Enthusiastic about Souls and similar games.
Enthusiastic about Souls and similar games.
Thanks @Caroline for the feedback. I understand your concern about the graphics in og ds being outdated. Also, my follow-up question is: why not consider ds2 instead?
Your feelings are understandable. Being near me makes it clear, and we both need to show maturity.
OG Dark Souls appears poorly made and runs at a low frame rate of around 30 fps. It seems the experience wouldn't work well for me. I believe no meaningful changes were made to the core gameplay in the remaster.
Visuals aren't the only factor, but when two versions exist and one stands out for its graphics, I usually choose that one. I find it puzzling why so many believe Half Life is exceptional. I began every installment yet never completed even half of it. From my perspective, these titles fall short—poor gameplay, weak storytelling, and outdated visuals. Focusing on graphics doesn’t mean you’re limited to the newest AAA releases. However, the original Dark Souls looks quite poor without modern enhancements, possibly reducing its appeal compared to the remaster. EDIT: I just reviewed all the updates in the remaster. Dark Souls Remastered | Dark Souls Wiki (fextralife.com) I don’t see a strong reason to play the objectively inferior 2011 release running at 720p 30fps.
DSfix increases the framerate to 60 fps and unlocks the resolution. There's only one section where, in my experience, you absolutely need to turn off DSfix (you can do it with a single button press) down to 30 fps and that's the jump from the Firelink Shrine elevator up to the Undead Parish to the giant crow because for some reason, at 60 fps you slide off the church ruin geometry. Other than that, I played the entire thing with DSfix enabled and had no trouble at all. I can't speak on the remaster since I haven't played it, but the consensus tends to point people towards the remaster overall, since it has the improvements for DSfix integrated and seems to have better PvP matchmaking, if you care about that. On the other hand, the original appears to have more mods available, so pick your poison. I played around 13 hours of Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin and I kinda got bored with it. I had immense trouble with Heide's Tower and it feels like the encounters aren't as cleverly laid out or fairly designed as they were in the previous game. And the few bosses I beat also felt to be rather easy pushovers. Maybe it's because of the changes they made to SotFS. I'm sure at some point I'll go back and give it another shot, maybe even the original version. I had to start Dark Souls 1 three times to really get into it, so maybe it's the same here. Couldn't beat the tutorial boss the first time around and rage quit. Got to the first bell of awakening the second time and didn't know where to go next and only on the third attempt did I manage to get through it all. At that point, I had the combat timings down so it was mostly enjoyable, though much of the later half of the game seems phoned it (Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith) and I beat many of the later bosses on my first attempt, so the regular levels were actually more challenging than the bosses that they led up to.
@Stahlmann and @Caroline - The answer really varies from person to person. Some players focus more on visuals, others on gameplay. You're both correct. So just chiiiiiiiiillll...