Is the single player good? I liked the pvp in DS1 but i only played it casually. I enjoyed the game mostly for the single player experience.
IMO - and I only ever play single player:
Dark Souls 1 - best lore and in that sense the best world. (My progress was halted at Tomb of Giants, the level that's pitch black, but it's very late game so I feel like I can judge this game accurately.)
Dark Souls 2 original - the most freedom, often very nice level design (maybe even better than the other games but not coherent in terms of lore or total aesthetic effect). Improved combat for strength based characters - now you can actually wear heavy stuff and dodge by strafing.
Scholar of First Sin - I only recommend playing this if you don't want to play the original for some reason. Now I've only played this half-way through so far, but I don't like some of the changes they made in level design and I'd be surprised if they didn't spoil masterpieces like Shrine of Amara. I wouldn't say it's harder than the original either - I've been playing this on Company of Champions from the beginning without great trouble. In fact, some of the levels are distinctly easier than in the vanilla.
Dark Souls 3 - I've played through 80% of the mandatory levels. The levels are larger than in the other games and don't always have bosses. A progression chart is a must if you don't want to get a head-ache. The levels themselves are sometimes rather complex like Cathedral of the Deep. In fact, playing through that level without a guide or map might count as some sort of an achievement. Visually and in terms of monster design, this game reminds me of Bloodborne. If you can get over the feeling that this material was meant for Bloodborne or something, then it's probably the most pleasing Souls game visually. Late-game bosses can be maddening, and I say this having beaten Ornstein and Smough solo - without any summons - with a melee character with one try after I read some strategy for the fight. Early game feels notably harder than Dark Souls, but later there are some levels that you can basically just run through without even scouting properly. I still recommend scouting properly on your first play through of a level. Although the levels are larger and more open, you get to open short cuts and find new bonfires when you need to. Things can still get pretty intense at times, though not so much in boss fights because you'll always be able to run to the boss easily dodging the monsters. This different focus - more on the levels than on the bosses - is a change I was hoping for, and it's worked out rather well.
Bloodborne - rather like Dark Souls 3. As with Dark Souls, I've played pretty far but not completed the game, because one of the end-game levels is so brutal. Very nice game especially in the beginning if you are into Lovecraftian horror, but there's too little monster variety, which becomes apparent at some point, feels like much less monster variety than in the Souls games. The chalice dungeons are a great idea: they're optional dungeons with many levels and bosses you can play through to get gems that you can use to improve your weapons. It adds to the game a great deal without unbalancing it (you don't get many "souls" (blood echoes) there). Some brutal boss fights, the hardest of these for me is the second one - Father Gascoigne, just too fast and chaotic. I can attempt it dozens of times without learning a damn thing. Other than that boss fight, pretty good game.
I enjoy all these games, and they're all very good and should be played. My favorite, despite popular Codexian opinion, is the original Dark Souls 2, even with the messed up world coherence.
Progression through that level is very linear with some very limited side areas. Can't even imagine how you could get lost there.
