Dark Souls>Dark Souls II>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls
I really, really enjoyed Dark Souls II, though they reintroduced some annoyances they had originally eliminated from Demon's (central hub to level up, reducing max HP upon death). It looked great, had loads of unique ways to play it, and was genuinely challenging in a (usually) fair manner. Immediately being able to warp to/from any bonfire is a real bonus in my book.
I felt like Bloodborne played too often into the cheaply frustrating category, and the areas never really develop much unique character. I liked a lot of it, but I just don't think it has the legs of either Dark Souls game.
Demon's Souls was chock full of irritating areas, cheap enemies and limited equipment types. But it was the first of its kind, so that can be forgiven.
Dark Souls seriously feels like the most free and open of the bunch, not without its own quirks and issues but it has so much variety in bosses, enemies, areas, and playstyles that it's actually be compelling to try vastly different kinds of characters and see which areas are easier as a result and which are harder. Plus leveling up at the bonfires is such an obvious great thing that From clearly had to remove it. It made too much sense.
Hey, at least you can't say they're all carbon copies of one another though. I can totally get why anybody would prefer any one of them over the others...well, except Demon's Souls, because it's dang clunky and annoying after playing the other ones. I guess it's just first-game nostalgia or something? I never bought into the idea that the first game you play in a series is your favorite. [Mario Kart, for example. Played all of them upon release, in order, and DS, Double Dash and 8 are my clear favorites, with N64 and Wii being my least.]
Log in to comment