SOULS series - Best to worst?

How do you rank the games in the Souls series?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Haven't played DS2 but Dark Souls > Demon's Souls.

I didn't like Demon's Souls much. I was not very fond of the hub system and overall the level design and environments felt boring. The open world design in Dark Souls feels much more impressive to me from a technical and creative standpoint. And I really, really like that it's set in one location with an interesting history that you can connect to while you explore.

I had no idea so many people prefered Demon's Souls. The original game always have a certain impact on people, I guess. Like Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted and some other series.
 
Here's a new one from Kay Plays

ibiaw74FqlYe3.gif

The framerate is all over the place in that gif and I haven't ran into any phantom hits at all in 80 hours of gameplay. You could probably find a whacky phantom hit gif/video in Demon's and Dark 1 as well. It doesn't mean it happens all the time.
 
Dark Souls 2 has the worst PvP netcode of the three, and in some cases the hitboxes are the worst too (though in other cases they are very good indeed, I was amazed to see a giant knight's sword swing over my head while my character was crouched for Firestorm... but we've all seen those mimic gifs and Smelter and Pursuer gifs, too, gah)

Dark Souls netcode was terrible DS2 is miles ahead on that front and while there are some wonky hitboxes what most people complain about as "bad hitboxes" is actually an issue with canned animations not hitboxes, for example the infamous pursuer one is because the person gets clipped and then a canned animation plays.
 
I can't see how people could honestly say Dark 2 > Demons Souls

Blows my mind that one. The poor healing system, that fast travel junk, that horrible story, the unimaginative locations, barely any hit reaction ( sometimes the only way I know I am hit is by actually looking at my bar .... not good ), attack moves are not very practical. Like the spinning overhead swing with the sword. No good sweep move with the sword either. The bosses are pretty craptastic and not much thought put behind em it seems.

Could go on and on with DS2, but to each their own.
 
People who think Dark Souls 1 and 2 are better than Demon's are weeeiirrd.

Personally I fall under Demon's Souls > Dark Souls 2 > Dark Souls 1

Demon's has the most consistent level design, boss design, encounter design, everything design throughout. The only notch I can actually even think to give it is net code and even then that's not something truly detrimental unless you PVP (and I don't care much for PVP in the Souls games). Dark Souls 1 and 2's music is mostly generic orchestral stuff while a lot of Demon's Souls is fierce and grotesque and weird and unique and unsettling and it's all wonderful. The game is very much about all of those traits and it sticks to it very strongly. The story is simple yet has enough depth to keep you messing about in it even it isn't quite as realized as the other two games. But the mechanics and enemy design is the least circle-strafe-y garbage of the series (namely Flamelurker and False King).

Dark Souls 2 beats out 1 because, like Demon's, it at least maintains a consistent quality of level design. It never dips harshly and maintains enough variety to keep you interested. I think Dark Souls 2's main fault is focus. A focus on a centralized theme or to keep design working towards one end goal (which is Dark Souls 1's one and only strength over 2). Yah sure I understand that the bosses are not memorable or interesting in 2 and (most) of them are. However I'd say the same for Dark Souls 1 whose notables are basically Sif and Gwyn.

Mechanically speaking, Dark Souls 1 and 2's enemy designs just fall under "circle strafe = win" and most bosses just become boring rehashes because of it, no matter the design. There's nothing interesting mechanically about enemy design post Demon's. The over reliance on humanoid bipedal enemies makes going through each new souls game less and less interesting because you just end up treading the same grounds mechanically (and why people will keep thinking each new Souls game they play is easier than the last). I'd argue Demon's has the biggest variety and tries to keep away from the boring humanoid enemy design the most (especially for bosses) and thus shines brightly over its successors. Dark Souls 1, as much as 2, falters on this.

And christ. Dark Souls 1's post-Lord Vessel level design is groanworthy. I hate doing it and I usually just lose steam on playthroughs whenever I get that far. For all its praise as far as level design that people give it around here, they sure seem to forget those areas. Areas that are as loosely interconnected as Dark Souls 2's. The interconnectedness of Dark Souls 1's first half is its biggest achievement and even then it doesn't back it up with its latter half. Each of Demon's Souls levels are just as intricate and packed as the first half of Dark Souls 1 and every level of Demon's Souls is wonderful for it. Dark Souls 2, I'd argue is the most linear and straightforward as far as level design went but it had some neat moments and levels spruced through out.

Dark Souls 2 mostly succeeds over Dark Souls 1 out of just not dropping the ball and having quite an impressive back half (also I like the lore more).

Yoshichan earlier in the thread basically encompasses my view on the matter as well.
 
I don't understand why people keep making this dumb mistake.

There are two options for each game where they're stated as the best.
Demon's Souls has 273 +41 = 314 votes
Dark Souls has 230 + 121 = 351 votes.
Dark Souls 2 has 60 + 13 = 73 votes

Demon's Souls is in second place, Dark Souls 2 is third and Dark Souls is first place with a somewhat large difference.

Easy. Past the first 3 options, I do not even consider the rest.

The poll is too complex as it is for something that should be so simple.
 
I 100%/platinum trophy completed Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, not entirely done with Dark Souls 2 yet.

Demon's > Dark > Dark 2, the obvious choice for me.

Demon's Souls had the best atmosphere, the best/most original enemies and bosses, interesting characters, better level design, actual working PvP, and it was the tightest game for not attempting to 'streamline' anything. Demon's Souls was something you got lost in, and it had this mix of complexity and simplicity that was uninviting but once you got in, you couldn't leave. I still play it.

Dark Souls gets a lot of points for the open and connected world, but it introduced bonfires which did a lot to remove the lurking fear that existed in Demon's Souls. Humanity became readily available and trivialized as an instant full-heal and there was really no motivation for going soul searching. Dark Souls was a proper 'sequel' but it was also obviously trying to go after a larger audience, and it lost a bit of its soul in the process. Still a great game and nothing wrong with going after a larger audience if it's done well (which it was here). It took two steps forward towards a wider audience and one step back from the integrity that Demon's Souls had. It's a fair trade off, but it makes it #2 for me.
 
DeS > DS1 > DS2.

Demons is what started it for me, and I had my best experiences with the series with this game. The sequels obviously great games, felt ran on a little too long and a lot of the challenge in DeS was mistranslated into these two(hard for the sake of being hard).

So I say DeS reigns supreme.
 
I voted Dark > Demon's > Dark II.

But it's really Dark >>>>> Demon's > Dark II. As long as Dark wins the poll, though, all is right on GAF.

Dark Souls stands head and shoulders above the other two due to its wonderfully designed interconnected world, mostly, but also improved mechanics from Demon's, and excellent unified theme/backstory, among other things.

Dark II is a bit bland, and the world design fails at actually feeling interconnected. It's still great, but seems like a somewhat poorer copy of Dark.

Demon's has that 1st game impact on its side, but that's a false virtue, really. It's easily the 2nd best game of the gen, no question, but by any metric I can think of, Dark was an improvement.

Edit: also in this thread, we learn that Demon's Souls fans are bad at math? :)
 
Dark Souls netcode was terrible DS2 is miles ahead on that front and while there are some wonky hitboxes what most people complain about as "bad hitboxes" is actually an issue with canned animations not hitboxes, for example the infamous pursuer one is because the person gets clipped and then a canned animation plays.
I don't agree. I've got hundreds of hours of PvP in Dark Souls 1 and while the netcode is bad, I've had way, way more flagrant lagstabs and ridiculous hits in Dark Souls 2. I've also had more laggy coop in Dark Souls 2 than in previous games (AI enemies teleporting etc.). While summoning is far better than in Dark Souls, and the new PvP areas are very cool (arenas, the Belfries, Rat areas etc.) the netcode is very poor, which is a shame.

I wasn't terribly fond of Dark Souls 1 PvP in general though. Too many exploits and boring broken stuff. DeS's was the best because everything that was OP could still be countered. It was broken too, but it ended up being so broken it was balanced. Yes, I'm serious. XD


I have no idea what this link is supposed to prove. Just some scrub using lolweapons and...?
 
I don't understand why people keep making this dumb mistake.

There are two options for each game where they're stated as the best.
Demon's Souls has 273 +41 = 314 votes
Dark Souls has 230 + 121 = 351 votes.
Dark Souls 2 has 60 + 13 = 73 votes

Demon's Souls is in second place, Dark Souls 2 is third and Dark Souls is first place with a somewhat large difference.

Yup. Also tally up the number of last place votes each has; Demon's has 3x as many last place votes as Dark.

I think it's pretty clear Dark is the favorite; what's interesting is that Demon's has Dark 2 licked so easily. Though it's also probably the least played at this point, I don't expect that opinion to change much with time. I think Dark 2 will be remembered as a successful, but by the numbers follow-up that fell short of what it could have been. I think that's a bit harsh, but probably fair.
 
Dark > Dark 2 > Demon's based on fun factor.

Dark's curve was very stressful and aggravating, until I happened upon a BKS & found out what humanity did. Then I found out about upgrading the pyromancy flame. Then things got fun. I have no problems with the 2nd half of the game. Ended up with a Dragon Body/Silver Knight Obsidian S + Washing pole build. Steam says 220 hrs. Dragon body PvP is great, except for BS fishing and D.Magic bullshit. Thank you wolf ring.

DS2's campaign is more fun than Demon's, tied with DS1. Difficulty is almost perfect, save for certain enemies with ridiculous tracking+stamina. The enhancements to the combat system makes the excessive balancing act done to everything else more aggravating, and makes me wish they could back port it to DS1. PvP as a Dragon is ... ok. While the head stone is much better on the stamina, the body stone takes too long to activate, and takes a RIDICULOUS amount of stamina. Twinkling titanite being hyper rare sucks, and does not make up for slabs being more common. I have not found a proper Obsidian Sword replacement yet. Poise is fucked. I miss you wolf ring, but you probably wouldn't be any good here. 97 hours so far.

Demon's... has yet to be beaten. The curve is extreme. The game performance is terrible. It's darker than the two games actually named Dark. I think I have less than 20 hours. I like to think of Demon's as Not Fun Souls.
 
No it's not. The problem is that whoever created this poll did a terrible job because it doesn't factor in that one of the three titles is exclusive to a single platform. There are already many gaffers who voted, but wrote afterwards that they never played Demon's Souls. That's just stupid. For a fair comparison, the poll should be something like "I played [one / two / all] games of the series and my favourite game of the series is [Demon / Dark / Dark2]. In its current form, this poll is just a big waste of time for everyone.

The "Other" option shouldn't be there at all. It is statistically redundant. Can we add the "Others" to the pro-Demon's? Or can we add it to the pro-Darks? It's impossible to reconstruct.

Okay, first of all, the poll was added strictly to give people a place to dump their absolutely garbage one-liner drive-by posts that I was deleting before I added the poll in the first place. What I actually wanted was for people to post and give reasons for why they feel the way they do about the games, because list threads are completely worthless and are generally locked. The poll is not meant to be statistically valid in any way.

Second, I see no reason why the poll should cater to platform loyalists. I'm sure one could come up with people who haven't played one of the Dark games too, for one reason or another, but they don't get special treatment either. Nor would people who have only played Demon's and not the Dark games. Polls here can only have 10 options total, so I fit what I could fit and collapsed the rest into the other option. Again, what people should be doing is making posts.
 
I definitely think that Demon's Souls being PS3 exclusive has an impact on the poll, it's been elevated in the minds of a lot of Souls players due to that I think. It was one of those exclusives people really latched onto and evangelised to others. Also, can't deny the power of being the first one, where everything's new.

If all three would've been multiplat, we might see an even bigger lead for Dark Souls compared to the fairly slim 40+ votes advantage it has now, it just improved so much.


That said, the poll is totally fine, and the real thread and the real discussion lies in the posts anyway, not in the tally.
 
Honestly, each of the games has something it does better than the others, and that makes it hard for me to determine one as the outright best Souls game, so I personally feel they're all on equal ground.

Demon's Souls has far better presentation, a more defined story, and more interesting and likeable characters. The gameplay is also very simple and fun, and it's kind of interesting how there are so many different weapon upgrades on offer. The Nexus is by the far the best gathering place in any of the games, and the locations in general are all nicely varied too. I also like the idea of World Tendency influencing events in each area, and adjusting the difficulty.

Dark Souls has a far more oppressive atmosphere to it, or at least that's the way I feel about it, and the bosses are generally more impressive and intimidating looking than most in Demon's Souls. The weapon upgrade system is better. There's no more collecting loads of ores in different sizes to combine for each part of the process, and you just have to use the one size for each part of it, making it somewhat more simple. Elemental upgrades are also really cool. The game is also the hardest and most challenging in general.

Dark Souls 2 brings back some of the best points about Demon's Souls, with better story presentation, although not quite as well presented, and a better range of side characters with more immediately accessible story that doesn't require as much reading up on lore to hear it (I like the idea of reading up on lore, but I'd also like to hear more about the characters in dialogue too), It seem more accessible to new players, but it also provides a way to increase the challenge with Bonfire Ascetics and continuous NG+ playthroughs, and the weapon infusion system is by far my most preferred method of upgrading. Add to that some of the best locations since Demon's Souls, the fact it's a sequel with interesting story elements that draw back to Dark Souls events, some cool enemies, the range of weapons, and the dual wielding fighting style.
 
I'd rank them:

Demon's > Dark 1 = Dark 2.

Demon's MP system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dark's "charge system."

I've got no opinion on "hub vs interconnected."

Though I'd probably put Dark 2 a little below Dark 1 simply because it felt a little too barren/pacing was "off" to me, personally. Not a bad game, I enjoyed my time with it like Demon's and Dark but both Dark games just don't match the "OMG" factor that Demon's had. I guess it's just a norm for series now.
 
For me its Dark Souls> Dark Souls 2> Demon's Souls.

Demons Souls was my first experience, blind bought it(had to import it from USA, living in Australia) and was blown away. Superb game, played through it 3 times. Wasnt a massive fan of the choose your stage type play, but a very good game.

Dark Souls was an improvement on that, and I loved the more open connected world.
Mechanically it felt better than DeS, and I had more fun.

Dark Souls 2 is fantastic, but it was the first time I really felt like the encounters were cheap.
Enjoyed it less than Dark, but more than Demons. Mechanically I think there were some steps forwards, and a few back. I like to farm, and couldnt, but then again I liked being able to clear guys away to make boss runs smoother.
 
I wasn't terribly fond of Dark Souls 1 PvP in general though. Too many exploits and boring broken stuff. DeS's was the best because everything that was OP could still be countered. It was broken too, but it ended up being so broken it was balanced. Yes, I'm serious. XD

All is broken to the point of being balanced lol
But to be fair, Demon's Souls doesn't have as much content as its successors, so broken weapon/spells could easily countered by other broken weapon/spells :p
Dark Souls is a balance hell due to how padded with content the game is and the fact that it have many unique weapon. Guess Miyazaki don't want unique weapon just having different skins.
 
All is broken to the point of being balanced lol
But to be fair, Demon's Souls doesn't have as much content as its successors, so broken weapon/spells could easily countered by other broken weapon/spells :p
Dark Souls is a balance hell due to how padded with content the game is and the fact that it have many unique weapon. Guess Miyazaki don't want unique weapon just having different skins.

Dark Souls 1 PvP is the most balanced though.
 
The framerate is all over the place in that gif and I haven't ran into any phantom hits at all in 80 hours of gameplay. You could probably find a whacky phantom hit gif/video in Demon's and Dark 1 as well. It doesn't mean it happens all the time.

I can't remember seeing this in Demon's / Dark souls. I have seen this brought up several times in reference to DS2. Defending DS2 when it has obvious unfair hit boxes is not helping anything. We want them to fix this shit in future patches so the game gets better.
 
Demons Souls>Darks Souls>Dark Souls 2

Demons had an amazing atmosphere with no dull moments. The boss fights were all well done and the characters in the game made for great dialogue.

Dark Souls built up on the formula, but I just couldn't get myself into the game as much as I did with Demons Souls.

As for Dark Souls 2, I have been playing the game for around 15 hours and just recently decided to stop playing it.
It feels and plays like a souls game, but lacks substance. There is no story whatsoever, and the game feels cheap in mechanics more than thoughtful. I literally have had no problems at all whatsoever with bosses, which is surprising as I died multiple times in DeS and DaS1 to bosses.
 
Depends on what we're talking about.

Combat (PVP)- Dark Souls II>Dark Souls>Demon's Souls
Story/Atmosphere- Demon's Souls>Dark Souls>>>Dark Souls II
PVE- Dark Souls>Demon's Souls>Dark Souls II

Overall? Dark Souls. DeS feels outdated in terms of combat when I go back to it and Dark Souls II didn't capture the atmosphere that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls had even though it exceeded both in terms of combat. Dark Souls falls right in the middle for me.
 
I don't understand why people keep making this dumb mistake.

There are two options for each game where they're stated as the best.
Demon's Souls has 273 +41 = 314 votes
Dark Souls has 230 + 121 = 351 votes.
Dark Souls 2 has 60 + 13 = 73 votes

Demon's Souls is in second place, Dark Souls 2 is third and Dark Souls is first place with a somewhat large difference.

True. But half of respondents probably never touched Demon's.
 
I don't understand why people keep making this dumb mistake.

There are two options for each game where they're stated as the best.
Demon's Souls has 273 +41 = 314 votes
Dark Souls has 230 + 121 = 351 votes.
Dark Souls 2 has 60 + 13 = 73 votes

Demon's Souls is in second place, Dark Souls 2 is third and Dark Souls is first place with a somewhat large difference.

Looks like Dark has S scaling on PC gamers.
 
Dark Souls is my favorite of them all. Whilst it is really close in quality of Demon's, and obviously not as innovative as its the successor, I just find it to be far more fascinating. I think the art style of a lot of areas is better, and the overall feel is much more grand. Dark Souls seems to went with a much more traditional fantasy imagery which I really like.

Dark Souls 2 is last, it is poorly optimized and is of lesser design of the previous games.
 
This is the best comparison.

I knew GAF loved DkS ( like an excessive amount lol) but I did not know it loved DeS just as much.
It could be just a publicly-agreed meme even though they might have not finished Demon Souls.

I guess the poll should be exclusive to people who finished all three (I shouldn't vote as well).
 
To me it sounds like a lot just dislike DS2 for its sequelitis, that they find it to be worse than the first because it's so "been there, done that".

I played 30 minutes of Dark Souls 1 and then I quit because I thought the levels looked barren and I felt like I didn't "get the idea" of what kind of emotion the atmosphere was trying to convey. I bought DS2 cuz I thought "hey, the game is new" and at the same time I felt bummed after not getting into DS1 before.

First impressions were that the story was intentionally 2deep4u but IMO you start to appreciate it for its lore and characters the longer you get in. I also love Majula. It reminds me of Tristram from Diablo.

I also have DeS because of PSN plus, so I plan to play that, but when it comes to Dark Souls I'm afraid it's gonna be the other way around for me where I don't like it as much as DS2 sinply because it will feel like going through the motions
 

I wonder if people nitpicked this much with DS1 too when it was released.

One could make it look the worse game ever just by using dragon's asses, flipping havels or Blightown Framerate on consoles.

Between lagstabs, dark magic and flipping havels there was nothing balanced in Dark Souls PvP

Pretty much every game that offers a certain liberty in customization and doesn't rail-road the player is bound to be broken in some way, but yeah. People criticize hitboxes and whatnot, but everything else was pretty much more refined. Just compare Dark Magic in DS1 to 2.

In 1 it was broken, easy to get and had no counters (lol silver pendants) in 2, while powerful, it's behind high requisites and can be countered in more effectives ways.
 
I wonder if people nitpicked this much with DS1 too when it was released.

One could make it look the worse game ever just by using dragon's asses, flipping havels or Blightown Framerate on consoles.

Except most of his critique has to do with design decisions in DS2 that make the game worse compared to the earlier Souls games. Since DS1 improved on Demon's Souls in a lot of ways, there wouldn't be nearly as much to complain about. His critique is more akin to people complaining about the direction a series has taken rather than nit-picking technical faults.

And frankly, after watching his critique I am really not interested in playing DS2. At least not until it is like $20. While I enjoyed DeS and DS1 a lot, I was also seeing the limitations of the game design, and it doesn't seem like DS2 corrects any of the issues I had.
 
I wonder if people nitpicked this much with DS1 too when it was released.

One could make it look the worse game ever just by using dragon's asses, flipping havels or Blightown Framerate on consoles.



Pretty much every game that offers a certain liberty in customization and doesn't rail-road the player is bound to be broken in some way, but yeah. People criticize hitboxes and whatnot, but everything else was pretty much more refined. Just compare Dark Magic in DS1 to 2.

In 1 it was broken, easy to get and had no counters (lol silver pendants) in 2, while powerful, it's behind high requisites and can be countered in more effectives ways.

Dark Magic had no counters? There was GMB which nullified 90% of the damage, Havel's shield, and then there is the circle button. What did the circle button do? Allowed you to ROLL.

If you really think dark magic had no counters, i'm willing to show you otherwise.
 
Except most of his critique has to do with design decisions in DS2 that make the game worse compared to the earlier Souls games. Since DS1 improved on Demon's Souls in a lot of ways, there wouldn't be nearly as much to complain about. His critique is more akin to people complaining about the direction a series has taken rather than nit-picking technical faults.

And frankly, after watching his critique I am really not interested in playing DS2. At least not until it is like $20. While I enjoyed DeS and DS1 a lot, I was also seeing the limitations of the game design, and it doesn't seem like DS2 corrects any of the issues I had.


Most of his critique is nitpicking small things like "NPC in a room with full of enemies" and "healing items other than flask" (lol, DS1 was the one with the hax healing items if anything, wtf), it's the very definition of nitpicking.
 
Most of his critique is nitpicking small things like "NPC in a room with full of enemies" and "healing items other than flask" (lol, DS1 was the one with the hax healing items if anything, wtf), it's the very definition of nitpicking.

Yeah because those enemies can explode and kill the NPC. Don't you think that's a poor design decision and unnecessarily punishing?
I suppose you think enemies spawning close enough to a bonfire that they will kill you (if you get up to take a piss) is also a small thing?

All of these issues, if taken individually, might seem like small things but when you add them all up it really starts to stink.
 
I've not played DaS, surprisingly, even though I consider DeS my game of the generation. However last week I bought DS2 and just finished it yesterday and it was wonderful, start to finish. Can't really give my input on DS1, but I would, just slightly, give the edge to DeS for the cooler boss fights and Tower of Latria.
 
Playing four hours of Demon's Souls the other night (haven't played since 2010) moved Dark 1 from being a close third on my list to a distant third. I've come to really detest the open world in comparison to Demon's and Dark 2's approach. It's a complete hassle to have to run around the world in order to visit blacksmiths and merchants and such. One could argue that the lack of warping makes areas like Blighttown more thematically evocative, but I maintain that Latria is easily the most oppressive area in the franchise despite being able to warp out at any time. Even one of the best features of an open world - being able to see locations far in the distance and eventually visit them - is used to great effect in Demon's. You can see 1-4 from 1-1, and can snag glimpses of 3-2 from 3-1, being able to travel between them pretty seamlessly. I also think Demon's levels evoke a stronger sense of place, despite being isolated, because the player spends more time in them. Dark's areas often come and go too quickly. Overall, Dark's open nature really stifles momentum and pacing for me, without offering any real advantages that Demon's lacks.

I voted Dark 2 > Demon's > Dark 1 originally, but I think I'd gladly put Demon's in front after replaying a bit of it. For all its flaws (grass healing, encumbrance, world tendency), I think it absolutely has the strongest core (level design, boss battles) of the franchise. It's also expertly paced with a strong sense of progression, while also giving player a feeling of attachment to the areas. I think by making Dark Souls open world, the designers were trying to solve problems that didn't exist in Demon's.
 
Yeah because those enemies can explode and kill the NPC. Don't you think that's a poor design decision and unnecessarily punishing?
I suppose you think enemies spawning close enough to a bonfire that they will kill you (if you get up to take a piss) is also a small thing?

All of these issues, if taken individually, might seem like small things but when you add them all up it really starts to stink.

It's very simple to kill the enemies first. And no enemies will kill you if you are resting at a bonfire.
 
It's very simple to kill the enemies first. And no enemies will kill you if you are resting at a bonfire.

I was referring to this.

Playing four hours of Demon's Souls the other night (haven't played since 2010) moved Dark 1 from being a close third on my list to a distant third. I've come to really detest the open world in comparison to Demon's and Dark 2's approach. It's a complete hassle to have to run around the world in order to visit blacksmiths and merchants and such. One could argue that the lack of warping makes areas like Blighttown more thematically evocative, but I maintain that Latria is easily the most oppressive area in the franchise despite being able to warp out at any time. Even one of the best features of an open world - being able to see locations far in the distance and eventually visit them - is used to great effect in Demon's. You can see 1-4 from 1-1, and can snag glimpses of 3-2 from 3-1, being able to travel between them pretty seamlessly. I also think Demon's levels evoke a stronger sense of place, despite being isolated, because the player spends more time in them. Dark's areas often come and go too quickly. Overall, Dark's open nature really stifles momentum and pacing for me, without offering any real advantages that Demon's lacks.

I voted Dark 2 > Demon's > Dark 1 originally, but I think I'd gladly put Demon's in front after replaying a bit of it. For all its flaws (grass healing, encumbrance, world tendency), I think it absolutely has the strongest core (level design, boss battles) of the franchise. It's also expertly paced with a strong sense of progression, while also giving player a feeling of attachment to the areas. I think by making Dark Souls open world, the designers were trying to solve problems that didn't exist in Demon's.

I couldn't disagree more. The inability to warp in Dark Souls for most of the game did two very important things:

1. It meant the designers were forced to make the world cohesive, making it much more believable as existing in its own physical reality, thus improving suspension of disbelief and immersion.
2. It meant that when you were in certain areas (as you mention, Blighttown) you have a feeling of being hopelessly up against a wall. You either fight your way through it, or have to fight all the way back. That dreadful feeling is completely destroyed if you can simply warp out of dangerous areas any time you want.

While I agree getting to the various blacksmiths required a lot of backtracking, this wasn't a gamebreaking issue for me personally.

... And why the hell would go to take a piss in DS without exiting the game? So you can get invaded and lament the game doesn't have a pause function?

As I said, nitpicking.

If you died and respawn at a bonfire you lose your humanity and can't be invaded. So the only threat would be nearby enemies. And no, the archers in Duke's archives would not notice you if you warp into / spawn at the bonfire.
 
Yeah because those enemies can explode and kill the NPC. Don't you think that's a poor design decision and unnecessarily punishing?


All of these issues, if taken individually, might seem like small things but when you add them all up it really starts to stink.

Straid of Olaphis can't be killed by enemies, the only time he can get hit is if you run to him as soon you teleport in the room, and even then they barely scratch him. I know for sure because I just tried out of curiosity (they never hit him on my 2 playthoughts, so I just went there and tried), he got hit for like 300 damage lol.

DS1 was the one where the NPC could be killed by enemies, enjoy getting mauled by golems Dusk. :^


Only got hit because I ran into his face.

I suppose you think enemies spawning close enough to a bonfire that they will kill you (if you get up to take a piss) is also a small thing?

Pretty sure this happened in DS1 too, in the duke archive some archers could always target you.

... And why the hell would go to take a piss in DS without exiting the game? So you can get invaded and lament the game doesn't have a pause function?

As I said, nitpicking.
 
I couldn't disagree more. The inability to warp in Dark Souls for most of the game did two very important things:

1. It meant the designers were forced to make the world cohesive, making it much more believable as existing in its own physical reality, thus improving suspension of disbelief and immersion.
2. It meant that when you were in certain areas (as you mention, Blighttown) you have a feeling of being hopelessly up against a wall. You either fight your way through it, or have to fight all the way back. That dreadful feeling is completely destroyed if you can simply warp out of dangerous areas any time you want.

Demon's longer individual areas and greater density of interactions per area takes care of the immersion issue with warping imo. That, and the much stronger atmosphere. After spending upwards of an hour in 1-1 or 3-1 doing tons of fun and interesting stuff along the way, the thought that I warped in wasn't even in my mind.

My point about Blighttown was just that I feel Demon's areas like Latria actually outdo it in terms of oppressiveness(of course, this is subjective), despite being able to warp out. True, Blighttown basically forces you to press on, but it isn't like areas in Demon's give you another option. You still have to deal with them at some point. Blighttown is just more insistent on it once you enter for the first time.
 
We need a new version

1. Dark Souls III = Best gameplay, best exploration, best overall bosses.
2. Bloodborne = Best art direction, best lore, best optional areas.
3. Dark Souls = Best overall game until Anor Londo, not a fan of the later areas.
4. Demon's Souls
5. Dark Souls II
 
1. Demon's

Started it all and never played anything like it.

2. Dark

Amazing interconnected world. Felt like a fuller game than Demon's.

3. Dark Souls 3

Feels like a mashup of Demon's and Bloodborne.

Bag of shit:

Dark Souls 2

Motherfucking digital movement on the left stick. An opening that thrusts down your throat how many times you're going to die. "PREPARE TO DIE EPIC MEME LOL"
 
Top Bottom