• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How is Dark Souls 1 not the worst Soulsborne game?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I got kinda bored by Dark Souls 3 and ragequit halfway through but I enjoyed what I played* more than I did of Dark Souls 1, where I kind of just kept going because failure meant I was a tiny diaper baby who couldn't play games. I'm looking forward to returning to DS3 someday whereas I could live without touching DS1 again.

Bloodborne, meanwhile, is one of my favourite games of all time.

*The Irithyll Dungeon is fucking inexcusable though.
 
Why would you need any sword other than these two?



If anything the other games are bad for not including the best Souls weapon, Demon Great Machete.

Which should be mentioned is something that DS2 did very badly, the boss souls were for the most part useless, given that a lot of the best weapons didn't come from bosses souls, with certain exceptions like the loyce which only came with the DLC

*The Irithyll Dungeon is fucking inexcusable though.

Did you have the "pleasure" of visiting smouldering lake and demon ruins, because I would definitely put those 2 as something worse than Irithyll dungeon.
 
To be fair though, there sheer number of areas in DS2 is a compelling counter-argument to making direct comparisons between equivalent zones.

For example a defining feature of both Valley of Defilement and Blighttown is they are largely big, open, poison swamp areas. Whereas that role in DS2 is given a whole zone unto itself (Harvest Valley). The gutter by comparison is actually an enlargement of the rickety ladders and platforms component found in the earlier games' zones.

Harvest Valley and The Gutter are both terrible in design though, Harvest Valley has a trash boss and The Gutter doesn't even have one (unless you're counting The Rotten LOL)

I dunno, I'll take quality over quantity any day in Souls.
 
I will say this about Dark Souls, though; it did the whole interconnected hub world really, really well. I wasn't particularly in love with any of the levels because so much of it is just ugly, rotted out castles and sewers (though I imagine that's a plus for a ton of people who were turned off by the marginally more conventionally pretty DS2 and 3), but it was still a cool touch that Bloodborne and DS3 really lacked in any meaningful capacity.
 
I played through Bloodborne first, then Demon's Souls and then Dark Souls 1 (before Dark Souls 3). I still enjoyed it despite being very different. I even played through and enjoyed Dark Souls 2: SotFS for what it's worth.

I really like Dark Souls 1 because of the interconnected world and characters.
 
I like how core souls mechanics which made the franchise what it is today getting bashed.
Also IMO, everything OP stated are Pros and not cons.
DS had the best level design in the series and you really felt that hostility of the world you've been thrown to, and a huge part of this feeling were those "cons".
I haven't completed bloodborne so I am excluding it from the equation.

Also: CO-OP Soulsborne? :/ Literally destroying the essence of the game.
 
I got kinda bored by Dark Souls 3 and ragequit halfway through but I enjoyed what I played* more than I did of Dark Souls 1, where I kind of just kept going because failure meant I was a tiny diaper baby who couldn't play games. I'm looking forward to returning to DS3 someday whereas I could live without touching DS1 again.

Bloodborne, meanwhile, is one of my favourite games of all time.

*The Irithyll Dungeon is fucking fantastic.

Fixed that for you.
 
Fixed that for you.

Look I don't care how hardcore git gud level 1 no dodgerol giantdad whatever you are there is no fucking reason for there to be enemies who drain your maximum health by looking at you. Fuck that with a rusty spoon.
 
Look I don't care how hardcore git gud level 1 no dodgerol giantdad whatever you are there is no fucking reason for there to be enemies who drain your maximum health by looking at you. Fuck that with a rusty spoon.

They're not looking at you. They're dropping a pellet on the ground. If that pellet isn't there, then you're good. You can see them drop it.

EDIT:

I looked on the Wiki. Apparently it's their lantern turning red that indicates they're doing the drain ability. I could've sworn I saw them spit out a pellet though.
 
Look I don't care how hardcore git gud level 1 no dodgerol giantdad whatever you are there is no fucking reason for there to be enemies who drain your maximum health by looking at you. Fuck that with a rusty spoon.

If you rush them down they don't drain your health. It's a non-issue when you understand the mechanic.
 
Look I don't care how hardcore git gud level 1 no dodgerol giantdad whatever you are there is no fucking reason for there to be enemies who drain your maximum health by looking at you. Fuck that with a rusty spoon.

I thought the enemies who frenzy you in Bloodborne if you're in their sight to be even more annoying.
 
Because Dark Souls 2 exist.

Correct answer.

DaS2 is a consistently good to above mediocre game, with quite a few lows from system, level, and enemy design.

Though DaS1 has rough lows, I'd put its highs (most of the game even) up there with DeS, BB, and DaS3. Can't say that about DaS2, except for maybe build variety and online.

Edit:

Man, I wish we'd just get Demon's and Dark Souls current gen releases already.
 
I think this one is still my favorite in the series. Extremely varied and gigantic with a lot to explore. DS3 and Bloodborne feel like linear action games in comparison.

Dark Souls 2 gets worse every time I play it.
 
Look I don't care how hardcore git gud level 1 no dodgerol giantdad whatever you are there is no fucking reason for there to be enemies who drain your maximum health by looking at you. Fuck that with a rusty spoon.

It creates a new dynamic on how encounters work though. If you go against them like normal enemies, well happy dying then. Once you figure out the proper strategies they should be a non issue.

I do hate that if they drain your health and you don't get hit you still lose life though. I think it should fill up back to full if you never got hit but that is a minor issue.
 
One crit I never understand is "Why does DS2 get crap for referencing the first game so much while DS3 doesn't?"

Yet, like, DS3 looks and feels like a direct sequel to the story of the first game.

DS2 feels like someone went in after the fact and said "Shit, connect everything to the first game, even if it really doesn't make sense". They should have been their own things, but they tried so, so hard to connect everything to the first game.

Doesn't help that the game opens with "You'll die over and over again lol"
 
When Dark Souls came out, very few games were anywhere close to its level of difficulty, world design and mystique. The interconnected level design, as well as memorable areas and bosses made it very easy to make a mental map of the world and to traverse the landscapes. Also, the difficulty curve of the game just sort of sings to certain people, and again at the time of its release many other games were going the exact opposite direction for difficulty and hand holding. Context is everything, and those who fell in love with the Souls series because of DS1 can't simply be scoffed at and told "it's bad" almost 6 years later.

  • Need to be human to summon, but lose your humanity along with your souls

Yes. This was a fundamental mechanic for humanity, and was an interesting gameplay twist that opened you up to envasions, but gave you the opportunity to summon. Also, if you're referring to losing your humanity along with your souls when you die, that's also a compelling mechanic that added to the sense of doom and depression that the title was trying to convey. It instilled a fear of the hostile environments and enemies and encouraged that you take you time to review your surroundings before pressing on. It's great.

  • Can't fast travel between bonfires (at least until way late in the game?)

Again this is a key factor that made the interconnected world so amazing. You didn't NEED to fast travel, since everything was connected and was never more than a few minutes of walking away. But you had to walk there, which meant you had to go through the enemies again. Do you see the gameplay loop? Treacherous environments with tough enemies that you had to fight or avoid, but if you failed you had to go back and try and recover your souls. It's dangerous out there, so be careful and learn to fight/run better. It's overdone and people think others are serious, but that's where the whole "git gud" joke came from.

  • Can't light bonfires when a summon is around.

Ok, and? You've turned on easy mode with a summon, so there's a penalty. Other games have restrictions like this on lower difficulties, and Dark Souls is by no mean willing to hold your hand. You wanted an easier time? Guess your checkpoints don't matter then. Brutal and succinct, and I love it.

  • Garbage Estus flask implementation

"That's just like... your opinion, man...". And it's a wrong opinion if you ask me. Best estus system in the series, bar none. You want more healing? Gotta save up that delicious humanity. But what if I want to Co-Op? Well, better have more than 1 humanity. But what if I don't? You can try farming for some... or you could do some tasty invasions to take it from others! It's an intriguing system of counter balance that you don't get in the other games. But hey, once you kindle the bonfire once, it stays like that through the rest of the game and even into NG+, so that's nice. Just make sure you can get back to the bonfire (do you get it now? the gameplay loops! they're looping in on themselves!)

  • Molasses movement; super slow sprinting & anything below fast roll is a bad time

Movement is fine, just need to find the armor/weight that works best for you. As for fast rolls, Giant Dad would like to have a word with you in his office.

  • Dope PC port that requires several mods and tweaks to run decently

Sure, you're not wrong there. But you have to look at the context of the game's release. FROM had never made a PC game before, and it was a console exclusive until there was a large enough outcry from the community for the PC port. It was rushed and poorly optimized, but again it was done by people who'd never done anything like that before. Also, if you're really going to complain about the super simple DSfix... I mean... really? Durante did an amazing job with it back in the day. But I digress.


All in all, I believe that your opinion is bad and you should feel bad, but it's whatever. Play what you like. For me, Dark Souls 1 is still the best of the franchise (don't have a PS4 for Bloodborne, but I know it's amazing) simply because of what it did for the industry back in 2011 and how well it's stacked up today. Play it every year and I still love it.
 
I went back to DS1 not too long ago and found myself preferring DS2 and DS3, with DS2 my favorite (minority opinion, I get it).

DS1 was great when it came out, but I think the games after further refined it.
 
I preferred Bloodborne and Demon's Souls to it, but I don't think it's garbage anything... except for some of the late-game areas that were unfinished by comparison to the rest of the game.
 
I'm wary of the word "triggered" in lighthearted context. But presently, I'm unsure how else to describe my feelings about this thread.
 
If I judge all the games by the standards set by the series as a whole (bosses, combat etc) I actually judge Demon's as the weakest as it has some crappy bosses and there aren't many overall whereas DS2 has some really poor bosses, there are many more in total and some of them are fantastic (Raime, Sir Alonne and Darklurker)
 
I hate the way Estus is tied to bonfires and how it works with summons. Good thing it was changed in the later games.

Also

Bloodborne > 2 > 1 > Demon's > 3

Fight me.
 
All of those things you listed as negatives (other than the bad PC port) are positives in my book, in hindsight. The sense of adventure, progression, and accomplishment is unmatched in the later games for all of the convenience and quality of life "improvements" they added. They are all excellent games, of course.
 
I wish there was a way to poll the entire fanbase to finally know for sure which one gets the more hate, Dark Souls 2 or 3. I'm still fairly certain that 3 has more detractors.
 
I wish there was a way to poll the entire fanbase to finally know for sure which one gets the more hate, Dark Souls 2 or 3. I'm still fairly certain that 3 has more detractors.

I'd bet the farm that Dark Souls 2 would win in a landslide in terms of which gets more hate
 
If I judge all the games by the standards set by the series as a whole (bosses, combat etc) I actually judge Demon's as the weakest as it has some crappy bosses and there aren't many overall whereas DS2 has some really poor bosses, there are many more in total and some of them are fantastic (Raime, Sir Alonne and Darklurker)

Yeah, I remember playing DeS right after my first playthrough of DS1 and being pretty disappointed with the bosses. (With some exceptions of course)
 
I wish there was a way to poll the entire fanbase to finally know for sure which one gets the more hate, Dark Souls 2 or 3. I'm still fairly certain that 3 has more detractors.

You're still living in that make-believe world I see. There's no way that's the case.
 
I will say this about Dark Souls, though; it did the whole interconnected hub world really, really well. I wasn't particularly in love with any of the levels because so much of it is just ugly, rotted out castles and sewers (though I imagine that's a plus for a ton of people who were turned off by the marginally more conventionally pretty DS2 and 3), but it was still a cool touch that Bloodborne and DS3 really lacked in any meaningful capacity.

My dream Souls game would have the area interconnections of DS1 with the individual area design of Bloodborne or Demon's. Dark Souls always let me down on that front, like it's neat that Undead Burg/Parish has an elevator back to Firelink, but as a starting area Central Yharnam's level design curbstomps it.
 
I wish there was a way to poll the entire fanbase to finally know for sure which one gets the more hate, Dark Souls 2 or 3. I'm still fairly certain that 3 has more detractors.

Sorry, but no way. Dark Souls III wasn't even that negatively received, whereas people talked shit about Dark Souls II nonstop for months after the game was out.
 
Dark Souls has the best characters, lore, story etc and most memorable locations in the series APART FROM BLOODBOURNE. The gameplay feels very dated now and the second half is rushed, for sure. But 2 has far more problems and Demon's Souls has similar pros and cons. this is the correct hierarchy:

1. Bloodbourne
2. Dark Souls 3
3. Dark Souls + Demon's Souls
4. Dark Souls 2.

edit: to be clear, Dark Souls 2 is still a great game and was probably GOTY (although that was a pretty bad year) it's just bad relative to other Souls games.
 
I like all 5, sue me.

I like Dark Souls 1. Its level design is the best, though one can argue it has a weak endgame. But how you can choose your own path is very well done. Only Bloodborne comes close to that.

I like Scholar of the First Sin as well. Best PvP by far. Great build variety. God tier DLC. 60fps and nearly nonexistent load times on PS4.

Dark Souls 3 was a tight experience. Its kinda linear though a bit hidden (you can still opt to do Cathedral before the other area, or the lava pit before the ice town). Level design stays strong throughout, I loved the aesthetics of Lothric castle which was sort of a Boletaria throwback.

Bloodborne might be Miyazaki's magnum opus, though its build variety is very limited and Chalice was kind of a misfire (with some good bosses).

The best Souls games have elements of all. The design of 1, the PvP of 2, the gameplay of 3... the atmosphere of Demon's Souls (I think DeS had the best atmosphere).
 
I mean it's essentially the first entry, and yeah, it got a lot wrong, but it had enough right to have a lot of people love it. I'll be the first to admit I did not love it at first, and it took me a while to warm up to it, but I'm glad I did. I'm also glad FROM streamlined and polished stuff for later entries (BB and DS3 core mechanics are better than DS1, but one could still argue that DS1 has better level design than DS3, which I admit may be true).
 
I hate the way Estus is tied to bonfires and how it works with summons. Good thing it was changed in the later games.

Also

Bloodborne > 2 > 1 > Demon's > 3

Fight me.

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You speak mad truths. I don't think I've ever seen anyone mirror my rankings here.
 
Harvest Valley and The Gutter are both terrible in design though, Harvest Valley has a trash boss and The Gutter doesn't even have one (unless you're counting The Rotten LOL)

I dunno, I'll take quality over quantity any day in Souls.

I think you're getting confused. Harvest Valley doesn't have a boss at all, Earthen peak is were you fight Covetous demon near the start, and Mytha at the end with a good stretch of gameplay in-between.

On the other hand Blighttown doesn't contain a boss either, it leads to Quelaag's domain which is basically a boss-room and very little else. After that of course we have Demon Ruins which is without debate the most unfinished and half-assed zone in the entire series.

Its funny to me how DS2's detractors seem to turn a blind-eye to how weak the entirety of the "fire" path is in DS1. Quelaag's, Demon Ruins, and Lost Izalith are guilty of every complaint thrown at the sequel for cut-n-paste arbitrary enemy population and placement. Hell, past Quelaag, there are 4 bosses, 2 of which are gimmick fights requiring minimal combat, one's the third re-use of the first boss you encounter, and the only notable aspects of Centipede Demon are that its skippable and the lava gimmick requires the used of the charred ring.
 
Honestly don't see how that would make it any less of a slog, it'd just be a lonely slog. lol @ let's play tho

But you're still judging it, possibly bouncing jokes back and forth. "THIS is what everyone loves?! LoLOLkL" etc. You weren't there when there was nothing else (other than DeS) quite like it so it's kind of douchy posting such a topic as if you're opinion is some be-all, end-all matter of factness.

Mind you, I get just generally not liking it, but being condescending about it isn't exactly making your opinion a valid one.

Edit: sorry, I'm coming across too angsty here =/.
 
I hate the way Estus is tied to bonfires and how it works with summons. Good thing it was changed in the later games.

As someone who is about to play DS2 in about a month, this statement worries me. But a ton of other things people have said in this thread seem to indicate that all other Souls games are vastly different from Dark Souls, which makes me sad.

I really hope i'm not let down with all the changes.
 
I hate the way Estus is tied to bonfires and how it works with summons. Good thing it was changed in the later games.
Fuck no! Estus in Dark 1 is so liberating (like so much else in the game)! The fact that you can run to carry twenty at a time in the beginning if you're brave is amazing! And having twenty doesn't even break the balance!
 
Its funny to me how DS2's detractors seem to turn a blind-eye to how weak the entirety of the "fire" path is in DS1. Quelaag's, Demon Ruins, and Lost Izalith are guilty of every complaint thrown at the sequel for cut-n-paste arbitrary enemy population and placement. Hell, past Quelaag, there are 4 bosses, 2 of which are gimmick fights requiring minimal combat, one's the third re-use of the first boss you encounter, and the only notable aspects of Centipede Demon are that its skippable and the lava gimmick requires the used of the charred ring.

Because it has some really interesting visuals. Not every levels needs to be intricate, when it has other things to offer.

(inb4 lava gives eye cancer... yeah yeah I know)
 
And having twenty doesn't even break the balance!

No way. Estus gets pretty absurdly powerful, especially once you use a few firekeeper souls on it.

It's still probably the best implementation of healing items in the series. But it probably would have improved the game if estus had been toned down a bit.
 
for all of my criticisms of DS3 it has some truly amazing boss battles. Most DS2 bosses were terrible.

I think it probably has the most number of memorable and challenging bosses of any of the vanilla games. Sad that a lot of its levels are retreads on areas in prior games (though in some cases, like Irithyll and it's dungeon, that's not a bad thing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom