Welp, 2016 is officially over and Dark Souls III has marked the end of the series. To that end, which Souls game do you think was the best?
Poll: Which is the best game in the Souls Franchise?
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've only played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Dark Souls 2. My vote goes to Dark Souls. I think Demon's Souls has the best atmosphere and music, and I prefer the changes Dark Souls 2 made in terms of actual game mechanics, but Dark Souls is the best complete package for me.
As I've explained to my friends many, many times, Dark Souls is the best Dark Souls game because it has the highest ratio of effort-put-in to successfully-translated ideas, or quality to me. Bloodborne is really good and is a close second on my list, but I can't give it the top spot for one reason: there isn't enough of it. It feels very bare in terms of things to do and characters to interact with. The upgrade paths are restricted to just one, the builds are much more limiting in what is viable, and magic is even more of a joke than it used to be. With Dark Souls, on the other hand, there are multiple builds to take, all of which are given decent gear early on, save for pyromancy, a plethora of characters to encounter, some of which transcend their game and have become icons in their own rights, and several paths in the game which are completely missable and entirely optional. The DLC of the game adds so much more to the lore of the world and the characters we hear about through item descriptions, and while the Bloodborne DLC is great, possessing some of the greatest fights in the entire series, Dark Souls just trumps it because it has so much more to it and doesn't waste the extra fat... mostly.
Lost Izalith is a disaster of an area to go through, mostly because it's largely unfinished. I don't remember if Miyazaki said what he wanted to do with it, but it certainly wasn't what we ended up with, along with a boss fight so RNG based that skill is almost completely removed from the equation in the determining factors of the outcome of the fight. Bloodborne doesn't have a fight like that, true, but it DOES have the Chalice Dungeons, which are a hassle to go through and a pain to get materials for. Blighttown is a poorly optimized mess as well, but I maintain that the rest of the game, in all its glory, more than makes up for the hot mess that it both of those areas with amazing levels such as Anor Londo, Oolacile, and The Duke's Archives. Bloodborne's design, while really cool in its own right, can get repetitive in aesthetic really fast. The Forbidden Woods is a nightmare to navigate and none of the other stages really stand out for any reason, other than Cainhurst Castle just as a personal preference for cathedral like buildings.
Lost Izalith is a disaster of an area to go through, mostly because it's largely unfinished. I don't remember if Miyazaki said what he wanted to do with it, but it certainly wasn't what we ended up with, along with a boss fight so RNG based that skill is almost completely removed from the equation in the determining factors of the outcome of the fight. Bloodborne doesn't have a fight like that, true, but it DOES have the Chalice Dungeons, which are a hassle to go through and a pain to get materials for. Blighttown is a poorly optimized mess as well, but I maintain that the rest of the game, in all its glory, more than makes up for the hot mess that it both of those areas with amazing levels such as Anor Londo, Oolacile, and The Duke's Archives. Bloodborne's design, while really cool in its own right, can get repetitive in aesthetic really fast. The Forbidden Woods is a nightmare to navigate and none of the other stages really stand out for any reason, other than Cainhurst Castle just as a personal preference for cathedral like buildings.
Chances are you're going to see Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne said the most. Out of all of them I liked Bloodborne the most, and think it's mechanically the most refined of all of them. Though that's a bit hard to quantify, since it's by design more limited than the Souls series: merely taking blocking out altogether reduces the available playstyles massively.
Bloodborne to me is the most polished one, and I can't think of a single area which I would say felt unfinished or could have used more work. The mechanics, the level design, the lore, the visual design, the music and audio design, the graphics and the bosses, even the weaker ones, all felt as successfully executed as they could have been. Dark Souls 1 was more successful in some areas, like how many paths you could take through the game, but less successful in others; namely Lost Izalith and Blighttown.
Bloodborne to me is the most polished one, and I can't think of a single area which I would say felt unfinished or could have used more work. The mechanics, the level design, the lore, the visual design, the music and audio design, the graphics and the bosses, even the weaker ones, all felt as successfully executed as they could have been. Dark Souls 1 was more successful in some areas, like how many paths you could take through the game, but less successful in others; namely Lost Izalith and Blighttown.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I would have to say that I liked Bloodborne the most...however all of the games have their own strengths and their own MASSIVE glaring weaknesses.
Demons Souls is incredibly poorly balanced, and while some level design is pretty amazing and exceptional, some levels are truly awful and a complete chore to do, even more-so than any of the other levels in the series.
Dark Souls 1 is absolutely fantastic for the first 2 thirds...and then kind of comes to a halt in terms of quality with more than a few areas feeling rushed, not fully thought out, or entirely unfinished.
Dark Souls 2 has the worst level design and the least interesting characters, however it has some really interesting mechanics, like power-stancing, which really opens up the combat and creates some truly interesting builds and pvp experiences. It's also the only game where the dev team had to go back and "fix" the story and enemy placements.
Dark Souls 3 has busted poise which kind of limits what builds are viable, and makes heavy armor pretty useless. On the other hand it has some truly amazing boss fights, some of the best in the series in fact, and I personally really enjoyed the enemy variety and level design. The only thing that let me down in this game was how forced the story seemed to be in terms of ties to DS1, so the story never seemed to find an identity of its own.
Bloodborne is the most refined of all the games in terms of level design, combat, bosses, etc. I would say it's the game that takes the most mechanical skill, and which is the most rewarding of fast thinking and twitch reflexes. While there aren't a huge number of weapons each one is truly unique and interesting. On the other hand character progression feels somewhat limited, and the pvp is pretty awful because healing is too easy and punishing healing is too hard.
So there it is. I would honestly not begrudge anyone to say ANY of these games is their favorite in the series, because each one has its own niche appeal for different reasons.
Demons Souls is incredibly poorly balanced, and while some level design is pretty amazing and exceptional, some levels are truly awful and a complete chore to do, even more-so than any of the other levels in the series.
Dark Souls 1 is absolutely fantastic for the first 2 thirds...and then kind of comes to a halt in terms of quality with more than a few areas feeling rushed, not fully thought out, or entirely unfinished.
Dark Souls 2 has the worst level design and the least interesting characters, however it has some really interesting mechanics, like power-stancing, which really opens up the combat and creates some truly interesting builds and pvp experiences. It's also the only game where the dev team had to go back and "fix" the story and enemy placements.
Dark Souls 3 has busted poise which kind of limits what builds are viable, and makes heavy armor pretty useless. On the other hand it has some truly amazing boss fights, some of the best in the series in fact, and I personally really enjoyed the enemy variety and level design. The only thing that let me down in this game was how forced the story seemed to be in terms of ties to DS1, so the story never seemed to find an identity of its own.
Bloodborne is the most refined of all the games in terms of level design, combat, bosses, etc. I would say it's the game that takes the most mechanical skill, and which is the most rewarding of fast thinking and twitch reflexes. While there aren't a huge number of weapons each one is truly unique and interesting. On the other hand character progression feels somewhat limited, and the pvp is pretty awful because healing is too easy and punishing healing is too hard.
So there it is. I would honestly not begrudge anyone to say ANY of these games is their favorite in the series, because each one has its own niche appeal for different reasons.
Dark Soul's is the best, though Bloodborne is a very close second. I feel like Dark Soul's nearly perfected the formula, while everything else has been a massive step back in some area or another. I don't know why From has so much trouble with this. They'll add some new innovation, while introducing two or three new problems.
Having replayed each game recently, and at the same time, I feel comfortable saying that Dark Soul's is the most tightly designed games both thematically and mechanically. It know what it wants to be, and it nails it. The story, game play, and atmosphere complement each other perfectly. I'll even disagree with popular opinion, and say the ending was phenomenal. It had one of my favorite finales of all time.
Bloodborne comes dangerously close, and it largely succeeds because it took the franchise in a different direction. It was happy to explore new ideas, and new game play styles. My criticism is that the story is slightly too vague and confusing, and certain ideas aren't explained as thoroghly as they should have been. The game play is excellent, but far more restricting then Dark.
Demon's is excellent, and rivals the other two game in terms of atmosphere and lore. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered that it wasn't ust the Beta version of Dark Soul's. It manages to carve out its own identity and stand out on its own. It had some very powerful, emotional story moments, and at times was even better then Dark Soul's. Unfortunately Fromsoft's experiments didn't work out so well, and the game suffered for it. Large parts of the story are hidden behind the confusing world tendency design, and the game play is poorly balanced compared to other titles. It also had some needlessly frustrating sections that felt less hard, and more unfair. Despite this, it was a great title.
I didn't care for either DS2 or DS3. It's hard to choose which one is worse. DS2 was clumsy, and the creators clearly didn't understand what made the original great. The game was poorly balanced, since the director clumsily attempted to make the game "harder" without understanding what made the original difficult. The philosophy was all wrong, and the messages of the game were heavy handed where the original was subtle. Not to mention how linear it was. However, for all its failings, it had a few good ideas, and, besides some minor fanservice, managed to distance itself from DS1.
DS3 featured decent game play, but was mechanically shallow compared to DS1. Most builds were useless until you got to the late game, and some were never good at all. As a result you pretty much needed to play with a strength, quality, or dex build. Poise was broken, magic was terrible, and faith... ugh. The lore completely contradicted the first game and made the second game almost non-canon. It had tons of bad fan service. The philosophy was a poor retread of the original, and was not supported by the other game play elements. The game was far too linear for its own good. The first Dark Soul's felt like a world. The third felt like a video game. I know a lot of people enjoyed this game, so I don't want to hate on it too hard, but for me DS3 was the weakest in the series.
Having replayed each game recently, and at the same time, I feel comfortable saying that Dark Soul's is the most tightly designed games both thematically and mechanically. It know what it wants to be, and it nails it. The story, game play, and atmosphere complement each other perfectly. I'll even disagree with popular opinion, and say the ending was phenomenal. It had one of my favorite finales of all time.
Bloodborne comes dangerously close, and it largely succeeds because it took the franchise in a different direction. It was happy to explore new ideas, and new game play styles. My criticism is that the story is slightly too vague and confusing, and certain ideas aren't explained as thoroghly as they should have been. The game play is excellent, but far more restricting then Dark.
Demon's is excellent, and rivals the other two game in terms of atmosphere and lore. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered that it wasn't ust the Beta version of Dark Soul's. It manages to carve out its own identity and stand out on its own. It had some very powerful, emotional story moments, and at times was even better then Dark Soul's. Unfortunately Fromsoft's experiments didn't work out so well, and the game suffered for it. Large parts of the story are hidden behind the confusing world tendency design, and the game play is poorly balanced compared to other titles. It also had some needlessly frustrating sections that felt less hard, and more unfair. Despite this, it was a great title.
I didn't care for either DS2 or DS3. It's hard to choose which one is worse. DS2 was clumsy, and the creators clearly didn't understand what made the original great. The game was poorly balanced, since the director clumsily attempted to make the game "harder" without understanding what made the original difficult. The philosophy was all wrong, and the messages of the game were heavy handed where the original was subtle. Not to mention how linear it was. However, for all its failings, it had a few good ideas, and, besides some minor fanservice, managed to distance itself from DS1.
DS3 featured decent game play, but was mechanically shallow compared to DS1. Most builds were useless until you got to the late game, and some were never good at all. As a result you pretty much needed to play with a strength, quality, or dex build. Poise was broken, magic was terrible, and faith... ugh. The lore completely contradicted the first game and made the second game almost non-canon. It had tons of bad fan service. The philosophy was a poor retread of the original, and was not supported by the other game play elements. The game was far too linear for its own good. The first Dark Soul's felt like a world. The third felt like a video game. I know a lot of people enjoyed this game, so I don't want to hate on it too hard, but for me DS3 was the weakest in the series.
Bloodborne. It gets rid of most of the bad things and embraces the good. I liked that it concerned itself wth letting you keep trying and moving forward. I was unafraid to do anything like I am in the regular Souls games.
Dark Souls 1 is second, cause it has fewer BS than Demons Souls and 2, and I like the medieval setting more than the Victorian.
Dark Souls 1 is second, cause it has fewer BS than Demons Souls and 2, and I like the medieval setting more than the Victorian.
Dark Souls 2 hands down for me at the mo. Have only played 3 of the series, but here's my thoughts
DS1 - Amazing atmosphere & world; way too repetitive, with distances travelled between starting points & boss fights just dull; very dodgy lock on mechanic. 7/10
DS2 - Superb game. Loved the more linear approach; loved the atmosphere & combat; loved the central hub; loved the difficulty level; LOVED the changes they made to combat & gameplay, ESPECIALLY the fact that if you got to an area which you were struggling with after so many kills enemies would start to disapear, thank GOD for that system! Loved the story, all round fantastic game - 9/10
Bloodborne - Ugggh. Hated it. Combat felt cheap & weak compared to the other two, sorely missing the much loved "weight" which the combat had in the Souls games; thought the world, enemies & environments - whilst different - weren't particularly interesting or enticing (reminded me of Megadrive "Wings of Wor/Gynoug" where I looked at it thinking "I should love this.....but don't");
As unlikely as it is, I really, REALLY hope that somewhere along the line the DS2 style of linearity & "15 times until enemies die fully" approach to gameplay makes a return somewhere along the lines, even if it's just in a more casual player focussed spin off.
DS1 - Amazing atmosphere & world; way too repetitive, with distances travelled between starting points & boss fights just dull; very dodgy lock on mechanic. 7/10
DS2 - Superb game. Loved the more linear approach; loved the atmosphere & combat; loved the central hub; loved the difficulty level; LOVED the changes they made to combat & gameplay, ESPECIALLY the fact that if you got to an area which you were struggling with after so many kills enemies would start to disapear, thank GOD for that system! Loved the story, all round fantastic game - 9/10
Bloodborne - Ugggh. Hated it. Combat felt cheap & weak compared to the other two, sorely missing the much loved "weight" which the combat had in the Souls games; thought the world, enemies & environments - whilst different - weren't particularly interesting or enticing (reminded me of Megadrive "Wings of Wor/Gynoug" where I looked at it thinking "I should love this.....but don't");
As unlikely as it is, I really, REALLY hope that somewhere along the line the DS2 style of linearity & "15 times until enemies die fully" approach to gameplay makes a return somewhere along the lines, even if it's just in a more casual player focussed spin off.
Bloodborne is my favorite, followed closely by Dark Souls 3. I played these games in chronological order(so, starting with Demon's Souls in late 2009) and I'm still surprised how much they got right at the very frist try. With the exception of Dark Souls 2 every game refines and polishes the formula and Bloodborne and DkS3 really feel like the end-result of this process.
Experiencing the novelty and style of game Demon's Souls was and the thematic oomph of Dark Souls 1 for the first time remains unique to these titles but the games themselves feel more clumsily made compared to Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3. For example Demon's Souls had this completely broken tendency system and a poisonous swamp area that was complete garbage and in Dark Souls everything post-lordvessel feels rushed and unfinished. Compare that to the production values of Dark Souls 3 that maintain a consistent quality throughout the entire game. It plays better, looks better, runs smoother due to the improved engine and has pretty much no elements that brings it down. The only thing though is that with any type of game with a distinct and(by now) established formula is that it iterates rather than innovates so some of the novelty dissipates in the process.
Bloodborne's twist on gothic and Lovecraftian cthulu horror was exceptional and the entire game is just an example of boundless imagination and creativity. The setting and more aggressive approach to combat make the game really stand out despite using the same framework. No shield and the inclusion of quick-step and dash made all the difference for some reason(and also makes me hope they can re-invent the Souls formula for another title). I return to this game time and again simply b/c I love the atmosphere and the world so much.
Dark Souls 2 is the black sheep but still a game I really enjoyed(both vanilla and the Scholar version). However the complex and densely packed level design and the general 'feel' of the other games just wasn't there. The game apparently had a difficult development process and it shows in the inconsistency of the game world. Though, that wouldn't be the biggest problem but the combat and general animation quality also felt 'off' and that is mostly the fault of what appears some in-house engine used in favor of that of the previous game and Demon's Souls that was made by(or in co-operation with) Sony Japan. It's probably telling that Dark Souls 3 uses the Bloodborne engine(again made by Sony Japan) and that we'll probably never see the Dark Souls 2 engine again.
And that is basically From Software in a nutshell. They always made fairly shitty games until their co-operation with SCEJ on Demon's Souls. From Software's(or particularly Miyazaki's) insane artistic vision and map making skills coupled with the technical wizardry of Sony Japan is a match made in heaven. Take one or the other away and the thing falls apart. After all there would be no Dark Souls without Demon's Souls and no Dark Souls 3(atleast as we know it) without Bloodborne.
Experiencing the novelty and style of game Demon's Souls was and the thematic oomph of Dark Souls 1 for the first time remains unique to these titles but the games themselves feel more clumsily made compared to Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3. For example Demon's Souls had this completely broken tendency system and a poisonous swamp area that was complete garbage and in Dark Souls everything post-lordvessel feels rushed and unfinished. Compare that to the production values of Dark Souls 3 that maintain a consistent quality throughout the entire game. It plays better, looks better, runs smoother due to the improved engine and has pretty much no elements that brings it down. The only thing though is that with any type of game with a distinct and(by now) established formula is that it iterates rather than innovates so some of the novelty dissipates in the process.
Bloodborne's twist on gothic and Lovecraftian cthulu horror was exceptional and the entire game is just an example of boundless imagination and creativity. The setting and more aggressive approach to combat make the game really stand out despite using the same framework. No shield and the inclusion of quick-step and dash made all the difference for some reason(and also makes me hope they can re-invent the Souls formula for another title). I return to this game time and again simply b/c I love the atmosphere and the world so much.
Dark Souls 2 is the black sheep but still a game I really enjoyed(both vanilla and the Scholar version). However the complex and densely packed level design and the general 'feel' of the other games just wasn't there. The game apparently had a difficult development process and it shows in the inconsistency of the game world. Though, that wouldn't be the biggest problem but the combat and general animation quality also felt 'off' and that is mostly the fault of what appears some in-house engine used in favor of that of the previous game and Demon's Souls that was made by(or in co-operation with) Sony Japan. It's probably telling that Dark Souls 3 uses the Bloodborne engine(again made by Sony Japan) and that we'll probably never see the Dark Souls 2 engine again.
And that is basically From Software in a nutshell. They always made fairly shitty games until their co-operation with SCEJ on Demon's Souls. From Software's(or particularly Miyazaki's) insane artistic vision and map making skills coupled with the technical wizardry of Sony Japan is a match made in heaven. Take one or the other away and the thing falls apart. After all there would be no Dark Souls without Demon's Souls and no Dark Souls 3(atleast as we know it) without Bloodborne.
"Bloodborne". Combat was similar in foundation but still had a very hectic, different feel that let the game stand out from its peers. This is all while boasting some of the best zones in the series coupled with lore which I find second best only to the original "Dark Souls". Basically most of the good with very little of the bad.
It's the only one of the series I'd always be comfortable saying was a great game because it doesn't seriously undermine itself. We'll see whether the last DLC of "Dark Souls III" does anything to change that, mind.
It's the only one of the series I'd always be comfortable saying was a great game because it doesn't seriously undermine itself. We'll see whether the last DLC of "Dark Souls III" does anything to change that, mind.
Of the two I played extensively (first two Dark Souls), I would say Dark Souls II. I was never really sold on the original game's world, and that left me wondering why I was bothering to deal with all the challenges. The second game at least got to making things interesting early on, and I probably would have completed if it weren't for life taking away all the time to play, and it was hard to get back into after months away.
I did play Bloodborne a little at a friend's house. I'd imagine that I'd prefer it to Dark Souls II, but I don't have a PS4 at the time to see if the game is as good as my initial impressions.
I did play Bloodborne a little at a friend's house. I'd imagine that I'd prefer it to Dark Souls II, but I don't have a PS4 at the time to see if the game is as good as my initial impressions.
In terms of being a game I gotta go with Dark Souls. The locations were diverse and interesting ranging from the deathly burg, the posiones blighttown, to the holiness of Anor Londo. The builds were more expansive in which you can go Mighty Glacier, Glass Cannon, Fragile speedster or anywhere between the three and the level designs were amazing with clever ways to how levels were connected to each other.
But in terms of my personal taste I gotta go with Bloodborne, I really enjoyed the aggressive play and how your character feels really light no matter what kind of clothes you get.
But in terms of my personal taste I gotta go with Bloodborne, I really enjoyed the aggressive play and how your character feels really light no matter what kind of clothes you get.
I think Dark Souls is the best out of all of them. The air of mystery, of discovery was still fresh in that game. Putting little pieces of the story together was a blast--or rather, reading and watching videos about how other people did it. It has the best atmosphere too. I still remember wandering into the Painted World, or my first time going into the forest, and just being stunned by how beautiful everything looked.
All that being said, I haven't touched the game since I got the platinum, whereas Dark Souls II, I go back and still play from time to time. And I just don't understand why. The story is a less fleshed out, the levels aren't as memorable (or well designed, seeing as it's more of just go in a straight line), and the game just feels like it's lacking that magic from the first game. And yet, I have more fun with it than I did with Dark Souls, so while I think the first game is better, II is my favorite.
All that being said, I haven't touched the game since I got the platinum, whereas Dark Souls II, I go back and still play from time to time. And I just don't understand why. The story is a less fleshed out, the levels aren't as memorable (or well designed, seeing as it's more of just go in a straight line), and the game just feels like it's lacking that magic from the first game. And yet, I have more fun with it than I did with Dark Souls, so while I think the first game is better, II is my favorite.
I had a similar experience. Dark Souls is such a better game in so many respects, but ultimately it's mechanically rather unrefined compared to 2: the fat roll cap of 50% makes Havel's Ring pretty much a necessity for any heavy armor build, summoning is a chore to get right, Resistance is completely useless as a stat, there's serious optimization issues in the console version, Lost Izalith (just in general) and so on.Sniper Team 4 said:
I have around twice the amount of hours played in Dark Souls II compared to the first. The sheer amount of different builds you can make in the game is downright silly, there's more incentive to join covenants and they're easier to discover, it's a much longer game to get through even on new game+ (as much padding as there is) and powerstancing is perhaps the best gameplay addition in the entire series.
Massive toss up between Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne. Dark Souls wins by a hair for me, if only because of more varied environments. Seriously, that's the only place where one is truly better than the other, they both blow my mind and have truly earned their places in gaming history.
I feel weirdly about the Souls series. Having not played Demon's Souls or Bloodborne, I feel like while technically Dark Souls is the best one, DS2 is the one that by far I played the most and the one I go to first when I feel like playing a Souls game. Yeah, it's linear and most of the non DLC bosses are less interesting. But I also feel it's the one that's easiest to just jump in and have fun with. Also, besides a few areas it felt less janky and had less annoying areas. Dark Souls doesn't feel as good as DS2 to me, and once I've explored the game to mostly completion once it didn't hold the same appeal running around. Dark Souls 3 really didn't do it for me. While in DS1 and 2 I feel like I could use any build and have fun, in DS3 I felt really underpowered trying to run as a caster in a lot of areas. I ran through some again later as a standard sword and board and it was absurdly easier. It was like DS3 tried to have the fast combat and aggression of Bloodborne without Bloodborne mechanics that made it work, making it more frustrating than fun if you tried heavy armor or caster builds. So yeah, DS2 takes it for me by ease of being able to just sit down and play with whatever fun build I want
So I feel like I can't really answer this question even though I want to, but what the hell. I own DS, DS2 and Demons Souls. Someday I'll own the other games as well, but I'm waiting for certain things to happen(AKA a PS4 for Bloodborne and DS3 to get it's final edition).
Out of those, I've played DS to completion once. I'm currently trying to play Demons Souls but it feels clunky in some ways and much more difficult because of it, which makes it hard to get as motivated for it like I was for DS. DS2 I want to play but I have really mixed feelings about it due to decisions that were made in making it.
So I guess I'd have to say Dark Souls mostly because that's the only one I have any real experience with and I actually really did like it in so many ways. Except for Blighttown and Sens Fortess. Fuck those places.
Out of those, I've played DS to completion once. I'm currently trying to play Demons Souls but it feels clunky in some ways and much more difficult because of it, which makes it hard to get as motivated for it like I was for DS. DS2 I want to play but I have really mixed feelings about it due to decisions that were made in making it.
So I guess I'd have to say Dark Souls mostly because that's the only one I have any real experience with and I actually really did like it in so many ways. Except for Blighttown and Sens Fortess. Fuck those places.
So is it only longer because of padding, or is the content still engaging regardless? I think padding lengths for the sake of it alone is something that needs to be phased out, similar to invisible walls and illogical carry weight systems.bartholen said: