id say start with 3. if you really like it, you can go back and play the previous installations. you wont be spoiled or anything, considering every game is a different place, different lore. it all ties together in a way but its super obscure so really you can jump in whenever. they are time consuming, so considering the 3rd comes out in a couple weeks, you wont be able to beat those in that time frame. if your itching to play 3, then id say start there and go back. if you wanna be hardcore about it though yes start from the beginning. who knows, you could end up playing it and not liking it, if youve never played a souls game before, youve probably heard they are hard as fuck. that wont change.

@technician: you could but i feel like thats kinda spoiling meta shit. anyways, im not even sure how this game will end, considering its the laast in the series (supposedly). will there be an "a-ha!" moment, or will it just keep being secretive and not explain how it ties together? cause if there was, then id be more inclined the say give the first two a shot. but who knows.

@mtfikhan: I actually found Lords of the Fallen more frustrating than Dark Souls (have beaten DS1&2 and bloodborne) due in large part to prevalence of homing attacks and how impossible many enemies are to stagger (the DS2 dlc had a lot of this going on too).

It's not necessary and from what I see in the video, Dark Souls 3 will be very similar to it's predecessors. I don't necessarily think playing a Dark Souls game for nearly three weeks, to then play through DS3 one back to back will improve your experience. If you're intent on getting DS3 anyway, play that first and if you want more, DS1 and 2 should be available at a reasonable price.

At the same time, if you're not sure if you should drop $60 on DS3, buying DS1, DS2 or even Bloodborne shouldn't be all that expensive and quickly give you an impression of what you're in for.

It seems to me that the games are all basically the same (not an insult), so go ahead and play DS 1 first. It'll be cheaper and let you know if you want more or not! :)

Heck, the original Demon's Souls is still maybe my favorite one...I think the environments and atmosphere are the best in it.

@mathj: I don't want to say too much but if you saw the GBEast playthrough yesterday you'd get an idea of what's going on with the lore ... also I came across a couple of spoilers (my fault for looking where I shouldn't) and I won't say what they are but ... stuff is no joke

Dark Souls is probably the best designed game of all time so you should probably play it. I've never actually looked at the credits so I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Dark Souls II was made by a team trying unsuccessfully to recreate what was so awesome about Dark Souls. It's inferior in pretty much every way and is not really worth playing.

Keep in mind you only get one first souls/borne game. I enjoy each entry into the series for different reasons but Dark Souls 1 is my favorite not because it is the "best" but because its was my first exposure to the series, most souls vets will openly tell you they would give anything to play their first souls game again.

Yes. You should've played them already. Actually it will likely be a great standalone game, but so many time ds has been dirt cheap on steam you should play. In my opinion DS1 > DS2.

I'm not that big of a Souls guy but I think you should just play 3. If you really like it, then you can go back. And you will be starting with a new game which will be a cool experience. You're going to get a lot of opinions on DS II, but I think it was better than I in a lot of ways (mainly mechanical) so I expect III to be even better in that area. Level design and the rest, we will see.

On a story level I really doubt any of that matters to you. If you get into the story its about filling in the blanks with information you seek out.

Considering you can get Dark Souls 1 for quite cheap nowadays, I'd suggest that.

As someone who looked at DS1 when it was coming out and also said "Hey, this looks like something I could get into!" and found almost no enjoyment from it when I actually played it, I wasn't happy I wasted $60 on a product I didn't like.

You probably don't need to, but a lot of the references will probably be lost on you. These games are usually unconnected, but also somehow connected at the same time.

I'd say just grab Dark Souls 1 whenever it drops to $5 again. No need really to pressure yourself into playing it before DS3. Just get it on one of its sales. With DS fix for resolutions, I can't say I mind the textures or anything necessarily bad. The design is so good that I can hardly tell it's old. The aesthetic, design, and scale all work together so well that it acually wowed me a couple of times. The Anor Londo reveal actually made me drop my jaw. And that was only about 4-6 weeks back.

So yeah, just play DS3 and eventually play DS1 because it's good, not because you're trying to power through it to get to DS3. The game can be frustrating enough at parts as it is, you don't need any more pressure on ya.

Sorta mild spoiler for people who want to stay dark, but yes, you should absolutely play (at least) the first Dark Souls before playing 3. This game is very much the sequel to the original that Dark Souls 2 wasn't. That's not to say it doesn't stand on its own legs, but it's greatly enhanced by having played the first one.

Bloodborne is, probably, the best one for beginners. Even though it can still be obtuse, it's much easier to comprehend than Dark Souls. It's focus is more on the gameplay rather than building a character, which can be daunting when first playing a Souls game.

For story reasons? No. For incremental game-play improvements? Yes. DS2 made some good quality of life UI improvements and made the equipment upgrade stuff easier to understand without looking up a FAQ. I wouldn't want to go back to the more clunky UI after DS2, but DS2 is more Dark Souls, so YMMV if you enjoy Dark Souls. I enjoyed DS2, but it felt more quantity over quality. More bosses, but IMO there were fewer great boss fights than DS1, but at least they didn't have many they were bad. (Bed of Chaos I'm looking at you). Some call-backs to DS1 were a little too on-the-nose IMO as well.

The story is whatever you want to get out of it, so order of play is up to you.

I never had a PS3/4, so Bloodborne and Demon Souls are beyond my reach (PC ports please?) :(

I'd say that there are more cool story reasons to have played Dark Souls 1 than was the case when 2 came out but maybe not enough to play both back to back cause that's toooooo much.

That's a lot of Dark Souls to do back-to-back. I put about 200hrs into DS1 and 2. But I'm a crazy person. I love this series.

@drfat32: I'm sure you don't need to. But I would bet there are lots of little nods and pointers to various aspects of the various games. I'm cheap so I plan to buy Dark Souls 2 when it is on sale for cheap, then wait to buy Dark Souls 3 for cheap...I have a slightly darker secret...I like to wait for everyone to discover the secrets for me before I play so I can just nail it all in one pass.

Dark Souls 1 is one of my favorite games of all time. I couldn't get into 2 though. One thing I noticed about 3 is that it's a bit quicker than 1 and 2, more like Bloodborne. I don't know if this helps at all.

@drfat32 From a story perspective you should just watch any of the fantastic lore series that are on youtube (I like vaatividya's channel). From a gameplay perspective I would suggest playing at least an hour or 2 of either Dark Souls 1 or 2 just to see if you like that gameplay style in practice. I prefer DS1 but if you're only playing a couple of hours to get the feel for it, it doesn't matter which you choose. Both are on PC but only 2 is available on both last and current gen. Whichever is easier for you to get.

DS1 is really cheap at the moment so yea, why not.

play DkS1 and get your giant dad on

@drfat32: Not being bit by the Souls bug in the past I can say that while yeah I kind of had to stick with it since I reviewed it, this one clicked for me in ways that no other Souls game came close. I bounced off Bloodborne pretty quick and the idea that I would knowingly punish myself just to say I beat a boss was weird and never really attractive about the first 2 games. I have to say that a lot of things worked in concert for me here, and sure it was pretty difficult but something clicked, and it's nearly impossible to describe. I ended up giving the game a 5/5 personally, and for my first entry it didn't prove to be wholly impenetrable, and surprisingly I actually liked the difficulty because I never died without knowing exactly what caused it - and that was never a glitch or fault of the game at a performance level.

Long-winded answer but the point is that to me, no you don't HAVE to - that being said I enjoyed what I played and it inspired me to want to go back to the other Souls games if I can find the time. Unfortunately I have to move on to Adr1ft, a little Battleborn preview and other first world problems of writing on a decent schedule about games. Hope everyone enjoys DS3 though, I surely did and I really want to return to it with another character.