From Software Dark Souls 3

[MI.Tex]

that 2 simply had more content overall

Dark Souls 1 is the longest out of all Souls games

Average time of completion

Demons souls - 30 hours
DS1 - 50 hours
DS2 - 45 hours
DS3 - 30 hours
Bloodborne - 35 hours

And trying to do everything in DS1, gives over 100 hours

https://howlongtobeat.com/

All of this is counterbalanced by BB's superior and more satisfying combat engine

That is debatable, for me the DS 3 and BB combat is worse than the clunky combat of DS1 and 2 because it felt more tactical.
Like it was clunky on purpose because every move felt like it would be on hex square if it makes sense, while they went away from this in BB and DS3 in favour of more 'fluid eye pleasant' combat.

BB and DS 3 are different games to DS1 and 2.

 

[Ventidius]

That is debatable, for me the DS 3 and BB combat is worse than the clunky combat of DS1 and 2 because it felt more tactical.
Like it was clunky on purpose because every move felt like it would be on hex square if it makes sense, while they went away from this in BB and DS3 in favour of more 'fluid eye pleasant' combat.

BB and DS 3 are different games to DS1 and 2.

I agree that DS1 and 2 were more challenging, though I am not that sure the clunkiness had that much to do with it: I personally got used to it pretty fast (Resident Evil veteran here) and the enemies are also correspondingly slower and less aggressive. Ideally, you want a game that is both smooth and challenging, the whole idea of purposefully making the controls crap to simulate challenge strikes me as a classic example of artificial difficulty, and I don't think DS1 and 2 are generally guilty of that (ok, 2 a little bit in parts, but not exactly because of the controls). Also, I don't think the controls are really that bad, they are perfectly functional and there are plenty worse, especially among ARPGs. Ultimately, I think Bloodborne does an overall good job of ramping up the enemies to keep up with the engine. Where the first two Souls beat it IMO is in the more thoroughly merciless and varied encounter design.

Also, when discussing the content above I meant that 2 had more content than BB, not the whole series. Overall, I think it is roughly comparable in scope to the first, so the playtimes there seem just about right to me if translated into content (though obviously it is not really that simple since many factors affect playtime other than sheer content).

 

[Multidirectional]

What is wrong with controls? I can understand complaints about 4 directional rolling in DS1, but what is wrong with DS2 controls?
And I still don't see how DS3 is less challenging, I'm dying like crazy in it after DS1 and 2 have stopped being challenging to me long ago. Those fucking spammy enemies..

 

[praetor]

that 2 simply had more content overall

Dark Souls 1 is the longest out of all Souls games

Average time of completion

Demons souls - 30 hours
DS1 - 50 hours
DS2 - 45 hours
DS3 - 30 hours
Bloodborne - 35 hours

And trying to do everything in DS1, gives over 100 hours

https://howlongtobeat.com/

"pulled out of ass" numbers aren't a good representative of game length. DS2+DLCs is definitely the longest (highest area and boss count, slowest game pace, avg area size/length is roughly the same across the board. maybe BB and DS3 have bigger individual areas on average) if you want to do everything (it's hard to gauge if you go by "minimum viable path to completion" as that can mean loads of stuff in all the games bar DeS and DS3)

 

[MI.Tex]

"pulled out of ass" numbers aren't a good representative of game length.

It's an average numeration of people playing the game, people played and reported their results is more accurate representation than developers lying about their game length.
DS1 and DS2 are roughly the same length, just because DS2 have more DLC does not make it longer because DLC can be 1 or 2 hours, which 2 dlc of DS2 are short like that, while Artorias in DS1 is 10 hours.

 

[praetor]

"pulled out of ass" numbers aren't a good representative of game length.

It's an average numeration of people playing the game, people played and reported their results is more accurate representation than developers lying about their game length.
DS1 and DS2 are roughly the same length, just because DS2 have more DLC does not make it longer because DLC can be 1 or 2 hours, which 2 dlc of DS2 are short like that, while Artorias in DS1 is 10 hours.

i have not quoted any number, developer or not, so spare me your strawmen. i also took the DLCs in consideration for every game, as it would be unfair to do otherwise.

that bullshit on that page is just that, bullshit. there are way too many variables to take into consideration if you want to subjectively measure a game's length, an in the Souls series "what you played first" is a key factor, one that decreases with each iteration and as such should be excluded from any measurement. that DS2 has more content than the others is an undeniable fact. you may dispute how engaging (or not) it is, that's relatively subjective, but the sheer quantity of content you may not

if you want to continue with pulling numbers out of anuses, from my personal, completely subjective experience as someone who has played DS1 many, many times and knows it like no other game, and has played every other Soulsborne at least a dozen times to completion, i can tell you that my latter "completionist" playthroughs (i.e. when i was familiar enough with the mechanics that i wouldn't trip over myself every 15 minutes, and that i was familiar enough with the world that i knew exactly where each item was before i entered an area. and by "completionist" i do not mean to have every achievement, but to finish every area, kill every boss, and collect all the loot) in DS2 took considerably longer than any other Souls game. and another factor that adds to DS2's longevity: unlike all the others, it has an NG+ mode that introduces some changes and is actually worth experiencing (still not enough, imo, but at least it's something)

and just to be perfectly clear, i do not regard that as a compliment. to the contrary, i think DS2 is too long.

 

[Ventidius]

i think DS2 is too long.

Heh, if you do a completionist run, you'll get burnt out for sure. I did an all-achievement run myself and didn't want to touch the game for like a year after I was done. It could also perhaps be argued that the game is actually quite short if you critical path; but then again, playing blind for the first time, it is highly unlikely that you will be that efficient, and odds are you'll end up dilly-dallying or wasting time with an unnecessarily long-winded path, the game is actually quite good at disorienting.

 

[Machocruz]

I only played up to Doors of Pharros and DkS2 already felt like a beast of a game, since from reading (yes, I like to spoil shit for myself) I had a general idea of what areas were still left. That's the reason I stopped at that point, it felt like it was going to be an appreciably longer trek than DkS1 and I didn't have the time.

 

[Silva]

DS2 has (way) more content than any other entry in the series, but I can't say for certain if it's longer or not. What I can say is that it never felt so long to me as DS1, perhaps because of the later last third which is a padded piece of shit. I droped it twice before manning up and finishing it, and usually dropped it in every new playthrough the instant I step into Izalith.

As for coherence... well, it is about as coherent as any of the others, I mean, these are games where you always have to read between the lines and technically any plot - or more appropriately lore - holes can technically be filled by theories and associations hinted by the ubiquitous self-referencing of the world in obscure ways, Dark Souls II is not really an exception. It does give you some very revealing dialogue with Vendrick, and it throws some potentially world-changing concepts out there, such as the possibility of overcoming the cycle, but this is all done in a very teasing way that doesn't subvert the generally aporetic nature of the game, especially since no conclusive answers are ultimately given, as per the typical procedure.

While not really disagreeing with you here, I think there is a clear difference in style between DS1/BB and DS2 "intangibles". DS2, while keeping a similar aura of mystery and hinted-at themes at some parts (like Majula and it's "loss of identity/self" theme beautifully conveyied through music/vistas/npcs), also has a fair share of more conventional and expositive narrative (like everything regarding Vendrick, Nashandra and Aldia). I think that's the biggest proof Miyazaki didn't have a hand in DS2, for good and for bad.

That is debatable, for me the DS 3 and BB combat is worse than the clunky combat of DS1 and 2 because it felt more tactical.
Like it was clunky on purpose because every move felt like it would be on hex square if it makes sense, while they went away from this in BB and DS3 in favour of more 'fluid eye pleasant' combat. BB and DS 3 are different games to DS1 and 2.

The difference is that in BB the whole game is designed to accomodate this hi-octane combat - weapons, enemies, level design, mechanics - producing a sort of "dance of death and regain" that's pretty unique in the series, specially when you let go of your Dark Souls instincts and fully embrace the style. On the other hand, in Dark Souls 3 they just amped up the speed of player and enemies and inserted it all clumsly in the old DS chassis. it's design goal doesn't seem to be "let's try something different" as in BB, but "let's make it faster so the masses don't drop it instantly".

 

[sullynathan]

Demon's souls is really short, can be beaten in under 20 hours. All my playthroughs of Demon's souls is still shorter than my DS2 playthrough

 

[Silva]

One thing BB does that's high above anything in Souls is humanoid enemy duels. Fighting the likes of Djura, Gascoigne, Bloody Crow, Alfred, Madman Couple, Yahargul gank squad, etc feel pretty intense, nuanced and satisfying. It feels like you're fighting against an equal, if that makes sense. I never had this feeling against those NPC invaders in Souls.

 

[sullynathan]

NPC invaders in Souls.

The one in Frozen Eleum Loyce is more random than BB invaders

 

[Blaine]

Preview of every single boss fight in DS4:

 

[Ventidius]

Preview of every single boss fight in DS4:

So they are making every fight in the next game into Sif clones. I guess they figured it would be too much if they just cloned Artorias again, so they are gonna clone his dog instead. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

 

[Somberlain]

I don't think that was the joke.

 

[Silva]

NPC invaders in Souls.

The one in Frozen Eleum Loyce is more random thna BB invaders

Don't remember fighting it. Any video?

 

[sullynathan]

NPC invaders in Souls.

The one in Frozen Eleum Loyce is more random than BB invaders

Don't remember fighting it. Any video?

Maldron the Assassino. He's the invader that meets you but is white so you're fooled into thinking he's an ally. This guy runs around so much I thought he was a real player, this was surprising because I didn't have a legit copy of DS2.

 

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Salt and Sanctuary is a p. good Souls game for someone stuck on a shit laptop that can't run anything more resource-intensive than a 2D platformer.

 

[praetor]

NPC invaders in Souls.

The one in Frozen Eleum Loyce is more random thna BB invaders

Don't remember fighting it. Any video?

There's 2 if I remember correctly. The faggot with the spear from Brume Tower and some witch near one of the knights you can rescue. Only the witch is a "proper" invader, the other guy is just sitting around.

What I don't get is what randomness has anything to do with it? The witch is a pushover and the spear faggot does the same shit as in Brume Tower - keeps that shield up for days and runs away when you kick his ass. Neither are as good as any of the hunters in BB.

there's 3 plus Maldron. the witch that you mention near one of the unlockable knights. she's crap and boring. there's the Hexer at the bottom where you first encounter the rolling sonic dickbags. he's also of the generic npc invader sort. then there's that knight that is hidden as a barrel when he invades, which was a fucking excellent idea, as is Maldron the motherfucker. they're definitely lesser fights than the ones in BB, but they're 10 times better encounters (and i'm surprised they don't get praise from DeS fanboys since they're both gimmicky, unlike the "proper" fights vs "generic human(oid) enemies" that you're praising here, something that you usually like to criticise. but i guess it's more important which game has the gimmicks... :/ )

 

[Silva]

I think he was replying to Sully.

 

[praetor]

D_X iz okay, man, i know you like DS2 a lot

it was just weird seeing people praise the good combat with "generic human NPCs" in one game, and shit on unique encounters (the "barrel knight" is the first invader, and he's in a mandatory part, so i don't think you can skip him) in the other, while doing the opposite for bosses (not exactly shitting on the humanoids with great mechanics, but praising the one-trick pony gimmick fights which honestly From does pretty badly).

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

One thing BB does that's high above anything in Souls is humanoid enemy duels. Fighting the likes of Djura, Gascoigne, Bloody Crow, Alfred, Madman Couple, Yahargul gank squad, etc feel pretty intense, nuanced and satisfying. It feels like you're fighting against an equal, if that makes sense. I never had this feeling against those NPC invaders in Souls.

 

[Multidirectional]

So.. another attempt at finishing DS III ends up being unsuccessful. Game seems really solid and yet I get bored playing it anyway.. As usual I ended up reinstallng DSII, gonna finally attempt to create a magic user char. Feels so much better than DS III right from the start.

 

[Ivan]

create a magic user char.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Bloody Crow

Yahargul gank squad

intense, nuanced and satisfying