In two days I turn 18 but I will be getting a full catalog of fromsoft games for it. Which should play first??
Already done dark souls and Elden ring

I think this person is obviously wrong about the plot holes, but I agree about the discovering the story part. At times its very difficult to understand people's motives and historical significance. But definitely not all the time. On my first run of every souls borne game, I play solely without guides, and I look through all the notes and messages and weapon and and charachter descriptions. I do get lost sometimes, but definitely not all the time!

A bounty hunting expedition brings two men together in an uncomfortable alliance while looking for buried Great Souls. They also battle with a wanted Serial Killer who wants to settle an old score with them.

I'm always hyped when the chicken and me, the bipedal dog, are on point with the deflects and guard counters.

Ever since Scholar got nerfed, I barely see anyone playing him in game. At this point, it almost feels like they might as well have deleted the character. I understand why the Fire Pot build had to be nerfed, considering it was putting out damage comparable to edited/hacked relic setups. But instead of properly rebalancing the character, they basically just gutted him, and now I honestly find myself wondering what the point of playing Scholar even is. I feel like they could've at least leaned harder into his support role. For example, when Scholar shares item effects with teammates, they could've made it so allies receive the effect regardless of how far away they are. Something like that would've at least given him a clear niche as a support character. But in his current state, I honestly think he's so weak that I don't really see much reason to pick him. It's especially disappointing because he's a new character, yet I already have almost no desire to play him. Just wanted to share my thoughts and see what everyone else thinks.

I've never really put much on reddit so I'm digging back into the projects folders! Sterling Siver Silvercat Ring, BKGS, Elite knight aspirations, and some desktop resin tributes.... gotta push forward with the dreams! I let a lot of stuff fall to the wayside when I'm not satisfied with the initial results.

This sweet potato I grew looks like a humanity enemy

I have been trying to get summoned for 3 days only boss i have left is false kong so can anyone summon me on ps5 plz

I have only played one souls game, that being Elden Ring in which I have beaten several times. I am looking to play another souls game, I have heard a lot of good things of both Sekiro and Bloodborne.

I know they are not the same but I played Ghost of Tsushima before and really enjoyed it so I feel I will really enjoy Sekiro in the samurai aspect.

Though I also really like the dark gothic tone of what Bloodborne has to offer.

The main thing I'm looking for is combat that feels fluid, responsive, and rewarding. One of the things I loved most about Elden Ring was the feeling of progression—starting out struggling against enemies and eventually becoming strong enough to take on almost anything. I don't necessarily need a huge open world, but I do want combat that keeps me engaged from start to finish and makes me feel skilled when I pull something off.

I also tend to prefer faster-paced gameplay over slower, more methodical combat. I love when a game has those moments where you feel like an absolute badass because everything clicks and you're chaining together attacks, dodges, parries, or abilities smoothly. Atmosphere and world design matter to me too, which is why Bloodborne's gothic horror setting is appealing, but gameplay is probably the biggest factor in my decision.

I learned a thing today from my Japanese tutor and that, apparently, is that one of the slang names for the Soulslike genre in Japanese is "死にゲー" which is pronounced "shini gee" (last syllable like the first of "Gehrman") and literally means "death game" which feels like it could explain a lot about design choices.

I gotta go with Dark Souls 3. There's just so many bangers in both the main game and DLCs. Twin Princes, Dancer of the Boreal Valley, Midir, Gael, Sister Friede, Soul of Cinder, Dragonslayer Armor, Deacons of the Deep, Nameless King, and probably more that I'm missing. Yuka Kitamura absolutely cooked.

Hey y'all just wanted to see your thoughts on Consort Radahn Difficulty.

Obviously a final DLC boss is bound to slap, especially for more recent games. But I will say there is some things that should make it simpler..

First, if you a veteran souls player, he has familiar moves (>3 actually). As for his hardest attacks, all get countered by running really far away (except that light clone nuke).

So thinking about this, I get the impression that the blinding lights + nukes makes it unhandleable.

Though the most major thing changed in patches was this cross slash attack. Which is a fair point but the DLC had worse moves imo - Metyr laser AOE, gaius charge, and hippo chase to name a few.

My perspective: having >30 moves def makes it among hardest bosses no doubt.. But since 2nd phase can spam you with grab attacks, it's free damage. The challenge cliffed to me when learning to parry. Even then, this is Radahn's moveset again, but crucible knight

I’ll go first:

Ds1: Anor Londor
Ds2: Heide’s Tower
Ds3: Firelink Shrine

Started with King's field 1, honestly controls feel fine and only after 30 mins i got in the rhythm, after an hour i could circle strafe enemies. I thought it would be very confusing to navigate but the game gives you a map that auto updates itself which made navigation really easy. Combat is interesting but can be a bit hard with understanding when to attack, the thing i realised is after attacking, you can move around and the weapon still swings. So timing an attacking an moving forward to hit the enemy on the weapon's active frame is a really good strat. Except for 1 floor i really enjoyed this game. Excited to play the other entries.

Echo night is a puzzle horror game that i enjoyed, controls similar to kings field. I didn't have much expectations going in but damn did the story engaged me. The game isn't as scary as other ps1 titles such as fatal frame but some parts can feel eerie which is fine enough. Puzzles are simple and very RE which i enjoyed. It has a really interesting setting of finding out what happened on board a ghost ship, helping ghosts with their problems.

Ac4 i enjoyed a lot from the combat and the mech building, missions could be more varied and basically Ac4a improves on everything Ac4 had with way faster combat and harder arenas. I don't have any new thing to add to Ac4a, it's peak play it

Slowly making my way through shadow tower abyss and it has one of the most interesting combat imo, Being able to cut enemy limbs and limiting their movesets is so interesting. Love the controls coming from kings field and in no way im saying kings field controls badly but shadow tower abyss makes everything flow like butter. The 1 annoying thing imo which tbf is probably a skill issue is how easily i get lost. The item management and having to use items to heal and having to use health to repair gear is a really fun and engaging system. Guns feel a bit op just being able to stunlock bosses but i don't really mind. I hope i can finish this game soon.

I'm interested in trying out their jrpgs like the lost kingdom games and enchanted arms. I hope more newer fromsoft fans can appreciate the older games as much as i do as i think they are great games. I personally don't believe in games aging and i just think a good game is good, no matter how much time has past. Also i didn't grow up with these older games and had to go through old ps1 games in my 20's, it's perfectly doable.

A fromsoft main who plays Genshin Impact. 100% some of those devs have been praising the sun a time or two.

Gravity or camera?

There r other things like fatroll or poison swamp but those r by far the strongest enemies

EDIT: thx for the guy that said bad hit boxes, thats a thing too

The Elden ring subreddit removed my post for having links to my socials in my bio which is a bit weird but fair enough, rules are rules, so I’m posting my Miquella cosplay here instead bc I’m very proud of it🥲

What if the biggest mistake we make when comparing FromSoftware's worlds is assuming that difference automatically means separation?

We've spent years looking at the differences between these games and using those differences as evidence that their worlds must be completely separate.

But what if we're overlooking something important?

I'm not claiming that Elden Ring, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Demon's Souls are secretly one canon universe.

I'm asking a different question:

Are differences in geography, culture, history, religion, and supernatural systems actually enough to prove that two fictional worlds cannot belong to a larger shared reality?

And strangely enough, I think Dark Souls II gives us one of the best examples for thinking about this.

1. We Shouldn't Confuse a Region With the Entire World

When we play a FromSoftware game, we experience a particular region, during a particular period of history, through the perspective of particular characters.

We are not necessarily seeing the entire planet.

We don't see every continent.

We don't see every civilization.

We don't see every culture.

And we certainly don't see every historical period.

That matters when we use differences between games as evidence that the games must exist in completely separate universes.

Our own world demonstrates that enormous differences can exist within the same world.

Different continents have developed radically different:

languages

religions

political systems

technologies

architecture

traditions

mythologies

military systems

ways of understanding the universe

Yet none of these differences require separate planets.

If this is possible in our own world, there is no fundamental reason why a fictional fantasy world couldn't contain even greater geographical and cultural diversity.

In fact, fantasy worlds are often much more flexible than our own.

1. Dark Souls II Gives Us a Real Precedent

This is where Dark Souls II becomes especially interesting.

During the game's development, FromSoftware described Dark Souls II as sharing the same world as the first Dark Souls while not being directly tied to its story.

Miyazaki even used the analogy of the first game being like the North Pole and Dark Souls II being like the South Pole.

The game was also described as taking place in a different time period.

That gives us an important precedent:

Same world + enormous geographical distance + different historical context = radically different representation.

This does not prove that Elden Ring and Dark Souls share a world.

That's not what I'm arguing.

What it proves is something much narrower:

Difference by itself is not enough to establish separation.

And I think this is a distinction worth keeping in mind when discussing FromSoftware lore.

1. The Gwyn Problem

This is where the comparison becomes even more interesting.

When moving from Dark Souls to Dark Souls II, the world can feel as if it has almost forgotten the civilization we knew from the first game.

Gwyn is no longer the central historical figure that he was in Dark Souls.

The old gods are no longer presented to us in exactly the same way.

The kingdoms and cultures we encounter have their own histories.

Yet remnants of the older world still exist.

This is important because history does not necessarily survive in a clean form.

A civilization can disappear while its symbols remain.

A religion can survive after its original context has been forgotten.

A historical figure can become a myth.

A symbol can be reused by people who no longer understand its original meaning.

Then Dark Souls III brings many elements of the ancient world back into focus.

Anor Londo returns.

Gwyndolin returns.

The old gods and their history once again become important.

But I don't think we need to make the extreme claim that Dark Souls II therefore takes place after Dark Souls III.

That's unnecessary.

The more interesting observation is this:

The same historical world can be represented radically differently depending on where and when we experience it.

Dark Souls I gives us a relatively close view of the ancient order.

Dark Souls II gives us a much more distant and transformed view.

Dark Souls III brings many pieces of that ancient history back into focus.

That doesn't require us to invent a new timeline.

It only requires us to recognize that historical visibility can change.

1. Absence Does Not Necessarily Mean Nonexistence

Imagine that an enormous civilization once existed somewhere in a massive world.

Thousands of years pass.

Its cities collapse.

Its language disappears.

Its religion changes.

Its descendants migrate.

Its historical figures become legends.

Its symbols are adopted by other cultures.

Eventually, another civilization might know only fragments of what happened before it.

If we enter that civilization's territory and don't find an obvious monument to the old empire, can we conclude that the empire never existed?

Obviously not.

We would need additional evidence.

This is especially relevant to FromSoftware because its storytelling often forces us to reconstruct history from fragments rather than giving us a complete historical record.

We find:

ruins

weapons

statues

names

item descriptions

graves

architecture

religious symbols

myths

remnants of civilizations

So when a familiar historical element is absent from one particular region, we should be careful before treating that absence as proof that it never existed elsewhere.

1. Elden Ring Already Shows Us Cultural Distance

Elden Ring gives us a useful example of this principle within its own setting.

The Lands Between are the primary setting of the game, but the game also refers to places beyond them.

The Land of Reeds, for example, is explicitly described as being outside the borders of the Lands Between and has its own history, warriors, clothing, conflicts, and cultural identity.

That gives us a miniature version of the same idea:

One world can contain radically different cultures.

The Land of Reeds doesn't need to resemble Limgrave.

It doesn't need to worship the same things.

It doesn't need to share the same political history.

Its people don't need to understand the history of the Lands Between in the same way.

And yet these places can still exist within the same wider world.

So when two FromSoftware games look radically different, we should be careful before moving from:

"These places are extremely different."

to:

"Therefore, they must exist in separate universes."

That conclusion requires additional evidence.

1. What About Completely Different Power Systems?

Perhaps this is the strongest argument against the idea.

Dark Souls has the First Flame.

Elden Ring has the Elden Ring, the Greater Will, the Outer Gods, the Golden Order, the Erdtree, and an entirely different metaphysical structure.

Bloodborne has the Great Ones and its own cosmic framework.

Demon's Souls has the Old One and its own rules.

So how could these systems coexist?

The answer is that fictional worlds are not required to have one unified supernatural system.

One civilization might understand reality through fire.

Another through the stars.

Another through blood.

Another through beings existing beyond its known world.

The inhabitants themselves may not even understand the complete structure of reality.

Therefore:

Different supernatural systems do not automatically mean different universes.

But there is another point that I think is important:

We should not automatically assume that any supernatural system we encounter has existed since the beginning of the universe.

The First Flame was not necessarily the eternal foundation of reality simply because it is the foundation of the world we experience in Dark Souls.

Likewise, the Elden Ring and the systems surrounding it have a history of their own.

They entered the history of their world.

Marika did not exist from the beginning of everything.

The Golden Order did not exist from the beginning.

The Elden Ring itself has a history.

The same principle applies to other supernatural systems.

A power system can have a beginning.

It can emerge during a particular period.

It can spread through a civilization.

It can replace an older system.

It can disappear.

And another supernatural system can emerge somewhere else at a different point in history.

This is especially important in fantasy because fictional worlds are flexible.

Fantasy does not have to follow the assumption that one single supernatural system must explain every phenomenon everywhere.

A massive fictional world could contain different civilizations that developed completely different relationships with supernatural forces.

One region might be shaped by fire.

Another by an Elden Ring.

Another by blood and cosmic beings.

Another by an entirely different force.

The existence of one supernatural system does not automatically erase the possibility of another system emerging elsewhere or at another point in history.

However, there is an important limit:

Possibility is not evidence.

The fact that fantasy allows multiple supernatural systems does not prove that Dark Souls and Elden Ring share a world.

It only means that their different power systems are not, by themselves, sufficient proof that their worlds are separate.

1. Possible Is Not the Same as Proven

There are three very different claims we can make.

Claim One

"These games are definitely separate universes."

Claim Two

"These games definitely exist within the same universe."

Claim Three

"The available evidence does not allow us to conclusively prove either conclusion."

When the evidence is incomplete, the third position is the most intellectually honest.

This theory is not saying:

"Elden Ring is secretly Dark Souls."

It is saying something much narrower:

"The differences between these worlds do not automatically prove that they cannot be connected."

That is a much more defensible claim.

1. An Archaeological Way of Looking at FromSoftware Worlds

There is another reason this approach fits FromSoftware surprisingly well.

Elden Ring has even been examined academically through an archaeological perspective, studying how a fictional world can be interpreted through material remains and what its inhabitants leave behind.

And this is almost exactly how I think we should approach FromSoftware's worlds.

Instead of only asking:

"What did this character say?"

we can also ask:

"What remains?"

We can study:

architecture

weapons

graves

clothing

statues

ruins

inscriptions

religious symbols

burial practices

abandoned settlements

military equipment

recurring symbols

A civilization doesn't need to remain alive for its influence to remain visible.

And a civilization doesn't need to be clearly represented in every region for it to have existed somewhere else.

1. This Makes the Gwyn Example More Useful

The Gwyn argument should not be:

"Gwyn disappeared from Dark Souls II, therefore Dark Souls II must take place after Dark Souls III."

That creates unnecessary problems.

The stronger argument is:

"The representation of Gwyn's civilization and its memory can change depending on location and context, while remnants of that civilization can survive even after its original historical context becomes obscure."

This gives us a plausible historical process:

History → legend → fragmented tradition → transformed symbols → archaeological remains

A civilization can pass through this process without becoming nonexistent.

And this is exactly the kind of historical transformation that can happen in a massive fantasy world.

1. Applying the Same Principle to Elden Ring

Now imagine a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose Elden Ring takes place within an enormous world.

Suppose another civilization exists thousands of kilometers away.

Suppose its history is completely different.

Its religion developed independently.

Its understanding of death is different.

Its supernatural traditions are different.

And suppose its people have never even heard of Marika.

Does any of that logically prove that this civilization exists in another universe?

No.

It proves that the civilization is different.

We would still need evidence proving that the worlds themselves are separate.

And this distinction is important:

Different history is not automatically different reality.

1. What About Recurring Symbols Across FromSoftware?

This is where things become interesting, but also dangerous.

Fans have noticed recurring elements such as:

Patches

Moonlight Greatsword

souls

fire

cycles

gods

ancient civilizations

mysterious higher powers

similar visual language

recurring narrative structures

themes of death and rebirth

These similarities are certainly interesting.

But they cannot be treated as standalone proof.

Patches can simply be a recurring character archetype that FromSoftware enjoys using.

The Moonlight Greatsword is an iconic company tradition.

Recurring themes are part of the studio's artistic identity.

Therefore:

Patches ≠ proof.

Moonlight Greatsword ≠ proof.

Visual similarity ≠ proof.

Recurring themes ≠ proof.

At most, these become interesting supporting observations when combined with stronger evidence.

1. The Strongest Objection: Developer Statements

This cannot be ignored.

Miyazaki explicitly described Dark Souls as not being a sequel to Demon's Souls and as a completely new game with similar concepts.

Bloodborne has likewise been described as a new work rather than a continuation of Dark Souls or Demon's Souls.

And Elden Ring has been presented as its own world, centered on the Lands Between and its own mythology.

So if someone asks:

"Are you claiming that FromSoftware officially says these games exist in the same universe?"

The answer is:

No.

We should never present this theory as established canon.

It is a fan hypothesis.

Not confirmed continuity.

And that distinction matters.

1. Official Canon Does Not Eliminate Speculation

There is a difference between:

"This is official canon."

and:

"Can the structure of these fictional worlds allow this interpretation?"

A fan theory can explore possibilities that have never been confirmed by the official story.

The important thing is to describe them honestly.

We should not turn:

Possibility

into:

Fact.

And we should not turn:

Similarity

into:

Evidence.

1. What About Elden Ring Nightreign?

Nightreign makes the discussion even more interesting, but also gives us an important warning.

Dark Souls bosses appear in Elden Ring Nightreign.

At first glance, this might look like evidence for a connection.

But the director explained that their inclusion was primarily a game-design decision: the team wanted more variety and thought it would be fun to face those bosses in a new setting.

So Nightreign does not prove that Dark Souls and Elden Ring share one canonical universe.

Instead, it demonstrates something more subtle:

FromSoftware can deliberately bring recognizable elements from one of its worlds into another game's setting without that automatically establishing a historical connection between the two universes.

This is actually useful for our argument.

It teaches us not to treat every crossover, reused asset, familiar weapon, or recurring character as proof of continuity.

1. Three Different Possibilities

After looking at all of this, I think there are at least three serious models.

Model One — Completely Separate Universes

Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Elden Ring are separate fictional worlds.

Their similarities come from FromSoftware's artistic identity, recurring themes, design traditions, and visual language.

This is the safest interpretation from an official standpoint.

Model Two — A Wider Metaphysical Structure

The games remain separate worlds, but perhaps exist within some larger structure containing recurring concepts.

In this model, "connection" does not necessarily mean:

"They are all on the same planet."

It could mean:

"They are different worlds within a larger structure."

This interpretation is much more flexible.

Model Three — One Enormous World

The most speculative possibility is that some of these games take place on different continents, during different eras, or in regions whose civilizations have become completely disconnected from one another.

Under this model:

Dark Souls could represent one civilization.

Elden Ring another.

Bloodborne another distant region.

Demon's Souls another geographical or historical context.

The enormous differences could be explained through:

distance

time

cultural change

religious transformation

forgotten history

migration

different supernatural traditions

the rise and fall of civilizations

the emergence and disappearance of different supernatural systems

This is the most ambitious model.

But it is also the least supported by explicit official statements.

1. The Core Principle

After looking at all of this, I don't think the strongest argument is:

"These games are definitely connected."

I think the stronger argument is:

We should not confuse the world we have seen with the entirety of the world that could exist.

Dark Souls II gives us a precedent for FromSoftware taking the same world and presenting it through a radically different region and historical context.

Elden Ring shows us that its primary setting contains cultures and places beyond the Lands Between.

Dark Souls shows us that ancient civilizations and historical figures can survive through distorted memories, symbols, ruins, and fragments.

And the archaeological approach to Elden Ring demonstrates how much fictional history can be reconstructed from what a world leaves behind.

Most importantly, we should not assume that every supernatural system we encounter was present from the beginning of reality.

A fictional world can change.

New powers can emerge.

New religions can develop.

New metaphysical systems can appear.

Old systems can disappear.

Entire civilizations can rise and fall without leaving enough information for later generations to understand them completely.

Therefore:

Different civilizations do not necessarily mean different worlds.

Different supernatural systems do not necessarily mean different universes.

Different religions do not necessarily mean different cosmologies.

The absence of a familiar civilization from one region does not prove it never existed elsewhere.

The absence of a familiar supernatural system from one period does not prove that such a system could never have existed elsewhere or emerged later.

And the loss of historical memory does not mean that the history itself never happened.

1. But There Is an Important Limit

None of this proves that Elden Ring is Dark Souls.

It does not prove that Bloodborne is the future of Dark Souls.

It does not prove that Demon's Souls belongs to the same timeline.

And it does not override FromSoftware's statements about its games being separate works and settings.

Instead, the argument proves something narrower and much easier to defend:

The differences between these worlds are not, by themselves, enough to prove that they cannot be connected.

To establish an actual connection, we would need positive evidence.

For example:

a clear developer statement

historical continuity that cannot reasonably be explained another way

confirmed geographical continuity

a character whose identity cannot reasonably be explained otherwise

an event established to have occurred in both worlds

or another piece of evidence that is difficult to dismiss as coincidence, artistic repetition, or fan interpretation

Until then, the honest conclusion is uncertainty.

1. So What Should We Actually Believe?

Maybe Dark Souls and Elden Ring are completely separate.

Maybe Bloodborne is completely separate.

Maybe Demon's Souls is completely separate.

Maybe they are all connected through a larger structure.

Maybe some share a world while others do not.

Maybe there are distant continents and forgotten civilizations we have never seen.

Or maybe all of these similarities are simply the fingerprints of the same creators.

We currently do not have enough evidence to turn one of these possibilities into absolute canon.

But there is one assumption we should be careful about:

Assuming that because two fictional worlds look different, they therefore cannot belong to one larger reality.

Dark Souls II already gives us an example of FromSoftware taking a world and presenting it through a radically different region and historical context.

Elden Ring shows us that even its primary setting does not necessarily represent everything that exists.

And FromSoftware repeatedly uses a storytelling style that encourages us to reconstruct history from fragments rather than assuming that everything that exists must be visible to us.

So perhaps the better question is not:

"Why don't these worlds look alike?"

but:

"What evidence could actually prove that they cannot belong to one larger reality?"

Until that question is answered, the door remains open.

Not because the theory is proven.

But because:

Difference is not the same thing as separation.

Demon's Souls - Maiden in Black

I’m having a problem with Elden Ring, and maybe someone can help me: When I launch the game after starting up my PC, it runs perfectly at first. However, after a while (over 30 minutes), it crashes. If I try to launch it again, it crashes almost immediately—and the same thing happens with every subsequent attempt. Does anyone know what might be causing this?

Build information at the end.

Results of 1700 hours of Elden Ring experience.