Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

Dark Souls 2 was regarded by most Souls fans as a disappointing game. Coming off after Dark Souls which is hailed by many as one of the greatest game of the previous generation, Dark Souls 2 had big shoes to fill. Unfortunately many fans weren't pleased.

As a result I came in the game with low expectations. There have been some fans who claimed the game is superior to Dark Souls while others say it was a throw away effort. After playing the game I can confirm that the game indeed isn't as good as the first Dark Souls, but is still an enjoyable effort.

The game is very mixed. It has some great moments such as Iron Keep, Shrine of Amana, and Dragon Aerie; while having some pretty shitty points such as Black Gulch (what the fuck were the developers thinking!?), Undead Crypt, and The Gutter. But overall I found most of the locations to be underwhelming. The bosses are even a worse. There are some enjoyable bosses such as The Rotten, Nashandra, and Lost Sinner. But overall the bosses ranged from mediocre to just downright laughable.

Now part of the underwhelming bosses and locations is because of the design, but I feel the biggest part of it is the game's difficulty. Dark Soul 2 is WAY easier than the first Dark Souls. I don't expect to beat bosses in the game in my first try, but that happened to at least a third of the bosses I encountered in the game. That is pretty much unheard of in terms of my run with the original Dark Souls. Some of the bosses are a joke such as Flexile Sentry, The Last Giant, The Skeleton Lords, and Covetous Demon. Windwaker has more difficult bosses than this. There are some bosses that give a reasonable challenge, but they are very few and very far in between. The same goes for the locations as well. Outside of huge exceptions like Iron Keep and Shrine of Amana I rarely died much before the next bonfire.

Now there have been some things different about the game. The first thing I noticed is that it gives you fast travel right off the bat. I didn't really like this at first. I really enjoyed how Dark Souls had such a crafted and detailed world made for going on foot. By the end of Dark Souls 2, I prefer how the first game handled things, but I don't mind it as much as I thought I would. Dark Souls 2 crafts the game around having fast travel as the player as many different options of where they can go at first. So if I'm having too much difficulty in a certain area or getting bored I can immediately go somewhere else and continue there. That said I still can see some things missing from the first game due to this. While Dark Souls was crafty and had each map connect to one another, Dark Souls 2 maps just feel like you pick a path and just go straight the whole time, at least in comparison.

Another thing to note is that I enjoy how much more community oriented the game is. I don't know if this is coincidence, but I noticed many more blood stains and orange messages in the game as well as invading players. It makes the game feel like a mixed online single player games that it portrays to be, while the first game felt like a single player game with optional online elements. Maybe not the best way to describe it, but I felt more connected with other players in Dark Souls 2 than in the first.

Overall, Dark Souls 2 isn't the bastardization that some claim it to be, but it can be a little disappointing at times. Dark Souls 2 is one of those games that is a highly anticipated sequel to a beloved classic that falls short and his hated by fans, yet most will tell you that it is a mandatory plathrough if you enjoy the first. I think that best describes Dark Souls 2, it is a great game that unfortunately is inconsistent in quality, but overall is well worth playing. I recommend it to anybody who played and enjoyed Dark Souls.

 

[Dr. Buni]

My favorite game in the series* and IMO a considerably better game than Dark Souls 1. I fail to see what's disappointing about it when it improves on most stuff if compared to its predecessor. Though I think, overall, Demon's Souls still is the "best" Souls game. *And I had a truckload of expectations for it.

Anyways, I have been playing the Scholar version for the past few days and the changes are mostly positive. I am also enjoying the DLC areas, though I think they went overboard with the difficulty of some bosses (like Sir Alonne).

Now allow me to leave the thread before DS1 fans ruin it with negativity.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

I cannot forget my disappointment when I brought it home Day One after pre-ordering and it was just kinda.....meh.

Certainly not a bad game, but too many little things they missed the mark on makes it feel like an extremely well-done DS1 mod (even including fanfiction references to the previous game!) but not a true sequel.

Certain individual mechanics and enemies are still excellent. It's Souls, after all, but they didn't tighten up to make it a cohesive whole. You know that feeling after Anor Londo when you're like "this isn't bad, but...when I can see more awesome stuff like I got in the first half?"? Felt like that the whole game in DS2.

 

[Wagram]

People complain that Dark Souls II is "easy", but at the same time don't slap Bloodborne for the very same reason. Dark Souls II at least offers Covenant of Champions.

Not a perfect sequel by any means, but a damn good game at its core.

 

[pager99]

Actually I think when including the dlc it's better than darksouls

 

[mackmoney]

I cannot forget my disappointment when I brought it home Day One after pre-ordering and it was just kinda.....meh.

Certainly not a bad game, but too many little things they missed the mark on makes it feel like an extremely well-done DS1 mod (even including fanfiction references to the previous game!) but not a true sequel.

Certain individual mechanics and enemies are still excellent. It's Souls, after all, but they didn't tighten up to make it a cohesive whole. You know that feeling after Anor Londo when you're like "this isn't bad, but...when I can see more awesome stuff like I got in the first half?"? Felt like that the whole game in DS2.

Shared perspective. Felt like a mod rather than a true sequel.

 

[johnnydrama]

I've played half of Dark Souls and about 25 hours of Dark Souls 2. I enjoyed Dark Souls 2 more.

 

[III-V]

Although it did not capture the magic of the DS1 experience, it is a great game, and I spent many hours playing it and enjoying it.

 

[EvilKatarn]

Undead Crypt is one of my favorite areas. <(&#65344;^´)>
Well, in vanilla. They just had to add a bunch of nonsense to it in Scholar.

 

[Fancy Clown]

It's considerably weaker in almost every regard to the other games that matter to me (level design, encounter design, boss design, story, and art direction) but I mean, I still put like 40 hours in to it on a first run and I'm still going through the DLC so it would be a lie if I said I didn't like it. But when you compare it to the other games, which set the bar so, so hight, it's hard not view it as the ugly step child.

 

[zero shift]

People complain that Dark Souls II is "easy", but at the same time don't slap Bloodborne for the very same reason. Dark Souls II at least offers Covenant of Champions.

Not a perfect sequel by any means, but a damn good game at its core.

I haven't played Bloodborne but I assume it might be because Bloodborne is of a different "series" than Dark Souls. Also IIRC Bloodborne got a lot of new players onboard.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Amazing game full of amazing content. Still my GotY 2014 and nothing else comes close.

People complain that Dark Souls II is "easy", but at the same time don't slap Bloodborne for the very same reason. Dark Souls II at least offers Covenant of Champions.

People do that about every single criticism. The other games get a pass, but when DS2 has some small problem it's suddenly magnified. It's bullshit really. I bet if they had claimed Miyazaki were still director they'd handwave the issues like they do with the other games.

 

[Zukuu]

SOTFS is way worse than vanilla DS2, except for Aldor. It's like they don't understand what makes Souls game awesome. So many terrible changes.

 

[Yaboosh]

I love DS2 so much. Dark Souls 1 is awesome, but I got way more hours of enjoyment out of 2. I dislike the second half of Dark Souls but love DS2 all the way through. Some areas aren't my favorite, but it was just so much fun.

 

[vocab]

I beat DS2, and I basically quit DS1 because it was so damn boring. DS2 is very flawed, and SOTFS changes just made the game worse. I ended up hating it by the end. I fear what Dark Souls 3 is.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

The DLC areas are some of the best content of the whole series, in my opinion. I'll never get tired of saying how much I love Dark Souls II, but at the same time I cannot deny that the game that left the greatest impression on me was Dark Souls.

 

[III-V]

I really do not understand the narrative that BB was so easy or easier than DSII or what have you. For me the challenge was similar if not greater within the chalice dungeons.

DS2 seemed as if there may have been more viable builds than DSI, but I am not sure if it was much easier on the whole.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

SOTFS is way worse than vanilla DS2, except for Aldor. It's like they don't understand what makes Souls game awesome. So many terrible changes.

I beat DS2, and I basically quit DS1 because it was so damn boring. DS2 is very flawed, and SOTFS changes just made the game worse. I ended up hating it by the end. I fear what Dark Souls 3 is.

How do you figure? I mean seriously... Scholar is amazing.

 

[AgentP]

First time I got bored and quit a Souls game. It has no soul.

 

[Yaboosh]

I really do not understand the narrative that BB was so easy or easier than DSII or what have you. For me the challenge was similar if not greater within the chalice dungeons.

DS2 seemed as if there may have been more viable builds than DSI, but I am not sure if it was much easier on the whole.

Once you solve the combat puzzle these games become quite easy. There is some adjustment for dodge timing, but really, your first game will always be the hardest one.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

People do that about every single criticism. The other games get a pass, but when DS2 has some small problem it's suddenly magnified. It's bullshit really. I bet if they had claimed Miyazaki were still director they'd handwave the issues like they do with the other games.

Wait, so you acknowledge there are issues?

I need to sit down.

 

[Conkerkid11]

While I've played through these games in order, I've beaten them completely backwards. I originally played Bloodborne the most, beat that, played through SotFS, beat it, then played through Dark Souls 1, and beat that. Now I'm playing through SotFS again, and I'm definitely noticing the differences everybody's been pointing out between the two, but at the same time, I don't have that nostalgia or whatever you want to call it that wrongly tells people that the first is inherently better than the second.

A lot of people complained about SotFS relying too much on multi-enemy mobs. Dark Souls 1's very first boss fight is against a pair of bosses, of which many claim to be one of the hardest bosses in the game.

A lot of people complained about unfair traps in SotFS. I'll direct you to Sen's Fortress for that one.

A lot of people complained about hitboxes. They're bad throughout the Souls series. That's something that's really hard to get right, and you're always bound to run into issues with them.

Despite some of the issues SotFS might have, I appreciate the fact that it allows for less user error when it comes to going in the right direction. The first game tells you to go ring two bells. You know one's up and the other's down. Up is easy, but down can lead you down two other paths. I literally had to start the entire game over because I got my character stuck in the Tomb of Giants too early on. How is it obvious that a key named "Basement Key" will open up a locked door you haven't seen since nearly the beginning of the game, and that rather than progressing through Blighttown to the Valley of Drakes, you're supposed to stay down there in the poisonous water and explore an area that looks closed off?

There were far too many times in Dark Souls 1 where I had to look up where I was supposed to go. As much as I understand the appeal of the Souls games for this very reason, it feels like cheating just because the developers couldn't allow for the NPCs in the starting area to help you out at all. Then again, both Dark Souls 1 and 2 handle this poorly, where the main NPC tells you what your objective is, and never tells you again.

"Go ring two bells. One is in this exact location. The other is in this other exact location."

"What was that? Why are you talking to me? Go do the thing I last told you to do."

I like the way Dark Souls 2 handles teleporting. I like the way it handles repairs. I like how you can actually roll in diagonal directions while targeting an enemy, whereas the first game only allows you to roll in four directions. I like the weapon and armor variety. I like the way the two end-game boss-soul crafters are handled.

I don't like stat distribution in Dark Souls 2. I don't like the world layout. I don't like upgrade progression. I don't like the bosses. I don't like the environments.

As others have said though, the Dark Souls 2 DLC makes up for everything, and is arguably the best thing offered in the Souls series.

Edit: The weird thing for me though is that after finishing Bloodborne, I immediately went back in for another playthrough. After finishing SotFS, I immediately went back in for another playthrough. After finishing Dark Souls 1, I immediately went back and played through SotFS. Dark Souls 1 didn't motivate me enough to play through it again. Out of nowhere came Ornstein and Smough, so I overleveled my character, and suddenly everything was a breeze beyond that boss.

 

[Producer]

Dark Souls 2 is great. There are some missteps definately and it doesnt hit the highs as DS1 and Demons does, but its still better than most rpgs released recently.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Wait, so you acknowledge there are issues?

I need to sit down.

Every game has issues. Usually more or less the same, with some that are specific to each game. Most of these issues are incredibly mild and don't detract from the overall experience, but somehow when it comes to DS2 they are the worst thing ever, total garbage, b-team shit, because reasons.

 

[Kudo]

After DS1 and DeS I was super hyped for this, stayed up nights and bought PS3 to play it on Day 1.
In 3 days after the release I had played it for 66 hours, yeah, It's good. Also replayed it on PC afterwards with the DLC.

 

[III-V]

Once you solve the combat puzzle these games become quite easy. There is some adjustment for dodge timing, but really, your first game will always be the hardest one.

Yea, BB wasn't my first, DSI was. For me, the difficulty has been equal in all three. The learning curve was longer for me in DSI if that is what you mean.

 

[Zukuu]

How do you figure? I mean seriously... Scholar is amazing.

The DLC is a whole own thing that can be talked about (I hated it apart from a single boss fight), but what SOFTS did, is taking the "special" moments from the vanilla game, and add them over and over and over again at various occasions. Example: The hanging guys from the No Man's Wharf, which really surprised you the first time and were a great thing, since you could see them if you were observant. They only appeared there and nowhere else in the vanilla game. What did SOFTS do? Make them appear numerous times elsewhere.
Also, they made the game artificially "harder" by throwing "more enemies" at you. That's just a terrible design.
Also, what they did with the Heide Knights was just terribly dumb.

Like I said, with the exception of Aldor, which admittedly, surprised me positively, it's worse. It might be nice for people who have played DS2 before and know everything inside out, to get something fresh, but the vanilla game is so much better for people who play DS2 for the first time or for people who just want to play the game again.

edit: As for difficulty. Your first Souls game is probably always the most difficult. I have started with an imported korean Demon Souls version, so I'm there since day 1 and the games have progressively became easier to me. BB wasn't a challenge at all. There were like 2 bosses that I didn't kill on the first or on the second try.
Objectively, I would rate them Dark Souls > Demon Souls (mainly due to no bonfires) > Dark Souls 2 > Bloodborne (Dodge too op)
All games became trivial easy if you co-op or play with magic.

 

[Persona7]

People complain that Dark Souls II is "easy", but at the same time don't slap Bloodborne for the very same reason. Dark Souls II at least offers Covenant of Champions.

Not a perfect sequel by any means, but a damn good game at its core.

I thought the common complaint was it is extremely difficult due to mob placement?

 

[firebricks3]

I enjoyed 2 more than 1 because of the better multiplayer, which 2 nails.

 

[bathsalts]

Give the DLC a shot if you haven't already, all 3 are very well crafted. Sunken King in particular for me recaptured those smart design decisions that are so prevalent throughout the first half of DS1.

 

[duxstar]

All the souls game's are amazing

It's the gameplay loop man,

Suck for first run through, spend hours on bosses, die alot. Second run through learn to invest points better, find the badass weapons, feel like a god, still die a bit but mostly start killing bosses without dying.

Sure there's other things in there, but yeah the gameplay loop on all of them is what keeps us coming back, there's really nothing like it out there.

I mean we all remember starting out at Firelink shrine, or majula and barely being able to take out these enemies that are scrubs and dying to "mobs" of skeletons. Only to come back later and just glance at them and they fall down out of fear.

 

[Sblargh]

I was really disappointed by it first, but I learned to enjoy it.

I still have many issues with it, but ultimately they don't interfere with me enjoying the game. It does have very strong points: I love the variety of builds and weapons.

Progressing your character on dark souls 2 feels very good. It really feels like you start somewhere and end up not only as a more powerful version of the starting character, but as something different that slowly developed during the game.

That's very nice to play through.

 

[Rozart]

I've played half of Dark Souls and about 25 hours of Dark Souls 2. I enjoyed Dark Souls 2 more.

Seriously? But the first half of Dark Souls trumps every other Souls game.

Spoiler

Yes, even the fandom's darling DeS

.

All the lil intricate shortcuts in Undead crypt. Running like a madman in Sen's Fotress as a huge rolling boulder comes trucking your way. Getting through The Depths with its cursed frog traps, only to realize that you have to venture deeper in. That claustrophobic dread in Blighttown. The absolute relief that washes over you as you catch your first glimpse of sunlight.

The strange and weirdly mystical Darkroot Garden (whose entrance by the way, is guarded by a huge, hulking headless demon). Stumbling upon the hydra in the darkroot basin. Stumbling upon Havel in the tower. That sense of awe when you first see Anor Londo. That 'HOLY SHIT' moment as Anor Londo plunges into darkness because you decided to trust the note that told you to shoot the Princess' boobs.

The sense of progression and adventure in Dark Souls 1 is seriously unparalleled.

 

[Jombie]

It's a great game that didn't deliver the quasi religious experience akin to the introduction to these games. It definitely has its share of problems but so do the other games; Dark Souls is in my top 3 but I can admit it has some really shit moments.

 

[toddhunter]

There seems to be a common misconception with dark souls 2.

People do not think it is a bad game. Nobody says it is a bad game. It is just a mediocre souls game.

This still means it is amazing, it just doesn't have quite as high quality as the other games and most notably it doesn't have as many memoreable parts, despite still having quite a few.

So OP you had the exact same experience as everybody else. Expectations had nothing to do with it.

 

[down 2 orth]

I'm with the group that say DS2 is superior, but like OP its because I had my expectations in check. Wasn't expecting a massive progression to the gameplay or a deeper dive into the lore from DS1.

 

[JayEH]

Good write up. The way many Souls fans talk about 2 make it seem like the worst thing they ever played. Sure it's probably the weakest game in the series but it's still fantastic, especially the DLC. The DLC is some of the best designed areas in the whole series.

 

[collige]

A lot of people complained about SotFS relying too much on multi-enemy mobs. Dark Souls 1's very first boss fight is against a pair of bosses, of which many claim to be one of the hardest bosses in the game.

Ignoring the fact that this complaint is about regular enemies and not bosses, this statement is flat out untrue. Both the Asylum Demon and the Taurus Demon come before Gargoyles. Also, the most characters you have to deal with in a boss in DS1 was four if you take too long on Four Kings while DS2 throws entire groups mobs at you during Royal Rat Vanguard, Skeleton Lords, Chariot, etc.

 

[Rozart]

edit: As for difficulty. Your first Souls game is probably always the most difficult. I have started with an imported korean Demon Souls version, so I'm there since day 1 and the games have progressively became easier to me. BB wasn't a challenge at all. There were like 2 bosses that I didn't kill on the first or on the second try.
Objectively, I would rate them Dark Souls > Demon Souls (mainly due to no bonfires) > Dark Souls 2 > Bloodborne (Dodge too op)
All games became trivial easy if you co-op or play with magic.

Maybe I just don't remember how much I struggled in Dark Souls since it's been so long but I find DeS to be harder than DkS tbh. (Dark Souls was my first game). And yes Defiled Chalices aside, Bloodborne's definitely the easiest. But OoK might be the hardest Souls boss yet. Still have not beaten him.

 

[Jombie]

There seems to be a common misconception with dark souls 2.

People do not think it is a bad game. Nobody says it is a bad game. It is just a mediocre souls game.

This still means it is amazing, it just doesn't have quite as high quality as the other games and most notably it doesn't have as many memoreable parts, despite still having quite a few.

So OP you had the exact same experience as everybody else. Expectations had nothing to do with it.

Many fans downright loathe it; moreover, expectations had everything to do with the fan backlash.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It's a great game. I like it better than the first Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I think the community aspects are absolutely brilliant, and they're a big reason why I love the game.

OP, did you beat Darklurker? I think that was the best boss of the vanilla game. Brilliant fight. Also, make sure you play the DLC areas. They have some great level design and great boss fights, including the GOAT Souls boss: Fume Knight

 

[Morrigan Stark]

There seems to be a common misconception with dark souls 2.

People do not think it is a bad game. Nobody says it is a bad game.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Every tangentially-related Souls thread has people shitting on DS2 for just about every aspect.

 

[Afrocious]

Dark Souls 1's very first boss fight is against a pair of bosses

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I love SotFS. The integrated DLC, in particular, is amazing.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The DLC is a whole own thing that can be talked about (I hated it apart from a single boss fight), but what SOFTS did, is taking the "special" moments from the vanilla game, and adding them over and over and over again at various occasions. Example: The hanging guys from the harbor, which really surprised you the first time and were a great thing, since you could see them if you were observant. They only appeared there and nowhere else in the vanilla game. What did SOFTS do? Make them appear numerous times elsewhere.
Also, they made the game artificially "harder" by throwing "more enemies" at you. That's just a terrible design.
Also, what they did with the Heide Knights was just terribly dumb.

Like I said, with the expeption of Aldor, which admittedly, surprised me positively, it's worse. It might be nice for people who have played DS2 before and know everything inside out, to get something fresh, but the vanilla game is so much better for people who play DS2 for the first time or for people who just want to play the game again.

I have no idea what Aldor means.... but yeah I disagree, I think Scholar improved just about everything.
Also the game isn't harder and doesn't throw more enemies at you, if anything many of the gauntlets have been nerfed so... huh?

 

[Dahbomb]

Great overall game even if it's not as good as the other Souls games. A lot of content, great DLCs, great online stuff.

My biggest disappointment with DS2 are the bosses though. Lots of garbage bosses that were basically just beefier enemies. Worse was the rehash of some bosses even from the previous game. I think 90% of the bosses I beat on my first try and that's not common for me in the series.

 

[Afrocious]

I think DS2 has more replayability than any of the Souls games, but that's because it was fun to screw around in. The bosses were easy enough where I felt comfortable punching everything to death after my first playthrough, mainly due to bosses mainly being giant dudes with weapons. I forgot what that stat was that gave you i-frames when rolling but once you had that up to a certain point, most of the game was a hilarious joke. DS2 had a serious case of awesome looking bosses grandstanding but then being shitty. Case in point, this guy:

I put more hours into DS2 than any other souls game, but I don't think it's as good as any of the other ones because I wasn't so much invested into the world as much as I was in the other ones. As silly as it is to complain for a video game doing video-game things, DS2 does it a bunch! I felt like I was going through a theme park with that one elevator going from that swamp area to the volcano.

Also, it was so easy to run past everything. If you weren't dual-wielding/two-handing weapons in DS2, you were playing it wrong. Oh god it was fun.

The only reason it was easy to run around in DS2 was because I had traps and such memorized. The game definitely relied on them moreso than any other souls game - that's for sure lol. I know one dude mentioned Sen's Fortress, but that's just one area. It was basically the whole game in DS2. Traps are everywhere for whatever reason.

Also the lore was dumb and nothing in the Souls series has the same hitbox problem as DS2 does. Whoever disagrees should fight more hippos.

Also, Dark Souls 2 introduces actual bad bosses to the series. Dark Souls 1 had Bed of Chaos, but at least that fight was cool thematically. Dark Souls 2 brought us garbage such as:

There's quite a few more, but I don't want to spoil folks. A certain frog bastard belongs here.

 

[Manu]

There seems to be a common misconception with dark souls 2.

People do not think it is a bad game. Nobody says it is a bad game. It is just a mediocre souls game.

This still means it is amazing, it just doesn't have quite as high quality as the other games and most notably it doesn't have as many memoreable parts, despite still having quite a few.

So OP you had the exact same experience as everybody else. Expectations had nothing to do with it.

Nope, some people seriously think the game is garbage. Even here on GAF.

 

[Beepos]

Enjoyed it more than 1 on every level, especially SotFS.

I felt it did what a sequel should do and added more to the core gameplay, but strangely enough I can understand why people would like the original more.

 

[WhiskerFrisker]

I think DS2 has more replayability than any of the Souls games, but that's because it was fun to screw around in. The bosses were easy enough where I felt comfortable punching everything to death after my first playthrough, mainly due to bosses mainly being giant dudes with weapons. I forgot what that stat was that gave you i-frames when rolling but once you had that up to a certain point, most of the game was a hilarious joke. DS2 had a serious case of awesome looking bosses grandstanding but then being shitty. Case in point, this guy:



I put more hours into DS2 than any other souls game, but I don't think it's as good as any of the other ones because I wasn't so much invested into the world as much as I was in the other ones. As silly as it is to complain for a video game doing video-game things, DS2 does it a bunch! I felt like I was going through a theme park with that one elevator going from that swamp area to the volcano.

Also, it was so easy to run past everything. If you weren't dual-wielding/two-handing weapons in DS2, you were playing it wrong. Oh god it was fun.

The only reason it was easy to run around in DS2 was because I had traps and such memorized. The game definitely relied on them moreso than any other souls game - that's for sure lol. I know one dude mentioned Sen's Fortress, but that's just one area. It was basically the whole game in DS2. Traps are everywhere for whatever reason.

Also the lore was dumb and nothing in the Souls series has the same hitbox problem as DS2 does. Whoever disagrees should fight more hippos.

Also, Dark Souls 2 introduces actual bad bosses to the series. Dark Souls 1 had Bed of Chaos, but at least that fight was cool thematically. Dark Souls 2 brought us garbage such as:









There's quite a few more, but I don't want to spoil folks. A certain frog bastard belongs here.

The Ruin Sentinel fight is so freaking retarded. And those damn Black knights with 360 degree tracking can fall into an abyss.