Hey /v/, I've never played a souls game, and it's about time I try. I assume I eventually want to play them all, so I'm wondering where to start. Would starting with Dark Souls make Demons Souls harder to go back to? Or would a newcomer get better acquainted with the style in the newest DS2?
Also any other noobie rules of thumb you feel like throwing my way are appreciated.
Demon's Souls is a good game in its own right, "going back to it" wouldn't hurt the experience at all.
It's a different enough game from Dark Souls that you won't be able to exploit the same strategies you used in Dark Souls; both in and out of combat. So really it works on either end of playing Dark Souls, before or after.
Play them in release order.
It's okay to start with Dark Souls if you don't have a PS3. Demon's Souls is easy to go back to, it's not archaic by comparison.
If you play Dark Souls on PC, which you should, make sure to get DSFix
Was planning on playing DS1 on xbox because I heard the pc port is garbage and even bugs out sometimes after applying the fixes and that the control is awful with mouse & keyboard anyhow.
Thanks for the replies every one else, sounds like DS1 or demons souls is the way to go.
Although I usually like to play series in order, there are a lot that I would recommend not doing so with. Two recent games I played that I would say just skip to the newest game would be Diablo and Tomb Raider. For a series like Souls, it would make a lot of sense that one of the games would be a lot better for a newcomer than a different one.
Appreciate the reply, though. :)
>Was planning on playing DS1 on xbox because I heard the pc port is garbage and even bugs out sometimes after applying the fixes and that the control is awful with mouse & keyboard anyhow.
With DSFix it's beyond argument the best way to play the game. And plug your 360 controller into your PC, silly.
>Why is this always a question?
People without the console the first game was on want to know if they can start the series or if they would be better off waiting a few years for a better experience.
DaS is for gitting gud, DeS is for chilling it through. Atleast when you play in that order. DaS might have a good amount of people and increasing till Bloodborne is out, but a majority will vanish this month. If you wanna see people, now would be the time to go with DaS. DeS has very few people nowadays compared.
This is the best way to play because Dark Souls 2's combat feels like an expansion of Demon's rather than an improvement to Dark Souls 1. For instance weapon movesets got simplified to DeS levels of sameness but they added a few neat things like dual wielding.
For shits and giggles, go from DaS 2 and play in reverse order. They get casualized more from oldest to newest anyways, and the plot really doesn't depend on play order.
You might as well play the one with the most online activity right now anyway, rather than later.
>Which Diablo should I play first?
>Release order, since Dark Souls 1 is full of memetastic Demon's Souls references.
It really has none worth mentioning unless you count the handful of characters that are literally the same and say the same lines verbatim. 99% of references are to Berserk and Froms other game series such as kingsfield and armored core.
maiden in black -> handicapped firekeeper
yurt -> lautrec
shiva -> satsuki
zombie merchant -> undead merchant
ostrava -> solaire (2 people whose quest for answers lead to their deaths)
vinland -> leeroy
allant (king who sacrifices himself to preserve his kingdom) -> gwyn (king who sacrifices himself to preserve his kingdom)
fat ugly tutorial boss monster with weapon -> fat ugly tutorial boss monster with weapon
red dragon -> red dragon
zombies -> zombies (same move set)
skeletons doing that stupid horizontal slash -> skeletons doing that stupid horizontal slash
maneaters -> gargoyles
there's probably some other shit too which I don't remember.
>maiden in black -> handicapped firekeeper
>yurt -> lautrec
>shiva -> satsuki
>zombie merchant -> undead merchant
>ostrava -> solaire (2 people whose quest for answers lead to their deaths)
>vinland -> leeroy
>allant (king who sacrifices himself to preserve his kingdom) -> gwyn (king who sacrifices himself to preserve his kingdom)
None of these characters are literally the same, they have similar archetypes, but their stories are much different, Solaire isn't even similar to Ostrava even, they're just two most important NPCs in their respective games.
Lel, did you just move your goalposts from literally the same to references?
Not to mention the only direct references are Lautrec and Leeroy, the rest is just characters in similar functions.
>Solaire, the character that does nothing but help you the whole time and is most likely just some knight who got really good is the same as the incompetent prince you have to rescue all the time
I'd get it if you said Siegmeyer, but even that's a stretch.
I know this might be hard for you, but if you read the original post (which is >>285110468 btw) very very carefully, you might, just MIGHT, see that I always said "references" and NOT "literally the same"
their character development is incredibly similar though.
>their character development is incredibly similar though.
Not really, Ostrava realizes the truth and offs himself, Solaire either goes crazy and attacks you or wins the game alongside you.
Again, much more in line with Siggy's story, even though ti was still very different.
yeah, you might be right.
though I still thing that ostrava going from being an arrogant and proud to desperate and suicidal, and solaire going from always happy and smiling to desperate and insane is quite similar.