I really enjoyed them all, DS2 is definitely the odd one out but I actually found that quite refreshing. It's far more variable in quality but that works in its favour sometimes, it has some incredible locations and at least two of my favourite bosses of the series. I wouldn't have any reservations about recommending DS2, but if you're looking for a more consistent experience there's nothing to stop you moving to DS3 either. The story in 2 isn't referenced anywhere in 3, it's like they pretended it didn't exist.
Parksey wrote:So, I have been slowly working my way through the Soulsborne series, doing about one a year.
I have owned DS2 for a while and it's about time to start a new one. However I notice that DS3 is only a tenner on the PS store.
Isn't that generally held to be the much better game? I have £25 PSN credit just sitting in my wallet, and it's tempting me.
So I'm wondering, should I play DS2 first, which I already own, or go buy DS3 for a tenner and play that?
Is there a suggested order? I know 2 is a bit of a black sheep in that sense whereas 3 ties in to the first more.
Barely anything that happens in DS2 is referenced in DS3 so you won't really be missing anything lore-wise but it's still definitely worth playing if you have the DLC as well.
I'd absolutely buy DS3 for a tenner though. It's amazing.
so far it feels heavily flawed but has some interesting ideas - Id say its worth playing just to see but its the red headed stepchild of the series from my experience so far
if you are gonna buy DS3 then get the season pass one with the DLC
Parksey wrote:So, I have been slowly working my way through the Soulsborne series, doing about one a year.
I have owned DS2 for a while and it's about time to start a new one. However I notice that DS3 is only a tenner on the PS store.
Isn't that generally held to be the much better game? I have £25 PSN credit just sitting in my wallet, and it's tempting me.
So I'm wondering, should I play DS2 first, which I already own, or go buy DS3 for a tenner and play that?
Is there a suggested order? I know 2 is a bit of a black sheep in that sense whereas 3 ties in to the first more.
DS2 is pretty removed from the story/world of DS1/3.
It's also far more "linear" - there's often only 1 or 2 areas open (that lead onto another area) etc. It's by far the least interesting and interlinked world (Fast Travel from the off doesn't help). DS3 has a lot of this problem as well though.
It's not a terrible game (being the worst of a great trilogy is damning with faint praise) but when you play it it's easy to see why it's people's least favourite.
I'd still play it before 3 though if you haven't played either.
2 is worth a play, I didn't finish it but I may go back one day. It get gooseberry fool, rightly so so for many things, but a 'bad' souls game is still better than a lot of stuff.
3 is fantastic (again, I didn't finish it) though.
So I started this yesterday. Despite being the black sheep, it's still definitely Dark Souls and as others have said, this automatically makes it better than 90% of other games.
Despite this, there is a nagging sensation in the back of my head that it just feels a little differently. Like they've changed a few percentages and it's affected how the game feels in your hands. Part of me suspects that I think this simply because I know that this is how the game was received. That I know it's the "B Team" so I project that knowledge on to the game.
Still, like I said, it's very good. It's classic Dark Souls and the gameplay loop is as addictive as ever. I've just nearly been late for a train due to attempting a boss one more time. I was successful though so that last attempt would have been totally worth it.
It's definitely a hell of a lot easier when you've played a few Souls games already. Normally I find the early game the hardest, before I bump my stats up, upgrade my weapons and get into the groove. But none of the four or five bosses have given me trouble. I read somewhere that the Pursuer was this game's Father Gascoigne in terms of punishing and teaching impatient players, but it was a breeze.
Slightly offset by this is probably that the general gameplay outside of boss arenas is harder. This is largely due to health items being scarce (only just got to 3 Estus flasks and have depleted my lifegems), healing taking longer and Hollowing.
Hollowing is an absolutely awful mechanic and annoys the hell out of me. I understand what they were getting at - the fact you lose part of yourself every time you the cycle of death and rebirth repeats, just like other characters and the game world itself. But it doesn't work so well from a gameplay perspective. You're already getting punished in quite a few ways when you die - progress through a stage, your souls, any finite items you've used - that they didn't need to impact your next run by sapping your health. It'll likely get negated later on as I get better at the game and as my stats and HP get biffed, but in the early game it must be tremendously punishing for less experienced players.
Im not sure if you are aware but you really need to level ADP/Adaptability to make the game playable in my opinion
it affects i-frames and healing item use times which brings it a little more in line with DS1 as far as that is concerned, its a stupid stat - around 25 adp should get you 100 agility which is good enough, I think the soft cap is 110 agility but that needs like 36 adp which is a waste
Yeah I had already read something way back about Adaptability. I think I might have went overboard, as I think I have 105 at the moment, but dodging the last few bosses - Flexile Knight and Dragonrider - felt really forgiving with it that high.
I'n a knight at the moment and mainly doing what I always do - levelling Endurance to get stamina so I never get punished for having none during a fight - and then focusing on HP and damage. This time I'm tempted to add some stats to the magic ones to be able to fire long range spells. Any idea what the best way of going about this is?
