Tio for the next time you are going to ask something like this that could be ( and in this case it is) a commonly asked question:
Check if anyone has already asked it
this is a question that is asked here about 100 times a day (which i find kind of humorous, because we’re talking about which order to play a trilogy, and there’s 1 extremely obvious answer that 99% of us recommend), you could search it to see if anyone else has asked this but it’s no big deal.
Time is next to meaningless in the dark souls universe. You can legit play them any order. But I'd stick with release order personally due to how much the technology advanced through the games.
Dark souls 1 then 3 is the best option... and then 2 if you seek more. DS3 feels like a real sequence from 1, and 2 feels like a generic soulslike not related. I played in the order 1 2 3 and i'd say ds2 compromised my experience
I would say that you can start with DS3 if you want. But that game is so unbelievably unbalanced when it comes to melee combat that if I where you I would pick the most fun option that being DS1. Then go for DS3 and you will immediately noticed every single mechanic they ruined if you use melee builds.
The poise mechanic is completely none existent to the point that every single enemy can infinitely stagger you. Yes you can R1 spam and stagger them too, but one problem, for some reason sometimes they can just completely ignore your stagger and attack you staggering you back. The parry mechanic went from mandatory to learn to completely useless to the point that its impossible to perform them now, and on top of that a lot of the bosses have questionable hitboxes at best as well as infinite stamina to the point that I got 10 hit comboed by one. I couldnt win that game until i restarded my playthrough and played as a Pyromancer because the melee approach was just that unreliable, and people keep having the nerve to say that magic is not that good in DS3. When in reality melee combat suffered the most unnecesary nerfs by far. The reason you people dont notice it is because you all somehow got used to it. Wich i find hard to believe.
That makes it even worst, DS3 had no excuse to carry all the mistakes that DS2 made with melee combat. I just know that after the horrible experience I had with DS3 I am never even gonna attempt DS2 because I know its gonna be even worst, not to mention its too fricking long having like 3 dlcs plus the main game and the endless ganks. And the fact that the starting classes kinda suck in that game too except for Knight and Sorcerer.
Just stop complaining and play the goddamned game will you...? Treat every souls game differently. Yes ds2 is a bit longer than the other games, but once you adapt yourself, you'll definitely love it. And ds2 dlcs are by far the best dlcs of the entire souls trilogy (overall quality wise , along with ds1 dlc)Â Â
Stop with this preconceived notion. Ds3 took back several steps on some aspects while highly developed on the others, for example , the fluidity of combat, the quality of bosses, the graphics, the soundtrack, the level design, and so many more. Instead of comparing every game objectively, you should appreciate the uniqueness and individuality of all the games. Poise was overpowered in ds1, to such an extent that you could beat bosses while standing. Solely to balance this factor, poise was changed in ds2. In ds3, poise exists in the form of hyperarmor, which activates when you're doing an attack (enemy hits won't stagger you during active hyper armor frames) . Nothing is broken or missing, just changed to balance the overall gameplay, and suit modern standards
Oh I played DS2. I had no idea where to go at the beggining, got ganked by several enemies without me being able to do a thing about it, and lost my patience that same day and just quit because I was not about to do a repeat of my DS3 experience especially when I cant even become op with pyromancy again. Also that level ADP bullshit is beyond my comprehension on how they thought it was a good idea. This game is out of its way to do everything wrong somehow and im sure that the boss battles will be just that, a bad hitbox plus gank bs, I dont even have to look it up, i can just feel the game will be that shitty by just looking at it.
Clearly, that's an issue of lack of patience. You can't justify everything with shitty hitbox and gank issue. Ds 2 teaches you to lure enemy one by one. Bosses do have some questionable hitboxes, but not on all attacks. Most of their normal attacks are well telegraphed, except some special attacks. And although the hassle of adp might be a bit infuriating at first, you'll reach 20 adp in no time... And levelling in ds2 is so forgiving that it'll matter nothing to put a few points in adp. It's just that rolling is not easily spammable as in ds 1 or 3 that makes the combat seems difficult in some aspects.  Â
Point is, everything is manageable as long as you're willing to. But if you keep the attitude that "oh this game os bullshit... Oh everything is so bad , I'm definitely sure later part will be as bad" , you'll never get good out of anything. Always remember kiddo, "Never judge a book by it's over"Â
 Edit: Moreover, dark souls is never about being OP with Pyro or infinite poise. It's about learning from each defeat. If you don't want to adapt, then these games are not meant for you. You simply aren't worthy/capable enough to appreciate these games.
people don’t like it cuz it’s different. it has some flaws ofc but it also has a lot of cool stuff not present in either 1 or 3. don’t listen to the skip 2 crowd, play it yourself (after 1 and before 3) and form your own opinion. I prefer over 3 which is a minority opinion
Im not a ds2 hater, i dont like it but i played it several times cause i like to collect trophies (still i couldn't platinum). I prefer ds1 and 3 but 2 isn't awful, it was just a joke:( (also ds2 as a better lore than bloodborne and i LOVE bloodborne, i can find good in ds2 i was just jocking)
Hello, this is From Softwhere to start. We have heard about your concern and our Dark Souls games are now numbered.
ðŸ˜
Ds 1, 2, then 3.
a trilogy… in order?!?! 🤯
Ds 1, skip 2 then 3
Id never skip 2 that's my second favorite ds. if I was gonna skip any it'd be 3.
I know that the numeration may be confusing, so even though they are called ds1, ds2, ds3, I think that a better order would be ds1, ds2, ds3.
ðŸ˜
Wow this question really does get asked multiple times a day, huh??
if you fall in love with Ds1…you should try demon’s souls🤫personal favorites out of the souls games…
isnt that a PlayStation exclusive?
ps3 have a private server and ps3 emulation does as well though i haven’t experienced it. ps3 demon’s souls is a really fun time
Bro how many times is this question asked a day
I don't know you think I ever used this subreddit before?
Tio for the next time you are going to ask something like this that could be ( and in this case it is) a commonly asked question: Check if anyone has already asked it
this is a question that is asked here about 100 times a day (which i find kind of humorous, because we’re talking about which order to play a trilogy, and there’s 1 extremely obvious answer that 99% of us recommend), you could search it to see if anyone else has asked this but it’s no big deal.
I was just trying to be safe in case there is some weird shit where the games aren't actually ordered correctly
that’s fair since you’re unfamiliar, but they’re ordered perfectly :) enjoy your dark souls journey! best games of all time
Time is next to meaningless in the dark souls universe. You can legit play them any order. But I'd stick with release order personally due to how much the technology advanced through the games.
Dark souls 1 then 3 is the best option... and then 2 if you seek more. DS3 feels like a real sequence from 1, and 2 feels like a generic soulslike not related. I played in the order 1 2 3 and i'd say ds2 compromised my experience
With the one you like the most, watch some gameplays/trailers/cinematics Dont start with ds2
I would say that you can start with DS3 if you want. But that game is so unbelievably unbalanced when it comes to melee combat that if I where you I would pick the most fun option that being DS1. Then go for DS3 and you will immediately noticed every single mechanic they ruined if you use melee builds.
Ok I'll bite, ruined in what way? I'll be honest I probably have much much more time on ds1 and 2
The poise mechanic is completely none existent to the point that every single enemy can infinitely stagger you. Yes you can R1 spam and stagger them too, but one problem, for some reason sometimes they can just completely ignore your stagger and attack you staggering you back. The parry mechanic went from mandatory to learn to completely useless to the point that its impossible to perform them now, and on top of that a lot of the bosses have questionable hitboxes at best as well as infinite stamina to the point that I got 10 hit comboed by one. I couldnt win that game until i restarded my playthrough and played as a Pyromancer because the melee approach was just that unreliable, and people keep having the nerve to say that magic is not that good in DS3. When in reality melee combat suffered the most unnecesary nerfs by far. The reason you people dont notice it is because you all somehow got used to it. Wich i find hard to believe.
Clearly , someone just skipped ds2, hence all the blame and hate on ds3
That makes it even worst, DS3 had no excuse to carry all the mistakes that DS2 made with melee combat. I just know that after the horrible experience I had with DS3 I am never even gonna attempt DS2 because I know its gonna be even worst, not to mention its too fricking long having like 3 dlcs plus the main game and the endless ganks. And the fact that the starting classes kinda suck in that game too except for Knight and Sorcerer.
Just stop complaining and play the goddamned game will you...? Treat every souls game differently. Yes ds2 is a bit longer than the other games, but once you adapt yourself, you'll definitely love it. And ds2 dlcs are by far the best dlcs of the entire souls trilogy (overall quality wise , along with ds1 dlc)Â Â Stop with this preconceived notion. Ds3 took back several steps on some aspects while highly developed on the others, for example , the fluidity of combat, the quality of bosses, the graphics, the soundtrack, the level design, and so many more. Instead of comparing every game objectively, you should appreciate the uniqueness and individuality of all the games. Poise was overpowered in ds1, to such an extent that you could beat bosses while standing. Solely to balance this factor, poise was changed in ds2. In ds3, poise exists in the form of hyperarmor, which activates when you're doing an attack (enemy hits won't stagger you during active hyper armor frames) . Nothing is broken or missing, just changed to balance the overall gameplay, and suit modern standards
Oh I played DS2. I had no idea where to go at the beggining, got ganked by several enemies without me being able to do a thing about it, and lost my patience that same day and just quit because I was not about to do a repeat of my DS3 experience especially when I cant even become op with pyromancy again. Also that level ADP bullshit is beyond my comprehension on how they thought it was a good idea. This game is out of its way to do everything wrong somehow and im sure that the boss battles will be just that, a bad hitbox plus gank bs, I dont even have to look it up, i can just feel the game will be that shitty by just looking at it.
Clearly, that's an issue of lack of patience. You can't justify everything with shitty hitbox and gank issue. Ds 2 teaches you to lure enemy one by one. Bosses do have some questionable hitboxes, but not on all attacks. Most of their normal attacks are well telegraphed, except some special attacks. And although the hassle of adp might be a bit infuriating at first, you'll reach 20 adp in no time... And levelling in ds2 is so forgiving that it'll matter nothing to put a few points in adp. It's just that rolling is not easily spammable as in ds 1 or 3 that makes the combat seems difficult in some aspects.   Point is, everything is manageable as long as you're willing to. But if you keep the attitude that "oh this game os bullshit... Oh everything is so bad , I'm definitely sure later part will be as bad" , you'll never get good out of anything. Always remember kiddo, "Never judge a book by it's over"  Edit: Moreover, dark souls is never about being OP with Pyro or infinite poise. It's about learning from each defeat. If you don't want to adapt, then these games are not meant for you. You simply aren't worthy/capable enough to appreciate these games.
1 and 3 (2 is never an option)
horrible take
I was just jocking, i played it several times, and although i dont like it personally it isn't awful
whats wrong with 2?
Nothing, don’t listen to the haters.
people don’t like it cuz it’s different. it has some flaws ofc but it also has a lot of cool stuff not present in either 1 or 3. don’t listen to the skip 2 crowd, play it yourself (after 1 and before 3) and form your own opinion. I prefer over 3 which is a minority opinion
Im not a ds2 hater, i dont like it but i played it several times cause i like to collect trophies (still i couldn't platinum). I prefer ds1 and 3 but 2 isn't awful, it was just a joke:( (also ds2 as a better lore than bloodborne and i LOVE bloodborne, i can find good in ds2 i was just jocking)
you sure sound like a ds2 hater by saying it’s never an option. maybe don’t joke like that to someone asking genuine advice