Originally posted by JmanghanThe combat is similar in that you can slash each other with swords. In that case, the combat is similar to Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. Both open world RPGs with swords. :/
Who cares if they are different experiences with different focuses.If the combat is similar, then they deserve to be compared.
Originally posted by NemeBro
The bigger bad of 1 (Manus) and the big bad of 2 (Nashandra) were both humans, in their purest form. Granted, in the Dark Souls universe, humans being the real monsters isn't a metaphor, it's literal. Humanity in its purest form is literally a big scary monster.http://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/file/Dark-Souls/Charge_manus.jpg
That's a human. The first human, if you believe that Manus is the Furtive Pygmy.
Anyway, I don't really think of the two series as being similar at all. Both are dark in tone and are set in medieval fantasy universes, but Witcher depicts a world where the struggle is a political one between various real and fantasy races, with the monster hunting aspect ironically serving merely as the framing device of Geralt's story. Dark Souls depicts a bleak world where the spirit of mankind is long dead, with the characters in the setting struggling against horrific, mindless forces to keep civilization from finally collapsing. It's a world constantly on the brink of destruction, at least that we see in the games.
Personally, I prefer Dark Souls. It's partly a matter of atmosphere. Witcher's game world is bustling and lively, with occupied towns and cities. Dark Souls' is very lonely and dreary, with only a few people that aren't mindless hollows in any given level. Furthermore, the combat of Dark Souls is better.
"Both are dark in tone and are set in medieval fantasy universes" That was actually the similarities I was thinking off, which might steam from me not knowing Dark Souls well enough. But agreed on the rest. In the end it'll be a personal preference.
