>>3647374
Release order is 100% the way to go and you should play all the modern fromsoft games if you can

>>3647374
Dark Souls first definitely.
2 is garbage.
3 is faster paced and not as interconnected. Tutorial boss is harder than 99% of Elden Ring.
Elden Ring is fuckhuge so burns out completion autists.

>>3647470
That's ok, not really interesting in completing the game, as long as the "normal" path is a fun one.
>>3647441
That's what I thought, thanks ma'am.

I'd play all 4 souls games. I'd play the Dark Souls games in order, but not necessarily Demons Souls in order, play that one whenever you want.

>>3647374
Oh man I'd love to play dark souls again for the first time

2s pretty fun imo
everyone gets super salty and gay over it, or straight up loses their minds and starts making 26 part videoessays on it, but its got the best NG+, best infusion system, best DLC areas (AND the worst) in the series, best fashion souls, muhfuggin powerstance, largest variety of builds etc
idk its got a lot of stuff you wont see again until elden ring. stuff they mysteriously left out of 3 which imo is the real turd of the series. it just went backwards both mechanically and narratively. like who tf at from thought that powerstance wasnt sick af? why in the fuck wouldnt you include that in DS3? some truly baffling decisions with that game

regardless, if youre gonna try DS2 at all, try to play the original version, NOT scholar of the first sin for your first time
youll have a much better time
scholar is a weird kinda shitty romhack version that miyazaki farted out and charged full price for in order to secure funds for developing 3

>>3647470
fucking filtered, 2 is great

>>3647544
I only played Scholar but I really liked it, idk what's supposed to be bad about it. Otherwise yeah, 2>>>>3 basically, but then I prefer slow methodical exploration over roll spam.

File: Screenshot_20220526_014825.jpg (351 KB, 1080x1259)

351 KB JPG

>>3647374

Imagine

>>3647547
scholars just odd
idk how to describe it other than a romhack
its far more linear due to the tons of statues/fragrant branch cockblocks. vanilla is far more open in the beginning, imo its biggest boon.
the item placement gives you more shit early on, like infusion after pursuer it was in iron keep, which a lot of people like, but i think its a bit too early. i guess its fun for repeat playthroughs. but again, theres way less cockblocks so you can just go through to iron keep with very little issue

increased enemy placement is not as much as ive heard some people kvetch about, but the ones they did place often seem like specific fuck you romhack-type "gotchas". and then some places that youd expect would be way harder, like the castle, are suddenly piss ez and practically empty
idk. if you ever get the chance, try it
if you have the current patches, the story is exactly the same, you can still fight aldia, get all the crowns etc. the difference is just more enemies, and different items
i just played DS2 first, and scholar long after. imo if i played scholar first, i prolly wouldntve liked it as much, thats why i recc trying vanilla first

that said idk how tf/if you can even get the original version nowadays. it seems like it was literally replaced on most online marketplaces, which i think might have a lot to do with why so many people get filtered by it. scholar is a game that seems to almost expect you to have already played it before

>>3647558
>its far more linear due to the tons of statues/fragrant branch cockblocks.
Is that really true? There are more statues, but also more branches in turn, and earlier ones. I think scholar lets you get into Tseldora much earlier than vanilla. You can just buy a branch from Melentia instead of going all the way down the gutter or Lost Bastille.
Granted, I don't know all these locations by heart so you might be right.
Agreed about the infusion ember, I feel like you get it a little too easily in scholar.
>that said idk how tf/if you can even get the original version nowadays
It's on Steam, unlike e.g. DS1 PTDE which was scrubbed off of storefronts.

>>3647558
>scholars just odd
>idk how to describe it other than a romhack
I agree. I played original first, then sotfs. Recently I played the original for the first time in about ten years, and was surprised by how much better it felt. Like I was anticipating some annoying parts because I was accustomed to SOTFS, and they never came.
Yeah I could describe SOTFS as some modders tryhard romhack. Adding shit just because.

>>3647567
>I think scholar lets you get into Tseldora much earlier than vanilla
it does
the problem is if you dont already know those are very precious and worth using prudently ie your first time, theres also 3 or 4 statues you can burn it on, and suddenly youre locked into a very long linear path to get back to where you wouldve been if you just used it "correctly". in vanila you could just skip/kill the sentinels, kill lost sinner, then the entire game up to drangleic is in whatever order you want and youll basically always be +1 branch.

thats kinda what im saying when i say "scholar expects you to have played it already"
you get the most out of scholar if you played it before, and i think thats some questionable design

>It's on Steam, unlike e.g. DS1 PTDE which was scrubbed off of storefronts.
that must be the one im thinking of
what a shitshow that remaster was
i remember retards using literally the same cheat engine shit, day 1, haxxing the shit out of people in the burg.
didnt even try to give a shit. GG from

>>3647577
>suddenly youre locked into a very long linear path to get back to where you wouldve been if you just used it "correctly"
Ah. I guess that might be true. What you say about the game expecting you to have played it has merit. I think the way Scholar is set up might give you more freedom on repeat playthroughs with that hindsight, though, which is something I like.
Even on my first playthrough, I had attained a +10 weapon before getting my first Old Soul, which is kind of insane, but also kind of neat.

>>3647584
>Scholar is set up might give you more freedom on repeat playthroughs with that hindsight, though, which is something I like.
it definitely does. you can be +10 infused max retard DPS twink in like 45mins or so
and that is cool

but thats the thing i find so fucking maddening about it
one simple thing fixes all that wonky shit and makes it into a game mechanic:
>NG+
the NG+ was already awesome. but ++ to +7 theres only a handful more changes.
just sprinkle in some of the scholar changes. maybe even slightly at random, just to keep you on your toes
or even better, include something in-game like the covenant of champions where you can just choose wtf you want

the degree of control and granularity you had over the games difficulty with CoC, ascetics etc was just fucking awesome. you wish they kept literally ANY of it in the series

>>3647374
Go release order, there's a shift from slow and methodical to fast button mashing fest as you go from 1 to ER.
They're all very different games from each other on the specific mechanics, it's only the combat that stays more or less consistent.

>>3647544
>it just went backwards both mechanically and narratively
Oh no, after all the crap given to the latest release, they went back to the one that redifined modern gaming culture. There wasn't anything good about new ds2 narrative, come on

>>3647612
This, you'll enjoy setting from older ones, but probably not boss fights if you go in reverse order

>>3647632
>There wasn't anything good about new ds2 narrative, come on
I liked the "what if humanity is the one that's fake and the undead 'curse' is what you've always been like" bit and everything around Aldia, and before 3 went even deeper into that theme it was fun to see how the entire mess works in cycles and archetypes even if the names and specific people change.
Or you could just say they were blatantly rehashing the same old ideas from 1 with a more fairytale coat of paint. It wouldn't be wrong.

>>3647374
If you play ds1 for the first time blind, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the story/lore, if you're at all interested in that sort of thing. It all comes from how you interpret item descriptions and environments.

>>3647632
>There wasn't anything good about new ds2 narrative, come on
well the big thing is that it wasnt just a literal re-tread of DS1, which is all that DS3 accomplished

id argue its THE game that actually establishes what the undead curse is, and what it does, more than any of the rest of the series. and it didnt even have to be loosely implied in vague item descriptions. you talk to the king after getting the crowns and he actually explains shit for once
it also filled out all the pointlessly vague shit that DS1s DLC left unanswered about the abyss, filled out what exactly the dark soul is

idk i could prolly ramble on for a while if i had just replayed it. its got some of the most important story shit in the series. the fact people can say its story is irrelevant or worth skipping, imo, shows they prolly didnt play it. or they just ungabunga did whatever the herald told them to and didnt question anything/didnt do the DLCs

>>3647635
>same old ideas from 1 with a more fairytale coat of paint. It wouldn't be wrong.
other than the mechanics issues, this was my biggest complaint
i felt like i was getting nostalgia-b8d by some jap wankfest retard over a game that i had JUST played. my first playthrough i literally dropped it and decided to go back and replay 1 instead. seemed like thats what miyazaki wanted me to do, so i did

>>3647635
When I played through ds2 the first time, I thought "It's like Dark Souls:Forever, so meta, very deep", till ds3 came out and I noticed that they had more or less the same big ideas in every game, but not that close to the surface. Imagine a prologue saying "hey, you will die a lot in this here game and lose all your souls xDD". Like with bad Silent Hill games, it wouldn't be bashed nearly as hard if it had a different name

>>3647650
>a prologue saying "hey, you will die a lot in this here game and lose all your souls xDD".
What makes it so funny and stupid is it's not even true. Even with Scholar inflated enemy density you can breeze through the game if you're paying attention to the area gimmick and take it slow, to the point that on replays you're more likely to die to a bad jump or to just wanting to get on with it.
It's annoying that so many areas in 2 are designed to both tempt you to go fast and punish you for doing so. It's dumb and adversarial, but it's never challenging in the way it makes you want to feel it is.

>>3647650
i still cant even wrap my head around it desu
people lost their minds over 2 when it came out. that one fag did like 30hrs worth of videoessays on it, it was wild

i thought it was pretty fuckin good. mechanically the combat felt much more nuanced, just a hair slower, and with a lot more focus on "weight". the mix and match fashion potential in armor has never been surpassed in ANY game, DS or otherwise
GOAT hub, and its not even close
and then everyone was like
>omg muh dudes in armor REEE
meanwhile, their fav boss battle in the series: literally a dude in armor
theres also like 80 bosses, so either way you were getting your moneys worth imo

i just dont get it at all. people will absolutely flip out if you say you liked 2
games fine. its definitely better than 3, and imo mechanically even beats out 1 in some spots
people lament over the loss of the interconnected world, and that was very cool.
but you know whats the absolute worst part of 1 after you played/explored it all? the interconnected world. nothing worse than retreading the same route over and over and over, purely just to get around. its both the best part, AND the worst part, depending on how much you played it

>>3647665
>loss of the interconnected world
That and the constant fast travel to level up waifu were my problems with the game. With DS3 I figured FROM games weren't my thing anymore

>>3647665
My big problem with 2 is that it's more high fantasy than 1 was, and that's saying a lot when you had gods and dragons and shit in the first one. That and the branches of yore, everything else was good. Some very cool new mechanics that weren't reused in later games, hexes were great, specific boss balance and some of the more autistic mechanics should've been better thought out (half of the bosses are wet, get fucked if you infused with fire)
It could've used more polish, but it does address some of the problems in 1, sometimes too aggressively like with how it takes much longer to bring a caster online and magic damage boosts are harder to come by, let alone how hard everyone but melee builds gets shafted on the DLC by a hard coded damage penalty.
Scholar is just bad.

>>3647668
i dont hate 3
i just think it was a step backwards, is all. i was expecting further development on the mechanics and instead got a slightly streamlined DS1 again.
i didnt need DS1 again, i already owned it

>>3647670
>That and the branches of yore
but did you play scholar, or vanilla?
iirc vanilla only has one progression related statue, the pyro lady blocking shaded woods entrance. and theres at least 2 you can get without unfreezing her, so you can never get cockblocked/forced to go a certain way.
idk why they did that shit and spammed the statues in scholar, but it stomped over the open-ended flow of the first half of the game. prolly my biggest gripe with it

>>3647670
>hexes were great
thats another good point
wtf?
why get rid of hexes?
not only does it explain SO MUCH about the nature of the dark lore-wise, it was just plain old fun. and it wasnt like you could even abuse it too much and twink low lvl players in pvp since you needed high INT FTH and ATT investment to even do it properly

>>3647672
>but did you play scholar, or vanilla?
Both, Vanilla at release and Scholar coming back to it years later. In Vanilla it's more forgivable because the way the game flows it's likely you're doing Freya 3rd or 4th out of all the great souls, and then you're going straight to Drangleic Castle. In Scholar it gets very annoying a lot faster.
I have a lot of criticisms of 2 but I still like it better than 3 for not being almost entirely linear and for the difficulty not leaning on bigger damage numbers and more aggressive enemy AI. I like when the difficulty comes from having to engage with the mechanics rather than from reflexes.

>>3647374
Play Demon's Souls first, it's the best Souls game and also the best one to pick first.

New youtube eceleb opinion drop? I'v noticed the latest NPC take is "Scholar bad" instead of "Dark Souls 2 bad".

Play ds3 then elden ring I'd say

>>3647705
the biggest Dark Souls 2 shill (positive connotation here, he basically fully dismantles the grifters) is pro-Scholar.

Dark Souls 2 has a certain aura to it that I don't think any of the other games capture (not to say it's the best, that's Demon's). In a vacuum if Souls series never existed, I really do think Dark Souls 2 rebranded as whatever else would be regarded as an extremely highly rated cult classic.

>>3647705
Scholar is the strangest overhaul they could've made. On the one hand it adds QoL in several places and makes some items much less of a pain in the ass to get to, on the other the enemy density is stupid and there's no excuse for the added statues.
If they'd stuck to only QoL and a handful of new stuff it would've been very well received, but that's not what it is.

>>3647715
SOTFS is sort of a NG+

>>3647705
really now?
dark souls 2, any version, being considered worth playing IS the outside opinion. the generic take is yours >>3647707
thats literally the standard opinion nowadays. and its from kids who started on BB and DS3. and/or people who actually watch those shitty videoessays

scholar is only a good game after youve played it and know where everything is
for a first time blind playthrough, its actively hostile to you having a fun time
anyone wanting to try it should try vanilla first. scholar was slopped together in a few months because miyazaki needed money for 3s development. he didnt give a fuck about it, and it shows. its the epitome of a cashgrab

>>3647721
All these games are hostile the first time you play them. Comes with the territory. Capra demon is a giant troll to new players.

>>3647374
PLAY ALL OF THE GAMES, THEY ARE ALL GOOD, IN ANY ORDER THEY ARE ALL GOOD

File: sfim0y3dzp2b1.jpg (729 KB, 3840x2160)

729 KB JPG

Should I play remaster or prepare to die first? Remaster has a saner keyboard scheme, but looks like people prefer ptd.

>>3649760
>remaster or prepare to die first
Doesn't really matter. Go for remaster.

>>3647374
Start with Demon's Souls so you can see how the series progressed from start to finish.

>>3649760
Remaster is the exact same game, but with a fucked up lighting engine and the Dark Souls 3 matching system.

>>3649760
PTD has charm but rather than fuck around with patches and the horrendous keyboard support, just go with Remaster.

Also, because it is too weak to run the "upgraded" lighting engine, the Switch version of Remaster has the original lighting. So you get the original look of the game but with the remaster matchmaking system.

>>3647374
Dark Souls aged poorly, and even 60 fps can't save DS2.
I'd go Demon's Souls->DS3->Elden Ring. Bloodborne and Sekiro are both great, but are different enough to be adjacent to the trve sovls experience.

>>3650194
In what ways did Dark Souls age but Demons Souls didnt?

File: BloodbornePC.png (94 KB, 851x851)

94 KB PNG

>>3650194
>Bloodborne
Soon

>DS3niggers literally begging people to skip the classics and trying to gaslight people into thinking this is the majority opinion
Unreal

File: busco-videojuego-antiguo-(...).png (1.47 MB, 1920x1080)

1.47 MB PNG

>>3647636
Well, so far, I have to stray thoughts.
- They nailed the gothic/dark atmosphere. Western rpg makers could have learn a couple of things (though severance did it earlier). Everything is gloomy, from the shadows and enemies to the (friendly) npc encounters. One of a kind actually, amazed how little influence the game had all things considered.
- I'm going to suck a lot. I understand now why it filtered so many people. I have to kill the first boss (I assume). the demon of the asylum or something. The game must have been fun to play using a psx controller, no so much with a keyboard. It has a lot of key autism, such as riposte tactic. I wonder if I'll ever get good.

>>3650540
>Well, so far, I have to stray thoughts.
>- They nailed the gothic/dark atmosphere
I agree. Thanks, first impressions like these are fun to read.
>I wonder if I'll ever get good.
You'll get the hang of it. For me it took some time to get the rhythm, but slowly it becomes sort of muscle memory, and I learned to read the enemies better.

>>3647374

The amount of shit taste in this thread is disturbing.

For anyone who isn't a closet homosexual/manchild knows that only Des, BB and Sekiro are good Fromsoft games.

Funny thing is, all 3 are gate-guarded by strong dissuasive elements. Namely by the first 2 being Sony exclusives and Sekiro being set in a weebshit fanstasy setting/having a fixed protag/no multiplayer.

So most of the unwashed masses have to content with the "main" anthology (The DS games and ER) which are all a mediocre mongrelization of the the said good games in one shape or another.

>>3650540
Having beaten it on keyboard only before, it's really just about getting used to it and especially to the camera. Parrying is not any harder than on controller but it does take some time to feel out the sweet spot for enemies.
Smaller shields parry better and there's a couple parrying-specific items that make the timing even more forgiving. You want to hit the button at around the time the enemy's weapon starts coming forward towards you.

>>3650540
>Severance Blade of Darkness
That brings me back.
Was playing this back when it came out, kicked my ass a lot.

>>3650343
I played it up to gascoin and it ran great even on my old gaming laptop. Then I put it down for a night and the save corrupted kek. Ill wait a few months and check back on it

>>3647374
I've just been replaying DS1, and...no. Play Elden Ring first. Dark Souls is fucking awful experience for new players. There is so much bullshit that I can cheerfully avoid because it's a second playthrough. DS2 has frontloaded difficulty, don't start there either. DS3 is probably a better idea, but Elden Ring is basically designed to be a newbie experience. You're a newbie, start with the newbie experience.

>>3650943
I loved the design philosophy. "Okay, so the amazon is the only girl. She has no moveset, the worst armour, lowest health and weapons that make you terribly vulnerable instead of raising your defense. But despite all that she's still the easiest to play, so make her the default pick."

>>3647558
Isn't getting to IK the same in both versions?
>Kill dragon rider
>Talk to miracle scammer lady
>Pay her 3000 souls to pull lever in the merry-go-round
>copse -> auschwitz -> space elevator -> IK
I don't remember any extra statues blocking your progress along that particular route.

>>3650364
I can easily believe it's the majority opinion. The masses are subhuman, after all.

File: cowboy-bibop.gif (27 KB, 220x118)

27 KB GIF

>>3650540
I have never played a game labeled atmospheric that wasn't garbage.

>>3647558
>i think its a bit too early
It being in Lost Bastille means you can route it however you like, you can even get best infusion stupidly early by picking up a boltstone as soon as you have a branch to get you into Shaded Woods. Besides, you could very easily end up doing Iron Keep last, making infusion only useful for the last stretch of the game.
I wouldn't mind it still being in the same area if it was somewhere that didn't require that stupid jump. In 1 embers were in very noticeable places, having one item for ALL infusions and having it be easy to miss is just bad design.

>>3647470
>not as interconnected
3 isn't connected at all, you just warp around to shitty zones that look pretty.

File: silent-hill-1-main.jpg (29 KB, 676x380)

29 KB JPG

So more thoughts after playing 3 more hours. I'm killing skeletons in skelly town it seems, getting dicked by spear skeletons and crossbow skeletons.

- I thought I'd never get used to the difficulty, but eventually got the hang out of it. At least for now I know when to hit and when to avoid (roll). Forgot to say I'm a thief, and my current weapon of choice is two-handed stoic.
- Do I need to do something to kindle the fire or will it become obvious?
- I must say the game is deceptively open, at any corner there is a path that will carry you to a different level. The only game I can recall doing that is ... Spyro. Now I regret getting caught by the bird, I knew there were a couple of interesting things to check out. I also found a place where zombies are ignoring me, they are mesmerized by something, but I got killed by two soul fuckers and I chose to go to the town.
The exploration is both riveting and despicable. Sometimes you can't reach some part due to broken ladders, I know it is done on purpose but it feels annoying as fuck. On the one hand, the "world" feels interesting and I really want to explore everything, but at the end of the day it's a glorified ninja gaiden/castlevania game. I wonder how ER feels in that regard.
- I like the npcs and item descriptions. Most games throw at you bricks of texts, but DS gets it away with short and mysterious descriptions. It is not without its reddit moments but overall feels intriguing. And the world with its deficient illumination feels like ... Silent Hill, yeah I said it. But something I'm not completely fond of it is the lack of music. It should have been compensated with a better ambient sound to compensate.

Playing the game when it came out with all the people discussing it must has been a great experience. I wonder what Demon Souls does to get some people worked out over it being superior to Dark Souls.

File: dark_souls_undead_asylum_(...).jpg (56 KB, 1024x576)

56 KB JPG

>>3650608
You were right, it wasn't that awful. But targetting is still stupid. Multitasking this and Mount & Blade can feel annoying pretty fast.
>>3651075
For example? This game feels like it is dragging you into the world without the need of constant cutscenes and wall of texts. You get trapped by the game without even trying, unless the challenge filters you that's it. There is something to be said about the lone hero in a hopeless world too. It is dark fantasy without feeling edgy.

>>3651140
>Sometimes you can't reach some part due to broken ladders
They're not broken, you just need to kick them down from the other side. It's a shortcut you unlock by taking the long way around first.

You're still pure, play in release order:
1-Emulate Demon's souls and get obliterated by Boletaria 1-1 for as long as you can sustain it, it will turn you in a manlier man than you are. Then finish the game.
2-Dark souls 1
3-Dark souls 2 just to appreciate the previous games
4-Dark souls 3
5-Elden ring

If you want to play bloodborne, DO NOT PLAY NEITHER DS2 OR DS3 or you'll be burnt by the time.

>>3647374
Yes. The later games are giga-flanderized and you shouldn't start with them. They will give you the wrong idea about what the series was supposed to be like.

>>3651140
Please, don't read any advice given to you. People will ruin your first experience, and I'm enjoying hearing some untainted thoughts. Nowadays everything gets filtered through online guides and opinions, so it's rare to see "authentic" views.

File: dark-souls-dragon-bridge.jpg (503 KB, 2200x1100)

503 KB JPG

>>3651632
There isn't much left to say. I killed the taurus demon, then a skeleton on the bridge killed me. I was mad, then realized I didn't have to kill the boss a second time, and that my last bonfire connects to the bridge. Dark Souls map is unintuitive. Three rats and some skeletons later a pack of zombies killed me.

This gave me confidence that I can progress, slowly but surely. And while I appreciate the way the game was designed and how it upheaves old design in a new coat, the game is at the end of the day a challenging arcade game and I'm not inclined to play that sort of game. I actually think this game is challenging that old games, in the time I have spent playing DS I could have beaten Castlevania. And the game does the bare minimum to keep you hook through intriguing bosses apparitions and encounters with strange knights.
I'm not the sort of person who plays for the story alone, but I find that DS is on the other side of the spectrum. I didn't mind that when I played Armored Core, but in this game I will spend a lot of time hacking through a section just to keep suffering. Cool thing to do when you play with your buddies or the game just released and you are part of the zeitgeist. Now the game is pretty much dead and I don't get satisfaction for beating hard games.
The problem is I got a new computer recently, and I have at my disposition more than 10 years of gaming that never had experienced before, so for me is a tough call between dying once again in Dark Souls or checking out what the hell is all about Dragon's Dogma.

>>3647374
Start with Bloodborne. It's the best one in the series.

>>3652334
It isn't part of the series.

>>3652325
>for me is a tough call
Yeah at that point I would call it a day, no point in playing a game you're not into

>>3651608
Best post in this thread

>>3652325
you're just a huge pussy and you don't have the balls to see it through to the end, excuses of a zoomer as usual. the "muh i have other games" is just a cop out, cope better

File: 715.png (158 KB, 369x275)

158 KB PNG

>>3652325
Here's a thought to dwell on - How about you try to enjoy a form of art for more than two seconds when it doesn't give you that quick dopamine hit instantly you subhuman zoomer scum

>so for me is a tough call between dying once again in Dark Souls or checking out what the hell is all about Dragon's Dogma.

I almost puked. You are a mindless consumer playing games for the sake of consuming them, not actually appreciating them for any of their artistic value.

Try tiktoks or youtube shorts, it's a lot more up your alley. A lot better than trying to get validation on 4chan for quitting a game so you can move onto CONSOOOOMING the next one.

File: Firelink_Shrine.png (606 KB, 794x397)

606 KB PNG

>>3655503
>>3655454
Lol why so mad? From my point of view is the most rational move. I'm not really good at this game, that much is clear to me after spending more than 6 hours playing. Things won't change three or six hours later. Is not for me. I pointed out the things that I enjoyed, but it's just too challenging for me. I didn't mind the challenge while I was playing Monster Hunter FU, and I replay the game every now and then. But DS's approach is not the one for me. I'm sorry it didn't work out in the end.

>>3652325
>I have at my disposition more than 10 years of gaming
Fair enough, as much as I consider DaS1 to be a great game it's absolutely not the only game worth playing in such a huge timespan.
However, I must also say that DaS1 will teach you skills that will remain useful in many other games.
>tough call between Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma
I hope you mean Dark Arisen and not Dragon's Dogma 2.
Also, as you found Dark Souls to be hard to approach, I must warn you that Dragon's Dogma will be anything but easier: great game, but I played it after pulling off a no-death DaS1 and 2 and it was still a struggle.

>>3652457
Yes, it is. It's a Souls game.

>>3655819
>souls not in the title
What did he mean by this?

>>3655676
the "most rational move" is always stop playing video games, so you can't really argue on the basis that you're "Saving Time" for other games, because games are inherently time-wasting, unproductive, irrational things to entertain yourself with. you have to think a little harder about what you're saying.

>>3656347
>games are inherently time-wasting
So at least play the one that interests you the most.
Having multiple game does make it harder to devote yourself to any one of them. I was enjoying DaS enough to make it a priority. If he isn't, he should go for what he feels like. He can always go back and try again.

>>3656413
It's this filthy casual mentality that is ruining the hobby. Fuck you and OP.

>>3656417
Blow it out your ass, drama queen

File: 100.png (189 KB, 998x515)

189 KB PNG

>>3647470
>Elden Ring is fuckhuge so burns out completion autists.
Not sure I agree with that. It's the only game I've completed 100% that counts. I got more burned out with DS3 then I did Elden Ring.

>>3655826
Have you even played it?

>>3656417
Focusing on ONE game at a time is LITERAL hardcore behavior the OPPOSITE of casually playing a bunch of different games at a time tee-hee. Fuck you.

>>3655707
>Also, as you found Dark Souls to be hard to approach, I must warn you that Dragon's Dogma will be anything but easier: great game, but I played it after pulling off a no-death DaS1 and 2 and it was still a struggle.
They are completely different. In DD you can grind, you will be accompanied by 3 other npcs, almost infinite healing, saving whenever you want. Sure you need to take the encounters seriously, but otherwise it is a piece of cake.

>>3660190
It's a very different challenge, but it requires a similar amount of dedication and patience.
>you can grind
>almost infinite healing
You WILL grind, healing items in particular as there is no estus equivalent.
>you will be accompanied by 3 other NPCs
And until you've figured out stats, skills, and synergies, that's 4 times as many chances to fuck up your game plan before even entering combat.
>saving whenever you want
Convenient, but it's not like Souls games don't shower you in homeward bones.
>otherwise it is a piece of cake
I still remember both Bitterblack Isle and the big hole in the ground with all the side rooms as tremendous tests of endurance, the individual fights might be easier (and even then not-Beholders and those weirdos with the magic shields were anything but easy) but the sheer number of them will wear you down.

>>3650343
he'll get a cease and desist letter and you'll all lose your shit

File: image[1].png (1.87 MB, 1013x715)

1.87 MB PNG

we'll never get something like this ever again will we?
I especially love darkroot garden and basin, prolly my favorite areas in any game ever