• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

If I hated Dark Souls 3, will I like Dark Souls 2?

W

Weiss

Banned
So I didn't like Dark Souls 3 at all. I thought the story was nonsensical, the gameplay too fast and reminiscent of Bloodborne without thinking why that game's lightning fast pace worked, Sorcery was just awful and not worth the investment, and a lot of the bosses felt pretty bad, especially the Lords of Cinder (Abyss Watchers aside).

I like Dark Souls because it's slow and methodical. I have to think about every attack I make and suffer the consequences, and Dark Souls 3 didn't really have that. It was too fast and ruined that thoughtful waltz of attacking and blocking, instead feeling like a random smattering of dodging waiting for your chance to attack.

More specifically, is Sorcery good in Dark Souls 2? Because it was just awful and worthless in 3 and I really love Sorcery. It's my preferred way to play Dark Souls.

TLDR: Tell me how good Demon's Souls is and why I'm a casual scrublord for not playing it.
 
W

Weiss

Banned
Machina said:
If nonsensical stories bug you, you really shouldn't touch any of the Souls games
Click to expand...

I mean Dark Souls and Bloodborne certainly didn't feel nonsensical to me. They were vague and held their cards up while DSIII just puked names at me like they mattered.

Also it pandered way too hard to DSI.
 
Z

ZangBa

Member
Well if you like slow and methodical, DS2 is definitely that. Story in all of the games is nonsense, so I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure magic is good in DS2 but I never use magic so I can't really say. A lot of bosses are weak in DS2, most of the good ones are in the DLC.
 
L

Lord of Ostia

Member
Do you like fighting lots of large groups of enemies? That's probably the main hallmark of Dark Souls 2 compared to the other titles. The level design isn't nearly as good as the other games in DS2, but sorcery is pretty good in the game, particularly hexes which use faith and intellect. Imo it's the worst Souls game, but it's still a good game. I don't agree with you at all about Dark Souls 3 though, so maybe our preferences won't line up.
 
V

Van Bur3n

Member
Of all Souls games, Sorcery is probably at its best in Dark Souls 2.

DS2 bosses however are rather lame outside of the DLC, but then again, you didn't like DS3 bosses which are probably the most consistent in terms of good quality of any Souls game. So maybe for some bizarre reason you'll like the DS2 bosses.
 
M

Machina

Banned
Weiss said:
I mean Dark Souls and Bloodborne certainly didn't feel nonsensical to me. They were vague and held their cards up while DSIII just puked names at me like they mattered.

Also it pandered way too hard to DSI.
Click to expand...

Bloodborne definitely flew straight over my head. You need 3 umbilical cords to wake up from your dream because....reasons
 
M

MoonsaultSlayer

Member
I think you'll enjoy it, to be honest. Its world is more like spokes from a central hub but the dlc (I'm currently playing through the first dlc) is pretty fun and more akin to Demon's/Painted World/Sen's.

Check it out.

Edit: I've been playing it on and off since the original PS3 release and have invested 130 hours into my first playthrough which I haven't completed yet (dlc and final bosses to go).
 
N

NJ93

Neo Member
I think Dark Souls 2 is the most slow and methodical in the entire series. I didn't hate Dark Souls 3, but it was my least favorite because of the overly fast gameplay you mentioned. I also didn't care for the progression of zones (every subsequent playthrough felt like a chore to me).That said, Dark Souls 2's base game bosses aren't great. The DLC has some of the best bosses in the series though, imo.

This is probably my most controversial opinion on the game, but I also felt Dark Souls 2's story and characters (at least in Scholar of the First Sin) were the most compelling in the series.

I'd say give it a shot. I recommend playing Scholar of the First Sin, which, if you weren't already aware, is a revised version of the game in terms of enemy layout, zone progression, and lore. It also includes all the DLC.

Oh, and sorcery is ridiculously good in the game too.
 
T

Tarextherex

Banned
Idk about 3 but 2 is indeed slow and methodical. Sorcery is great in it(my preferred way to play as well). I think the story in 2 is a tie-in to 1's DLC? It was easy to follow tbh, it didn't feel like a bunch of easter eggs to past games and such.

I think 1 is by far the best but both 2 and Demons would ease your itch well. They both aren't too fast and magic is great in those games. Demons if you want something shorter, 2 if you just want a huge, meaty rpg with tons of variety.
 
N

Neith

Banned
Weiss said:
I mean Dark Souls and Bloodborne certainly didn't feel nonsensical to me. They were vague and held their cards up while DSIII just puked names at me like they mattered.

Also it pandered way too hard to DSI.
Click to expand...

They all kind of puke names at you lol. Bloodborne is worse than 2 in that regard IMO. It makes almost no sense. Quite overrated to be honest, but it is a solid game.

If there is one criticism with these games it is that the story is just very amateur from an overall storyline standpoint. The writing is usually weak as well and the voice acting only adequate.

I do hope the Souls series grows up and writes a killer story at some point. One that is fully integrated with the player.

I just started 2 and I kind of like the beginning more than 1 and Bloodborne.
 
M

Machina

Banned
Neith said:
They all kind of puke names at you lol. Bloodborne is worse than 2 in that regard IMO. It makes almost no sense. Quite overrated to be honest, but it is a solid game.

If there is one criticism with these games it is that the story is just very amateur from an overall storyline standpoint. The writing is usually weak as well and the voice acting only adequate.

I do hope the Souls series grows up and writes a killer story at some point. One that is fully integrated with the player.

I just started 2 and I kind of like the beginning more than 1 and Bloodborne.
Click to expand...

This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
 
N

Nocturnowl

Member
DS2 is much more slower paced and methodical than 3 in my opinion so there should be aspects of it you'd prefer.
It still has its own rough spots that have been well documented but I'd give it a chance.
No idea about the magic though, I rarely use casting builds in any of the games.
 
D

disappeared

Banned
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...

Tell us how you really feel
 
K

Killer Queen

Banned
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
S

Sami+

Member
idk, maybe. They're pretty different. I love DeS, DkS1, and BB. Didn't play much of DkS3 but it seems good so far. Haaaaaated 2. Plays almost nothing like the others imo.
 
C

CHC

Member
Possibly.

I mean, with all due respect, your complaints about 3 are kind of scattershot, so it's hard to get a feel for exactly why you didn't like it, beyond the faster paced combat.

But I will say that, since you're interested in sorcery, 2 has probably the best suite of magic. Actually, scratch that, 2 just has the best suite of everything. The level design and cohesiveness definitely suffered, but to this day the amount of viable playstyles and the sheer volume of spells, weapons, and armor are still unmatched by other FROM games.

So yeah, give it a shot. It's cheap and you might like it.
 
B

brinstar

Member
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...

why does the narrative have to be spoonfed to you for it to be valid? sometimes it's fun to interpret a story yourself.
 
R

Resonance

Member
It depends on what other things you liked and disliked about ds3. Bosses, for example, are much better in ds3 than ds2, whereas magic is better in ds2 imo. The community is always split between the "best" souls game
 
M

Machina

Banned
brinstar said:
why does the narrative have to be spoonfed to you for it to be valid? sometimes it's fun to interpret a story yourself.
Click to expand...

"Interpret" is a very broad term in this context. Sometimes it ceases being interpretation and becomes "you decide what it means" which is just lazy. Don't throw words at the player like "Blood echos" and "Hunters Dream" if they don't actually mean anything.
 
DaciaJC

DaciaJC

Gold Member
Huh, I didn't feel like Sorcery was trash at all in DS3. Great Heavy Soul Arrow is your main workhorse, the most cost-efficient damage-dealing spell, while you have Soul Spear for bosses or higher alpha damage. Then Soulstream is fantastic for opening up tanky enemies (for instance, I was regularly one-shotting the shield-wielding Ringed City Knights from afar because the spell would break their guard and deal tremendous counter damage).

Yeah, you have to invest a lot in INT to see favorable returns (I think I capped out at 60), and I don't like that the higher-tier spells like Crystal Soul Spear gobble up a ton of FP while dealing proportionally less damage than something like GHSA, but as a whole package, Sorcery is perfectly serviceable in Dark Souls III.

That said, I would encourage you to try out DS2, it sounds like you'll probably enjoy it. Nice variety of sorceries in that game, and magic classes can use herbs to refill their spell charges without compromising their healing abilities.
 
R

Resonance

Member
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...

To each their own, I guess. This is one of my favorite parts of souls games
 
T

Toxi

Banned
Machina said:
Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...
The Healing Church is trying to commune with the Great Ones, with the Choir being one of their main research arms. That gesture is an attempt to make contact, and it looks like the dead guy succeeded.

Machina said:
Bloodborne definitely flew straight over my head. You need 3 umbilical cords to wake up from your dream because....reasons
Click to expand...
No, you don't need 3 umbilical cords to wake up from the dream. You can do that just by accepting your own death.

The umbilical cords grant you the power to ascend beyond humanity and become an infant Great One. Becoming more than human is the main goal of the Healing Church and the entire reason they were imbibing the Old Blood.
 
W

Whales

Banned
Machina said:
Bloodborne definitely flew straight over my head. You need 3 umbilical cords to wake up from your dream because....reasons
Click to expand...


Yes, the lore and the story def. flew over your head..

...That doesn't mean the problem is the game :). Perhaps do some research and read the descriptions of items and you'll understand just why BB's story is actually really good.
 
P

Polioliolio

Member
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...


Your picture is funny, but come on dude. Does every story have to be spelled out for you? Does it hurt that there is basically one series of games that likes to leave it up to the player, while virtually everything else is narrated in your face? All I hear is "I don't like this kind of thing", and that's perfectly fine, but don't act like that makes it bad. That's the same kind of logic that got us "I don't know how I'm supposed to play Sonic the Hedgehog"
 
M

Machina

Banned
Whales said:
Yes, the lore and the story def. flew over your head..

...That doesn't mean the problem is the game :). Perhaps do some research and read the descriptions of items and you'll understand just why BB's story is actually really good.
Click to expand...

Do some research, which most of the time is just fans spitballing about what such and such may or may not stand for or mean
 
N

Nimby

Banned
I don't get how people can love Bloodborne but not like DS3, but whatever. DS3 sorcery is probably the worst implementation in all the Souls games, but I still find mage builds useful for certain bosses, a lot of the bosses in 3 are super weak to lightning magic. Never played DS2, but I would say it's better for magic.

Demon's Souls would probably be better for you, but a lot of the bosses in this game are complete pushovers or set-pieces. I also found it a lot shorter, probably because it is. Latria is cool.
 
B

brinstar

Member
Machina said:
"Interpret" is a very broad term in this context. Sometimes it ceases being interpretation and becomes "you decide what it means" which is just lazy. Don't throw words at the player like "Blood echos" and "Hunters Dream" if they don't actually mean anything.
Click to expand...

machina that's literally what interpretation is
 
H

HungOverOnATues

Member
I'd lean towards yes because of the combat pace and the fact that it does magic better than the rest of the games in the series. As for the story, I couldn't tell you because it's not something I pay much attention to or care about. As far as bosses are concerned, the game has a bit of an overabundance of bosses that vary in quality, so while there are some great boss encounters in the game there are also quite a few bad or mediocre ones. In that regard it may come down to whether you're the type to prefer consistency over all or if you can overlook some rough spots and enjoy what it gets right.

And one last thing worth mentioning is that there are a decent number of people that don't like how the game controls in comparison to the other games in the series. The game definitely feels different from the others, but not enough that I've ever taken issue with it. Still, if you can demo it somehow first it may be worth doing so. If you're on PC you may also want to look into trying out one of the anti-deadzone fixes - there's a mod on the DS2 Nexus or you can use a steam controller community configuration that implements it.

For what it's worth I vastly prefer Dark Souls 1 and 2 over 3.
 
M

Mr_Moogle

Member
DS2 is supposed to be the best for PVP if that's your thing. Honestly I preferred just about everything in DS3.

It's probably not fair to compare BB to DS3. They aren't supposed to play exactly like each other. Souls has always been a bit slower, you aren't as agile but it offers more variety in weapons.

Playing Nioh makes even Bloodborne feel slow in comparison.
 
T

Toxi

Banned
Machina said:
Do some research, which most of the time is just fans spitballing about what such and such may or may not stand for or mean
Click to expand...
The gesture is called "Make Contact" and allows you to commune with a Great One at another point in he game. The corpse is located in Upper Cathedral Ward, which multiple item descriptions describe as the base of the Choir, the Healing Church's researchers.

There's a lot of "fandom spitballing" when it comes to stuff like the vile bloods or Queen Yharnam, but the core world building elements of Bloodborne are well fleshed out.
 
P

pretty done

Member
If you thought DS3 bosses were bad don't even bother with DS2. The only good bosses are in the DLC.

The base game has like 30 bosses and none of them are great.
 
1

120v

Member
DS2 is, for better or worse, different enough from DS3 to warrant a try. the only thing DS3 unquestionably did better was level design, as in every stage is very intricately crafted whereas DS2 is pretty straightforward Point A to Point B

i really enjoyed DS2 at the time but somebody will come in and tell you about how the technicalities render it a horrible game, like the hitboxes, how rolling is tied to the Adaptability stat and such. but that's one of those things "the internet taught me" later on and it was never something i particularly noticed on my own
 
C

collige

Banned
DS2 is slower and has much better magic than DS3. The plot and bosses, on the other hand, are absolute garbage. Pre-DLC bosses especially.
 
E

Eusis

Member
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

maxresdefault.jpg


No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...
They're video games. While a game with a great story can, and has been, a masterpiece you can also have a phoned in or non-existent story and still be a masterpiece, at least as long as they don't screw up the gameplay in the service of delivering a story (Other M could be partially this, using an arbitrary unlock system to open up gameplay options rather than just finding abilities like every other traditional Metroid game.) And I don't really see the Souls games as an example of doing that either.

Anyways if you were into Dark Souls and Bloodborne I'd say give DSII a shot. I think I actually may have liked it more than III, though I was more miffed with how linear III felt at times while you had more options for what you wanted to tackle in DSII.
 
O

Offline

Banned
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J9zVq07BvP4/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG

No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.[/QUOTE]

Souls games aim to have minimal cutscenes that sit the player down and explain everything to him/her, the story telling technique in souls game instead is done through a variety of ways from boss dialouge, item descriptions, in-game voiced dialogue to environmental detail and sidequests, It's supposed to feels like you the player are slowly unravelling a story that's suspended in mystery with your own actions within the game, I would say story telling style done in Souls games is masterfully done, the fact that it can deliver a story without any cutscenes at all should speak for itself. There is a level of personal interpretation involved though because of the lack of cutscenes and that's perfectly fine, it's what makes the games lore so alluring, sometimes knowing more can detract rather than add and souls games are those types of games imo.
Click to expand...
 
M

Machina

Banned
Offline said:
Souls games aim to have minimal cutscenes that sit the player down and explain everything to him/her, the story telling technique in souls game instead is done through a variety of ways from boss dialouge, item descriptions, in-game voiced dialogue to environmental detail and sidequests, the story is supposed to be slowly pieced together by you the player instead of just being told like every other game tradditionally dose. It's supposed to feels like you the player are unravelling a story that's suspended in mystery with your own actions, I would say story telling style done in Souls games is masterfully done without a doubt, the fact that it can deliver a story without any cutscenes at all should speak for itself.

I think you've mistaken your own confusion and perhaps disinterest in the style of story telling in souls games for bad story telling technique. There is effort required by the player to acquire information in souls games weather it's through the game itself or external sources and you can't blame the game for your own laziness. If the game sat you down and told you everything through cutscenes and told you who did what and where at that time exactly it would be boring as fuck and you'd call it cinematic even if the actual story is fantastic as it always is in souls games anyway. Su
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be cutscenes? You don't think the Soulsborne games would be even better if the plot was presented more along the lines of the way Witcher does it? Even having like, a tome of reference you can go have a read of to get a better idea of who the Choir or the Healing Church are and what purpose they served in this world is or who built Cainhurst Castle and why or what's the origin story behind the Blood Starved Beast and how it came to be able to poison people.

The only occasion in Bloodborne where I thought the narrative was being presented really well was Father Gascoigne and his family. That "arc" had a distinct beginning, middle and end that all came together well. It's a shame the overarching themes of the game aren't presented as well.
 
T

Toxi

Banned
pretty done said:
If you thought DS3 bosses were bad don't even bother with DS2. The only good bosses are in the DLC.

The base game has like 30 bosses and none of them are great.
Click to expand...
Darklurker, Velstadt, Smelter Demon, the Pursuer, and Looking Glass Knight are all perfectly fine by Souls standard. There's just nothing like the Dancer or Ornstein and Smough that wows the hell out of you outside the DLC.
 
S

sheaaaa

Member
Machina said:
This is entirely why I get so miffed when I see GAF describing Soulsborne games as masterpieces. They're great games yes, game feel and all that is spot on, but they're far from masterpieces because the narratives are just complete trash. "Oh well they tell a story through the environment..." Okay, that doesn't tell me anything. That Dragon is dead and rotting over there why? Is it diseased? Did someone strike it down? Is this shit supposed to mean anything:

No explanation for it. It's just there, and the player is expected to fill in the blanks themselves because the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
Click to expand...

The stories in Soulsborne games go totally over my head, but the part of your post I've bolded is complete bullshit.

Even if you ignore the stories in these games, the atmosphere, combat and everything else make them amazing. The difficulty alone has nothing to do with it.
 
Sweet Bellic

Sweet Bellic

Member
I'm not sure what game you played, but I spend my entire playthrough of DS3 engaged in "that thoughtful waltz of attacking and blocking." Also confused that you would nitpick the story as nonsensical when this applies to all Soulsborne games.

While I'm not sure I understand your criticisms of DS3, I'd still recommend giving DS2 a try. But I love all the Dark Souls games, including DS3, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. It won't be as good as DS1 or Bloodborne though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LTTP: Dragons Dogma: Dark Arisen - I'm Dragon myself to the Sequel
12
738
Maiden Voyage replied
Alone in the Dark | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
136
7K
Alan Wake replied
Lords of the Fallen devs say they worry about the amount of soulslikes; think gamers still respond to RPGs like Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Elden Ring
Opinion Game Dev 2
55
3K
PanzerCute replied
The Witcher 3 Sequel Comic Announced by Dark Horse
News
0
466
Draugoth replied
  • Locked
lttp: Alan wake 2, no wonder it didn't sell
22
2K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Top Bottom