Would it be wrong for me to say Dark Souls 1 is good, but kinda overrated? I prefer Demon's Souls, Bloodborne...

Oh, fuck off "you don't like x you must be reddit" strawman. For the record I did enjoy New Londo and Duke Archives. The 2nd have does have some good levels, but it does contain objectively bad levels. And don't get me that tired "git gud" meme, which is more reddit-tier than anything I have to say. I for one love challenging games. System Shock 2, Ninja Gaiden Black, Maximo, Mega Man X, and DMC3 games are hard but fair games. Dark Souls 1 is inconsistent with its difficulty. It can be fair, but it also has VERY cheap moments. Don't excuse broken game design, twit.

The catacombs are fine. TOTG could use 1 more bonfire but it's not bad as far as design ideas go.

>catacombs
>bad

shit taste

It isn't 'wrong' for you to say anything my dude. Without opinions to share Zig Forums would not exist.
Personally I played DS1 as my first souls game, and I'll never forget the feeling of exploring the interconnected half of the game, even if it's super easy on replays.

>muh interconnectivity

I agree with you OP, I've enjoyed every second of Bloodborne, DS2, DS3 and Sekiro, but DS1 felt like such a chore

>reddit music blares as you mash roll and the boss swings a sword at light speed
Whatever happened to the slow pace of demon's souls, dark souls, and dark souls 2? It was one of the things that made them good. I can't fucking tolerate to play anything after ds2.

>"2nd have"
If you liked new londo ruins and duke's archives, you didn't dislike the second half of the game retard.
>System Shock 2
>hard but fair
talk about a shitty second half

>Faster = Worse
Some combos do go for too long like the Dancer, Sister Friede, Corvian enemies in ariendel, maybe Pontiff and the Abyss Watchers but other than that the game's combat was fine, it was just different.

I never said once said I didn't like the 2nd half. I implied it wasn't as strong as the first half, idiot.

And System Shock 2's second half isn't when it begins it decline in quality. It's only around the third act when the game begins to blunder a bit. Which only makes 25% or less of the game. It's still less of a chore to play than the objectively shit levels in Dark Souls 1.

nah whole series is shit except sekiro

>Would it be wrong for me to say Dark Souls 1 is good, but kinda overrated?
Yes, you faggot

Not the same guy but I feel like after ornstein and smough your character is too retarded strong that none of the other areas pose any kind of challenge and none of the bosses are as difficult as fighting two bosses at once. Even the first half of the game is pretty open but you're gated to a somewhat limited power level prior to the lordvessel. Game suffers from bad pacing

it's overrated but not by much, i expected more from it but it was worth the time

Sekiro isn't even part of the series you mong

Faster isn't necessarily worse, but dark souls 3's combat system is easily the worst in any game I've ever played (not to mention it has no build variety and is linear so it also has zero replayability). The older games weren't exactly "deep", but ds3 is literally just mashing roll to iframe through everything with zero timing or positioning required. Flappy bird and probably most other phone games have more deep and interesting gameplay than dark souls 3.

>too retarded strong that none of the other areas pose any kind of challenge
I didn't think any of the second half areas were too easy and especially not the dlc the first time around.

What series is it part of then, HUH?

Dark Souls is my third favorite after Sekiro and Bloodborne, it's great but they've topped it multiple times

Well...

There's just something about the mystical atmosphere of Lordran that makes me love DaS more than the sequels

Yeah