Do you agree Dark Souls is superior?

Yes... or no?

no dark souls 2 is way better.ive already explained why in many other threads so im not going into it again.

Nope, Dark Souls II is better. But Demon's Souls is superior to either of them so what's it matter?

I didn't finish Dark Souls 2, but it didn't seem to hold my interest as much as the first.

Im not sure why, but it felt less satisfying.

Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of the past few years and I felt really accomplished when I took down the final boss, roughly 90 hours later.

I still intend to go back and finish the sequel to affirm my thoughts on it. It just seems to overwhelm me with multiple enemy bosses and the like.

Dark Souls 2 did a lot of smart things with making the game smoother in terms of mechanics, but the original has better enemy and boss design.

I thought Dark Souls 1 was pretty awful. Where Demon's Souls might be my favorite game of all time. Dark Souls 2 wiped some of the stench of Dark Souls 1. It's a pretty good game, but it's unlikely they'll ever top the first one I played.

This, plus better level design.

If by Dark Souls you mean Demon's Souls, then yes.

From Software is the superiorest!!

I liked Dark Souls a lot more, 2 didn't really hold my interest and I haven't finished it.

Dark Souls is better than the sequel in just about every way.

Yes. Aside from obvious technical things like framerate, I prefer the first game in basically every single way.

No, II is better than 1 is pretty much every single way.

The sequel made many obvious technical and mechanical improvements, and could generally be called a smarter game. That said, something about its design and (ha, ha) soul felt far less engaging and impactful.

yes.absolutely, better everything.

Not neccesarily superior. But I did enjoy it a little more.

Why does it matter?

Nope. Dark Souls II has much better gameplay/a much higher number of viable builds and has the best boss in the series, not counting Ivory King. Dark Souls has a more tightly constructed world (though there's still a great feeling of exploration and wonder playing the second/third game so it doesn't functionally matter aside from lore) and has a few better music tracks (DS2 music is better overall but the best tracks are still Daughters of Chaos and Gwyn, Lord of Cinder).

Gwyn is a lot better than Nashandra, however most people just youtubed how to beat Gwyn and didn't actually do it without parrying so that doesn't really matter either.

@origibro: Some other people have already picked up the torch of generating discussion, but when you create threads in the future, try to get the conversation going with a little bit more than just one sentence. Clearly you have an opinion on this matter, so maybe share some of your reasoning.

@fredchuckdave: This is actually something that hit me the other day. I don't really remember any of the music from DSII. If you consider the music of 2 better, then I'd be curious to know a couple of specfic examples. To refresh my memory if nothing else.

I will most likely give my opinion after I have played Dark Souls 2, but based on what I know of the mechanics and enemy copy-paste a sequel to such a brilliant game leaves a lot to be desired.

@origibro: It's still a good game! It's just not the same as the first. If you are in it to hit things with other things and make them die, I can assure you DSII is worth your time. If you are in it for the world, tread with care?

@tobbrobb: A thing in Dark Souls II moreso than I is that the music often gets drowned out by the noise of the fight so it mainly comes across when you've played enough of the game to push the audio queues to the back of your mind. Some standouts that come to mind right now: Ruin Sentinels, Skeleton Lords, Mirror Knight, Old Dragonslayer, and Nashandra (her's in particular is just impossible to hear because of the curse orbs).

@fredchuckdave: That's something I only just noticed. I must have turned the music audio up too high and I realized Nashandra's music is actually fantastic. With the default volume most of the other boss fights' music just sounds totally generic. I thought the same about most of DS1's soundtrack, too, though, which I thought had just as many good vs. bland tracks.

Dark Souls 2 game play is superior, but I think the world and characters are definitely more memorable in Dark Souls 1

I liked the layout of the world in Dark Souls 1 more, the way everything was interconnected with a bunch of different paths--the world felt very dense. In Dark Souls 2, I think some areas look great, in terms of art and architecture, but the overall layout of the world is different: it felt more like a central hub, Majula, with a bunch of paths branching of in different directions, sometimes interconnecting, but more often not. In terms of the overall game, I like them both quite a bit. I think they improved a lot in terms of UI and game mechanics in DS2, but they are both fantastic games. Still haven't played the DLC for 2, which from the little bit I've seen, seems to add quite a bit to the game.

@fredchuckdave Lol yeah, I didn't even recognize Nashandra. Silly orbs. Good song, feels endbossy.

Skeleton Lords is a great song! Can't say I recognize that either, but as a song in a youtube video, I like it. Too bad it's connected to a pretty boring boss.

The songs to be more consistent with each other, for better or for worse. There is something to be said for not having any weak music. I'm a sucker for the John Williams melodies you get stuck in your head though. Was hoping for something like that.

I feel like Dark Souls II had much better gameplay, but Dark Souls was better at the story telling. I also think the characters you meet in Dark Souls, such as Solaire and Siegmeyer, make it a far more endearing game as well. I don't remember a single character from Dark Souls II except that lady who I had to painstakingly warp to so I could level up. On the other hand, the environments of Dark Souls II were more aesthetically pleasing then the drab grey and black of Lordran (although Ash Lake is still gorgeous.) Anyway, I tend to be 50/50 as far as which I think is the better game.

It's hard to say, I played dark souls 1 a lot more than 2. It's possible I just got burnt out on souls, either way both are fantastic games with their own cons and pros.

I'm somewhere in between on the subject. I like both games a lot, but 1 edges out every so slightly. That probably has a lot to do with me playing it first though.

I like them both a lot, but 2 was a lot more enjoyable overall for me.

The movement and mechanics of dark souls 2 feels much better than ds1, however the enemy design just doesn't feel as 'fair' at times. The level design of ds2 is missing something that's hard to put my finger on, all I can say is the levels didn't feel like they linked up as organically as ds1.

I never really liked demons souls, but that's the beauty of the souls series, they are so completely different and bloodborne sounds like it won't be any exception.

I enjoy dark souls 1 much better.

Wouldn't a poll have made more sense?

Also yes.

Darksouls > Darksouls 2

Just like Mass effect > Mass effect 2.

Because it's not dumbed down to appeal to the masses, and I'm hardcore.

Absolutely Dark Souls is better than its sequel. Additionally, Demon's Souls is better than Dark Souls, I don't have any objective evidence to back this up, just my own reflection and personal enjoyment.

Dark souls 2 is filled with wonky hitboxes and encounters that force you to fight multiple strong enemies exposing the weaknesses of the targetting system, as well as an over abundance of attacks with ridiculous tracking combined with said wonky hitboxes leads to me feeling like I get hit when I shouldn't, I recently went back to the game after the dlcs were all out to see if they fixed anything I disliked about the game after launch, this didn't happen and I hated it, I then proceeded to play dark souls 1 again just to compare, while I think dark souls 2 handles movement better and I prefer the guard break to the kick I think the game is inferior in most ways especially in the enemy design and boss fight department. it felt like a pale imitation of dark souls but atleast replaying dark souls 2 made me more interested in Bloodborne and the return of Miyazaki

Absolutely. Too many of the bosses in 2 were super easy or uninspired (which is why they were able to tout the high number of bosses), many of the more difficult encounters were only difficult because they throw multiple tough dudes at you, and the design of the world was a huge step back for me. In terms of the world, where Dark Souls was like a nervous system: interconnected and cohesive, Dark Souls 2 felt like a hand: one hub location with disconnected paths that stretched out in multiple directions.

Don't get me wrong, I loved DS2 and there were many memorable parts. I played over 100 hours of 2 because the gameplay is still (mostly) there, but it was no Dark Souls.

Also, I didn't understand the gap in performance between the two consoles for DS2. I initially got it on PS3 and the framerate was difficult to handle. Not like sub-20, but it was regularly below 30. I switched to 360 after a few hours of debating whether I could handle it and it was night and day. Consistently above 30/40 FPS. The tearing was so minor in comparison to how rough the PS3's framerate was.

There are some things I prefer in Dark Souls 2 that I prefer over 1, but overall 1 is the more memorable game to me. I'm not really huge on some of the level design post-lordvessel in DS1, especially Lost Izalith...man do I effing hate that play & boss. I prefer some of the end-game content and level design of DS2 to some of the latter portions of DS1 outside the Gwyn fight. DS1, though, just made a stronger impression on me in my time spent with it overall compared to 2. 2 just didn't have that spark that made it as memorable of an experience for me. Certainly the boss designs play a role in that as I definitely give the edge to the first game.

I liked both games. DS 2 was better looking for me.

From the brief amount of time I've spent with Dark Souls 2, I'd agree that the original was better. That said, I'll also admit that I haven't given Dark Souls 2 a fair shot yet.

When I was playing DSII, it felt like I was playing a game made by people who didn't understand what people actually liked about the first game (and Demons' Souls, but I never played that one). It felt like they thought people liked the difficulty of Dark Souls, which in my opinion is only half true; people liked the fairness and lack of handholding. The encounters and boss fights in DSII feel like they're going for "gotcha!" moments rather than intelligent design. For example, there are far too many boss fights with multiple small mobs, which add artificial difficulty and frustration rather than building intelligent and fair encounters, like the Artorias fight in Dark Souls' DLC.

Level design in II feels segmented and illogical, with the most notable example I can think of being the Iron Keep being located on a sea of lava which somehow is invisible from Earthen Peak, which is supposedly right below it. I also didn't find the level design in II nearly as interesting or exciting as that in the previous game.

I definitely think Dark Souls was a much better game than its sequel.

Atmosphere - yes

Gameplay - no

@melvargh: Agreed, most of the bosses in DS2 also seem to take place in small areas whereas I remember DS1 having some cool locations to do battle in. The Gargoyle fight on top of the church had everything, great music, cool visuals, was fun to fight, if a bit easy.

I dont remember any boss in DS2 being that cool, I did enjoy the Forge Master or whatever his name was (the guy with the ridiculous face hole helmet) being kind of cool but it was still another small arena boss fight.

I'm probably in the miniority but I also hate having to speak to someone to level up. It was fine in Demon's Souls because every time you beat a section you'd have to go back and sort through your inventory anyway (fucking item burden) but since you can manage your inventory at bonfires there's no reason to go back every time you need to level up besides 'hey! remember demon's souls! we made that!'

The gameplay in 2 is better, but it isn't as good "around the edges" as it were. I felt like in 1, the story was meaningful and intelligible, even if you needed to do a lot of work to get at it. In 2, I felt like a lot of things were obscure for the sake of being obscure. The enemy design in 2 was also weaker - too many of the bosses were either total reskins of an enemy in 1, or a pretty generic "big dude in armor carrying an axe." There wasn't anything as cool/gross/interesting as the Gaping Dragon in 1, for example.

Where I felt like 1 really has an advantage though, is in level design. One felt like something that could reasonably exist in some fantasy alternate universe. Definitely crazy and otherworldly, but once you accepted the underlying premise of the universe it felt consistent with itself, which really helped with immersion. Two felt like it was designed to be a video game. You had a lava level, and a water level, and a forest level, etc. None of them really connected together logically, and none of them informed the larger story in the way that the areas in 1 did. A lot of the world wasn't very well constructed either. For example, in two, travel to the Bastille via the docks and look up. You can see the rest of the prison just sort of hanging off the cliff with nothing to support it. Nothing says "hey, this is a video game!" like impossible physics.

I loved both games. But I liked the original better. I liked the world and level design better.

With that said, I find it sort of perplexing when people in this thread have such a positive opinion of one and a completely negative opinion of the other. They're not that different.

Maybe it has to do with the online component. I like playing the game solo so I didn't really appreciate all of the online hooks in II.

Yes, Dark Souls is superior. Souls games are all about combat and combat in video games is essentially collision of hitboxes. When you have this big of a difference in hitbox quality, no amount of improvements in other areas can outweigh it. I don't know if From were so anxious of veterans thinking the game is too easy or if they just didn't bother, but this made DSII almost unplayable for me.

I think it depends which one you played first. A lot of people say that DS2 is significantly easier than DS1, but I put forth that playing DS1 made you way more prepared for 2. I played 2 first and then went back to 1, and yeah it's slightly easier, but not that much. Hell, half of the problems I had playing through Dark Souls were mechanical issues that were fixed in 2. (That fucking Capra Demon fight... You know who your biggest foe is in that fight? The CAMERA.)

Still, the original Dark Souls is just dripping with atmosphere while DS2 seems to just be playing on that and falls short. While playing Dark Souls 2, I felt like every story tidbit was a wink and a nudge to the previous game. While playing the original Dark Souls, I was actually intrigued by the world and characters. It didn't feel like they were maybe-kinda-but-not-really tying the story to the previous game. I dunno how to explain it, but Dark Souls 2 always felt like it was alluding to the previous game. It's a weird feeling when I hadn't seen half of the first game yet.

TL:DR - I think Dark Souls 2 is technically the better game. I think the original Dark Souls is the better experience.

@tobbrobb: I've made a couple of very low SL characters for the express purpose of the Sunlight Covenant, and when you're super low SL the Skeleton Lords take a while longer and you get to hear the music more (also there's some vague chance of dying)! That was mainly to see how difficult certain early bosses are for new players and surprisingly the Last Giant is/was (they've nerfed him since the last time I did this) probably the most lethal though really the only boss I've seen that's a complete cakewalk for newer players is Flexile Sentry (medal farming central).

I tend to agree with Yahtzee's take on it. The first one was an imperfect masterpiece and the sequel fixed a bunch of stuff and increased the game's scope at the cost of some of its soul... in much the same way as Portal and Portal 2.