Support NeoGAF

[Dahbomb]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

 

[RoadHazard]

Being able to teleport from the start is huge. Backtracking in DS1 could be painfully boring sometimes.

It's convenient for sure, but I'm not sure I want Souls to be convenient in that way. I think it really takes away from the experience of exploring the world and learning how it works. Going down that elevator and finding yourself back at Firelink for the first time after what felt like a hard and long journey into the unknown was just amazing to me. Felt like coming home, to a safe place where I could exhale before heading out into the danger-filled world again. That's not a thing at all in DkS2, because as soon as you find another bonfire (and they seem to be pretty damn frequent so far) you can just warp back to Majula, do whatever you need to do, and then warp again to where you were. It just doesn't feel special in the same way. Getting to places isn't an event in DkS2, like it was in DkS1. Yeah, it could get tiring and boring, but overall it made me appreciate the world that much more. I really got to know that world - I was forced to - and learned how to navigate it. In DkS2, which I'm not that far into yet, I already know there are paths I will never again take unless there's a reason to later on that I don't know about yet. There's no reason to really get to know the world. You might say that this also applies to DeS and BB, and you'd mostly be right (except the warp points are much less frequent in those, especially in DeS). And that's a big reason why I don't like those games quite as much as DkS1.

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

This is true. I almost forget about the last third or so of DkS1 when thinking about it, because those parts are just weaker and less memorable. But what comes before that is simply amazing.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The games always felt a bit stiff and that always seemed to be the point of the combat to me. The stiff reaction made it feel more like a human was reacting to the attacks instead of a computer controlled character. Much as people state that the weight of the weapons is an important feeling, the weight of the character was and is equally important.

The animations are slow and hard to cancel. In reality sword martial arts are much faster and feints are used. Sword moves like in Dark Souls where someone has a very heavy weapon and over commits to a swing with all their strength are seen as very bad and would not be used in realistic fighting. Not really trying to make any harsh judgement in any direction just make a point about how real humans would fight.

 

[Jombie]

Thats actually a pretty good criticism since enemy hordes like that are quite common, least where I'm at.

No it's not. Except for maybe the optional dlc challenge areas, at no point do 10 enemies aggro at once, so if you're fighting that many enemies at once it's no one's fault but your own.

 

[elhav]

I was there from the start(Demon's Souls) and I don't thing Dark Souls 2 is bad at all. It's up to par with the others imo. It has fantastic atmosphere and the combat was great.

I will admit the level design isn's as tight as in Dark Souls, but I still find it very enjoyable.

 

[natethegreat409]

I played Dark Souls, then Dark Souls 2, and am now playing Bloodborne.

The games with the best level design, art, and atmosphere are the ones with Miyazaki's touch. Combat is probably best in Bloodborne. I'm only like 6 bosses into Bloodborne right now though.

However, I have nearly 200 hours into DS2, and like 80 in DS1. The lore is better, the world is better, but DS2 is way more fun to play a second time around. Better pvp, co-op, and weapon progression/diversity. I loved playing the game, think I beat it around 5-6 times.

I see myself replaying BB simply because I love the trick weapons and combat, but I honestly can't even go back in play DS1 now. The framerate and combat feel, off to me. It is one of my favorite games ever though.

 

[Alo0oy]

I just uploaded a video from Bloodborne showing the general movement in combat, as you can see, you can aim all your rolling attacks, & change the direction of every attack in general, this is how it worked in Demon's & Dark 1 as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0MWa8kCH4

Here is a video I just recorded of Dark Souls 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9OoC0HvELQ

As you can see here, aiming your attacks is extremely wonky, your character often hits a completely different direction than what you intended, that is imo the biggest flaw in Dark Souls 2, not the level design, not the bosses, not the difficulty balance, but this.

Keep in mind that in every situation here, I was aiming my attacks towards the screen, but every single time, my character was hitting to the sides or refusing to attack where I'm actually aiming, it's especially bad with rolling attacks as your character 90% of the time doesn't hit the direction you're aiming.

That's why I can go back to Dark Souls 1 & Demon's Souls & not feel that the combat is wonky, because the combat was never wonky in those games, Bloodborne didn't somehow make the other games obsolete mechanically, they were god-tier the moment they released, & that never changed to this day, judging the previous games by playing Dark Souls 2 is a terrible idea.

I don't have the technical skills to make a side-by-side comparison video, but feel free to use those videos if you want.

(Dark Souls 2 is still better than 99% of the games out there, so it's certainly not "bad' or "shit").

 

[Jombie]

I was there from the start(Demon's Souls) and I don't thing Dark Souls 2 is bad at all. It's up to par with the others imo. It has fantastic atmosphere and the combat was great.

I will admit the level design isn's as tight as in Dark Souls, but I still find it very enjoyable.

The level design in the vanilla game lacks detail and a distinct vision, which might be the result of much of the game being scrapped and reworked. The biggest issues I've ever had with the game are the atrocious hitboxes and enemy tracking

 

[DoubleTake]

The games always felt a bit stiff and that always seemed to be the point of the combat to me. The stiff reaction made it feel more like a human was reacting to the attacks instead of a computer controlled character. Much as people state that the weight of the weapons is an important feeling, the weight of the character was and is equally important.

Yes youre correct about that "stiff" feeling, but for many Ds2 takes it a couple steps too far which hurts the overall fluidity of combat. Coupled with the less than stellar animation feedback for hitting an enemy or rolling and you get a game which feels restrictive and rigid while also seeming floaty and lacking weight/umph in its movement. Again easing in the animations is the key.

Here's a video which I posted earlier that does a better job of explaining it. Watch from 5 minites and pay close attention to the part showing the 2 balls. Which one looks more like Dark Souls 1 roll animation and which is more like 2s? This is the difference i feel people talk about when comparing 2 to the others.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vCko6V4pQ

I just uploaded a video from Bloodborne showing the general movement in combat, as you can see, you can aim all your rolling attacks, & change the direction of every attack in general, this is how it worked in Demon's & Dark 1 as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0MWa8kCH4

Here is a video I just recorded of Dark Souls 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9OoC0HvELQ

As you can see here, aiming your attacks is extremely wonky, your character often hits a completely different direction than what you intended, that is imo the biggest flaw in Dark Souls 2, not the level design, not the bosses, not the difficulty balance, but this.

Keep in mind that in every situation here, I was aiming my attacks towards the screen, but every single time, my character was hitting to the sides or refusing to attack where I'm actually aiming, it's especially bad with rolling attacks as your character 90% of the time doesn't hit the direction you're aiming.

That's why I can go back to Dark Souls 1 & Demon's Souls & not feel that the combat is wonky, because the combat was never wonky in those games, Bloodborne didn't somehow make the other games obsolete mechanically, they were god-tier the moment they released, & that never changed to this day, judging the previous games by playing Dark Souls 2 is a terrible idea.

I don't have the technical skills to make a side-by-side comparison video, but feel free to use those videos if you want.

(Dark Souls 2 is still better than 99% of the games out there, so it's certainly not "bad' or "shit").

Great Post and another unnecessary change they made. People will often counter this point by saying "its possible if you just delay your attacks s bit" which is completely beside the point. Having to delay your inputs to do something that was once commonplace in the other games just shows how limiting they made the character movement. Having to delay just further slows down the already plodding gameplay. These are the little things that people overlook but have such a huge impact on how a game feels to play.

 

[DaciaJC]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

Only Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith are terrible. New Londo Ruins, Catacombs/Tomb of the Giants, and Duke's Archives/Crystal Cave are all great (the last of that list less so than the others) and nowhere near the worst DS2 has to offer. In fact, I don't think there's any area in all of Soulsborne that is quite as bad as Frozen Outskirts.

 

[Cyrano]

The animations are slow and hard to cancel. In reality sword martial arts are much faster and feints are used. Sword moves like in Dark Souls where someone has a very heavy weapon and over commits to a swing with all their strength are seen as very bad and would not be used in realistic fighting. Not really trying to make any harsh judgement in any direction just make a point about how real humans would fight.

That certainly makes a lot of sense, and I'm definitely not a person to ask when it comes to functional and realistic medieval weaponry techniques. The impression always seemed to be more of an intent to emulate such behavior in the Souls games, even if it wasn't entirely accurate to real life.

 

[spliced]

Because everyone that dislikes DS2 makes up ridiculous shit about the game? Nah, I don't think so

I know this is totally a bait post but I'll respond anyways lol -
Camera is shit sometimes, true. Don't lock on, fixed.
Amelias healing is a point of complaint? Really? The game gives you plenty of items to stop the healing, its part of the fight.
Witches of Hemwick and Celestial Emissary? Ill just say Bed of Chaos and Pinwheel, every Souls game had their fair share of gimmicky bosses.
Chalice Dungeons are completely optional.
Arcane weapons aren't pointless at all actually, arcane characters are alot of fun actually.
Ok I'll give you the blood vial thing, farming does suck.
And artificial difficulty? Did you not upgrade your weapons? The ppl in the research hall all died in like 2-3 hits and so did the living failures. You could actually kill the living failures faster than they spawned - like the 4 kings in DS1. No artificial difficulty there at all.

I magnified and exaggerated the problems with the game without giving credit to the things it does well, it's an often repeated tactic people use on here when talking about DS2. The bottom line is all the games have issues but the more important factor is fun or enjoyment and I had as much or more fun with DS2 as I did with BB despite it's flaws. But some people will just never end their weird grudge against DS2.

 

[hokagespit]

sounds like you just need to stop and bait enemies OP
my only problem with DS2 is that it doesnt cloud save to steam, and i mess up my computer doing things and reformat far too often. Yes i should be hand saving my saves and i will be henceforth im finally streamlined almost to let my data snap back when i do reformat.
so i havent beat it yet or seen the dlc, and im getting tired of restarting it, while also getting better at tuning the first to run better on my machine on every consecutive reformat, and that does cloud save, so i keep growing in that, starting different playthroughs after i get bored of re doing the initial levels in the second..

EDIT:i come back for the flexability it has though compared to the first, im not good at building charactors that can have mulitple aptitudes in the first but in the second i can maintain high quality jack of some trades.

 

[KZXcellent]

Honestly I feel the reason why Dark Souls II gets more shit is because Miyazaki wasn't involved. If he was I 100% believe the game wouldn't get as much crap as it does from fans of the series.

I find Dark Souls II to be the best of the Souls games to come back to and play. I found the gameplay to be the most fun and the world a lot more interesting than Dark 1. The lack of a connected world was disappointing but not enough to make me whine incessantly about how Earthen Peak transitioning to Iron Keep makes no sense.

Dark Souls II has some dumb moments and boss fights usually due to them dropping too many enemies on you. Of course for me I can forgive this because all the Souls games have had legit terrible moments/sections. Hell, my favorite world is Demon's but the newer games make the game nearly impossible to come back to especially with it's ridiculously stupid difficulty/shit mechanics.

Of course I'm also weird and don't count Bloodborne as a Souls game. Mostly because Souls games would make me want to play it more than once. The lack of builds and starting classes in that game was the biggest disappointment on an otherwise fun game.

 

[Wagram]

I find fascinating how a game like Dark Souls 2 is considered straight a bad game for some of the Souls fanbase.

Dark Souls 2 has some problems, but the core of it is damn good, and the most important IMO, is as fun to play as Dark 1 and Bloodborne.



That's Sakuraba being lazy as fuck.

Thanks god DLC reedemed it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztPGThfD_GY

Dark 1 music is more consistent but DLC made Dark 2 have higher highs with Alonne, Ava and Aldia's theme.

Best part is that the DS2 composer returns back for DS3 (DS3 title screen is really similar to Alonne's theme).

Sakauraba didn't do this song. The GOAT Souls composer Yuka Kitamura did.

 

[Wagram]

.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Lol you made the mistake of saying you are having a tough time. Now people will just tell you to git good. I personally love dark souls 2. The world isn't cohesive like dark souls but each individual area has interesting connections. You still get those aha! Moments when you go up a staircase and see your prior location looming in the distance. The dlc is straight up the best level design in the whole series, bar none. The builds are fun to play with, so many quality of life improvements even over bloodborne and the multiplayer is the best in the series. Some great lore too and some really good dialogue from the npcs. I'm on something like my 8th playthrough.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

For me, I felt the world itself wasn't very interesting minus a few locations. The level design was uninspired and the art direction was poor. Some areas looked downright ugly, approaching OG Xbox level (horrible repeating textures on path up to Scorpioness). The two forced PvP areas were often irritating.

I didn't have a problem with enemy encounter design or the story, both of which seem to get plenty of flack. The variance of play styles was great.

Overall, I'd put it equal to Demon's Souls at an 8/10.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I magnified and exaggerated the problems with the game without giving credit to the things it does well, it's an often repeated tactic people use on here when talking about DS2. The bottom line is all the games have issues but the more important factor is fun or enjoyment and I had as much or more fun with DS2 as I did with BB despite it's flaws. But some people will just never end their weird grudge against DS2.

Your BB complaints are shit and have no real ground, unlike most DS2 negative aspects, that while magnified are very real and actually relevant.

 

[BlondeTuna]

The combat and movement mechanics in Bloodborne IMO is superior to DkSII, which make it easier to deal with "mobs," even though I can't remember a situation in which more than three or four enemies are thrown at you at once (in Bloodborne).

PVP in DkSII is far superior to the other games, especially now that players are given an item to control soul level.

 

[Cracklox]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

Yeah, I'll quote this for truth. Aside from the preference part. I'm pretty split on the 2

Dark Souls was my 1st souls game, so I guess kinda like a 1st girlfriend, i'll always remember it. The back half was pretty weak though. I honestly think the devs took to heart a lot of the criticism about the 2nd half lacking, and went out of their way, to make the run home in 2 fucking awesome. From Drangleic Castle onwards was just great and probably the best last quarter or so of any of their games. Even the Shrine, which I went through with no bow before the it was patched was amazing. I got owned so hard, but I knew that was on me for neglecting a proper ranged option. I stomped my 2nd run through their though.

Aside from that having 3 equipable slots on each hand was a game changer. I was able to carry around weapons for the lols (dual claws, dual wielded dual blades, and notched whip were some faves) as well as weapons I could rely on if things got tough (Dragon greatsword, aveline crossbow and beserker blade were some of my picks). Mucking around with various combinations of those things was good fun.

Ultimately I love both games and couldn't choose one over the other (I think I slightly prefer bloodborne over both though). Dark Souls, aside from one or 2 later levels, had a better world to explore and the way the levels interconnected was great. I forever refer to finding a shortcut in any game (or sometime IRL) as 'kicking down the ladder'. D2 was definitely weaker in that regard. I think Majula is the best hub they've come up with though, but having essentially five paths lead out from there and not really cross over was disappointing. Also the whole wacky lava castle behind windmill world design thing, was kinda dumb, but hardly deal breaking. Was easy enough to look past after the initial 'huh, how did that get there' moment.

Also to address the OP, I guess we're now in back to front land. Last feb we had everybody trying to adapt to the faster paced combat and the idea that we could fight more then one thing at a time. I guess Bloodborne introduced quite a few new fans to the series (if that 40-50 page thread that ran for most of the year was anything to go by) and now we are having people have do reverse adapt when checking out the older games. I don't actually envy the OP as I loved the faster paced combat, and no shield turtling in BB and could def understand his issues.

My advice is to stick with it, but if you're not enjoying it, then it doesn't make you any less of a person if you put it down and go play something you do enjoy, as opposed to something you think you should

 

[Kurtofan]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

That first half of the game is just that godly.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

I played some of those worst areas, recently, and most are innoffensive, the lava hell with dinos, is plain and dull but is just there, with careful navegation you have to fight at most 2 or even none at all. (maybe it was patched, I think initially dinos had much larger aggro area)

Unlike Shrine of Amana, which is as bad, but annoying and infuriating from start to end.
DS1 later areas, are bad, but the lows never reach the lows of DS2.

 

[DarkFlame]

For once,it's a last gen game compared to Bloodborne.

For second,it's not bad,just not that great compared to the original masterpiece or Bloodborne.

Still though,it has the best endgame from everygame due to build variety,covenants and online implementation,where Bloodborne fell short

 

[Alo0oy]

Great Post and another unnecessary change they made. People will often counter this point by saying "its possible if you just delay your attacks s bit" which is completely beside the point. Having to delay your inputs to do something that was once commonplace in the other games just shows how limiting they made the character movement. Having to delay just further slows down the already plodding gameplay. These are the little things that people overlook but have such a huge impact on how a game feels to play.

I think they were going for "realistic", which was a big mistake in my opinion, a game where a scrawny character can wield gigantic clubs & throw fireballs should never go the "realistic" route, it was funny seeing all the Dark Souls 3 network test streams & the first thing everyone tested was that exact mechanic. So glad they fixed that.

 

[Alo0oy]

For once,it's a last gen game compared to Bloodborne.

For second,it's not bad,just not that great compared to the original masterpiece or Bloodborne.

Still though,it has the best endgame from everygame due to build variety,covenants and online implementation,where Bloodborne fell short

I played Demon's Souls a couple of months ago, & that game is still a masterpiece & still feels good to play, Bloodborne didn't "ruin" the other Souls games, DS2 was just not up to par.

 

[ElCidTmax]

I'm kind of in the same boat. Loved BB and the DLC, platinum and 100%. I feel like I should like DS2, but am having a hard time adjusting. It really feels so different, now that I got used to using no shields and being able to earn back HP by hitting enemies back. Dying in DS2 seems more punitive due to needing human effigies to get all your health back.

I'll still play it though - need to hurry up before DS3 comes out.

 

[TyrantII]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

The level and art direction might not have been so hot, but the mechanics wernt shit out the door. Dark Souls II doesn't feel like a Souls game, and that's a problem.

Fuck those auto lock spin like a top enemies ignoring their own animation. Fuck them and never return.


DeS, DkS, and BB didn't have that cheap crap.

 

[IceDoesntHelp]

Not as bad as I or Bloodbourne. Only souls game ive somewhat enjoyed.

 

[Quan]

It is good game and the DLCs make it great, but there is some clunky movement and bad hitbox and they were going for quantity over quality in the variety of areas.

 

[Mman235]

I just uploaded a video from Bloodborne showing the general movement in combat, as you can see, you can aim all your rolling attacks, & change the direction of every attack in general, this is how it worked in Demon's & Dark 1 as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0MWa8kCH4

Here is a video I just recorded of Dark Souls 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9OoC0HvELQ

As you can see here, aiming your attacks is extremely wonky, your character often hits a completely different direction than what you intended, that is imo the biggest flaw in Dark Souls 2, not the level design, not the bosses, not the difficulty balance, but this.

Keep in mind that in every situation here, I was aiming my attacks towards the screen, but every single time, my character was hitting to the sides or refusing to attack where I'm actually aiming, it's especially bad with rolling attacks as your character 90% of the time doesn't hit the direction you're aiming.

That's why I can go back to Dark Souls 1 & Demon's Souls & not feel that the combat is wonky, because the combat was never wonky in those games, Bloodborne didn't somehow make the other games obsolete mechanically, they were god-tier the moment they released, & that never changed to this day, judging the previous games by playing Dark Souls 2 is a terrible idea.

I don't have the technical skills to make a side-by-side comparison video, but feel free to use those videos if you want.

(Dark Souls 2 is still better than 99% of the games out there, so it's certainly not "bad' or "shit").

The problem with this mechanic is that it's not optional; in situations like PvP it makes it easier to trick people with attack directions if you learn to use it consistently, but it also has little use outside of that and it just adds unnecessary difficulty to learning weapons beyond that, so it's not relevant to most (and it's pretty selective in use even in PvP). Making it a menu option like jump button customisation would have been all it took to make it fine.

I think they were going for "realistic", which was a big mistake in my opinion, a game where a scrawny character can wield gigantic clubs & throw fireballs should never go the "realistic" route, it was funny seeing all the Dark Souls 3 network test streams & the first thing everyone tested was that exact mechanic. So glad they fixed that.

I agree with this is general but it mainly sticks out with Dark Souls 3 footage and people complaining that fast rolling in heavy armour is unrealistic... In a series where shit like Giantdad is a meme.

Fuck those auto lock spin like a top enemies ignoring their own animation. Fuck them and never return.

DeS, DkS, and BB didn't have that cheap crap.

There's a bunch of MLG 180 noscopes in Bloodborne.

 

[DoubleTake]

The problem with this mechanic is that it's not optional; in situations like PvP it makes it easier to trick people with attack directions if you learn to use it consistently, but it also has little use outside of that and it just adds unnecessary difficulty to learning weapons beyond that, so it's not relevant to most (and it's pretty selective in use even in PvP). Making it a menu option like jump button customisation would have been all it took to make it fine.

Wait what do you mean not optional? Having the ability to perform those types of moves at any moment is the option.... There is no added difficulty in being able to aim attacks, just a higher skill ceiling for those willing to learn the tech. Choosing not to pull those moves off in DaS DeS or BB doesnt make lthe game anymore difficult, but removing them completely makes a hit to the depth in combat for those capable and willing to do it.

 

[Gbraga]

Man the way some people praise DS1 to high heaven makes me believe that many stopped playing the game after Anor Londo. Some of the latter areas are worse than some of the worst areas in DS2. Very uneven latter half of the game.

I still prefer DS1 over DS2 but DS1 gets away with murder around here sometimes.

I disagree. Lost Izalith was complete garbage, but some of the second half stuff is really good, especially with the DLC.

It also has to do with the way progression works in the game. A lot of stuff that you'd normally do before Anor Londo is either completely optional or not necessary before Anor Londo. Progression can vary a lot from person to person. Bloodborne has this more in the way of optional content, not as much freedom in mandatory progresison, but it's still open enough so that "I just beat the 4th boss" is absolutely meaningless without a name. It's also true for Dark Souls II, with the amount of places you can go from Majula.

 

[RPGam3r]

Dark Souls 2 is easily the best Souls/borne title for me. Watching it consistently catch flak here has always amazed me, much in the same way I watch Bethesda games catch flak.

 

[Dimmle]

I love the last stretch of Dark Souls 2 from Drangleic on. If you include the DLC, it may be the most consistently interesting denouement of the series. It has the range I found missing in Bloodborne's final stretch until that game's DLC (which is fantastic and makes good on the previous games' environmental variety).

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I'm calling it now. Dark Souls III will be received more negatively than DS2 critically, and it will divide the fan-base somewhat.

I think Dark Souls 3 will be exactly what the fans want...which is gonna be divisive in in itself in a series that's all about the discovery and surprise. They can never recapture that feeling of playing Demon/Dark Souls for the first time and figuring out all its mechanics and ideas and the world. That first time you walked into a room through a narrow hallway and got ganked by an enemy from the side of the entrance, just out of view of the camera. The first time you accidentally walked into a boss arena and lost all your Souls. The first time you killed a NPC by accident and figured out he won't be coming back, ever. At best it can be a really polished, pretty version of something the Souls fanbase has played to death. DS3 will probably be better received by people who aren't huge fans of the series, or perhaps never even played a Souls game before.

I know there's been plenty of complaints about Bloodborne(the blood vial system, the similar aesthetic of most of the areas, the shallowness of its RPG elements and potential builds, the huge amount of i-frames, how easy it is to parry and completely stunlock most of the enemies in the game, etc), but all those differences in art and gameplay made it a new experience in a way that I doubt Dark Souls 3 ever could be.

Not that Dark Souls 3 will be bad. It probably have most of the same strengths and weaknesses the other Souls game have. By most standards, it'll be an excellent game I'm sure. They'll be a been there, done that feel that most of it, that even its surprise boss reveals and level design ideas will be immediately compared and contrasted to the surprises of past games.

 

[Dr. Buni]

It is better than the first one (Dark Souls, not Demon's). At least the level design isn't complete horse shit in Dark Souls 2.

 

[Octavia]

I think the easiest way to describe the main prevailing issue with Dark Souls 2 is that the boss fights are basically bullet hell for an action game. It's just not fun chipping away for hours because you never get an opening to attack due to there being 2-3+ boss enemies spamming attacks constantly at you with no mercy.

Ultimately, it takes the worst designed parts of the previous games (all the cheap feeling fights with multiple enemies or timers on new enemies spawning) and makes that 1/3 of the games challenge. Seriously, if you count it out, 1/3 of the bosses are multi-enemy fights.

I like the game, I think it's done a lot of good, but yeah, in playthrough 2 when they start spawning in even more enemies in the boss fights, I gave up. It just wasn't fun anymore.

 

[Alo0oy]

The problem with this mechanic is that it's not optional; in situations like PvP it makes it easier to trick people with attack directions if you learn to use it consistently, but it also has little use outside of that and it just adds unnecessary difficulty to learning weapons beyond that, so it's not relevant to most (and it's pretty selective in use even in PvP). Making it a menu option like jump button customisation would have been all it took to make it fine.

Shield-less dex builds completely rely on that, that's why dex builds sucked in DS2, you couldn't aim your roll attacks, & you did shit damage because dex builds relied on a lot of weak but fast hits + a lot of movement.

It also sucked for high-level no lock-on play.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I play with no lock-on >50% of the time because I could aim my attacks, & that lock-on didn't help DS2 anyway since your rolling attacks were auto aimed & that you'll most likely miss unless you roll right in front of your enemy.

I agree with this is general but it mainly sticks out with Dark Souls 3 footage and people complaining that fast rolling in heavy armour is unrealistic... In a series where shit like Giantdad is a meme.

That was just part of the network test, phat rolling is still in DS3.

 

[Crossing Eden]

It is better than the first one (Dark Souls, not Demon's). At least the level design isn't complete horse shit in Dark Souls 2.

Bullshit. DS1 for the most part is a masterclass in level design. DS2 pales in comparison, especially when it comes to things like the placement of bonfires and enemies. Plus the way it seamlessly connects in a ton of ways is nothing short of astounding.

 

[toastyToast]

1. Mostly shit bosses
2. Garbage mob encounters

It has its merits but those two make it easily the worst in the series. Exploration wise I really liked the DLC areas but yeah the encounters sucked and each DLC had its own variety (colour) of super high poise, magic resistant mobs that were tedious as fuck to deal with. Even then that represents the best the areas the game has to offer. Alonne and Fume Knight are the only good bosses. Maybe ghetto Kalameet if I'm feeling generous.

I'd also like to mention the gauntlet before Alonne is easily the laziest, most garbage area in Souls series. I thought the area before Blue Smelter Demon was bad. Makes Lost Izalith look like Tower of Latria.

 

[Dimmle]

CONTROVERSIAL OPINION: the Black Gulch is a super memorable conceit for an area

 

[ugh_the_boot]

Dark Souls 2 is just like the other souls games, although it had a different director almost everything else remains the same. When it originally came out the hit detection was a little off but they fixed this in a later patch. If you are playing the Sins of the Scholar edition then you're all set.

The game is almost identical in mechanics to Dark Souls 1 so if you had no problems with that there really shouldn't be anything to complain about with part 2. All the souls games are awesome equally mechanics wise, infact DS2 has more options than all the other souls games.

If you're trying to fight 10 enemies at once you're doing it wrong, lure them out and take em on one by one or try some hit and run tactics.

 

[silva1991]

It is better than the first one (Dark Souls, not Demon's). At least the level design isn't complete horse shit in Dark Souls 2.

Yeah, especially that room in the second DLC that has no exist and the only way to reach the bottom level is by breaking the floor and jump through it instead of simple elevator or ladder. masterful level design here.

or that elevator that magically takes you to Iron keep. much coherent.

 

[Mman235]

I think Dark Souls 3 will be exactly what the fans want...which is gonna be divisive in in itself in a series that's all about the discovery and surprise. They can never recapture that feeling of playing Demon/Dark Souls for the first time and figuring out all its mechanics and ideas and the world. That first time you walked into a room through a narrow hallway and got ganked by an enemy from the side of the entrance, just out of view of the camera. The first time you accidentally walked into a boss arena and lost all your Souls. The first time you killed a NPC by accident and figured out he won't be coming back, ever. At best it can be a really polished, pretty version of something the Souls fanbase has played to death. DS3 will probably be better received by people who aren't huge fans of the series, or perhaps never even played a Souls game before.

I know there's been plenty of complaints about Bloodborne(the blood vial system, the similar aesthetic of most of the areas, the shallowness of its RPG elements and potential builds, the huge amount of i-frames, how easy it is to parry and completely stunlock most of the enemies in the game, etc), but all those differences in art and gameplay made it a new experience in a way that I doubt Dark Souls 3 ever could be.

Not that Dark Souls 3 will be bad. It probably have most of the same strengths and weaknesses the other Souls game have. By most standards, it'll be an excellent game I'm sure. They'll be a been there, done that feel that most of it, that even its surprise boss reveals and level design ideas will be immediately compared and contrasted to the surprises of past games.

I'm definitely hoping Dark Souls 3 will have a bunch of stuff that's never been seen before, though even stuff like original level themes will be enough for me in the end. The character/level concept recycling that's in all the Demon Souls follow-ups (although it's much more subdued in Bloodborne) is something I hope it moves away from a bit.

It is better than the first one (Dark Souls, not Demon's). At least the level design isn't complete horse shit in Dark Souls 2.

As someone defending DS2 in this thread I still have to say this is the most WTF post in this thread so far.

CONTROVERSIAL OPINION: the Black Gulch is a super memorable conceit for an area

The thing that caught a lot of people out (same with The Gutter) is the idea that you need to smash the statues; once you realise that's there's only a couple that really get in the way at all it's fine (though it's kind of short and simple then and the most interesting part is probably the secret giants).

Yeah, especially that room in the second DLC that has no exist and the only way to reach the bottom level is by breaking the floor and jump through it instead of simple elevator or ladder. masterful level design here.

Once you realise the clues to which parts break away that bit owns so yeah.

 

[ZenaxPure]

I'm also playing Dark Souls 2 for the first time right now and I have mixed feelings about it personally. The thing I liked about Dark Souls that made me stick with it, play through it about 7 times and get all the achievements was the connected world design. Once you figured out the world it's just immensely satisfying to bend it to your will, getting items before intended or just skipping most of the bosses in the game.... And all of that seems to be gone in Dark Souls 2. Most levels seem to just end with a bonfire you can use for fast travel or connect to another zone. It's really been a huge bummer, especially when I decided to just say fuck the main path and decided to see if there was any other areas I could wander into but there always seem to be some locked door blocking my way.

On the flipside though this is the first time I've actually found the combat in a Souls game fun. I get why people enjoy the combat in these games but personally it's never appealed to me at all (consider it pretty boring tbh) because your generally limited on demand moveset. Real dual wielding and power stance changed all that, it's very much what I am into. Been rocking 2 curved swords and it is very fun swapping in and out as need be depending on what kind of enemy I am fighting and understanding the usefulness of each attack I have. That is mostly why I feel mixed on the game, the world is really boring compared to the first game (and frankly even compared to Demon's Souls and that is literally a level based game) but some of the combat changes have been enough to keep me interested, especially as I want to try out other weapon types.

 

[Dimmle]

Yeah, especially that room in the second DLC that has no exist and the only way to reach the bottom level is by breaking the floor and jump through it instead of simple elevator or ladder. masterful level design here.

or that elevator that magically takes you to Iron keep. much coherent.

okay but whether an elevator went up or down to get to a place isn't level design

 

[SictorVullivan]

It's a great game in and of itself, but compared to Dark Souls, Demon's Souls and Bloodborne? Not a chance

 

[ReginaldXIV]

It's not a bad game at all, if you love theorycrafting builds you're in heaven. I think most people who think it's "bad" probably didn't enjoy how the world was structured, but it feels in-between the way Demon's and Dark/Blood are set up. It's not exact, but it's interesting. They also probably didn't like there weren't many direct connections to the previous game. I think a lot of things were improved with Scholars of the First Sin as well as the DLCs.

 

[silva1991]

okay but whether an elevator went up or down to get to a place isn't level design

You are right, but it's part of the world design

close enough

seriously one can say that DS1 is the worst souls game, but calling the level design in it horseshit is new for me.