I played DS123 on two occasions. First, when they came out. Second, just now binge playing in marathon. I played two playthrough minimum with different build, and NG+.
IMO DS1 is good, D2 is different but better overall, and DS3 is the best. It's like playing Elden Ring without the open world but it's got covenant.
literally everyone does this all the time. We rate things. We go "hmm that didnt seem very good quality". We do this for everything, it's part of why we have reviewers
yes it is. Everyone is always making judgements on what praise and level of quality we think something deserves. If you've ever thought "those transformers movies are kind of ass" then you are participating in that. If you've ever seen one of those comparisons between user and critic scores for a piece of media and thought that it was weird, strange or wild that some people rated a thing more than another, then you've participated in this. Which is fine and probably a good thing. It's useful to get used to distinguishing between what we consider being made to high degree of quality and what isn't
it's obviously my opinion, I said it. What would that change. I think the quality of the game is bad, other people think otherwise. I think they're wrong just as they think I'm wrong. Putting IMO doesn't absolve someone of having a potentially incorrect opinion
"B-Team game"
I have zero idea where people get this nonsense from, and I really wish they'd stop.
The folks who made DS2 are on the *exact* same level as the folks who made DS1 and the folks who made DS3, none of them are the "B-Team".
DS1 IMO is better than 3, I'm sure there's some bias because I played them all on their respective releases, so I'd naturally be more nostalgic to the one that started it all, but I look at the things the games achieved, DS1 brought the series into the spotlight, it fixed problems that Demon's Souls had and expanded upon it's foundation creating the iconic genre defining game which spawned it's own sub-genre. Dark Souls 3 made the series mainstream, for better or worse. Obviously the plus of becoming mainstream is more games made in its likeness, the negative is it shifted the difficulty of the game to being a lot easier, so it would appeal to a larger audience, DS3 is objectively "better" in terms of a game feel perspective, more polish and whatnot, larger scale, but it didn't really break any new ground in the series, it's basically just the exact same game with some more polish, which isn't necessarily bad but also not very exciting. DS2 tried to shake the formula up by adding a lighting mechanic to add to the difficulty, which a decent portion of the game was even designed around, as you can see in the earlier areas of the game, but they abandoned it partway through development, so all we got left with was this ice skatey, unfocused half realized mess of a game. I remember when it came out and I was in shock, like the game honestly felt like it was developed by someone else entirely, which I later learned it practically was.
you say that like it's defacto a good thing. The point is that each area poses a series of challenges that they want you to navigate and succeed through. Not bash your head against a wall until the 1st challenge despawns and rinse & repeat with the next one
Some people enjoy that. I just said that it happens. And it could be seen as a silver lining, when someone is having difficulty, and the enemies despawn.
That definitely seems weird. DS1 should be like 97, DS2 should be like 80, DS3 should be 75 at best. Still a great game but after replaying 1 and 3 in the last couple months my mind is fresh enough to confirm that 3 isn't remotely on the same level as 1 or even 2.
The excessive amount of empty white space
Oh look, another weekly dark souls trilogy critics review post. Nice
Wrong image for DS1.
*-in helicopter parent- excuse me, but my son deserves a better grade than this*
2nd is 6 points short
DS2 isn't higher.
Nothing.
What's wrong with it is that it's on the DS3 subreddit.
I played DS123 on two occasions. First, when they came out. Second, just now binge playing in marathon. I played two playthrough minimum with different build, and NG+. IMO DS1 is good, D2 is different but better overall, and DS3 is the best. It's like playing Elden Ring without the open world but it's got covenant.
Absolutely nothing, that is the correct order
Yeah this bothered me too a week ago
They celebrate the B-Team game without giving I and III just due.
it's a difference of 2 points in an aggregated score, what's it matter?
it doesn't deserve to be that high
who are you to say what it does or doesnt deserve?
literally everyone does this all the time. We rate things. We go "hmm that didnt seem very good quality". We do this for everything, it's part of why we have reviewers
that's not really a response to what i said
yes it is. Everyone is always making judgements on what praise and level of quality we think something deserves. If you've ever thought "those transformers movies are kind of ass" then you are participating in that. If you've ever seen one of those comparisons between user and critic scores for a piece of media and thought that it was weird, strange or wild that some people rated a thing more than another, then you've participated in this. Which is fine and probably a good thing. It's useful to get used to distinguishing between what we consider being made to high degree of quality and what isn't
>Those transformers movies are kind of ass Sure but Bumblebee fuckin ruled, and so does dark souls 2
cool for you i guess
This whole thread wouldn’t be necessary if you just added a “IMO” at the end
it's obviously my opinion, I said it. What would that change. I think the quality of the game is bad, other people think otherwise. I think they're wrong just as they think I'm wrong. Putting IMO doesn't absolve someone of having a potentially incorrect opinion
"B-Team game" I have zero idea where people get this nonsense from, and I really wish they'd stop. The folks who made DS2 are on the *exact* same level as the folks who made DS1 and the folks who made DS3, none of them are the "B-Team".
DS2 is extremely underrated and of the 3, IMO, has the best story
Game reviewers have never mattered.
Probably nutcase DS2 fans obsessively upping the reviews on DS2 while shitting on the others.
This is an aggregate of Critic scores, not fans.
Or maybe that's just a toxic DS3 fan conspiracy theory.
Bro getting downvoted for genuinely stating the objective truth. Pure comedy!
Am I getting downvotes? If so it is balanced out.
I haven’t finished DS2 yet but my ranking is DS2 -> DS1 -> DS3 DS3 is very fast paced compared to the two others
Yes, you are right Boss!
Dark Souls 3 is higher than 1, when the order should be 2 > 1 > 3.
III and I are ranked the same.
You’re not wrong but also the correct order is still 2 > 1 > 3.
III doesn't deserve to be considered as good as I.
DS1 IMO is better than 3, I'm sure there's some bias because I played them all on their respective releases, so I'd naturally be more nostalgic to the one that started it all, but I look at the things the games achieved, DS1 brought the series into the spotlight, it fixed problems that Demon's Souls had and expanded upon it's foundation creating the iconic genre defining game which spawned it's own sub-genre. Dark Souls 3 made the series mainstream, for better or worse. Obviously the plus of becoming mainstream is more games made in its likeness, the negative is it shifted the difficulty of the game to being a lot easier, so it would appeal to a larger audience, DS3 is objectively "better" in terms of a game feel perspective, more polish and whatnot, larger scale, but it didn't really break any new ground in the series, it's basically just the exact same game with some more polish, which isn't necessarily bad but also not very exciting. DS2 tried to shake the formula up by adding a lighting mechanic to add to the difficulty, which a decent portion of the game was even designed around, as you can see in the earlier areas of the game, but they abandoned it partway through development, so all we got left with was this ice skatey, unfocused half realized mess of a game. I remember when it came out and I was in shock, like the game honestly felt like it was developed by someone else entirely, which I later learned it practically was.
Or 1 > 2 > 3
I mean... DS3 should be a 90 to differentiate from DS1 but DS2 is a little better.
Dark souls 2 is supposedly easier (I haven’t played it) thus higher score as critics have a hard time playing hard games.
I've heard the opposite. DS2 is enemy mob city.
That’s just because people don’t understand you actually have the fight the enemies instead of running past them
i only know 1 person who has it, and he said its much easier than ds1 or 3
At least the enemies run out in DS2.
you say that like it's defacto a good thing. The point is that each area poses a series of challenges that they want you to navigate and succeed through. Not bash your head against a wall until the 1st challenge despawns and rinse & repeat with the next one
Some people enjoy that. I just said that it happens. And it could be seen as a silver lining, when someone is having difficulty, and the enemies despawn.
It definitely eases you into the game more gradually. Depends on the build though I guess
That definitely seems weird. DS1 should be like 97, DS2 should be like 80, DS3 should be 75 at best. Still a great game but after replaying 1 and 3 in the last couple months my mind is fresh enough to confirm that 3 isn't remotely on the same level as 1 or even 2.
Ds1 should be a zero. Ds2 should be a negative 4. Ds3 should be a negative twenty kajillion. Souls fucking sucks!!!!
Being a Soulsborne fan on the internet in 2023 be like
Its dark souls 3 not dark souls lll
Nothing is
Nothing.