I was going to say this but you beat me to it. I finished Dark Souls 2 and the next day picked up and started playing Bloodborne and it felt incredibly jarring. It's just similar enough to make you think you are playing the same game but different enough that if you try to play it the same way you will lose.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gaf, why is Dark Souls 2 so bad?
- Thread starter TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
- Start date
I was going to say this but you beat me to it. I finished Dark Souls 2 and the next day picked up and started playing Bloodborne and it felt incredibly jarring. It's just similar enough to make you think you are playing the same game but different enough that if you try to play it the same way you will lose.
I wouldn't say it's way better but I preferred it to DeS. The combat is just more interesting imo and you have more options.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
You mean raised the bar. Souls games are going to be better because of BB starting with DS3.
It's hard to take your post seriously considering pretty much all PS4 exclusives other than Bloodborne got bad/mediocre reviews.
it's not as good as DS1, but it's great..
StrawberryJam
Member
Surely The Order would be as widely praised then?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Dark Souls 3 will be the best game in the series, don't worry. Miyazaki will bring peace to the Souls fanbase once and for all.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
You can tell by the design that they were targeting a wider audience and the game suffers immensely from that.
Health mechanics alone make the game piss easy and combat focuses more on hitting your enemy as fast and as much as possible.
Contrast that with DS in which combat is methodical and mistakes (even in fights you win) can have dire consequences.
Blood vials and recovering health by mashing attack were poor choices. It has a nice aesthetic though.
It's mostly the first half of the game that's gross. Really picks up after you visit a certain castle.
But when it's ugly it's really fucking ugly.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I predict Dark Souls 3 will have more or less the same flaws as the past games in the series, but those flaws will be given a pass because Miyazaki.
That's not even remotely true, the opposite is the case imo. I think if Bloodborne wasnt an exclusive it'd get even more praise than it's already getting.
Saying that Souls games are on the decline since Dark Souls is silly. That's like saying that Kobe Bryant's NBA career was on the decline after scoring 81 points in 2006... DS1 is IMO one of the top 5 games ever made. No, DS2 wasn't as good. But it was still pretty solid, and better than most games released that year. And I actually think Bloodborne made the Souls series a bit fresh again with the unique setting and enemies, though the gameplay has flaws.
Dark Souls 2 is better than oxygen.
Yep, they're all awesome and I just love that we have this amazing franchise to play.
Sorry, no Demons cause I never had a PS3. Bring on the remaster!
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
I disagree. I think people would more vocal about its flaws, in the same way people are with DS2.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
something something "atmosphere" something something "the world is more connected tho" something something "the Miyazaki touch".
It'll probably have all the strengths and weaknesses every Souls game has had, and the DLC will be the best part once again.
Schweinehund
Member
My second favorite souls game after Dark Souls. My only complaint is too many stats with adaptability being too important to not get, and how much they nerfed faith builds, and magic in general with the DLC bosses.
What? BB is Souls-lite. There is nothing BB is that Souls isn't... which is kind of why it's so great. It's like Souls arcade mode. But if you think the limited environments, lack of weapon variety and build options, easier bosses, blood vials, the awful dash that only moves in four directions which becomes a liability depending on the environment, and hiding 1/3 the content inside copy/paste dungeons doesn't weigh down the improvements BB made to the formula then I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to why these games work.
BB is great but it isn't a perfect game and giving credit to anything DS3 does right specifically to BB is kind of ridiculous because they are all in the same meta series.
I... bought a PS4 just to play Bloodborne. Was that pre-post-purchase-rationalization? At what point does my praise for Bloodborne become invalid? Because I looked forward to it and finally bought the PS4, enjoyed the game when it came out, bought the dlc, enjoyed it too, and considered it all money well spent.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
Are you arguing that DS2 doesn't have poor level coherence?
That shit is like and M.C. Esher painting bruh.
Good. Magic was broken as shit in Demon and Dark Souls (and early on in 2). And the DLC bosses have always had much better resistances than the main game bosses.
Oh God, thread reaching new levels of absurd.
cpp_is_king
Member
I wonder if you're referring to the silver knights in Heide's Tower of Flame. Those guys weren't even there originally until they did the Scholar of the First Sin, and honestly those guys are legit bullshit and they put them in the dumbest possible location. Aside from that, game is a masterpiece.
That would be a sweet idea for an area in a Souls game. They did do a bit of perspective fuckery in the Research Hall in Old Hunters.
Dragon Puncher
Member
Another day another Dark Souls 2 thread..
On topic: it was pretty bad in a lot of areas on release, but it's also by far the Soul's game that has improve the most post release.
On topic: it was pretty bad in a lot of areas on release, but it's also by far the Soul's game that has improve the most post release.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
I agree actually. A single area like that would be really cool. The Duke's Archives toys with the idea in DS1 but it would be neat to expand on it.
Let's not lay out the entire game world that way though.
Lumpy Onion
Member
Although I like the visuals of most of the levels I think one area that disappointed me was the low quality of the destructible objects in the world. Compared to Demon's And Dark Souls' bookshelves and various cool things to smash I found DS 2 to be kinda underwhelming. A few tables, some statues, small shelves, etc. Bloodbourne sure satisfied my smashing addiction though and was pretty amazing in that regard.
Not saying this brought the game down for me much though. It's just they didn't put as much effort into it compared to the other games. Even the level of aesthetic details seemed to be sparser overall.
Not saying this brought the game down for me much though. It's just they didn't put as much effort into it compared to the other games. Even the level of aesthetic details seemed to be sparser overall.
Yeah, this actually explains quite a lot.
The combat is way better than bloodborne.
I like the health regain system and it felt good. your on minority that thinks it's a bad choice and I don't understand what does bloodbvials and health regain have anything to do with Dark souls 3?
I don't see how mechanics that are exclusives to Bloodborne can harm Dark souls.
I agree that Bloodborn's base game was easy and I hope DS3 will be harder.
have you played the Old Hunters? most think it's the hardest DLC in the series.
IrishNinja
Member
honestly, i just got 2 as an xmas present and it's still on my shelf, but simply hearing people put it on the level of Demons gets me excited
AlphaDragoon
Member
Considering DS2 isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, I have no idea what the OP is on about.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
We don't know if they're exclusive yet. We haven't had a Souls game since Bloodborne.
They already had the life gems in DS2. These carried over to Bloodborne.
Now DS3 footage looks fast (like Bloodborne) so it may have inherited some BB mechanics.
I'm still optimistic though.
I love Dark Souls 2. As time has passed I've come to apreciated its 'disjointed' world and levels a lot more: there are a LOT of memorable parts in that game, even if they don't fit into a memorable whole. Yeah, obviously not as good as Dark Souls, but right now I'd place it above DeS and Bloodborne.. and I love those 2 as well.
I think trying to paint Dark Souls 2 as a 'bad' or 'mediocre' game is just crazy talk.
I think trying to paint Dark Souls 2 as a 'bad' or 'mediocre' game is just crazy talk.
So much wrong and your Amelia point just gave away that you are bad at the game. You can stop the healing completely.
he was trying to be stupid.
DieNgamers
Member
This is true! I...don't play anything else.
Soodanim
Member
I'm pushing through to experience it once for myself, then I'll watch lore explanation videos to fill in the gaps. I'm not concerned with experiencing the rest of the little bits of the game like I did with 1, just the basic story and maybe the DLC to get what I paid for. It's definitely not something I find an absolute joy to play though.
They changed basic movement things and fucked it up. They tried to stop easy back stabs and fucked it up. They tried to make weapon durability worth noticing and fucked it up. The menu improvements were nice though. Not having to use souls one by one is great.
They changed basic movement things and fucked it up. They tried to stop easy back stabs and fucked it up. They tried to make weapon durability worth noticing and fucked it up. The menu improvements were nice though. Not having to use souls one by one is great.
I can agree with a lot of the criticism towards DSII, but OP starts terribly with the thread title, which will not attract any good discussion.
Coming from BB, of course, it will be harder to adapt to DS combat and play style. The game is way less forgiving than BB (no regain mechanics whatsoever, less chances of heal as enemies will not refill your Estus flask), and also noticeably slower. You really need to be smart about mobs, but the game offers a lot more options to deal with those than BB does. You have ranged attack and you have magic/miracle/hexes. Equip a bow and start to use from time to time and you will have a better way of dealing with the them (although I'm not dismissing this argument completely, as the game could have been smarter about enemy placement and mobs, but there are alternatives, which everyone seems to ignore).
Also, BB has a more consistent and has a better connected world, DSII world never felt as one single world, but instead it felt like a loads of interconnected levels, possibly because of the fast travel (talking about fast travel, at least it is done right in DSII, instead of that loading screen mess that is BB), and it is also an older game, and even the port doesn't look that great, although 60fps are welcomed.
There is a lot to get used to, so I'm not surprised OP isn't really enjoying their time, but DSII is far from being a bad game, and it also has the best multiplayer of the whole series, hands down. There are endless build possibilities and those actually change the way the game feels and plays and how you will need to approach enemies differently with each build (one area BB is severely lacking). Both games have their ups and down in relation to certain areas and certain bosses, and this has been a constant throughout the series, so that will be down to player preference.
But most importantly, both are great games.
Coming from BB, of course, it will be harder to adapt to DS combat and play style. The game is way less forgiving than BB (no regain mechanics whatsoever, less chances of heal as enemies will not refill your Estus flask), and also noticeably slower. You really need to be smart about mobs, but the game offers a lot more options to deal with those than BB does. You have ranged attack and you have magic/miracle/hexes. Equip a bow and start to use from time to time and you will have a better way of dealing with the them (although I'm not dismissing this argument completely, as the game could have been smarter about enemy placement and mobs, but there are alternatives, which everyone seems to ignore).
Also, BB has a more consistent and has a better connected world, DSII world never felt as one single world, but instead it felt like a loads of interconnected levels, possibly because of the fast travel (talking about fast travel, at least it is done right in DSII, instead of that loading screen mess that is BB), and it is also an older game, and even the port doesn't look that great, although 60fps are welcomed.
There is a lot to get used to, so I'm not surprised OP isn't really enjoying their time, but DSII is far from being a bad game, and it also has the best multiplayer of the whole series, hands down. There are endless build possibilities and those actually change the way the game feels and plays and how you will need to approach enemies differently with each build (one area BB is severely lacking). Both games have their ups and down in relation to certain areas and certain bosses, and this has been a constant throughout the series, so that will be down to player preference.
But most importantly, both are great games.
EatinOlives
Member
In SofFS it happens in the infamous large room in Iron Keep. Enemies are designed to aggro and chase you at set points en masse when you step into a predetermined position.
The game has been out for so long and the instances where the enemy behavior and placement being unfair and not the player's fault is so well known that I don't know how anyone could take the "git gud" attitude this far after the game's release.
Plenty of areas where the game has fair encounters, but there's a few key ones where they hard-coded gankfests in, both in vanilla and SOFTS.
I loved and played every Souls game except DS2.
I first beat Demon Souls years ago, then Dark Souls, then when DS2 came out somehow i didnt play it (i was playing something else probably) and i finished Bloodborne within the first week after it came out.
Last week i bought DS2 on Steam because it was on sale. Played it for about 60 minutes and then I uninstalled it and asked for a refund.
I dont know what that game had but it felt off and i hated it.
I first beat Demon Souls years ago, then Dark Souls, then when DS2 came out somehow i didnt play it (i was playing something else probably) and i finished Bloodborne within the first week after it came out.
Last week i bought DS2 on Steam because it was on sale. Played it for about 60 minutes and then I uninstalled it and asked for a refund.
I dont know what that game had but it felt off and i hated it.
JimmyRustler
Member
It's not a bad game, it's just miles away from Bloodborne and Dark Souls 1. The level design is mostly shit narrow corridors "go from A to B", the world is way less connected than in any other Souls game, the enemy placement is super generic and there are a ton of straight up unfair passages and bosses. And especially the last point irked me lot. Souls games were always hard but once you got it you realized they were never unfair. Dark Souls 2 completely fucked up in that regard. The Ancient Dragon for example was the biggest bullshit ever. There was nothing challenging about that. It was straight up unfair and you could only do it by trial and error. Fuck that shit. That ain't why I love Souls games.
Iva Demilcol
Member
Pretty much this.
This too. I mean, usually when talking about DS 2's flaws there's a high chance that someone may post the link to a 35+ minutes video about all that's wrong with it. When I watched for the first time I remember the guy more or less said: "DS story and lore is so great but in DS2 they tell you to go visit the king because reasons, and suddenly you have to fight the queen because reasons", which clearly shows that he didn't even try to comprehend the story, everything happened just because, therefore the game did everything wrong...
It's pretty difficult to get somewhere when you have to discuss with people with that mindset.
More Fun To Compute
Member
I think from looked at the hardcore souls community and saw how they were playing. 100% pvp focus or challenging boss rushes. They seemed to make the game for them.
For me the first priority in any RPG is the world. I want to see some sort of coherent and interesting world. Especially in a sequel you can't just seem to throw most things about the world out of the window and replace them with something less well realised. DS2 only had relatively rare flashes of creating good new characters or linking to the previous world.
it's not bad but it's less than it could be.
For me the first priority in any RPG is the world. I want to see some sort of coherent and interesting world. Especially in a sequel you can't just seem to throw most things about the world out of the window and replace them with something less well realised. DS2 only had relatively rare flashes of creating good new characters or linking to the previous world.
it's not bad but it's less than it could be.
What is wrong with life gems? in DS1 you can stock 99 humanity and 99twin humanities for healing even in pvp, so healing items beside estus flask wasn't invented in DS2.
and from the beta we know for sure that health regain doesn't exist.
health worked in Bloodborne because it was a bit mashy, swings were fast and weapons consumes way less stamina.