You prefer Dark Seoul 1, 2, or 3?
If I had to play one now, it would be 3 but I have spent most time with 1
3.Ds1 is unfinished, Ds2 had an uninteresting story til the DLCs, and the bosses in DS3 are kino
1 is still the one I come back to the most.
1 no question. 2 is a hot pile of shit.
>>750746562Dark Souls 2 by a humongous margin, but that's because I'm big into Souls multiplayer. 2 had the best multiplayer by a mile, both PvP and co-op, and that's in spite of soul memory being a retarded mechanic. If we're talking purely PvE, then it's definitely Dark Souls 1.
>>7507465621
>Originality, map design and exploration1 > 2 > 3>Replayability, amount of content and build variety2 > 1 > 3>Combat, memorable bosses and enemy placement1 > 3 > 2>Which ones I'd rather play than Sekiro1 = 2 = 3
>>7507465621 for overall cohesion and level building and beauty.2 for sense of wonder and exploration.3 for lore and gameplay.
i love them all
>>750750472>1 for overall cohesion and level building and beauty.*in the first half
>>750746562I don't consider 1 and 2 to be the same type of game as 3, so if I want to play faster-paced bloodborne with a dark souls paint job I'll play DS3.If I want slower paced I prefer 2 over 1, since the latter has not aged well at all. That said I do replay them all from time to time.
>>750746562Dark Busan is better.
>>750750587It's true for level cohesion, but I still think the second-half locations are very pretty.
>>7507465623 for the combat1 for the world2 because even though it's not as good as the other 2 it's still a decent game
3 since i only care abou good music and bosses
>>7507465622. Because it focused more on exploration and RPG mechanics than 3. 1 is great too but I prefer 2 overall.
>>750747990Why 1 > 3 for the combat?
>>750746562None, they’re all low-effort shit.
