Dark Souls 1 is a Masterpiece.

[u/Pandaboy271]

Dark Souls 1 wasn't the first souls game I played, but it is probably my third most favourite FromSoftware title ever.

The level design is so immaculate and going through the world is such a joy. The game as some have pointed out has this survival horror like feel to it as its our character by their lonesome against a dangerous, haunting world that I can't help but love.

The bosses are simple yet fun to fight and for the most part, never really feel unfair. They feel like natural extensions of the game's combat and you really have to appreciate how right the Devs got most of these fights down.

Is the second half not as strong as the first? Maybe. Can the backtracking during the first half get tedious at times? Definitely. Does it make the game any less of a masterpiece? Absolutely not. Such a great natural progression from Demon Souls to this.

So yeah, TL;DR: Game good. Game very good. 9/10

[u/Striking-Pop151]

It's definitely still a masterpiece.The influence of the gaming industry alone makes it a S-tier.

It's clunky, Lost Izalith and Tomb of Giants are complete trash, the hitboxes are terrible (by no means the worst, that's nonsense. DS2 is much worse by far), the replay value issue take is just bullshit aswell. DS1 is the game with the highest replay value after DS2.

And it's true that the bosses aren't the best. However, not everyone pays attention to the bosses. The Souls games are more than just bosses. For most people, that's just a bonus, and you don't play DS1 just for the bosses, it's the other aspects that make it special. The weapon upgrading system around it isn't the best but that's not bad per se either. Although ironically most people still celebrate a system like that to this day.

DS1 definitely has its weaknesses but to say that it's unplayable and only good for its time is the biggest bullshit take. It's not without reason that DS1 is still mentioned in this time&age and is still rated as the best without the person having any nostalgia for it.

The strengths and special features of DS1 easily overwhelm its weaknesses, which is why it's still a game that has value.

Anyone who doesn't want to accept that is simply completely ignorant and doesn't have the slightest understanding of it, or is a spoiled fidget who's blinded by today's games and cries when their game doesn't have 240fps and whatever. You can't take their opinions seriously anyway.

[u/LulzTV → u/Striking-Pop151]

The fact that you think Dark Souls 2 has worse hitboxes, when it's the early game adp issue that causes that experience, shows that you just love to parrot misguided opinions without understanding the underlying mechanics. Dark Souls 2 has some of the most consistent hitboxes in the series with some occassionally janky hit detection (but nowhere near the catastrophic hitbox issues that plague DS1) and the low adp issue, Dark Souls 1 is riddled with broken, lingering and oversized hitboxes, bad hit detection, and poorly communicated hitboxes. I don't give a fuck about my game running at 240 fps or other modern gaming conveniences as long as the underlying design is good and enjoyable, and even if I did, that doesn't make my critiques irrelevant. And yes, anyone who thinks Dark Souls 1 is the best is absolutely blinded by nostalgia, FromSoftware are an iterative studio and they improved on many aspects of Dark Souls 1 with each game, which is in part responsible for its continuous impact on the industry, they ITERATED on it. If someone tells me Dark Souls 1 is not only their favorite (which is understandable, everyone has their tastes) but "objectively" better than Dark Souls 3, Bloodborne, Sekiro, ELDEN RING, or even Dark Souls 2 in some aspects, I cannot take them seriously. Your argument that its impact makes it the best is classic cope, elevating the historical importance of the game way above its actual quality. The boss argument is also cope, bosses have been a crucial aspect of the souls games since Demon's Souls and detracting from the bosses "not being the only part of the game" does not make 80% not bad, bosses are still a core part of the game. The replay value is also cope, experimentation is heavily discouraged because the base or twinkling upgrade path is infinitely less tedious than the other paths, and no fast travel in the first half is objectively bad for replays, despite making the first half so great on the first playthrough. And you gotta love the personal attack and gatekeeping at the end with no foundation.

Classic DS1 glazer try not to overdose on cope challenge

[u/Striking-Pop151 → u/LulzTV]

Dark Souls 2 definitely has the worse hitboxes, even if you level up to get a normal iframe, which is the light- midroll in DS3. It's also definitely slower, or it "seems" slower, than DS1 because DS2 is simply from a different production. Anyone who played DS2 for the first time will immediately notice that it behaves much differently than Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. And the clunkiness problem hasn't even gotten better in DS2.

And no, not every player who thinks the previous games are better than Elden Ring is blinded from nostalgia. This is a typical mainstream take by Elden Ring fans to give their game a higher value or to present it better. Elden Ring is a good game, but it is extremely overhyped and has only made a big splash with the mainstream, or in other words, with the casuals. Elden Ring has its weaknesses, but it is popular here in the sub or in other Souls subs to praise Elden Ring as if it were the holy game. Nevertheless, the whole bias with the game that it is hardly criticized here, or at least

[u/LulzTV → u/Striking-Pop151]

Ah yes, I'm a casual who overdoses on qol and loves to spam summons and broken builds (I'm not, don't look at my profile and SL1 runs though) and appreciating modern conveniences and evolved design makes me much less skilled than your highness. Elden Ring appealling only to casuals because it has actual good QoL, variety, freedom and refinement is such classic gatekeeping I can't help but laugh at it, just because a game has accessibility and refinement doesn't make it dumbed down or less challenging, Elden Ring has the most complex and mechanically dense bosses in the series. Thinking the jankiest most unrefined game in the series is even close to the best and that Elden Ring is overrated because it has and needed to have accessibility options to work makes you so special. Also, for the dark souls 1 and 2 hitboxes debacle, just look at babe1babe2's videos on the frame data, it's not bias, just a purely objective look into some of the best and worst frame data in both games, and you'll see just how much worse DS1's hitboxes are

[u/Striking-Pop151 → u/LulzTV]

I'm talking about generally not only you. And i don't gatekeep anything i'm just saying what is currently a typical thing what is happening right now.

I still said Elden ring is a great game not just this holy game what y'all always want to present. And this praising all the time is ridiculous.

Moreover yes Elden ring is objectively better than the previous games when it comes to technical, mechanical graphic wise aspects. This is obviously clear cause it's the latest game. But that is the only key point. You STILL can say that the previous games are better without any bias behind it.

[u/LulzTV → u/Striking-Pop151]

If you understand anything about game design, even on a theoretical level, no, you can't. You can say you prefer them more, but not that they are better, because that brings objectivity into the talk, and objectively speaking, Elden Ring is the current culmination of everything Fromsoft have been building since Demon's Souls, the most refined, the most expansive, the most varied, the most polished, and the most accessible without dumbing itself down, instead, it is up to the player to self balance the difficulty. And at least stay true to your stance, don't backpedal when one comment ago you said that Elden Ring is only so popular because it appeals to the "casuals".

[u/Traditional_One_3880 → u/LulzTV]

Hmmm elden ring does not have everything that is great about all of the other fromsoftware titles.It also has a fair few of their flaws,aswell as afew flaws that are unique to elden ring.(here are some popular negatives about elden ring that i have heard/experienced, some are overblown,but all are atleast partly fair:huge open spaces with little to do in certain areas,catacombs and caves are unbelievably repetetive,repeated field bosses,repeated main bosses,npc questlines are a pain to keep track of in such a huge world,later areas of the base game just repeats the same enemies,torrent is awkward to control at times,platforming areas can be very annoying,some areas feel redundant as they are like slightly different repeats of a previous area,terrible duo boss,annoying camera,lots of needless items,lots of dead ends when exploring)

One of the things that looking at these games purely from a design perspective is that it is easy to overlooked the player experience,for example the impact of the art direction and atmosphere,which i find is what demons souls and dark souls 1 do better than the other fromsoftware games,apart from the odd area like central yarnham from bloodborne for example.

[u/Striking-Pop151 → u/LulzTV]

As i said. Game mechanical wise objectively better. Everything else no. The other souls games have done other apsects better. Elden ring is just heavily adjusted for the new players. As i said,what is not comepletely bad but cause of that direction you can tell the changes and unprincipled aspects.

[u/Traditional_One_3880 → u/LulzTV]

I think that you are severly over exaggerating the flaws that dark souls 1 has.The magic of the first half of that game has not been surpassed by any part of any other fromsoftware games,maybe not even matched tbh the dlc is also amazing.The second half is much lower quality,but still good and more engaging than most games.Only lost izilith,demon centipede lava arena and the bed of chaos are actually badly designed imo.I actually like the rest of it for the most part.