Support NeoGAF

[TheOfficeMut]

DONE. Finished the game. Now I'll never pick it up again. The entire second half felt like a drag, as well as most of the earlier game. I found only a handful of maps to be fun, specifically No-Man's Wharf which was so early in the game. Every boss battle sucked except for Chariot boss which took me completely by surprise.

Overall I give this game a 7.5/10. Glad I can finally say I beat it so I can join in on discussions that lament it.

I beat the frog boss in the Shrine map after Drangleic Castle. Now I'm in some very dark place where an NPC is telling me now to bring any light, but I'm going to shove a torch in his face when I light up one of the lamps. I hope it doesn't get me killed.

The last few maps and bosses have been boring. I really think this game peaked at the forest map with the chariot boss, just before the Valley with all the poison. So far I've only found what I think is the middle of the game to be very enjoyable. Everything else has been okay.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Post

I'm not too far into the game and quite frankly I'm taking a long time progressing because I am farming souls. My main is a Knight. I have 38 STR, approximately 20 VIT, and a few more points in the boosted stats I started off with (everything except the ones to do with magic or dexterity).

The last boss I fought was The Pursuer. Afterward I was transported to some destroyed castle by the bird that initially flew around with the boss. Got some key here but didn't for the life of me know where to go so I consulted a FAQ and found that I have to (or should) fight Dragonrider. So here I am at Heide's Tower of Flame trying to fight each enemy 15 times so that they're clear of my path to the boss while also farming souls.

My overall opinion of the game? Worse than Bloodborne. Much worse. The enemies are okay (I normally prefer to fight larger enemies, such as the ones at Heide's Tower), but the maps themselves have been very boring. That one map I got transported to by the bird after The Pursuer has been the worst offender. I firmly believe there are good and bad claustrophobic designs but this one is just bad. It's not enjoyable in the slightest.

It's an exhausting A-to-B design with no alternate paths that I despise. Finding a path over the rubble in front of the first bonfire is really unintuitive that it almost makes you think you are not supposed to be walking along the edge in order to progress, but surprise, you are. So far this area has been the worst. I know there's more to explore but I haven't progressed further than the first two bonfires. I can see beyond some metal gate at the second bonfire that there's more to this area but unless it really opens and changes it up, then it's still going to suck.

Why can't I strike enemies that are down after they've been hit with an exploding barrel? I was surprised to find that I have to wait for them to stand up before I can strike them again. This killed me twice and almost a third time.

I have more to say but I have to run now. I never played Dark Souls but I have played Demon's Souls and Bloodborne. So far I think both have been better, although Demon's Souls seems more narrow than even this game yet manages to be fun to navigate.

Update: Just got to No-Man's Wharf. Most interesting area to me so far. Pain in the ass to get through and I swear those arrows curve that crossbowmen shoot.

Update 2: Approached The Lost Bastille through the 'back' by using the ship from No-Man's Wharf. It's much better than what my first impression was of this area when I came through the front after the fight with The Pursuer. I think it was a mistake allowing a player access to such a restricted area of The Lost Bastille early on because in my case it really leaves you with a bad impression.

Update 3: Finally killed Lisa Trevor on my third attempt. I accidentally used my one and only pharaoh on a face that revealed a treasure and not the wall that leads to the gargoyles, therefore I fought Lisa completely in the dark. It wasn't so bad. Bloodborne accustomed me to not having a shield so I've been playing most of this game without one. It was in this fight that I really had to use it. It made it quite simple when I did. Now I'm at Huntsman's Copse. This area gives me Bloodborne vibes.

Update 4: Just beat the Chariot boss. Was the most fun I've had fighting a boss so far. It did have its issues such as the camera not cooperating. Overall the game is getting better I'd say. The first three areas I explored such compared to Huntsman's Copse, which I think has been my favorite so far.

Update 5: Slayed the Skeleton boss and now I'm in Harvest Valley? Probably the easiest fight so far that shares many similarities to the three-person boss fight in Bloodborne. In fact this entire area of Huntsman's Copse felt like that same area you in which you fight that boss in Bloodborne.

Update 6: Beat the Maiden poison boss and now I'm Iron Keep. I'm curious as to how much more of the main game there is before it's over. I died the first time in this fight because I entered a pool of poison without knowing that I had to drain it. Other than that the fight was super easy.

Update 7: I beat Old Iron King (?) and the boss that spawns a ton of rats. Both were pretty easy. I've now ventured into the Black Gulch. This area and one just before it are the worst areas so far in the game. Demon's Souls has an area just like these two and as bad as they are in Dark Souls 2, I recall hating it considerably more in Demon's Souls.

Update 8: Alright I just beat the Black Gulch monster and the spider boss. I now have all four great Souls. I had already ventured into Drangleic castle before acquiring the last two, so far in fact that I actually saw the queen on her throne before I decided that maybe I should save this area for last.

 

[pretty done]

Should have just played 1 and 3 instead. There's really no reason to play 2 unless you are starving for more Souls after you beat the proper games.

The PvP is terrible in the entire series, don't believe their lies.

 

[Lasthope106]

That's like your opinion man...

I personally found DS2 to be better than Bloodborne. How about you play it all the way before declaring it to be "much, much worse."

Dark Souls 2 has the best multiplayer in the series IMO. Not to mention when you put the 3 DLCs together, those are also some of the best levels FROM has made.

 

[jacob armitage]

Thats the same way i progressed when i first played it OP, i would recommend heading through Heide's Tower of Flame and ignoring the Last Bastille until you approach it from the other side. Some of your complaints are just mechanics you'll have to get used to, and some will be alleviated in other areas that are more open with alternate paths or neat shortcuts to unlock. It might be a little more fun to grind a little less too, its not really that needed. Do make sure your agility is around 95-100 depending on your play style though.

I really do love Dark Souls 2, and i do agree with a lot of the complaints but the game does a lot of really great things too that don't get celebrated enough. I'd stick with it, its a wonderful and varied game with a lot to offer, even if the general consensus is its the worst of the series. Enjoy Dark Souls for its varied levels, amazing build variety and just how much damn content is there, even if its a little uneven at times.

If you're on PS4 and want someone to tag along with you for some co-op, hit me up. I'm always up for playing more Dark Souls 2.

 

[badnewsbeers]

That's like your opinion man...

I personally found DS2 to be better than Bloodborne. How about you play it all the way before declaring it to be "much, much worse."

Dark Souls 2 has the best multiplayer in the series IMO. Not to mention when you put the 3 DLCs together, those are also some of the best levels FROM has made.

Why can't he just have his opinion and you have yours and nobody gets worked up?

DS2 is probably my least favourite, but given how much I enjoyed them all that still means I really liked it. The start is a bit slow, but there are some great areas coming up. Hang in there.

 

[mxgt]

Should have just played 1 and 3 instead. There's really no reason to play 2 unless you are starving for more Souls after you beat the proper games.

The PvP is terrible in the entire series, don't believe their lies.

I'd argue that DS2 is much better than DS3.

At least from a replayability standpoint.

 

[Primethius]

DS3 is what I feel DS2 should've been. DS2 had just a lot of disappointing aspects to it, so while still solid, it's far and away my least favorite Souls game. By a considerable margin.

 

[Ellite25]

Dark Souls 2 is awesome. I don't understand the hate at all.

 

[shadowfall]

I had issues with DS2's enemy encounters (plenty of mobs), level design and bosses design. BUT as a hexer this was the most fun I had in the series. Unlike DS3 magic was a powerful build. In terms of fun I had Bloodborne comes first and this next.

 

[pretty done]

I'd argue that DS2 is much better than DS3.

At least from a replayability standpoint.

I mean I liked the fact that DS2 has actual NG+ changes too, it's actually got the best NG+ in the series. I can't replay it because the roll sucks, the movement feels unresponsive, the bosses are almost all boring and the level design is the weakest in the series. People love 'build variety' but DS1 and DS3 are also good in that regard. Really Bloodborne is the only game with very limited build options, and I hear the DLC really helped fix that issue.

 

[Tomeru]

That's like your opinion man...

I personally found DS2 to be better than Bloodborne. How about you play it all the way before declaring it to be "much, much worse."

Dark Souls 2 has the best multiplayer in the series IMO. Not to mention when you put the 3 DLCs together, those are also some of the best levels FROM has made.

Thats a big, resounding, errr, No. Ds3 has the best multi. It works better, and ehile the balance ismuch better and fair.

 

[F0rneus]

The level design and artstyle of the areas, is consistently the worst of all Soulsborne games. But...there's a couple highlights in there. In general the game is still great IMO, so if you are struggling to enjoy it, I'd just go and skip straight to Dark Souls I/III.

 

[Dekuboy]

Should have just played 1 and 3 instead. There's really no reason to play 2 unless you are starving for more Souls after you beat the proper games.

The PvP is terrible in the entire series, don't believe their lies.

1>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3

I honestly don´t get what´s so appealing of three, lacking variety build, completly linear, and most of the bosses are boring.

DaS2 only lacks of good graphics, for anything else it was the true successor to the souls series. We had a completely new place with new lore and stuff to explore while DaS3 felt like "Oh member Dark Souls 1?" "Oh member this and this" with a 2 hour dlc for 15€.

Maybe this "soul memory" thing was quite stupid and the non endless respawnable enemies but anything else did souls 2 way better than 3.

And if we would have got the game how they first wanted to be it would be perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_JFDPCtXFY

 

[Vanadium]

Pretty common reactions. Mechanically 3 is vastly superior. For me 2 is fine. But it comes down to the old quality vs quantity. DS2, with all the DLC, is a significantly larger game, but I don't think the quality of the time I spent with it holds a candle to 1 or 3. Definitely not in Bloodborne level of workmanship.

What I never liked about 2 even if I put in 100+ hours, was the mechanics were very poor in comparison to 1 and 3 and the world design was really bland.

 

[Lasthope106]

Why can't he just have his opinion and you have yours and nobody gets worked up?

DS2 is probably my least favourite, but given how much I enjoyed them all that still means I really liked it. The start is a bit slow, but there are some great areas coming up. Hang in there.

I was being facetious with my first sentence.

However, I still do think he should play more of the game before being that critical about it. He has grinded way too much when he didn't have to, at the expense of seeing very little of the world.

Also, a really vocal part of GAF really likes to shit on this game, and that I'm not okay with, as it persuades a lot of people not to try the game, when they could have had an amazing time if they try it.

 

[F0rneus]

I honestly don´t get what´s so appealing of three, lacking variety build, completly linear, and most of the bosses are boring.

III has a lot of build variety. I have strength build, a dex build, a bleed build, a Faith build, a pure mage...Just because the magic isn't as good as DSII on first game doesn't mean that there's a lack of variety. I platinumed the game with my pure sorcery character because of how OP it is.

The game is not linear. There are still branches and split paths. It's just that some of these paths need to be cleared to progress further. Which is not so much different than the other games. The level design of each individual area of DSIII is in general, about the strongest in the entire series. The worst areas of DSIII is about on par with the best of Dark Souls II.

And the bosses are also amongst the strongest in the series. I can't see how anyone can argue that Dark Souls II has better bosses, considering that one of the biggest complaints about Dark Souls II is how bad the bosses are in the core game.

 

[Already Torn]

Just skip the tower of flame. Run past all those guys and beat the boss, who's easy.

But yeah, it's the worst Souls game by far. I recommend taking a year break between a Souls game and DS2 if you want to enjoy the latter even a little.

 

[pretty done]

1>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3

I honestly don´t get what´s so appealing of three, lacking variety build, completly linear, and most of the bosses are boring.

DaS2 only lacks of good graphics, for anything else it was the true successor to the souls series. We had a completely new place with new lore and stuff to explore while DaS3 felt like "Oh member Dark Souls 1?" "Oh member this and this" with a 2 hour dlc for 15€.

Maybe this "soul memory" thing was quite stupid and the non endless respawnable enemies but anything else did souls 2 way better than 3.

And if we would have got the game how they first wanted to be it would be perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_JFDPCtXFY

This is bait, by the way.

 

[jacob armitage]

Also, a really vocal part of GAF really likes to shit on this game, and that I'm not okay with, as it persuades a lot of people not to try the game, when they could have had an amazing time if they try it.

Dark Souls 2 is my personal favourite, though i don't think its the best. I'll always jump to defend it too. Its the title i've had the most fun with though, and the one I come back to the most. I also played it after Bloodborne, initially skipping it due to the poor reception on GAF. After Bloodborne i was itching for more of the same format and took the plunge, after an initially bad first impression i ended up loving the shit out of Dark Souls 2. I genuinely think its a better title than 3 as well, but just barely.

 

[jacob armitage]

DP

 

[Blobbers]

OP, at least you didn't go with a DEX build where you'd really feel the difference. Dark Souls 2 doesn't do DEX builds well at all because of the ADP reliability and sluggish movement tied to every animation (regular movement, popping items, chugging estus).

One of the design pillars of the Souls series is to let the player feel in control as much as possible. In Dark Souls 2 a lot of the time you feel powerless and find yourself actually fighting against the controls which is just a baffling fuck-up.

 

[Nev]

- Better covenants
- Better PvP
- Viable builds
- Power stancing

Got you covered, defenders of this sad excuse for a souls game.

Now on with the reality:

- Downgraded, unresponsive gameplay
- Trash animations
- Deadzone
- ADP
- Awful hitboxes
- Garbage "bosses"
- Terrible level design
- Clown cars
- Nonsensical transitions
- Way too many (irrelevant and boring) NPCs
- Uninspired story
- Palette swap weapons
- Shrine of Amana
- The Gank Squad
- Half the stamina bar/recovery but double the enemies
- Infinite stamina enemies
- Soul memory
- Too many bonfires, useless the half of them
- Overall feeling of Gameloft knock-off

The problem is that you're trying to compare it to Bloodborne when you should be comparing it to Lords of the Fallen. This game does not belong in the same group as DS1-3, DeS and BB. It's funny the reasons some people use to defend this game –easier PvP interaction, more viable builds, more covenants, more replayability– are ultimately completely and absolutely irrelevant because the core gameplay is by far the worst. Like, Demon's Souls is half the size of Dark Souls II in regards to just about everything yet it is still better than DS2 could ever hope to be.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Lost Bastille is one of the best level designs DS2. So, I dunno what else to say, lol!

 

[jacob armitage]

Lost Bastille is one of the best level designs DS2. So, I dunno what else to say, lol!

Its definitely less fun to approach it from that direction at that point in the game i think though.

 

[spliced]

Farming? Clearing out enemies? I'm very tempted to say you're playing it wrong.

Lost Bastille is a great level and the first several levels of Dark souls 2 is the complete opposite of a-to-b design.

 

[F0rneus]

The problem is that you're trying to compare it to Bloodborne when you should be comparing it to Lords of the Fallen. This game does not belong in the same group as DS1-3, DeS and BB.

Now DSII might be the worst Souls game but it's better than every other Souls wannabe. Hell it's still one of the best games released in the past few years. It's just ass compared to the rest of the games, because of how good these games are. Not how bad DSII is.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

That's like your opinion man...

I personally found DS2 to be better than Bloodborne. How about you play it all the way before declaring it to be "much, much worse."

I hate it when people say this.

"How can you say you don't like something if you didn't sink 30 hours into it?!"

 

[Already Torn]

I hate it when people say this.

"How can you say you don't like something if you didn't sink 30 hours into it?!"

And then if you do...
"Wow, if the game is so bad then how did you manage to finish it?"

 

[Vanadium]

I hate it when people say this.

"How can you say you don't like something if you didn't sink 30 hours into it?!"

I support this. There are games that develop as you push further, but early on you've seen the design approach for everything else.

This is a weekly Gaf debate. At 60FPS DS2 is a really good game, it just doesn't feel quite up to snuff of From's best.

 

[Nev]

Now DSII might be the worst Souls game but it's better than every other Souls wannabe. Hell it's still one of the best games released in the past few years. It's just ass compared to the rest of the games, because of how good these games are. Not how bad DSII is.

The only good that can be found in the main game is owed to its foundation on the fantastic formula of the previous games. Its only redeeming quality is that the formula is so good that it manages to make you tolerate the rest. And that's hardly the game's merit, so go figure. That said, the level and boss design in the DLC is way, way above the rest. If it weren't for the subpar controls and gameplay I'd put it as a whole different game.

 

[Lasthope106]

I hate it when people say this.

"How can you say you don't like something if you didn't sink 30 hours into it?!"

Because the OP said where he is at in the game. He hasn't seen much. Judging by his stats he sank a whole lot of time when he didn't need to. I don't know what to tell you there. Yeah Super Mario Bros 1 would get pretty damn boring if all I played was world 1 over and over again.

And actually I do agree with what you are saying "if and only if" the game is one where you have made decent progress and it's just not doing it for you. Maybe that's the case for OP, who knows. But all I can say is that if you love the Souls series, DS2 is a game that shouldn't be missed.

 

[Already Torn]

The only good that can be found in the main game is owed to its foundation on the fantastic formula of the previous games. Its only redeeming quality is that the formula is so good that it manages to make you tolerate the rest. And that's hardly the game's merit, so go figure.

Mhmm. Like DSII would be pretty impressive if it was FROMs first try at this kind of thing, and then they learned from their mistakes and followed up with Dark Souls and Dark Souls III. But they went backwards.

"Wow, this Sunken King DLC is actually pretty good. If they can keep this up, Dark Souls 1 might end up really being something special when it releases in two years!"

 

[Sanctuary]

That's like your opinion man...

I personally found DS2 to be better than Bloodborne. How about you play it all the way before declaring it to be "much, much worse."

Dark Souls 2 has the best multiplayer in the series IMO. Not to mention when you put the 3 DLCs together, those are also some of the best levels FROM has made.

I had issues with Dark Souls 2, but it took a game like Bloodborne to make me appreciate it more. Aside from Dark Souls simply changing the level design up, it was mostly the equal to Demon's Souls. While I greatly enjoyed all of the games, it just seems like they've progressively gotten worse, or simply less magical.

You can call it series fatigue, but it's not.

 

[Kudo]

I didn't hate DS2 as much as other people do, I thought it was alright, but to compare it to Bloodborne.. Everything is garbage compared to it.
All of them are worth playing and most likely best games of their respective years, that's how good these games are even if they're "bad".

 

[Sanctuary]

I didn't hate DS2 as much as other people do, I thought it was alright, but to compare it to Bloodborne.. Everything is garbage compared to it.

Sure, if you only play it once or twice and don't believe "builds" are a thing for some people. It had the least amount of options of any of the games and the overall level design got really bland at the halfway mark. It didn't even feel like a complete game until The Old Hunters.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Its definitely less fun to approach it from that direction at that point in the game i think though.

That's true.

 

[Kudo]

Sure, if you only play it once or twice and don't believe "builds" are a thing for some people. It had the least amount of options of any of the games and the overall level design got really bland at the halfway mark. It didn't even feel like a complete game until The Old Hunters.

I've finished it 5 times (and platinum) and I disagree with you.

 

[silva1991]

Playing DS2 after the magnificent Bloodborne... yeah not really the smoothest experience.

I recommend you to play play DS1 instead.

You played 2 of the 3 pillars of the series and you need to play Miyazaki's magnum opus.

 

[Already Torn]

Sure, if you only play it once or twice and don't believe "builds" are a thing for some people. It had the least amount of options of any of the games and the overall level design got really bland at the halfway mark. It didn't even feel like a complete game until The Old Hunters.

DSII doesn't feel like a complete game after the DLC so what can you do 🤷🏻
The strengths of the series aren't in the depth of the action. It works because they're competent, but that's not why the games are popular.

 

[Sanctuary]

I've finished it 5 times (and platinum) and I disagree with you.

I've never understood the "I've platinumed it" as some kind of validation.

DSII doesn't feel like a complete game after the DLC so what can you do ����
The strengths of the series aren't in the depth of the action. It works because they're competent, but that's not why the games are popular.

I didn't even finish all of the DLC before Bloodborne and felt it was long enough. I also don't know what you're talking about when claiming the strength of the series isn't in the depth of the action, since that's literally the main reason every other modern RPG combat system is compared to it. The games wouldn't be remotely as good without the combat. The atmosphere wouldn't carry it and neither would the level design. Even though Dark Souls 2 had arguably one of the least cohesive level designs, it was still fun to play. Not because of the ancillary lore and definitely not because of the graphics.

Risk/reward wouldn't really matter as much if the combat wasn't actually good in the first place.

 

[Mafro]

Worst game in the Souls series, but better than most other games that have came out since. You'll get the usual vocal minority in here saying it's trash/garbage/terrible/whatever with added hyperbole but I wouldn't listen to them. The game had a lot of problems initially but the Scholar of the First Sin patch and remaster fixed a lot of the complaints I had with it. The DLC was mostly excellent as well, especially Crown of the Sunken King.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

Bloodborne is by far the best Soulsborne game. I don't think DS2 is as bad as some people make it out to be but there are a couple things I really didn't like about it.

1. Controls - it felt so sluggish and unresponsive. Everyone said lvl up the ADP stat which I did but even towards the end of the game it felt a little clunky. I got used to it a bit but it's just not as smooth as the other 3 games.

2. The bosses were terrible. Only 2 stand out that really challenged me and that'd be Smelter Demon and the Throne Watcher/Defender. The final boss I fought was probably one of the easiest in the entire game.

At first the changes to the health/humanity system really bugged me but the further you get into the game it isn't as bad. As with any of the games usually the start of the game is the toughest so once you settle in you die less and there is an item you can use to lessen the death penalty. The humanity system wasn't too bad but I don't see why they had to change it.

The way the world was designed didn't feel as good as Dark Souls 1 in which a lot of areas are connected and you can easily get around once you unlock them. The lack of that is probably why you could fast travel between bonfires in 2. While bigger it felt much more linear. You had the mainhub and you could go in multiple directions and branch out but one you got deep down into that route you couldn't hop over to the next branch, if that makes sense? In dark souls 1 everything felt much closer to each other. I could be in Ash Lake then be in the Tomb of Giants or Darkroot Garden real quick. Despite that the world of DS2 felt more varied to me.

It might sound like I'm hating on the game but I actually really enjoyed my time with it. It's the one I spent most time playing. Sure that was because it was bigger and more stuff to do but if I really wasn't enjoying it I wouldn't have bothered finishing it.

 

[PensivePen]

Sure, if you only play it once or twice and don't believe "builds" are a thing for some people. It had the least amount of options of any of the games and the overall level design got really bland at the halfway mark. It didn't even feel like a complete game until The Old Hunters.

I've never gotten my enjoyment replaying these games from doing different builds. My entertainment on subsequent playthroughs has always come from the level design, different weapons I use, and the fact that the games are simply fun to replay.

Ultimately doing different builds is just changing the numbers in the menu, it's your gear that effects how you actually play. I've found Bloodborne to be just as replayable as the rest of the games, if not more so because I actually enjoy the combat in it the most. This is why I've never put stock into the notion of 'build variety' as the end-all be-all of what constitutes replay value. And even in its base form Bloodborne has a wealth of content, saying it doesn't feel like a complete game is hyperbole to the extreme.

 

[Already Torn]

I've never understood the "I've platinumed it" as some kind of validation.



I didn't even finish all of the DLC before Bloodborne and felt it was long enough. I also don't know what you're talking about when claiming the strength of the series isn't in the depth of the action, since that's literally the main reason every other modern RPG combat system is compared to it. The games wouldn't be remotely as good without the combat. The atmosphere wouldn't carry it and neither would the level design. Even though Dark Souls 2 had arguably one of the least cohesive level designs, it was still fun to play. Not because of the ancillary lore and definitely not because of the graphics.

It's very competent, which is something games like Witcher 3 can't say. The main difference between Souls and something like Nioh or DmC though is that action and combat isn't the main focus. The games are popular because of the sense of exploration, the atmosphere, and the feeling of accomplishment you get when you discover something new or beat a boss. The reason DS2 sucks so much is because they misunderstood the point of the games like you seem to be doing right now.

 

[PensivePen]

It's very competent, which is something games like Witcher 3 can't say. The main difference between Souls and something like Nioh or DmC though is that action and combat isn't the main focus. The games are popular because of the sense of exploration, the atmosphere, and the feeling of accomplishment you get when you discover something new or beat a boss. The reason DS2 sucks so much is because they misunderstood the point of the games like you seem to be doing right now.

Obviously people play these games for very different reasons, because the combat has always been what I enjoy most in them. The rest of the game is merely the icing on the cake. I like Dark Souls 2 the least because to me the combat feels the worst, even though it has other merits like having a great deal of content and various weapons/spells.

 

[Sanctuary]

It's very competent, which is something games like Witcher 3 can't say. The main difference between Souls and something like Nioh or DmC though is that action and combat isn't the main focus. The games are popular because of the sense of exploration, the atmosphere, and the feeling of accomplishment you get when you discover something new or beat a boss. The reason DS2 sucks so much is because they misunderstood the point of the games like you seem to be doing right now.

Weird. I misunderstood why I liked the Souls games. Got it. Because one size fits all, and all that.

Obviously people play these games for very different reasons, because the combat has always been what I enjoy most in them. The rest of the game is merely the icing on the cake. I like Dark Souls 2 the least because to me the combat feels the worst, even though it has other merits like having a great deal of content and various weapons/spells.

Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming the combat in Dark Souls 2 is great, or better than Bloodborne. I was one of the most vocal about all of its problems during the initial week of release. I just found Bloodborne to be the lesser overall experience outside of "shieldless melee only" combat playstyles. You can't honestly tell me that an Arcane build is "mostly just tweaking the numbers" compared to using actual spells, and the turtle type builds don't even exist.

 

[Kudo]

I've never understood the "I've platinumed it" as some kind of validation.

Not a validation, just dedication and it matters as much as the times you've finished the game to seeing that there's builds in the game, it's just my opinion after all.
Bloodbornes "build variety" comes from its weapons, they're all so different you can run through the game with different weapon each time and still find it new and challenging, I'd say its much superior to Souls-games reskin weapons.

The atmosphere wouldn't carry it and neither would the level design..

Wrong, these games get praised for both and I strongly agree they're their strongest point (in BB after combat as they finally perfected that), the feel of adventure is so strong in them and this is same with both BB and Souls games.
But people like to play them for various reasons, some for the boss challenge, some for adventure, some for coop, and all of these people still find them engrossing just because the world building in the games is so ahead others.

 

[Already Torn]

Weird. I misunderstood why I liked the Souls games. Got it. Because one size fits all, and all that.

You asked me to clarify it for you. Obviously you can like it for your own reasons, which is presumably why you think the worst one is better than the best one.

The games wouldn't be as popular as they are now based on the fighting mechanics alone though.

 

[friz898]

Slightly OT, but NeoGAF has too many "not real important" threads as it is!

I get frustrated in video games easy and I always use easy mode. I don't use cheat codes though, if that matters. For that reason, I was hyped for Demon Souls, but everybody kept saying it was so hard, I stayed away because I figured I would just get frustrated, as I'm very impatient.

Mostly I just hate the feeling of 30mins to an hour or so, then die and start over, or spend 2 hours dying and then finally being out of freetime for the day -- it's like, what did I accomplish?



So with that HUGE disclaimer, if I wanted to give the series a shot, should I try Demon Souls, or should I get Dark Souls 1? Also, is Demon Souls is ps3 only correct? And for Dark Souls 1, can I and should I get that for PC?

Thanks for Souls guidance.

 

[Already Torn]

Slightly OT, but NeoGAF has too many "not real important" threads as it is!

I get frustrated in video games easy and I always use easy mode. I don't use cheat codes though, if that matters. For that reason, I was hyped for Demon Souls, but everybody kept saying it was so hard, I stayed away because I figured I would just get frustrated, as I'm very impatient.

Mostly I just hate the feeling of 30mins to an hour or so, then die and start over, or spend 2 hours dying and then finally being out of freetime for the day -- it's like, what did I accomplish?

So with that HUGE disclaimer, if I wanted to give the series a shot, should I try Demon Souls, or should I get Dark Souls 1? Also, is Demon Souls is ps3 only correct? And for Dark Souls 1, can I and should I get that for PC?

Thanks for Souls guidance.

I would start with Dark Souls 1 and then go to Bloodborne. Demon's Souls is a little harder and a little less modernized.