I really want to get into this series but haven't been brave enough to take the plunge. I think I am ready to give it a shot and am curious which game I should start with out of Dark Souls, Dark Souls II or Bloodborne. Is there one of these that may be a little more forgiving or newbie friendly than the others or does it really matter?

Dark Souls, they will all be cryptic at first, what makes them easier is understanding the systems that are in place an adjusting to them.

I'd start with Dark Souls. Maybe its just because I played it more, but I seem to remember there being more things that new players can take advantage of to make the game easier to get into. I feel like the stat system is easier to "cheese" in your favor as well. Again, that might be because I spent a lot more time learning the system in the first game compared to the second, so mileage may vary. I'm not sure what the experience is like if you start by getting used to the stat and combat changes in Dark Souls 2 and then have to go back to Dark Souls.

You could really start with any game except for Dark Souls 2. If I was you I would start out with Bloodborne because it's what everybody is talking about and you can get the fresh experience with the new game. Then you can always go back and play the old game. If you're strapped for cash I would say start with Demons Souls but that's just like, my opinion man.

anything but dark souls 2 probably, although that's the game i started with. it's pretty much universally regarded as the weakest entry in the series.

Why not Demon's Souls?

Bloodborne is a phenomenal game and you should definitely check it out, but I think Dark Souls is the best place to start. It's the best game of the series, and there's no better place to try and see if it's for you. Demon's is great in it's own right, but Dark Souls is definitely a refined version, if you really like Dark I'd jump back to Souls to see where it started.

DSII is a really good game in its own right, but it's the weakest of the three (4) and the one I have the least desire to pop in and play again. Just something about it is off the mark.

@frostyryan: It would require me.to hook up the PS3 again and I don't feel like shuffling around the stuff under my tv for it.

Dark Souls.

ain't not a thing wrong with Demon's Souls, if you're starting the franchise why not start at the beginning?

None of the games are "beginner friendly" in any significant way. Your first Souls game will always be the hardest no matter which one you choose.

With that in mind, go with Dark Souls.

Demon Souls or Dark Souls.

Bloodborne would be the best place to start because, the community will be the most active. Dark Souls is also a good place to start because it is just a really good game.

bloodborne is not a bad place to start but i would also say demon souls sine the game is really cheap and the whole hub world makes the map still feel big but not so big as you feel overwhelmed by it. althought there is a lot of hard parts in that game and some bullshit.
Bloodborne feels more casual of all the games.
dark souls 1 is also a fine place to start so you have plenty of options.
but basically take dark or demon souls since they are cheaper so its not as big of an investment if you dont like em.

Dark Souls is cheapest but after watching Jeff play on UPF, I'm going to give Bloodborne a shot.

Dark Souls, compared to its sequel, is slightly easier to get into. You have more replenishable healing items, the death penalty is less severe, and you can also find good gear early on. That said, one of my favorite parts about these games is the initial discovery phase where nobody knows anything, and you might experience that still with Scholar of the first Sin or Bloodborne.

I'll just echo Dark Souls. It really is a great game once you understand it's mechanics and what it does. It's not really even that hard- although that is probably subjective as there are many people who still think it is even after completing it.

Demon's Souls.

Dark Souls 1

I wouldn't do Bloodborne first, it builds off a familiarity of the other Souls games I feel would be best experienced after playing the other ones. Though I feel that way as someone who did that, so maybe a new person could just right in and be fine.

The general outlook of Dark Souls 2 seems to be 'not as good as the first'

Demons is the first and good, but its death punishment is much harder compared to Dark Souls or Bloodborne, at least I think so.

Sooooo, really to re-echo the general statement, Dark Souls is the way to go.

Bloodborne is the first one I beat (after an hour or two in Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 1). I put 15 hours into DS2 and had fun, but with plenty of frustration.

Bloodborne is streamlined and plays like a pretty good action game. I absolutely loved it. Although I had that DS2 experience to learn the basics of the design, Bloodborne seems pretty friendly to jump into. Less stats, seemingly less variety in builds, and a tighter campaign (I was on track to finish under 25 hours, beat every optional boss in under 29 hours). For a couple weeks, it's all I wanted to do.

Although starting with Scholar of the First Sin seems like a heck of a deal. Dark Souls II is a really good game, but it's a bit different from the first and some people hated that.

In general, Bloodborne has a bigger focus on the action. The previous games seem to have a bigger focus on the RPG elements. I say this because the Souls games have a bunch more stats, weapons, and feel like larger games overall. It was viable to build a tank and just soak up damage. With Bloodborne, I just stuck to my first two weapons and leveled them up, but the the game gave me very little trouble. I play a bunch of tough action games, so maybe go with BB if that's what your background is.

I went into Dark Souls pretty blind except for ONE thing that you HAVE TO KNOW! (enter you email to find out!)

...

Don't spend any points on Resistance. Endurance or Vitality are good 'go-to' stats if you're at a loose end as to what to do. My tip anyway.

Anyway, ignore all the "YOU NEED AN FAQ!!!!" bullshit ... you can fumble your way through the game just fine on your own.

I played a bit of Dark Souls and was terrible at it, then I watched Vinny play Load Our Last Souls, then tried Dark Souls again and wasn't quite so terrible at it, then got distracted because of college work or something, then I bought Dark Souls II toward the end of last year and actually played it fairly consistently until I finished it.

I've been chipping away at DS1 but that game has never captured me for some reason. DS2 just feels better to play and I've felt like its mechanics are better explained and feel more impactful than they do in DS1.

If you don't mind spoilers, then I would strongly suggest watching an episode or two of Load Our Last Souls. Not only is it thoroughly entertaining, Vinny asks Ian and Rorie quite a few questions and both, especially Ian, are pretty good at answering them, plus you'll get a pretty good idea of how you need to play these games. And, to be honest, those first few episodes don't really spoil anything story wise, you just wind up seeing a few of the environments and later weapons. For some, that's way too much. For me, whatever. Lo

Once you've watched a few episodes of that, I think you could go into either. If you don't want to watch that, I don't know. They're largely the same. Some people say that Dark Souls 2 is more difficult, but I'm finding the stuff in 1 way more difficult than anything in 2.

EDIT: Keep in mind that in DS2, you can be invaded when you're either hollow or human. You also lose a chunk of your health every time you die until half unless you equip a ring that limits it to 3/4 (to gain it back, you only need to become human again, and the items that do so are far more common in DS2, though I still wouldn't say that you can just pop one every time you die and be OK). Also, enemies stay gone after killing them 15 or so times, which sounds great in theory but it means that grinding for souls is limited unless you participate in the online functions.

I might have found DS2 easier because of these changes. I didn't want to lose souls so I was way more cautious in DS2 than I am in DS1, where I can just grind some if I lose souls. I also didn't want to use up too many of the items that reverse hollowing, so I spent most of the game with half health (note that I was more concerned with dodging than I was with parrying or just tanking damage Vinny-style). And I knew that eventually everyone would stay dead, so killing an enemy was more rewarding than just getting a few souls.

Y'see, I always come into these games late and this isn't as big a problem as you think. Help is available should I require it so the discovery is still there.

@shindig said:

I prefer playing these games along with everyone else to compare notes and stuff like that. Sure, you can go back to old forum posts, but it doesn't feel the same to me. It's definitely not a huge deal though; I played the first Dark Souls last year and I enjoyed it more than Dark Souls II, which I played around release.

Once you start playing, I recommend the Wikidot sites for both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. They have good level maps.

Don't agonize about spoilers. Just stay away from pages that are clearly about something you haven't seen, like bosses. Info from outside sources is almost never the primary tool you need for making progress/not dying.

demonssouls.wikidot.com

darksouls.wikidot.com

I'd go with Dark Souls. But I wouldn't listen to people who say that you shouldn't go with DS2 because it's the worst. Here's the thing: your first Souls game will always be your favorite Souls game. It's just such a fresh and awe-inspiring experience the first time that it engraves itself into your conscience. You struggle a lot, so victories are sweeter. Boss battles are more tense and intimidating, and you fear the consequences of dying. You don't use any guides and go in 'fresh' without any external sources there to taint your experience.

The thing is, you do get better at these games. And with the next installment the combat will be familiar, there will be less deaths and risk and thus less excitement. The death and invasion mechanics will lose its unique feel. You'll be more comfortable with browsing wikis to know where all the good weapons are. And, don't get me wrong, the game will not be boring, it will just be fun on a different level: you'll appreciate and handle its complexity rather than be amazed by it. But it's that very amazement that means so much for newcomers when they play their first Souls game, and whose lack brings the thoughts of 'the last one was better' in veterans jumping into new titles.

Started Dark Souls tonight. Played for about 2.5 hours. Killed the Taurus Demon after about 6 or 7 tries and made it to the blacksmith and my second bonfire. Next up is figuring out how to kill that spell caster and his army of zombies at the top of the stairs.

Bow!

I've just gone back to that area for some unfinished business. It hated it first time around.

Wow, what's with the universal hatred of Dark Souls II? I thought it was a great sequel that gave me most of everything I wanted. I liked it more than Bloodborne and III so far, and far and away the weakest game in the series at this point is Demon's Souls. It's not even a contest. It was novel and interesting in 2009 but it really doesn't work well in light of the improvements in the "sequels."

Also, not that it's a definitive figure on anything, but critics tended to like Dark Souls II more than the previous two If rating aggregators are anything to go by. Obviously it might be positive runoff from the rolling popularity of Dark Souls post release, but this idea that II is universally the worst is nonsense. I think I like the vanilla version better than Scholar of the First Sin though.

My ranking would be: Dark Souls>Dark Souls II>Bloodborne>Dark Souls III>Demon's Souls

Kings field the true start of dark souls

Any game is a good entry point imo.

But if you have access to all of them, just go with Demon's first.

This is old. To answer the question anyways, I say start from the beginning, and work your way through the rest.

Dark Souls 1: It is more beginner friendly and has a more approachable consistent tone than Demon's Souls if you are in it for a medieval world. The map is also one of the better ones you'll remember like the Resident Evil mansion, instead of a hub with a weird world tendency mechanic. Also Demon Souls load times.

If you like me, also like lots of fanart to go with your game, you'll find that the first game has the larger community of fanart and videos. The other ones are great too. DS2 nailed PvP I think, Bloodborne made it more sleek, DS3 tried to throw seasoned players off more. I think DS1 is the best choice with a few general pointers. Level up END and VIT, save upgrade materials for a weapon you like that doens't need special crafting. Get a weapon to +5 then +10 as quickly as you can. Save poppable souls for those upgrades.

fleshy souls

A lot of people would take interesting and novel over the more rehashy stuff dks2 trades in. I liked dks2 more than des as well, but Bloodborne is far and away better than dks2 in my opinion.

Opinions are funny, they're all subjective and stuff.

I dislike how "Souls" is referred to as a franchise.

Demons' Souls is one series.

Dark Souls is one series.

Bloodborne is one series.

On topic: Of the games talked about above, there are only two of them that are good; Dark Souls and Bloodborne. The other three range from average to bad, with Dark Souls 3 being far and away the worst.

They're all amazing except Dark Souls 2, which is still kinda great.

Also this thread is a year old.

I started with Dark Souls 1 last year and couldn't be happier. I've since beaten 3 and honestly, they're of the same caliber to me. The only thing you'd be getting for paying a ton more for DS3 is better graphics, really.

EDIT: @frostyryan: Well shit.

Locking this down since it's 18+ months old. It's safe to assume the OP has probably made a decision by now.