not that GAF polls are anything to go by, but the one we had recently showed that a majority of people had Dark Souls as the best entry in the series and I agree with that.
staticneuron
Member
Exactly how I felt about it. DS2 was a disappointment for me.
The only main complaint between the two are the hub vs open world arguments. Demon souls not only performed better but maintained a consistency in the looks and design for each area thanks to it being hub based. The sense of dread was far greater in Demon Souls than it was in Dark Souls.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Moon_frogger
Member
Dark souls 2 is like a really great dark souls cover band. Or maybe like queen playing with Adam lambert. Naw, not that good. But still good.
Banana Aeon
Member
Titanite Demon and their bullshit hitboxes fire back.
All three games have hit box issues.
And dude totally got hit in the second gif.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Demon Souls the best
sammyCYBORG
Member
The first is better in almost every way.
KCroxtonJr
Member
Such a bad comparison. You can't even see the health bar in the dark souls 1 footage to prove he did not get hit.This sums up the difference in quality:
DkS2
DkS
Very disappointing.
Also, If you look closely, it actually looks like there might be blood coming out of the player from the last attack, right around the grip of the enemies sword.
Riposte
Member
This sums up the difference in quality:
DkS2
DkS
Very disappointing.
But tbf, how many DS1 gifs are there that show that level of accuracy?
There's a reason only one gets passed around so much.
Edit:
Riposte said:
Yeah, it's actually kind of difficult to tell what frame the player is getting hit on in the DS2 gifs when the game was possibly running at 60fps+.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
A better comparison:
Riposte
Member
Brutalitops
Banned
Dark Souls 1 easily.
Something about DS2 just felt.. off
Something about DS2 just felt.. off
DS2 just needed more time. Yeah, there are some fundamental issues with things like boss designs being toss more enemies at it but the part that gets me the most is how unfinished it feels in a lot of places. How does something like Old Iron King make it in the final game with his limp, janky animations.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Are we still on hitboxes? It was never a real issue for me, though I made sure to get ADP up slightly north of 20. Where DS2 falls short is overall Boss design. That to me was its biggest "failing" in comparison to Dark Souls. There was never an O&S moment, or even someone as badass as Artorias. Smelter Demon was actually close in that he made plenty of people stop cold and re-assess how to take his tank ass down.
Crown Of The Sunken King goes a long way towards cementing DS2 as a worthy successor. I highly recommend it to everyone who has finished the main game, especially if you weren't compelled to do NG+. This will get you going again.
Crown Of The Sunken King goes a long way towards cementing DS2 as a worthy successor. I highly recommend it to everyone who has finished the main game, especially if you weren't compelled to do NG+. This will get you going again.
GamingIsDead
Member
A better comparison:
Not really a better comparison would be the sentinel in Anor Londo, same thing happens with them and the shield smash even if your aren't hit with it.
http://youtu.be/aO_rHlGNXmU?t=4m10s
Night Angel
Member
If the hitboxes were better, the edge would go to DS2. It does so many things right.
But yeah, DS1.
But yeah, DS1.
To be honest, I think that's more of a design thing than a bad hitbox.
...but you could say that about any of the DS2 examples too I suppose.
But that is the point! You are a developer of a beloved franchise and you ask yourself "What does dark souls need to get better?" "A fuck ton of lag?" "Yeah that sounds great!"
I liked the DLC as well but if your issue with DS2 are the bosses, I don't see how the DLC is better. Sinh is great but the other ones suffer from the same issues as the main game.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
I'd say Dark Souls 1. The early levels of that game are some of the best in all of gaming.
The only exception is if you're really bad at navigation. I have a friend who started with DS1 but gave up after she kept getting lost. She then started Demon's Souls, which is much more linear, and beat it, then returned and beat DS1.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
Yeah, I feel this way too. There's no accounting for taste and all that, but this is one of those cases where the sequel is clearly inferior.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
I felt the DLC captured the despairing atmosphere of Dark Souls and the level design was top notch as well.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Why should his/her ADP matter?
Souls is an action rpg not a turn based one. Hitting an enemy entirely depends on the players weapon, movement and enemies movement. Conversely, dodging an enemy entirely depends on the enemies weapon, your movement and the enemies movement.
Not some bs, you can only dodge that if you have x amount in y stat. Thats poor game design.
I have dozens of gifs of broken hitboxes and the amount of times I've seen it in my ver own game cemented my opinion of DkS2's hitboxes being broken.
Shield bash is actually an AoE move. It hits you even if you're not under the shield.
Riposte
Member
This has nothing to do with lag, but vulnerability. It's pretty understandable why they'd want to make you more vulnerable in a souls game or require you to earn it through build investment.
I've done the exact same thing with an enemy in DSII.
Does this prove DSII hitboxes are awesome?
It doesn't
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
dragonfart28
Banned
Dark Souls 2 obviously.
Why is this even a question?
Why is this even a question?
Riposte
Member
"Bad game design" lol. Not a very convincing argument.
Yes, Dark Souls is an action game, one that depends on visible and manipulable stats through a leveling mechanic. In game A you are given x number of invincibility frames and in game B you are given Y number of invincibility frames, but in a game where the nature of a dodge can be adjusted, then you'll get both depending on your build. In the end, it's not only a matter of hitboxes, but the stat that assigns the length of the time the player cannot be hit.
Red Liquorice
Member
Which brings us to another issue - Soul Memory has made "builds" completely pointless and redundant where pvp is concerned.
.... Is the correct answer.
The faults with DS2 sour the overall experience, even if it is still a great game.
yeah ADP was a bad decision same as hyper tracking enemies in DS2.
The goal was to make the game harder, sure ,but its also less consistent.
RecursiveFault
Banned
Exactly, basically.
Dark Souls 1 does a ton of stuff right in addition to its gameplay. Dark 2 does mechanical improvements, but for as many steps forward it takes several back, and it absolutely destroys the atmosphere and world that Demon's and Dark accomplished.
This isn't even mentioning how many things are copied, but done worse.
Demon's and Dark are 11/10. Dark 2 is 8/10. Anyone posted this awesome critique yet?
Deliver us Miyazaki!
I can't beleive they designed it to be "hard". That was never the point of Souls games. They were hard so they could be scary and stressful, not annoying.
Orochinagis
Member
DLC 1 is just DS1 DLC clashing with DS2 design.
I liked ADP being a stat, especially because it was easier to level up in DS2. Agility is also increased by ATT, so magic users could get high agility as well. It meant you couldn't survive just by rolling in the early game. Of course, some DS pros didn't like having to make that adjustment.
Riposte
Member
Only in the long term. I don't like Soul Memory in the slightest, but it doesn't retroactively ruin builds before it becomes a problem; at worst it gives characters an "expiration date".
How is the game less consistent? There's no randomness in how frames are calculated. On the flip side, you can say that free overpowered dodges and easy to backstab enemies are bad design.
I'm mixed on the DLC for DS2. The level design was great; definitely more in line with DS1 than the rest of the sequel. Everything else is pretty poor quality overall. No memorable new music, no new NPCs, a grand total of two lines of dialogue... And probably the laziest, worst excuse for a boss battle in the entire series. In fairness, one of the bosses is quite good. One for three is hard to be too happy about, though.
If we get two more chapters of similar quality, the overall package will be solidly inferior to Artorias of the Abyss. Just being longer (and more expensive) is not a compelling feature to me.
Dr_Boris_Goltz
Banned
I liked 2 better, and Demon's Souls better still.
I love all three.
I love all three.
PensivePen
Member
Dark Souls 1 generally more interesting level and enemy design from both a gameplay and worldbuilding standpoint. It does falter a little in the second half (more than many people claim) but I would say it still easily edges out the sequel. And mechanically, it feels much tighter, probably because of the lack of agility stat, but I don't think tying how fluidly the player moves to a stat in the first place was a good idea, and even with higher agility the control simply doesn't feel as good as Dark Souls.
Demon's Souls is still my favorite for its lore, and the speed of the gameplay, which both Dark Souls games feel considerably slower than. It also has probably the most consistently good design, with no points that are really as bad as the worst areas in the sequels. It does have the least amount of content though, and the easiest overall bosses (with a few exceptions).
They were cursed rocks!
Demon's Souls is still my favorite for its lore, and the speed of the gameplay, which both Dark Souls games feel considerably slower than. It also has probably the most consistently good design, with no points that are really as bad as the worst areas in the sequels. It does have the least amount of content though, and the easiest overall bosses (with a few exceptions).
They were cursed rocks!
wastedyears
Member
The original Dark Souls is better in almost every way. DS2 is still a great game, but not as good as DS.
SkullHydra
Member
I probably need to replay Dark Souls 2 again, but this is how I feel. Dark Souls 2 just never felt quite right to me. Bad hitboxes and especially enemy despawns really decreased my enjoyment. It felt like you could just grind through a level many times and you'd eventually win since all the enemies would stop spawning. It took away some of the skill needed to succeed, IMO.
duck_sauce
Member
For me it is
Dark Souls 2, Dark Souls 1, Demon Souls.
I liked the combat in DS2 alot and the different Areas were fantastic (even though they didnt always made a lot of sense).
Dark Souls 1 was a good game, but for me it had too many flaws. Demon Souls just felt clunky and unpolished.
My personal preference.
Dark Souls 2, Dark Souls 1, Demon Souls.
I liked the combat in DS2 alot and the different Areas were fantastic (even though they didnt always made a lot of sense).
Dark Souls 1 was a good game, but for me it had too many flaws. Demon Souls just felt clunky and unpolished.
My personal preference.
DrDrizzay101
Member
If you've already done Demon's, just continue in order to Dark 1. It wouldn't make any sense at all to skip it. Dark 1 is by far the better game to me, but Dark 2 is still fantastic, especially in terms of game feel and playability. I've put 100 hours in DaS1 but 200+ in DaS2 just because it's so accessible (in a good way).
DaS1, and even more so DeS, are intense and harrowing artistic experiences that I can only mentally survive for a limited time (in the best way). Dark 2 is a damn fun game.
DaS1, and even more so DeS, are intense and harrowing artistic experiences that I can only mentally survive for a limited time (in the best way). Dark 2 is a damn fun game.
nah, I beat and platnuimed DeS within the last year and that game's feels anything but low quality. Hell, in some ways it feels infinitely more polished that both its "sequels".
And I'm not talking anything away from both Dark 1 and 2, as I've greatly enjoyed both (I still think the first half of DrK1 is not only the best Souls experience, but one of the greatest gaming experiences I've ever had as a gamer), but neither game was as consistent in quality as Demon's was, world tendency shenanigans notwithstanding.
It is good but the sequels clearly outclass it by a large margin.