Never played a souls game. Which do you recommend I start with, /v/? Also souls thread.
>>319722260
I started with BB, and went back in reverse order.
BB
Then DS2
Then DS1
Then DES
I don't really know what happened with DS2 though, I didn't even make it half way through the game, something felt off. The rest were 10/10 games though as far as I'm concerned.
If you have a ps3 then demons otherwise ds1 and then two.
/thread
Play Dark Souls 1
After that you can choose whatever. None of them are really close to DS in terms of quality.
Always play in release order. This goes for every series. So
Demons Souls
Dark Souls
Bloodborne
Skip Dark Souls 2.
>>319722991
B8 spotted
I just finished Dark Souls 1 and I'm not sure I get the whole "Blighttown is the hardest part" meme.
I can think of plenty worse places Lost Izalith, Anor Londo, Tomb of the Giants...
Did people just find it hard because they didn't go back and get the rusted iron ring?
>>319723016
This, but play DS2 if you wanna play DS3, might pay to have that extra context I guess?
>>319723476
Yes. Or if you don't get the master key (you shouldn't on your first playthrough) because then you get toxic to fuckery.
>>319723747
>extra context
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>319723916
Okay sorry - like literally a tiny bit of extra context. As soon as I said that I thought "no you could probably just go straight from DS".
>>319723016
Na, Play DS2 to appreciate level design and certain mechanic in the Souls series. Its not to bad but it makes me appreciate the other 3 alot more.
>>319722260
Glad this thread popped up - I've been meaning to ask: will Dark Souls I be ruined for me in any way if I play DSII first? I ask because my brother has my PS3 for a couple months so I only have my PS4, and I'll be looking for a new Souls game to play once I'm done with BB. Wondering if I should just dive in and play DSII or wait and play Dark Souls first.
First of all, fix your picture, then play them in order.
I'm playing through the XB1 version of DS2 right now, just got to the Castle and I think it's great.
I've played the first, but still don't understand why the second gets "it's shit" meme. It's just as good.
>>319722260
Release order.
Each game improves on the previous rendition.
Ignore anti-das2 fags.
>>319722260
Demon souls. Or better yet, king's field 4
>>319724328
Play Dark Souls first, even though DS2 is worse in terms of enemy encounters and hitbox shit it is a more modern game and is better optimized.
Otherwise you'll be annoyed at DS's fps problems
>>319724520
I played Dark Souls 1 and 2 liked them both. I do think 2 has shitty level design but it's not all that bad, the DLC areas make up for it especially. I actually bought a PS3 specifically for Demons Souls and got bored of it. I guess I'm the 0.1% of Souls fans.
>>319724328
No, you'll probably enjoy DaS more that way because 1 has a fantastic world that connects together, which was severely lacking in the 2nd. Although the combat was more fleshed out in the second with proper dual wielding, I still think the world building in the first game out weighs that
>>319724834
you probably got bored because it's was turning into COD shit
>>319724789
>>319725057
Hm, this is more or less the answer I was expecting. Thats cool, I'll hold off and play some other shit instead until I get my PS3 back to play Dark Souls I first.
Cheers, dudes.
Demons : 8/10
Darks : 10/10
Darks 2 : 6/10
BB : 8/10
Start with either Demon's Souls if you have a PS3, the first Dark Souls otherwise. You'll appreciate Demon's Souls more if you play it first, and also the improvements made in Dark Souls.
People like to really hype the shit out of Demon's Souls, and it is a good game, but it's actually kind of underwhelming if you play it right after Dark Souls, because Dark Souls improved so much about the weapon movesets, magic, world design, bosses, difficulty curve, etc. All Demon's Souls really has on it are a comfy hub area and a couple GOAT levels.
Bloodborne is great but kinda different and Dark Souls 2 is a mixed bag (although I think /v/ massively exaggerates its issues and it's still a pretty good game), so they're not great entry points.
>>319724430
100% this
>>319724328
If you play Dark Souls 2 first you will get an underwhelming first impression of Dark Souls. Play Dark Souls 1 first, the series creator didn't even participate in DS2. Also, DS2 likes to refer to DS quite often.
>>319722728
DS2 had great pvp
The first time I played DS2 I got through 20hrs and then went for a full Fists batman run and I had a fucking blast dude.
I'd Say play Dark Souls first.. That's what I started on and after I got a few hours into it and getting generally confused about some of the bosses, I watched Vatti's channel on the lore. That was pretty amazing.
>>319724834
The DLC gets too much praise. It is great, when compared to its main game. It pales compared to Dark Souls though.
>>319722260
>not playing FromSoft's true magnum opus first
Whatever you do, don't skip Dark Souls 2, after playing it, you'll appreciate the other games even more.
I wouldn't say to outright skip DS2.
Even thought its definitely not what I would call a "good" game, its still a very interesting play nonetheless.
You get to experience how the Souls series would be as if it was made by a bunch of money-grubbing producers who had no clue what made the souls' games special in the first place. Its actually pretty remarkable just how many things they get completely wrong.
Its essentially something I would classify as so bad that it ends up being pretty entertaining.
>>319725351
More like
First half of Dark : 9/10
Second half of Dark : 4/10
I never understood the "skip Dark Souls 2" thing. Yeah, it's unquestionably the weakest Souls game, but it's still a good game IMO.
Shame Scholar of the First Sin didn't go further in trying to fix some of the stuff that could have been fixed.
>>319722260
>this Dark Souls meme again
>>319722260
Start with Demons. It is easiest.
Go o Dark Souls next. It is the best.
Ignore Dark Souls 2.
Play Bloodborne last.
>>319723998
all dark souls games are set in different eras you don't need to know any story of the prior games to understand dark souls 3.
>>319725740
Not to me, the level design was really good across all 3DLC zones. Dark Souls 1 had some great level design too but as a whole it did have some bad areas as well like Duke's Archives and Blighttown which just felt very boring to play. To me the best parts of Dark Souls 1 was the first tw hours or so, the Berg, Parish and Lower Berg which I group in my mind as one complete zone. I felt like the Ds2 DLC areas recreated the things I liked from this area of Ds1 which was that they were all interconnected in interesting ways with good enemy placement and looked great at the same time.
>>319722260
Start with Demon's Souls, it came out the first. Play them chronologically.
Start from Demons and go all the way to DaS2.
Ignore the niggers saying that you should skip the second souls game. They eat that meme like it's watermelon.
It's not a terrible game, but it didn't really live up to its predecessor. But not downright shit like these guys are saying it is.
>>319727101
But you won't get to recognize the things that were in past games. Like the Drangleic shield used in DS3. Among other things.
>>319722838
You can't /thread your own post, anon.
