Dark Souls noob with questions

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Synaptic (310 posts) -

I've been considering getting into Dark Souls, but I have a couple questions. Should I play the first one? Also, should I get a controller? (I'm using my PC)

Gameplay-wise I'll read some basic non-spoiler guides and just have at it I guess.

#2 Posted by abnewton (18 posts) -

@synaptic: IMO; and many others; the first is a better game, so I'd highly recommend that its worth playing first (should be very cheap sometime over the Steam sale).

The games are designed for a controller, and so again highly recommended, and to be honest a controller is pretty much an essential pc requirement now a days anyway.

#3 Posted by Synaptic (310 posts) -

Yeah, I've just been putting it off because of the cost. Not a huge investment, but my mind goes to all the awesome games you don't need a controller for and makes me think twice. This might just be the push I need to finally get one :|

#4 Posted by audioBusting (1672 posts) -

Yes, play the first one before it dies with GFWL! Or after, I'm not sure with all the trolls to be honest. Either way, I think the first game is still very much worth playing. If you're concerned about the controller price, just get a cheap 360 controller for now.

#5 Posted by HistoryInRust (6397 posts) -

I think it's worth playing the first one. Both games are fantastic, and though there isn't a ton in the way of obvious connective throughlines between 1 and 2, it's fun to see where the series started mechanically and what changed/underwent an evolution in the sequel.

#6 Posted by TheBlue (434 posts) -

You absolutely 100% should use a controller. Also, go into the game as blind as you can. Dark Souls likes you to learn from your mistakes and encourages exploration and experimentation.

#7 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

Dark Souls II is a better playing game. You do not miss anything if you skip into DSII immediately and you might as well since it has a more alive community right now. It is also more accessible. I haven't seen nearly as much critique of people putting the game down within 8 hours after they started playing as I did with the first game.

That said, the first game is still a really good game. If you're into these types of games (which there is no way of knowing for you because they are still within their own genre right now) it is absolutely worth playing.

No matter what you do though, you have to play them with a controller. They are build to be played with one. It controls shitty with KB/M.

Also, I recommend you not read any guides. I had the most fun with these games by playing them blind. Discovery is half of the fun. For newcomers, far and away the most useful information is how to 'properly' level up. I put that in quotes because there is no wrong way to level up. But there also totally is a wrong way to level up. By that I mean depending on how you want to play the game, you need to build your character a certain way.

Getting the type of weapon you're interested in, knowing how to upgrade it and knowing what stats to invest in to make most efficient use of it; is good advice for beginners. But the stuff that tells you which area's to visit first, where you can expect NPC invaders or even how to beat bosses make the game less fun. I was serious: discovery really is half the fun of the game.

#8 Posted by Jazz_Bcaz (271 posts) -

The first game is better but the second has slightly tighter combat, and is much easier/accessible. It's still difficult mind, and it still feels like Dark Souls, but people fell in love with the first for reasons that are just missing from the second.

I don't know why you wouldn't save the best until last, and yes get a controller. Are you crazy? If you're only going to play one of them, then just dive right into the first but it's nice to get a grasp of the series, and then see how special it's execution can get.

#9 Edited by Pr1mus (3943 posts) -

Dark Souls 1 is a vastly superior game compared to 2 in every single way save for minor stuff like better menus. Get the first one and get a controller. Those games play like hot garbage with keyboard and mouse. It will no doubt be available in the Steam sale for 7-8$ too. There's no way to know if you'll like those games before actually playing so start with the cheapest one which also happens to be by far the best one.

Online
#10 Edited by Loafsmooch (364 posts) -

Controller is definitely not needed for DSII. I have a controller but actually preferred KB+M for ranged aim reasons. However, there's this weird bug which makes the mouse buttons have input lag, so you will want to use an autohotkey script to fix that. Maybe they have patched it by now though, havn't kept myself updated.

#11 Edited by Zevvion (2345 posts) -
@pr1mus said:

Dark Souls 1 is a vastly superior game compared to 2 in every single way save for minor stuff like better menus. Get the first one and get a controller. Those games play like hot garbage with keyboard and mouse. It will no doubt be available in the Steam sale for 7-8$ too. There's no way to know if you'll like those games before actually playing so start with the cheapest one which also happens to be by far the best one.

I disagree with you here. The only place where it is superior is level design. And only then because of the whole, not the individual area's themselves. Dark Souls II has better everything except for that. Especially the part that matters most: combat and online play.

#12 Posted by Pr1mus (3943 posts) -

@zevvion: We've been over that already in the hate/complain thread. We will forever disagree about DSII.

Online
#13 Edited by shishkebab09 (109 posts) -

If you ask me, both games are so great that if you play one, you WILL play the other, so why not start with the first one?

And for the love of god, play with a controller. Oh, and DON'T FORGET DSFIX (I don't think anyone's mentioned that yet).

As for how to play, you should really avoid any beginner guides. This game is about surprise and discovery. Once you've gotten a feel for the different weapon types, maybe look up some info on the crafting system.

#14 Posted by Pr1mus (3943 posts) -

Oh yeah that's right, DSFix is absolutely essential for Dark Souls on PC. Just google it and its super easy to install/configure.

Online
#15 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

@pr1mus said:

@zevvion: We've been over that already in the hate/complain thread. We will forever disagree about DSII.

Agree with me right now. I can't sleep otherwise.

#16 Posted by Pr1mus (3943 posts) -

@zevvion: Maybe we can find common ground elsewhere. Let me go first. Demon's Souls has the best soundtrack of the 3.

Online
#17 Posted by Synaptic (310 posts) -

I bought the controller and the game on Steam sale, going (relatively) well so far. Up against the skeletons in the graveyard, decided on running a bandit. Killed one big skeleton, which I'm relatively proud of. Still can't consistently survive, but hey. Didn't die before the skeletons so I consider that a victory. I have to say that although I really like the combat I'm not very good at it yet. Enjoying so far!

#18 Posted by TheBlue (434 posts) -

@synaptic: The first time I played Dark Souls I strolled down to the graveyard and got smacked by a skeleton knocking me down onto the staircase, which I promptly glitched through and fell for about a minute and a half until I hit something(?) and died. So, needless to say, you're doing better than I did my first time.

#19 Edited by Synaptic (310 posts) -

@theblue: I actually experienced that as well... Is that a common bug?

#20 Posted by natetodamax (19219 posts) -

Good to see you're starting with the first game. I finished for the first time a few months ago and it's probably one of my favorite games. I'm about 5 hours into Dark Souls II but it's not grabbing me as hard as the first Dark Souls, unfortunately.

#21 Posted by Belegorm (675 posts) -

I would recommend the original one first, unless you're not tech-savvy.

GFWL can sometimes be a royal pain in the arse, patching involves a teeny bit of know-how, and if you (like me) use any controller that is not a 360 controller, there is quite a bit of work that goes into emulating one. However once you get it working it runs pretty well (assuming you get the dsfix patch).

The second one though I believe works better out of the box, has some updated gameplay, though IMHO the overall experience is excellent but not quite as memorable as the first Dark Souls.

#22 Edited by Karkarov (3267 posts) -

The people saying Dark Souls 1 is the better game... well... they are mistaken. Dark Souls 2 is the better playing game, has better controls, and is much "tighter" overall in the gameplay. Also any connection between the two games is tenuous at best so you don't really have to play the first one to get the second one. All that out of the way if you want to play the first one go ahead, but by no means do you "have" to. That said like others have mentioned, use a controller regardless.

@pr1mus said:

@zevvion: Maybe we can find common ground elsewhere. Let me go first. Demon's Souls has the best soundtrack of the 3.

Even if Zevvion won't say it I will, you are right. Demon's Souls does have the best sound track of the three.
#23 Posted by Kaos999 (56 posts) -

Ds2 is the vastly better game. Tighter controls, more fighting animations/abilites, better dual wielding, better pve/PvP options, etc. Good luck making it through the high level gear invaders who like to gank noob players in ds1 all the way through.

DS1 is cool if you like trolling noobs or are part of the "fight club" segment of fans who play the souls as a fighting game, instead of as an rpg, which is completely cool either way. Just know asking a question like that is going to yield a bunch of subjective answers, depending on why you play and how you play it's hard to say which is better now that I think about it more.

#24 Posted by militantfreudian (135 posts) -

I actually skipped the first one and jumped into Dark Souls II while it was still relatively new. I think it was a good entry point for newcomers, although I don't think it does a very good job of introducing new players to the world. I went back and played Dark Souls after finishing the second one. In retrospect, I think Dark Souls II overall was a step down from the first one. That being the case, I recommend playing Dark Souls II first. That way, I think you'll get the most out of each game. I mean, Dark Souls II is still a very good game, it's just not as memorable as its predecessor.

#25 Posted by Counterclockwork87 (743 posts) -

@zevvion said:
@pr1mus said:

Dark Souls 1 is a vastly superior game compared to 2 in every single way save for minor stuff like better menus. Get the first one and get a controller. Those games play like hot garbage with keyboard and mouse. It will no doubt be available in the Steam sale for 7-8$ too. There's no way to know if you'll like those games before actually playing so start with the cheapest one which also happens to be by far the best one.

I disagree with you here. The only place where it is superior is level design. And only then because of the whole, not the individual area's themselves. Dark Souls II has better everything except for that. Especially the part that matters most: combat and online play.

Yep, I think Souls II is better in every way besides the level design as well. The menus are better, they explain things MUCH better, the online is better and easier to use, the difficulty is more fair....let's put it this way, I didn't need to use a wiki every moment of Dark Souls 2 like I had to with one...to me that's the flaw with 1. That said, think 1 is the more important game and push comes to shove I don't know which one I'd pick, though I'm leaning toward two despite the world not being as good.

Now for you OP, I actually don't know. Definitely use a controller, it's meant to be played that way but for which to play first I don't know. 2 is way more accessible so in a sense it's a good place to start but 1 is where I started...only issue is you'll need a lot of help cuz 1 explains absolutely nothing.

BUT DS1 is nice and cheap on steam sale so who knows!

#26 Posted by PerryVandell (2109 posts) -

Dark Souls is a fantastic game that I'd recommend to anyone looking for that kind of challenge, but you don't need to play it before Dark Souls II. Playing Dark Souls beforehand probably helped me die fewer times in Dark Souls II and mutter things like "WTF happened to the Estus Flask?!?"

I highly recommend playing both games with a controller. I've never used a mouse and keyboard for either game, but I've heard Dark Souls 1 is a nightmare without a controller — in a bad way, not "BUT MASTERY OF THE MOUSE AND KEYBOARD LEADS TO GREATER SATISFACTION AND SPLENDOR" kind of way.

Finally, download DSfix if you end up playing Dark Souls 1 on the PC. I've only played the PS3 version of DS, but I've heard that mod is required if you want an enjoyable experience. The PC version of Dark Souls II just works from the get go, so there's that at least.

#27 Edited by bybeach (4992 posts) -

I just finished Dark Souls 2 about 3 hours ago. I thought it rocked. Nor did it not hurt that I played it on PC with a very solid video card...to say the least. And I always use a controller for these games.

My only complaint was that the lore wasn't as forthcoming as it could be, especially when it was obvious there was a plot and strong tensions. NPC's played their roles, but it didn't really come together for me. It really bothered me because the game was wanting to tell me, why myself and so many others were drawn to Drangliec. It just did not gel into something I clearly understood, beyond a rejuvenation theme. But I enjoyed it for the dark fantasy it was. And once you understand it, the customization and gameplay is very addictive.

#28 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

@pr1mus said:

@zevvion: Maybe we can find common ground elsewhere. Let me go first. Demon's Souls has the best soundtrack of the 3.

Maybe. I'm kind of not blown away by any of the soundtracks to be honest. And I'm not even sure I don't like that fact. The lack of music oddly fits the game rather well.

#29 Posted by ShotgunLincoln (319 posts) -

If you're just starting out I would recommend Dark Souls 2. It's easier to get into and I honestly find it to be more fun although not as alluring lore wise.

#30 Posted by TobbRobb (4840 posts) -

@zevvion: Dark Souls 2 has way worse level design on an individual level as well as the whole. They are a lot more bland and small with some extremely shitty areas like Shrine of Aman or Black Gulch that makes Blighttown look good. There are enemies that straight up cheat and are boring to fight, there are barely any interesting bosses at all and the weapons are hilariously skewed in balance when it comes to PvE. Dark Souls is a better single player game in every way that matters except the core movement and visuals. And I don't think either is a big enough leap to cover for other failures.

DS2 is a damn good game though, I did enjoy it a lot. Though sadly only for about one and a half playthrough, in contrast to the double digit ones in the original.

#31 Edited by GeneralBison (414 posts) -

I found that the Capra Demon is a very disheartening barrier in the early stages of the first Dark Souls, pretty much ruined the game for me until I read about how you can cheese him with firebombs.

I had a much better time with Dark Souls 2, seems a lot better paced in my opinion.

EDIT: On DS1 I'm stuck on the lava-spider-lady, really took the wind out my sales after making it through the hell that is Blighttown

#32 Edited by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

@tobbrobb said:

@zevvion: Dark Souls 2 has way worse level design on an individual level as well as the whole. They are a lot more bland and small with some extremely shitty areas like Shrine of Aman or Black Gulch that makes Blighttown look good. There are enemies that straight up cheat and are boring to fight, there are barely any interesting bosses at all and the weapons are hilariously skewed in balance when it comes to PvE. Dark Souls is a better single player game in every way that matters except the core movement and visuals. And I don't think either is a big enough leap to cover for other failures.

DS2 is a damn good game though, I did enjoy it a lot. Though sadly only for about one and a half playthrough, in contrast to the double digit ones in the original.

Level design is a matter of opinion of course, but I found Shrine of Amana to be a really good looking area. I wish Dark Souls had some area's that looked like that. The only thing that comes close are the crystal caves, but they don't look nearly as good. Blighttown is unarguably awful, if only for the poor frame rate. There is nothing wrong with Black Gulch. It has a distinctive look.

Where you are wrong is that there are enemies that cheat. There are no enemies that cheat. If you think so, you just haven't mastered DSII as you may have DS. Which is understandable, because DS is is somewhat of a cakewalk compared to DSII. Especially in the bosses department. You say there are no interesting bosses, which I can't ever agree with. In Dark Souls, the solution to almost everyboss is this: 1. Put on heavy armor. 2. Heal when low on health. 3. Hit the attack button until you win.

I really love Dark Souls, but after playing DSII I went back to DS after a month or so and was amazed how different it is. I'm not even joking. With the exception of the unanimously decided terrible boss that is Bed of Chaos, allof the great bosses are defeated exactly in the way I just described. That is not to say they cannot be defeated another way, but come on. Make me at least think for a second?

It is all a matter of opinion, I know this. But Dark Souls II straight up destroys Dark Souls as far as bosses are concerned. I'm not talking about design, but the actual thrill of discovery how to defeat a boss. The only boss that I still find remotely challenging is Ornstein and Smough and that is because of terrible, awful and horrible camera and boss design. Whenever they get separated (which, might you, is entirely out of your hands because of their insane distance on the back jumps) they might just stay that way and attack you from two angles after which you the poor camera will not get both of them on screen and there are no audio cues to let you know when they attack. In contrast, Throne Watcher and Defender actively seek each other out when separated, ensuring both of them are on your screen at the same time almost 100% of the time.

There are countless improvements DSII makes over some of the terrible decisions made in DS.

Dark Souls has a special place in my heart, but that may just be because the game was something special. It was unique. I forgave the issues it had fully because what was there to enjoy is really good. But now there is Dark Souls II, which improves upon it in nearly every way. It is a much more solid and refined game. There will be more games in this genre now like Lords of the Fallen, deep down, Bloodborne and more. When that time comes, issues like in Dark Souls will no longer be just forgiven by anyone.

#33 Posted by Roland_D11 (195 posts) -

@zevvion: I personally think that there are way too many bosses in DSII. Most of them follow the same pattern (dude in heavy armor that strikes pretty hard....or two dudes that strike really hard) and the tracking especially on overhead smashes is insane. Add to that the fact that poise is not existent and it is getting problematic. Especially the Throne Watcher / Defender fight in DS2 is infuriating. The only viable strategy I found to solo them is to lock on to them, keep them in your camera view and walk backwards until both strike at the same time and give you an opening. Their attacks are, for the most part, so quick that it is impossible to anticipate them making the fight boring, tedious and unfair.

I loved DS1 because every single boss had a unique identity in the lore and in its fighting style. Demon's Souls was the same. I still get sweaty palms when I am standing in front of the boss fog of Flamelurker, O&S or the Four Kings. None of the bosses in DS2 did that for me, maybe except Darklurker. And he is, ironically, an optional boss that is pretty hard to find without a guide.

I finished Dark Souls 2 a few times (I am on NG+++ at the moment) and really enjoyed the game. Did it improve some things from the first game? Yes, of course. The menus are way better, the performance on PC is great. But it does not have the same draw for me the first one or Demon's Souls had. I still go back to those two games over and over again but I already know I will not do that with DS2. The main reason is the lore behind all of it. Demon's and DS1 feel like the have a vision, a rich backstory behind it. DS2 feels like the developers created a lot of allusions and mysterious item descriptions just to have them. There is no clear picture behind all of them, no cohesive lore to discover or theorize about. The constant callbacks to DS1 do not help either.

#34 Posted by TobbRobb (4840 posts) -

I won't deny the distinctive look of Aman or Gulch, and arguably the entire game has a lot more visual flair. It is definitely the prettier game of the two. But those are some seriously moronic areas with anti-fun mechanics. They rely entirely on area gimmicks to limit your movement and force you into two specific methods of forcing through it. They aren't even hard, just obnoxious. They feel like filler areas, with almost no connection to the rest of the game and unnecessarily padded with bullshit. Blighttown at least has an interesting layout and more direct lore connections to what you are doing.

I am not wrong, they DO cheat. Have you seen the drakekeeper mace-dudes by the end? Or several of the NPC invaders? I'm not even coming to this from the standpoint that it was too hard, my upgraded tower shield and endurance stat made the latter half of the game a complete joke. But giving enemies infinite stamina and letting them break the rules that confine the rest of the game is just bullshit. And made for an annoying experience. Way to make me block and strafe to the right for 2min instead of 10 seconds game, thanks. What if you actually designed challenge next time instead of just giving them an unfair advantage.

Speaking of blocking and strafing to the right. Guess what beats every boss in the game? It's even more consistent than the tank and heal of DS1. Which is mostly made true because every boss is one or two big dudes in the middle of a square or circular arena. If I wanted to fight the same boss 20+ times I'd play Monster Hunter instead. You talk of the thrill of discovery, but I figured out the ways to beat those kinds of bosses in the original, there is no discovery left, only application. And designwise, do you really have to fight Dragonrider twice? Old Dragonslayer are you kidding me?

"you just haven't mastered DSII as you may have DS. Which is understandable, because DS is is somewhat of a cakewalk compared to DSII." Please, not only can you apply the exact same tank and heal mentality as the first game and beat it. But there are some serious balance issues in the PvE where a blunt lightning weapon will destroy 90% of the game, while a normal sharp weapon feels more in line with reality, but look underpowered next to its insane brothers. And that's even disregarding egregious issues like the terrible hitboxes or enemies having ridiculous tracking with their moves. I don't mind having to play around how a game works, intentional or not. But that doesn't make it good design.

Oh well. At least the PvP is pretty awesome. And I will have a hard time playing these games in anything but 60fps after this... Here is hoping Bloodborne can pull that off.

#35 Edited by militantfreudian (135 posts) -

@zevvion: I'm pretty sure the camera doesn't pan out in at least a few of the boss fights with multiple opponents, so this is not exclusive to the first game. You have to put even more effort to make sure that all the enemies are in your limited field of vision. This was especially irritating in the Darklurker boss fight. The bosses in Dark Souls II may not cheat per se, but because of the broken hitboxes and excessive tracking, they seem like they do.

#36 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

@zevvion: I personally think that there are way too many bosses in DSII. Most of them follow the same pattern (dude in heavy armor that strikes pretty hard....or two dudes that strike really hard) and the tracking especially on overhead smashes is insane. Add to that the fact that poise is not existent and it is getting problematic. Especially the Throne Watcher / Defender fight in DS2 is infuriating. The only viable strategy I found to solo them is to lock on to them, keep them in your camera view and walk backwards until both strike at the same time and give you an opening. Their attacks are, for the most part, so quick that it is impossible to anticipate them making the fight boring, tedious and unfair.

I loved DS1 because every single boss had a unique identity in the lore and in its fighting style. Demon's Souls was the same. I still get sweaty palms when I am standing in front of the boss fog of Flamelurker, O&S or the Four Kings. None of the bosses in DS2 did that for me, maybe except Darklurker. And he is, ironically, an optional boss that is pretty hard to find without a guide.

I finished Dark Souls 2 a few times (I am on NG+++ at the moment) and really enjoyed the game. Did it improve some things from the first game? Yes, of course. The menus are way better, the performance on PC is great. But it does not have the same draw for me the first one or Demon's Souls had. I still go back to those two games over and over again but I already know I will not do that with DS2. The main reason is the lore behind all of it. Demon's and DS1 feel like the have a vision, a rich backstory behind it. DS2 feels like the developers created a lot of allusions and mysterious item descriptions just to have them. There is no clear picture behind all of them, no cohesive lore to discover or theorize about. The constant callbacks to DS1 do not help either.

I disagree, but I agree. I don't think DSII has too many bosses, but I think what you mean is that because there are so many of them, some feel like they are just filler. They feel like something is missing. Covetous Demon for instance. He is... pointless. He has some fun and unique mechanics to him, but he is so slow and easy that you will probably never see it. The only way I know is because of what Vinny played on Giant Bomb. I have finished the game 9 times now, I think, and still never saw it myself.

Which is something I don't share with you. I find DSII infinitely replayable. I didn't see the 'dude in heavy armor with a huge sword' argument as much as other people. There is a lot of variety in the bosses. I feel you could say the same for Dark Souls if you go about it like that.

I do get where you are coming from though and respect your opinion. I did find the lore in DSII very interesting but that was more because it kept talking about DS like you said.

I would like to say still that some criticism people have of DSII just sounds to me like they haven't fully figured the game out yet and that is frustrating them. I am not accusing you of this, but I seriously suspect that the people who played DS with a guide on what to do were missing that from DSII and hate the game because they can't figure it out. People forget that DS was also about discovery. The people who jumped in late were told certain things that helped them immensely. I remember playing that game and dying left and right. When I finished the game multiple times, I went back into my very first save to check it out. It was laughable. My character was leveled completely wrong with the gear I used. I had a short sword +6 that I beat the game with. I had a shield that I used for the entire game that had pretty poor stability. I was actually proud of myself for even being able to finish the game like that. Most people that dove into DS had people telling them what gear to use, how to use it and how to level. Then, they were also told where to go next when they got stuck in an insanely hard area. You know what I had to do? Figure it out myself. And sometimes, I didn't. It was tough, but it was fun.

I saw a lot of people complaining about DSII for things that was exactly the same in DS. For example, many people criticized how the first area you 'should' go to is off to the side on a small path. Guess what, that's exactly how it was in Dark Souls. The same people seemingly loving DS but hating DSII.

I have to admit that stuff sometimes gets to me. Just for the record, you can do Throne Watcher and Defender with many different strategies. I've defeated them with melee, with claws, with miracles and more. The only thing I didn't do with them was a shield. Primarily because at that point in the game I dumped my shield, but also because they are too ferocious for that tactic. Again a good example of people just not being able to adapt to the game is them saying: 'my shield doesn't work, they just bash through it. This is terrible design'. No, your tactic doesn't work. This isn't Dark Souls where you can defeat everything with the same tactic. This is DSII, where you are actually required to think a little bit with some bosses. Exaggeration I admit, but it's true.

I have defeated them barely taking any damage. I wish I recorded that. Your 'impossible to anticipate' seemed to go very well for me. I'll try to record my next fight with them and show you that you most definitely can.

#37 Edited by Karkarov (3267 posts) -

@zevvion said:

Dark Souls has a special place in my heart, but that may just be because the game was something special. It was unique. I forgave the issues it had fully because what was there to enjoy is really good. But now there is Dark Souls II, which improves upon it in nearly every way. It is a much more solid and refined game. There will be more games in this genre now like Lords of the Fallen, deep down, Bloodborne and more. When that time comes, issues like in Dark Souls will no longer be just forgiven by anyone.

It really annoys me when people say this because Dark Souls is just Demon's Souls with some slight tweaks, a "covenant system", and crap online. It isn't "unique" and it wasn't the first game. Of the three I consider Dark Souls to actually be the worst. Not that it is a bad game, it is just criminally over rated and Demon's Souls is criminally ignored.

#38 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@karkarov said:

@zevvion said:

Dark Souls has a special place in my heart, but that may just be because the game was something special. It was unique. I forgave the issues it had fully because what was there to enjoy is really good. But now there is Dark Souls II, which improves upon it in nearly every way. It is a much more solid and refined game. There will be more games in this genre now like Lords of the Fallen, deep down, Bloodborne and more. When that time comes, issues like in Dark Souls will no longer be just forgiven by anyone.

It really annoys me when people say this because Dark Souls is just Demon's Souls with some slight tweaks, a "covenant system", and crap online. It isn't "unique" and it wasn't the first game. Of the three I consider Dark Souls to actually be the worst. Not that it is a bad game, it is just criminally over rated and Demon's Souls is criminally ignored.

I second that.
Dark Soul felt more organic, thanks to its cleverly made level design, but I prefered the feeling in Demon Souls and the mechanics in Dark Souls 2. Lorewise, Dark Soul and Dark Soul 2 are one and the same. Those two entertwine in ways that I still can't figure out.

#39 Posted by TheBlue (434 posts) -

@synaptic: Weird, really? That's especially odd considering you're on the PC and I played it on the PS3. I guess those stairs have some issues.

#40 Posted by EternalVigil (302 posts) -

I found that the Capra Demon is a very disheartening barrier in the early stages of the first Dark Souls, pretty much ruined the game for me until I read about how you can cheese him with firebombs.

I had a much better time with Dark Souls 2, seems a lot better paced in my opinion.

EDIT: On DS1 I'm stuck on the lava-spider-lady, really took the wind out my sales after making it through the hell that is Blighttown

I recently finished the first game, and on my first run, by the time I got to the capra demon, I'd already cleared blightown, so I was massively overleveled and equipped for it, so it wasn't much of a problem. I did try doing it early as a new character and I took several tries to get it down. I found making him constantly go up and down the stairs was a good way to get free hits on him.

Blightown is a rough area, and Queelag is no joke, don't be afraid to summon if you need to.

#41 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

@karkarov said:

@zevvion said:

Dark Souls has a special place in my heart, but that may just be because the game was something special. It was unique. I forgave the issues it had fully because what was there to enjoy is really good. But now there is Dark Souls II, which improves upon it in nearly every way. It is a much more solid and refined game. There will be more games in this genre now like Lords of the Fallen, deep down, Bloodborne and more. When that time comes, issues like in Dark Souls will no longer be just forgiven by anyone.

It really annoys me when people say this because Dark Souls is just Demon's Souls with some slight tweaks, a "covenant system", and crap online. It isn't "unique" and it wasn't the first game. Of the three I consider Dark Souls to actually be the worst. Not that it is a bad game, it is just criminally over rated and Demon's Souls is criminally ignored.

For context, I played Dark Souls first. Then Demon's Souls. It was unique to me. I also prefer it over Demon's Souls, but that's just me.

#42 Posted by dudeglove (8265 posts) -

wtf, people are not just defending Shrine of Amana but saying it's actually good? That area is horseshit. It's a bad mashup of blight town swamp without the poison and ash lake with nowhere the same atmosphere or giant hydra shooting at you - just assholes who can move insanely fast through water and shitty lock on for an area whose brightness doesn't correspond

#43 Posted by VikingRk (51 posts) -

The differences between the two games in terms of gameplay is kind of being overstated. The second is definitely an improvement, but it's not like the first is antiquated as a result. I suggest playing the first one first since I think the first few areas of that game are the best of either game in terms of feeling like you're exploring a world. I feel like it would give the best experience as a beginner.

#44 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@dudeglove: I don't agree, Shrine of Amana is not worse than any other area. I can understand why someone could dislike it, but saying it is a bad area is just wrong. It's not even the hardest, nor the more tedious for me.

#45 Posted by Sanity (1944 posts) -

I was pondering this myself and decided to wait on the first game for steam works as i think it will come eventually, from what everyone said theirs no real story reasons to play them in order so i say play the second one now and hopefully the first game will be fixed by the time you finish DS2. They already said they wont let the first game die and that there exploring options so i think its going to happen eventually.

#46 Posted by dudeglove (8265 posts) -

@myrmicus said:

@dudeglove: I don't agree, Shrine of Amana is not worse than any other area. I can understand why someone could dislike it, but saying it is a bad area is just wrong. It's not even the hardest, nor the more tedious for me.

I'm curious as to which one dragged on the most for you. Shrine of Amana is definitely up there for me.

#47 Posted by Karkarov (3267 posts) -

I sure am glad you shrine of Amana haters never went through 5-2 in Demon's Souls :p You guys would have died of heart attacks.

#48 Posted by TobbRobb (4840 posts) -

@karkarov: 5-2 is a real piece of shit. I hate Amana slightly more because the wound is fresher. But that swamp might just be the worst area in any of the games.

#49 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@dudeglove: There isn't any area that I really hate. The area I dislike the most is the small bit just before Vestdalt boss fight. And the giant's memory where you find the Giant Lord, because of the constant bombing of the area.

#50 Posted by dudeglove (8265 posts) -

@myrmicus said:

@dudeglove: There isn't any area that I really hate. The area I dislike the most is the small bit just before Vestdalt boss fight. And the giant's memory where you find the Giant Lord, because of the constant bombing of the area.

Yeah, the bombs change frequency as well when you activate the boss fight which is kind of shitty too. Like I've said before, what bothers me most about all those supposedly "dark" areas (Amana, Undead Crypt), is that the game is extremely inconsistent in its lock on. The final boss is in a fairly "dark" place, yet you can lock onto it right from the moment you enter the arena. By comparison you need to be about four meters away from the knights in Undead Crypt before you can even get a good lock on (that or spam projectiles to draw them out).

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.