Poll: Dark Souls 2 vs. Dark Souls 3: Which game should be next on my list?

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,229
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
So, a couple weeks back I recently finished my first playthrough of Dark Souls(and I'm also quite bored of reading about NMS). I quite enjoyed it, though it was pretty much a solo experience for me. Tried the Jolly Co-operation with others and was mostly not impressed by the system(it was hard to find other people to play with when I was actually looking to co-op bosses). I actively loathed the PVP and I'm sure I pissed off a few invaders during my playthrough because of my refusal to play.

So I know that someday I will play another game in the series, and it's very likely going to be Dark Souls 2 or Dark Souls 3. Normally picking the next game wouldn't be difficult, but the Souls games tend to be tenuously connected at best. Not only that, but I was paying some attention when DS3 dropped(which is one of the reasons I finally got around to playing DS) and noticed there didn't seem to be a clear sense of DS2 or DS3 being the better sequel/game. Opinion seemed rather divided(and honestly, I don't know if that's changed).

So before anyone says it, Bloodborne is actually my first choice to play next. However, I don't own a PS4 and right now Bloodborne is pretty much my only reason to purchase one. So barring Sony letting FROM actually make a PC port of Bloodborne, I'm either waiting for a major price drop on the PS4 or something like the Last Guardian making me break down and purchase a PS4. Either way, it's still gonna be a while before I get to Bloodborne.

I'm not completely against Demon Souls either, but from what I've read, Dark Souls is pretty much a far better version of Demon Souls, so there's not a lot of reason to go back to it unless I'm really hurting for some Souls action.

So TL;DR, which Souls game would be the best next game to experience?
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
I like playing games in "order", but 2 is apparently way after 1 and 3. 3 is like, actually a sequel to 1, painfully so even. I also don't like a lot of 2's changes that give me this worrying feeling of being able to screw myself over. But I also worry a lot.

I wont say which to pick, though I intend on 100%ing 2 before I move on to 3 (already 100%'d 1).

2 while was released next, takes place way after 1 and 3. Has little actual connection to 1 really. Enemies stay dead if you kill them enough, and though I don't completely understand it, there is Soul Level or something, that takes into account every soul you ever collect, even the ones you lose to determine some sort of character level. I think it only matters for multiplayer though.

3 is a more direct sequel to 1, but it also seems like they just copy-pasted tons of things from 1, to the point of messing up the lore, but I haven't gotten far in it. They straight up ripped the smith's model from 1 instead of making a new one for him (since he returns). 3 also feels too much like Bloodborne. May seem like a weird or trivial complaint, but while I LOOOVED Bloodborne, I don't like that I feel like they just turned a Bloodborne expansion into a Dark Souls game.

If you really liked 1, you will probably like 3 more than 2, or even hate 2, but maybe that's a good reason to get 2 out of the way. Hopefully any of this rambling helped even a little.
 

Jeroenr

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
21
inu-kun said:
2 is after 3? Is that official?

Anyway 2 is not as bad as people make it out to be and has it's advantages, but I guess it doesn't matter either way.
no don't think so, You can find laddersmith gilligan's corps near the profaned capital in DS3.
And there are other little hints, although not as many as for DS1.
On the other hand, in DS3 places from DS1 like astora, carim, and Catarina play a large part of the lore.
But in DS2 these places are long forgotten.
To make it simpler still(Not!..), DS3 has the Mirrah armor set from Lucatiel(DS2).

so yeah, the DS timeline is one big convoluted mess.
So who can say really.
 

Korenith

New member
Oct 11, 2010
315
0
0
I haven't played 3 so can't help your decision but if you are getting 2 get the Scholar of the First Sin collection because the DLC extra areas are some of the best in the game. They include several of my favourite boss fights and some cool areas which are quite challenging, especially if you're a melee player like me.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
inu-kun said:
Saelune said:
I like playing games in "order", but 2 is apparently way after 1 and 3. 3 is like, actually a sequel to 1, painfully so even. I also don't like a lot of 2's changes that give me this worrying feeling of being able to screw myself over. But I also worry a lot.

I wont say which to pick, though I intend on 100%ing 2 before I move on to 3 (already 100%'d 1).

2 while was released next, takes place way after 1 and 3. Has little actual connection to 1 really. Enemies stay dead if you kill them enough, and though I don't completely understand it, there is Soul Level or something, that takes into account every soul you ever collect, even the ones you lose to determine some sort of character level. I think it only matters for multiplayer though.

3 is a more direct sequel to 1, but it also seems like they just copy-pasted tons of things from 1, to the point of messing up the lore, but I haven't gotten far in it. They straight up ripped the smith's model from 1 instead of making a new one for him (since he returns). 3 also feels too much like Bloodborne. May seem like a weird or trivial complaint, but while I LOOOVED Bloodborne, I don't like that I feel like they just turned a Bloodborne expansion into a Dark Souls game.

If you really liked 1, you will probably like 3 more than 2, or even hate 2, but maybe that's a good reason to get 2 out of the way. Hopefully any of this rambling helped even a little.
2 is after 3? Is that official?

Anyway 2 is not as bad as people make it out to be and has it's advantages, but I guess it doesn't matter either way.
As official as anything else in the Souls series. Dark Souls 2 is set way after 1, to the point where the lands and gods like Gwyn are mostly forgotten, even their names lost to time. Dark Souls 3 is not. Plus a lot of things from 1 are present, such as the blacksmith. It is unlikely he has a real life life-span, but Souls doesn't like being clear and concrete.
 

Aerosteam

Get out while you still can
Sep 22, 2011
4,267
0
0
With each release, the gameplay is built upon, it's hard to go back to DS1 after playing DS2 and it's hard to go back to DS2 after playing DS3. Because of that, you might as well go through the order of release.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
Dalisclock said:
I'm not completely against Demon Souls either, but from what I've read, Dark Souls is pretty much a far better version of Demon Souls, so there's not a lot of reason to go back to it unless I'm really hurting for some Souls action.
That's not true at all - depending on how you approach the Souls games. If someone's just after core mechanics and weapon/armour variety (and slightly less troublesome gear management)? Then yes, DeS is lacking. I'd also say its lore and story is lacking, too.

But the world design truly distinguishes it; it isn't better or worse, it's just different. Arguably it could be seen as more gamey, i.e. defined areas neatly divided through portals from the hub Nexus. But there's a real sense of place and cohesion to each area; in DS one could just breeze through certain areas or zones - I think DeS forces you to be immersed in each location, as you inch forward further from your entry point (in a way, they're ostensibly massive dungeon delves).

It's an intangible quality, and perhaps it's subjective, but at times DeS simply feels more forebodingly atmospheric than Dark Souls. It often has a thick, dense, incredibly claustrophobic 'feel' to it that I don't think DS ever quite matches (see also a gloomy eeriness in several sections, evoked largely by ambient soundbeds and some great sound effects for certain enemies).

Again, perhaps it's subjective, but I also feel DeS's boss designs are, on the whole, better than Dark Souls'; more idiosyncratic, more characterful (at least aesthetically and in how some play out).

So TL;DR, which Souls game would be the best next game to experience?
Honestly, I have a very particular relationship with DS; it was the first I played, and it blew me away. In some ways it even changed how I played other games, and also affected what I came to value in my experiences.

And I loathed DS2. Forgive the pun, but to me it's entirely accurate; Dark Souls 2 has no soul - to me it's nothing but filler, a B-team knocking another game out to capitalise on DS's groundswell popularity and critical reception/reputation. It's fanservice in-house, constantly winking and nudging to the player about lore and characters from DS.

Both DS2 and DeS use a kind of hub approach to world design, but where DeS has an intriguing - and beautifully realised - central lore justification for its Nexus (love the candle maiden/Maiden in Black), DS2 just feels like silly, poorly crafted videogame levels lifted and clipped onto a central [boring, never evolving] area.

DS2's overall combat was arguably improved mechanically, but implemented much worse; instead of DS's meticulous pacing and 1-on-1's, the ever artless, guileless DS2 just tosses multiples at you. It's as if the very core mechanical design is at war with its level designers. Then there are the boss/sub-boss designs. Yeesh, they're rather famously bland so I won't dwell. Ironically, DeS has a '[very] big dude in armour' boss, but the staging of that sequence is better than anything found in DS2.

I've only ever seen the DLC's in LP's, and yes, they're an improvement. But my first few hours of DS2 made me abandon it, and more or less turned me off the Souls series altogether. I can't comment about DS3 as I was burnt by a day1 purchase of DS2 (it was one of the most disappointing games I've ever played).

From what I've seen of 3 through incomplete LP's I feel my choice was the right one; I don't like the changes to the builds or combat pacing, I believe bonfire warps break one of DS's greatest attributes (world cohesion), and frankly I find it to be just like 2 in many respects; forever cast in the long shadow of its predecessor/s.

For me it comes down to this, rather arsey-sounding yet sincere conclusion: Dark Souls was great art - Dark Souls 2 and 3 are just games to be played. Honestly, I'd rather they never made any other DS's. DS and DeS sit perfectly alongside each other; so much shared DNA, and the obvious work of an auteur (or auteur team, I suppose?), meaning the similarities and ways DeS evolved are fascinating (DeS has some incredibly poignant moments, too, and I'd argue a more thematically interesting central 'story'/mythos), particularly if someone experiences DS first.

...so in answer to the question: if pacier combat's your thing, and core gameplay's what you most care about (I don't begrudge anyone who does, btw) - go straight to DS3 and just watch a few lore vids on DS2's shite fanservice lore, if you don't want to miss out on callbacks/references. If a gorgeously grim and eerie atmosphere and a sparse but intriguing mythos sound more engaging, definitely seek out Demon's Souls.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Dalisclock said:
So, a couple weeks back I recently finished my first playthrough of Dark Souls(and I'm also quite bored of reading about NMS). I quite enjoyed it, though it was pretty much a solo experience for me. Tried the Jolly Co-operation with others and was mostly not impressed by the system(it was hard to find other people to play with when I was actually looking to co-op bosses). I actively loathed the PVP and I'm sure I pissed off a few invaders during my playthrough because of my refusal to play.

So I know that someday I will play another game in the series, and it's very likely going to be Dark Souls 2 or Dark Souls 3. Normally picking the next game wouldn't be difficult, but the Souls games tend to be tenuously connected at best. Not only that, but I was paying some attention when DS3 dropped(which is one of the reasons I finally got around to playing DS) and noticed there didn't seem to be a clear sense of DS2 or DS3 being the better sequel/game. Opinion seemed rather divided(and honestly, I don't know if that's changed).

So before anyone says it, Bloodborne is actually my first choice to play next. However, I don't own a PS4 and right now Bloodborne is pretty much my only reason to purchase one. So barring Sony letting FROM actually make a PC port of Bloodborne, I'm either waiting for a major price drop on the PS4 or something like the Last Guardian making me break down and purchase a PS4. Either way, it's still gonna be a while before I get to Bloodborne.

I'm not completely against Demon Souls either, but from what I've read, Dark Souls is pretty much a far better version of Demon Souls, so there's not a lot of reason to go back to it unless I'm really hurting for some Souls action.

So TL;DR, which Souls game would be the best next game to experience?
It depends. Do you care about the gameplay? If you do then don't play dark souls 2. It's slower, clunkier, and less polished then one. Do you care about the lore? If so then don't play Dark Souls 3. While the game play is tight they butchered the story. It's also extremely linear.

I would reccomend either Demon Souls or Bloodborne. Demon Souls is far better then either of the Dark Souls sequels, and is a pretty impressive game in its own right. Also, while the game play is largely the same, and it's a medieval fantasy title, it manages to carve out its own identity. The game is separated into "levels," so it may feel a little more gamey, but each area is quite unique. The bosses are each unique individuals, and are the best in the whole series. I love Dark Souls, but many of its bosses felt like variations of the same idea. Dodge role until you find an opening, and then attack. Demon Souls is a little different. Each encounter required more strategy. One boss was a blind swordsman. Moving faster then a slow walk triggered his attack. As a result I was forced to slowly move through pillars in the dark, occasionally firing an arrow at a corner in order to distract him. Another boss required me to pick off his guards before I could strike. Demon Souls did not feel exactly like Dark Souls.

Bloodborne had phenomenal atmosphere, art design, and enemy design. It had the large, non linear world from dark souls, and an amazing story. The game play got an overhaul, featuring faster combat. There are fewer weapons, but they're more diverse and the move sets are amazing. Every single weapon feels like something you could finish the game with. It also features a serious graphical upgrade from DS1. Bloodborne probably has the most in common with DS1 in terms of design.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,229
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Jeroenr said:
inu-kun said:
2 is after 3? Is that official?

Anyway 2 is not as bad as people make it out to be and has it's advantages, but I guess it doesn't matter either way.
no don't think so, You can find laddersmith gilligan's corps near the profaned capital in DS3.
And there are other little hints, although not as many as for DS1.
On the other hand, in DS3 places from DS1 like astora, carim, and Catarina play a large part of the lore.
But in DS2 these places are long forgotten.
To make it simpler still(Not!..), DS3 has the Mirrah armor set from Lucatiel(DS2).

so yeah, the DS timeline is one big convoluted mess.
So who can say really.
Yeah, that's what I've heard. Lothric in DS3 is basically Lordran a long time later, where everything is kind of in ruins and smushed together. But apparently Draglethic(Dragolithic? Drama Queen?) is on top of where Lordran used to be. In DS2, apparently all the gods are gone for good but in DS3 the gods are still kinda sorta hanging around on the fringes. The dragons are back in DS2(Kinda) but in DS3 the dragons are mostly dead again or something.


Apparently the timey-whimey/"Time is convoluted" ball is in full force to try to explain how this stuff fits together....or not.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Depends, did you enjoy the combat of DS1? Then just go in order of release. Did you enjoy the atmosphere? DS3. Like looking for lore bits and pieces? DS2.

Personally, just go to DS2, some people say it's a massive downgrade, but outside of level design having some janky bits when it comes to transitions and how things fit together, I consider it about the same level. Maybe not as amazing of creating the same atmosphere, but it's not exactly supposed to be the same atmosphere either. DS1 is about a dying world, DS2 is more about a long-dead world.

And honestly, just skip Bloodborne, it's pretty, incredibly so, but there's not a huge amount it does better than the other Souls games and it just puts in a "Go back to the starting area to farm for items that drop in 1's and 2's" loop that you can buy your way out of, but it's a limited stock. Unless they changed something with that in the DLC. Add in that there's not really any variety in build order or stat leveling and a really broken PvP segment because everyone can heal, and you've got a game that is stupidly simple to pick up and play while pretending it isn't.
 

Skatalite

New member
May 8, 2007
197
0
0
If you care about things like level design, atmosphere, story and anything else that makes Dark Souls so good, skip the second.
Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne are all about equally amazing to me, but you might want to hold out for a Demon's Souls remaster (it's gotta come, right? :I ).
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Hm...tough choice, honestly. All of those games you listed are well worth playing. Odds are, people are going to tell you to play Dark Souls III next, since it is a "proper" sequel, seeing as Miyazaki came back to help with this one, while he was absent from II. But, as a few have pointed out, III does almost feel like a copy-paste of the original. Dark Souls II at least tried to do things a bit different, to varying degrees of success depending on who you ask.

Now, keeping in mind that Dark Souls III is not yet complete because we don't have the DLC yet, I personally say Dark Souls II is more entertaining for me. I liked the fact that it was set so far after Dark Souls that things had been forgotten and twisted in memory and lore. It felt like a new experience that only used the foundation of the previous game's story, not the entire first five floors like III. There was more of an air of mystery around II than there is around III, and mystery is one of the biggest selling points of the series for me. I loved when we were finally given that little bit of information where we could go, "Ah, so THAT'S what that turned into!"

I've seen a few people talking about how III comes before II in terms of timeline. I have to disagree. You find a bunch of stuff from II littered around in III, but the biggest giveaway is finding King Vendrick's shield. It says, "Long ago etc..." which means that Dark Souls II's events have already happened by the time III rolls around. Also, the Faraam Set hints at the DLC ending from II.
So what I think happened is Vendrick's time has now been forgotten, and the time of the Old Gods has come again. Why do I think this happened? Pontiff Sulyvahn. I think he stumbled across Anor Londo and the old ways from Dark Souls while he was out exploring. And, seeing the power they once commanded, started up the old faith again, with him at its head of power. And so the worship of the Old Gods, these beings from ages long forgotten, was rediscovered once again. Just my take on it.
 

Jeroenr

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
21
inu-kun said:
Dalisclock said:
Jeroenr said:
inu-kun said:
2 is after 3? Is that official?

Anyway 2 is not as bad as people make it out to be and has it's advantages, but I guess it doesn't matter either way.
no don't think so, You can find laddersmith gilligan's corps near the profaned capital in DS3.
And there are other little hints, although not as many as for DS1.
On the other hand, in DS3 places from DS1 like astora, carim, and Catarina play a large part of the lore.
But in DS2 these places are long forgotten.
To make it simpler still(Not!..), DS3 has the Mirrah armor set from Lucatiel(DS2).

so yeah, the DS timeline is one big convoluted mess.
So who can say really.
Yeah, that's what I've heard. Lothric in DS3 is basically Lordran a long time later, where everything is kind of in ruins and smushed together. But apparently Draglethic(Dragolithic? Drama Queen?) is on top of where Lordran used to be. In DS2, apparently all the gods are gone for good but in DS3 the gods are still kinda sorta hanging around on the fringes. The dragons are back in DS2(Kinda) but in DS3 the dragons are mostly dead again or something.


Apparently the timey-whimey/"Time is convoluted" ball is in full force to try to explain how this stuff fits together....or not.
I actually prefer DS2 being a sequel to DS3, DS2 has the advantage of being pretty hopeful (especially in the DLC), while DS3 is summed up as NIHILISM ALL THE WAY.
To me DS3 felt like they ret-con'ed DS2.

But to be honest, i don't think that is a bad thing per se, DS1's story was just about vage enough to add to the mystery.
DS2, not that i didn't enjoy playing it(i did) but, the vagueness makes it feel a bit lazy story wise.
DS3 seems to ignore a the bad stuff from DS2 and continues were DS1 left off.(more or less)
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
If you are more concerned with lore and environment design DS3. But IMO (and I know this isn't going to make me many friends) DS2 is the mechanically superior game even if it did stumble at some points (who the fuck tied roll I-frames to a stat?), so if you just want a refinement of the core systems that made DS1 great go for 2, preferably the Scholar of the First Sin version.
 

Ronald Nand

New member
Jan 6, 2013
310
0
0
You'll want to play Demon's Souls sometime, given you have a PS3 which a lot of Souls fans don't have. I played it after DS1 and its a solid game, the bosses are a weaker than DS1 and there are some annoying game systems like Item Burden and World Tendency, but its definitely worth playing down the line.

Dark Souls 2 is unique in that the combat it is slower than DS1 and DS3, which isn't a bad thing in my book, but it forces you to be much more careful for choosing the moment you roll and the moment you use Estus. Vanilla PvE in Dark Souls 2 not as good DS1, whilst is supposedly has the best PvP, however the DLC areas a much better and all match or exceed the quality of DS1 areas.

If you play Dark Souls 2 SOFTS, Demons Souls and Bloodborne by the time your done with them Dark Souls 3 will likely have all the DLC out, so you could play the most complete version of DS3 by then if that's what you care about. If you want to play something with a similar speed to Dark Souls 1 then you'll likely want to play DS3 or Demons Souls, and save DS2 from last so the shift in the combat pace isn't too jarring.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
As someone who recently played through Dark Souls for the first time and absolutely loved it, I'd say skip 2. I'm playing it right now and it's not nearly as good. The enemies are significantly less interesting (not just visually by the way, the movesets seem quite similar). This is especially true of the bosses where many have bland designs, are rehashed from the first game, or reused throughout. The environments aren't even comparable to the first game, at least so far, and not just because they're way more linear, but also because they are fairly bland. Finally, the hitboxes on some of the enemy attacks are kind of fucked. I never felt like I had a cheap death in the first game, but some of the hits the enemies will land on you in the second are complete bullshit.

I'm honestly considering just quitting the second for now and moving onto the third.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,229
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Redryhno said:
Depends, did you enjoy the combat of DS1? Then just go in order of release. Did you enjoy the atmosphere? DS3. Like looking for lore bits and pieces? DS2.
Fox12 said:
It depends. Do you care about the gameplay? If you do then don't play dark souls 2. It's slower, clunkier, and less polished then one. Do you care about the lore? If so then don't play Dark Souls 3. While the game play is tight they butchered the story. It's also extremely linear.
Kind of the problem. I liked the gameplay(excluding the multi-player for the most part) and the combat has been a lot better then most RPG's I've played in a while. I like the lore but I had to watch net videos to pick up on a lot of it. The atmosphere/world design is definitely a selling point for me here. Especially the wierd realization that Lordran is a closed circle that there is no way to leave(granted, it sounds like the rest of the world is worse) and yet all the areas fit together wonderfully(aside from the wierdness of it always being night in the darkroot garden/basin).

My biggest concern with DS2 is that I've heard for every mechanic they made better, they made one worse as well. Being invadable while hollow(and each death while hollowed cuts into your max health), soul memory and incredibly fast degrading weapons come to mind, starting out with all of one estus charge. Maybe they're not as bad as they sound.