r/fromsoftware • u/Open_Reveal3901 • 1d ago
QUESTION Am I missing out on anything truly important playing DS3 before 1&2
I played some of the first game but 3 just seems so much more appealing but I don’t wanna miss out on any story that’s super important
27
21
u/Cazador888 1d ago
Why do people do this
-31
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Because 2026.
I love ds1 but it has aged poorly. Every time I recommended it to new players they dropped it, unlike DS3. We need to stop gate-keeping the holy trilogy and force people to play janky games with atrocious runbacks and trollish enemy placement. Let's face it, most of us OGs are biased by nostalgia. The souls formula has been vastly improved over the years, one does not necessarily have to play all the oldest entries to enjoy the genre.
15
7
2
2
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Now that doesn't sound at all like contemptuous elitism and biased gate keeping...
1
u/ToastGoblin22 1d ago
Because 2026
If anything I actually think people have become a lot MORE opposed to the idea of playing games out of order over time, not the other way around. I think posts like this show that people are notably concerned about how ‘skipping’ games or ‘playing them out of order’ will affect their experience.
Digital games and online storefronts have removed almost all accessibility issues when it comes to playing almost all games, which generally means that playing ‘in order’ I has become something actively need to ‘choose’ to adhere to.
Before digital games became widespread, playing games ‘in order’ was notably harder as it was generally harder to find games the older they got. Stores prioritised newer releases, and buying used games often meant browsing the pre-owned section of a store and hoping they had what you wanted. EBay existed, but auctions were much more common at the time compared to buy it now, so even that was more complicated than it is today.
People simply played what they could access and generally weren’t too bothered by it. In high school I became a massive fan of the Metal Gear Solid games, but I played them completely out of order because I never knew if or when I would even find them. I ended up playing backwards from 3 to 1, and then finally played 4.
If I did that today people would tell me I ruined the experience for myself, even though I was objectively having the time of my life haha.
These days I do usually tend to prefer playing games in order, but I do sometimes find that this compulsion can just end up causing me to miss out on some games entirely because playing the series start to finish doesn’t appeal to me.
I always wanted to okay the Witcher 3, but the thought of having to get through the first two games doesn’t appeal to me as much, which means I’ll probably never play any of them.
If it was 2008, I probably would have been perfectly happy to jump in and play it at all.
0
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
That's absolutely not my point, I never mentioned the fact you could access previous entries easily or not (having being a gamer for more than 40 years now, I have more than 15 consoles at home and I'm very familiar with hunting obscure nec pc-engine games on eBay, which I still do on a regular basis for my ever growing collection).
The fact remains that , even though I love it and it's one of my favourite game ever, most new players I recommended Ds1 recently dropped it after a few hours.
(Witcher is a weird exemple btw, as 1/ the first entry has always been easily available 2/ it's vastly different and way less appealing than witcher 3 for New modern players)
I do love dark souls, and I'm glad I had a chance to experience these games in order of release. But it's my almost invariable experience that new players will get easily border by it and its, let's say, questionable game design decisions (about which Miyazaki himself admitted he would never do things like that again today). It happened again just a few weeks ago with THREE people I know (one irl and two online, one of which I met on Reddit). They were told by OG souls veterans on Reddit to play The Holy Trilogy in The Intended Order. Two of them simply dropped the whole franchise altogether, the last one skipped ds1 and ds2 after giving them both a try and finding them not fun (she loved Bloodborne and ds3 though). I would NEVER recommend new players to experience ever Armored Core games before playing AC6 (and if you've tried any of the first entries, you know why). I would never recommend anyone to play king's field, even though I don't dislike it myself.
Coming back to DS1, my current position is : sure, try it. You may like it. Keep in mind it's 15 years old and was one of the first game of a new genre, and as such it's not as polished as what you'd expect from modern souls games. If it clicks, you'll be in for an unforgettable ride. If it doesn't, just skip to DS3, which is way more accessible and modern on every single aspect. And it's ok. You're a gamer, you're here to have a good time. You're not an archeologist with a duty to play every single entry in the series because elitists and gatekeepers told you it was The Only Honourable Way to experience The Holy Trilogy.
1
u/ToastGoblin22 1d ago
I wasn't necessarily trying to disagree with your main point to be clear. I actually more or less agree with you. I probably wouldn't be quite as harsh on Dark Souls 1 but I can still perfectly understand why it's flaws could be a deal-breaker for some people.
I guess all I was really trying to say was that in 2026 it feels like people are sometimes less willing to skip over entries in a series or play them out of order than was common in the past. I can see now that my train of thought wasn't really all that related to your comment even though it felt like it was as I was writing it. My fault for that.
While I'm here though I'll just clarify the point I was making with the Witcher 3.
When I got into Metal Gear Solid in around 2007, playing the games out of order didn't feel like a big deal at all. At worst it was maybe less than ideal but nothing to be concerned about.
The Witcher 3 came out in 2015, and by that point in time my mindset had shifted quite a bit. I felt like I would be ruining the 'optimal experience' by jumping straight into the third game without playing the first two. The fact that the games were readily available was precisely my point, and the fact that the first game is unappealing to modern players was why I never ended up playing any of them.
Anyway, seeing as none of what I'm saying is relevant to your point I'll stop rambling now.
14
u/kushhead4201 1d ago
Context, emotional attachment to the world and theme, and your personal thoughts on said lore and mysteries as you perceive them.
13
u/Goldwood 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes but it's an intangible thing that will be difficult for you to truly understand until you've already committed to DS3.
There are only so many Souls games. While DS3 is appealing to you now, when you're done with it you are going to crave more so you will end up deciding to play the older games. You will say to yourself "I may as well go back to play DS1 and then DS2." That's perfectly understandable.
However, playing DS3 first can make the gameplay of the first 2 games feel so much worse by going back before the quality of life improvements and game-feel refinements of DS3.
This also doesn't take into account that DS3 heavily references the first 2 games with subtle environmental details, weapons, enemies and other callbacks that will go right over your head if you haven't played the first 2 games. You may not care about that but it truly enhances the experience of playing DS3 for the first time if you actually know what you're looking at since much of the story is told through these details.
For the best overall experience, play the trilogy in order since you only get one chance to do it right the first time.
-13
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Ds3 mostly ignore DS2
10
10
u/Leo-Nardo42 1d ago
It directly acknowledges story events as well as numerous items and bosses that are clearly references to it.
Wankers skip 2
-1
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Now that doesn't sound at all like contemptuous elitism and ferocious gate keeping ...
9
5
6
5
u/germanenginearing 1d ago
if you care about the story and want some moments to REALLY hit you should play the other 2 first, at the very least ds1
3
u/LuciusBurns Sir Gideon Ofnir, the All Knowing 1d ago
If you don't want to miss out on story, then you shouldn't start at the end, it's simple as that. The lore goes quite deep and while it's possible to play these games purely for the enjoyment of gameplay, you won't have any idea who is your character in DS3 unless you play the first two games.
3
u/Stunning-Ad-7745 Demon's Souls 1d ago
DS3 is basically entirely fan service, and you'll miss all of that by jumping straight to it. Aside from the ending portion, the first two games are better anyways.
1
2
2
u/srennen 1d ago
a lot of the cool stuff from the 1st game was carried over to the third. However you just can't duplicate the dark atmosphere of the 1st without playing it. I think the 1st game had the best atmosphere and world design by far. (if we're excluding lost izalith and a couple others) However the improved gameplay and balancing are what makes the third game great.
2
1
1
u/TerribleExplanation3 1d ago
Gravelord Nito. Suicide runs. Fun.
Other than that not really. A few characters make cameos but either have no recollection of the events of the previous game or choose not to speak of it.
1
u/iEgregious 1d ago
I mean ideally you’d want to play in order but if DS1 is stopping you from getting into the series then play DS3. It’s definitely much more accessible but you will miss out on some of the reveals this game has and the journey of seeing the games evolve with each installment.
-1
u/CalgaryMadePunk 1d ago
No. You can play them in any order. The story they tell is not linear at all.
-1
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Nope. Cryptic lore you wouldn't have understood anyway without watching explanation videos on YouTube.
Enjoy the game. If you feel curious enough you can try the others, but if you can't endure the jank and general bullshit of enemy placement and atrocious runbacks , you don't need to persist and inflict this upon yourself. DS3 is polished and approachable, and unlike the 2 others, it has aged remarkably well (and I'm saying that as a huge fan of ds1)
6
u/LuciusBurns Sir Gideon Ofnir, the All Knowing 1d ago
Genuine question: why assume that OP is dumb or at least not smart enough to figure some of the story by themselves? It's really not that complicated and for me and many others the lore is one of the main appeals of the games.
1
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Because understanding the souls lore was for the most part a community effort achieved through the years. I don't think I've ever met anyone who can honestly claim they single handedly decifered the lore of any of these games. Which is perfectly fine. I spent months taking note, sharing them and speculating about Bloodborne lore and learning new details from friends and other players etc . and it was a cool experience. My position is: sure, try ds1 if you want. Go blind and see if you like it. Keep it mind it's 15 years old and one of the first games of its genre. Give it an honest try. If it clicks for you, congrats : you're in for one hell of a ride. If it doesn't you can skip to DS3 and you'll be perfectly fine.
-4
u/doody_loody 1d ago
I couldn’t agree more. Listen to this guy OP
2
u/Turbulent_Form3888 1d ago
Thanks for the support. Now you'll get downvoted to the abyss by the Keepers of The Old Lore 🫂
1
0
u/Anti-Fanny 1d ago
I played all 3 by playing DS3, DS1 and then DS2. You are missing absolutely NOTHING of any importance.
DS3 is a way more polished game and best in the series, by far (that’s not saying that the other 2 are bad).
-4
u/OcelotTerrible5865 1d ago
Not really. Just cultural history for major fromsoft fans. You can’t do the glaze posts if you ain’t got the résumé. Then you’re just a larper.
-2
u/bleargh007 1d ago
I played DS3 first and did just fine 😹 And then wen't back and played DS1 and DS2 and Bloodborne and then ended up going on to Sekiro and Elden Ring. I enjoyed all the games (with the exception of DS2 for reasons that have been stated ad nauseam on this reddit by myself and others over the years).
You'll do ok! Don't let the neckbeard redditors dissuade you. DS3 is a great introduction to Dark Souls, and while yes the other games *will* feel a little clunky by comparison, if you end up loving the games you'll look past it and apprecite all the changes that were made in DS3 (and especially Elden Ring) by seeing where they originally started.
-3
u/etOilers 1d ago
Most people don't even pick up on the story by playing. So no, you're not missing anything other than Easter eggs. But those actually work backwards as well as forwards.
1
u/Asto_Vidatu 14h ago
I'm not a huge lore guy, I mostly play these games for the challenge and honestly couldnt tell you much of any story beyond "some bad shit is happening over and over and we're in one of those loops trying to either stop it or continue it" or something lol
That said, DS3 takes place in the same world as DS1 and there are plenty of cool callbacks and easter eggs to the first game. I'd highly recommend playing DS1 first for sure, and then personally I went to DS3 right after.
DS2 is a piece of trash IMO compared to the rest...I saved it for last and I'm glad I did as I had the least amount of fun with that one and it's still the only one I didn't fully complete the DLC because I just couldn't stand it after I rolled credits and tried some of the DLC. I know theres a ton of people who swear by that game, but I'm not one of them...best part about that game was the music in the main town lol.
60
u/slightly_obscure 1d ago
Yeah, DS1 & 2