Well first of all let me establish flaws with 1 and 3 that 2 doesn't have
1 falls off a fucking cliff in terms of level design and content after anor London because the developers ran out of money
Also pre lordvessel the backtracking gets really tedious if you wanna just explore and end up in a place that you're not supposed to be at yet
The early game is really strong but it feels like they kinda ran out of stuff after that
For 3, they have 3 main problems
1- everything is gray and yellow and reuses bloodborne assets but it looks like shit
2- "HEY DO YOU REMEMBER THIS AREA/NPC FROM DARK SOULS ONE COOL SO DO I"
3- enemies have really fucking long attack strings and combat becomes a tedious wait and pop game
Every single enemy in the game has like at least 5-long attack strings and that's just lame design
1.5 - the middle areas of 3 are just filler flat levels and the swamp is terrible
1.8- they try real hard to be interconnected for the sake of it because 1 was and they have to ape that but it leads to bad level design
Now to the strengths of DS2
It has the most content of all 3 even without the dlcs which are amazing
It has the most variety in terms of areas both visually and encounter design
I prefer sotfs over vanilla honestly but it's mostly the same for the sake of this argument
The lore is actually an interesting twist on 1's more that treats it as myth and builds something new on it instead of 3 just reusing everything from 1 (and ignoring 2 completely)
2 has a bunch of quality of life features that were removed from 3
2 has the most build variety
Thing is, 2 didn't have Miyazaki at the helm even though he was involved in a secondary capacity, so the creators experimented with the formula in ways his Steve jobs-isms wouldn't allow for
And he ignored almost every improvement 2 made and went back to some bone headed decisions when he came back for 3
Because he's an ~~auteur~~
Souls 2 especially SOTFS introduced an interesting combat design where you have to actually do crowd control and manage groups of enemies
A common criticism of souls games is that a good player can never lose a one on one fight
Adding more enemies increases the cognitive load and makes you make more interesting tactical decisions
2 is the only game in the series that did that
I think that just because you're decent at souls games doesn't mean they shouldn't introduce new challenges to keep you on your toes
That's why 3 feels so stagnant to me
It doesn't do anything new
Whereas BB and 2 had different expectations of players
And that makes them interesting to me, because why do the same thing you did before, the entire point of these games is to put you out of your comfort zone and force you to learn to play
BB is proactive crowd control
Whereas 2 is reactive crowd control
Because you are incentivized to be aggressive in BB and the opposite in 2, and most encounters in 2 involve more enemies than most encounters in BB
And finally the stat system is more interesting to me
You have way more control over how your character plays
I also love the rustic look and feel of 2, 1 looks too clean due to being older and 3 looks like a bad bloodborne ripoff
3 had the shortest development cycle in the series and imo it shows
2 also came at the very end of a generation when most games had surpassed it technically so I get that, but I like what it did with what it had
It wasn't just generic fantasy
To me 2 feels more like a dying world than 3 does
Because it uses color more effectively
So overall 3 feels like a game they made because it would make money, whereas 2 feels like a new team exploring different things and I prefer that even when it doesn't always end up ridiculously polished
Also 3 runs like shit
Has the worst frame rate drops and frame pacing of the entire series minus blighttown
Also has terrible pop in
I appreciate creativity and ambition more than whatever 3 is
As for 2 vs 1 it comes down to preference as they're flawed in different ways and it depends on what you prefer
I love the series and I've spent more time in 2 than any one of the games because it has so much more replayability
3 feels like it apes the success of previous games too much without having anything to say of its own and whatever additions to the formula it has feel tacked on and not well designed
It does do some cool things but not enough to make up for how much of a slog it is
3 is by far the least replayable to me
1 has some miyazaki-isms that are flat out boneheaded
The humanity system is pretty bad imo and the game has little customization and opportunity to choose or re-align the way you play
No respec, +10 upgrade item is one per playthrough, humanity is way too scarce unless you grind rats in the sewers
Magic is terrible
Also 2 is the best for pvp
The pvp covenants are the most interesting and it's the most balanced one that also is the most convenient to do pvp in
The rat covenant is hilarious
So more on encounter design:
Almost every enemy in 3 rushes you and does a 5-long attack string or shoots some annoying magic projectile at you from afar
2 has a big variety of types, like the slow turtle knights, fast but weak enemies, medium tier enemies with long reach, enemies that rush you and explode etc
There's a lot more variety to how enemies engage you and with the whole crowd mechanic of throwing multiple enemy types at you simultaneously every situation is interesting
It's baffling how 3 has nothing equivalent to the turtle knight
Every enemy has a specific role in 2 and managing different enemy types and taking them down in order of threat and combined threat is the meta mechanic you learn
Most enemies in 3 have many attacks with different roles and they string them together in really long combos so that uniqueness is lost and encounters end up repetitive
I'm salty about how 3 ignores 2 almost entirely except for some very minor inconsequential things
oh also
what's your favorite DS3 boss?
the fast guy with the sword?
or the quick guy with the blade?
or the swift guy with the saber?
i prefer the agile guy with the scimitar, really
and one of the encounters was 2 guys with swords
and another one was a group of guys with swords
with ~~auteur~~miyazaki not being at the helm people used it as an excuse to trash the game, calling it "b-team"
plus the fact that the game forces you to learn new mechanics, and how stubborn and picky the souls community is, people were very salty
I can remember fights from 2 easier than 3, especially because they're not all "sword guy"
It has some lame bosses but the DLC has amazing bosses
But it also feels like the game where they actually gave a shit about a lot of non boss encounters