• 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.

Was Dark Souls 2 really made by a B-Team? Also, Demon's Souls 2 speculation.

I remember Dark Souls 2 supposedly didn't have returning mobs, making grinding harder. Was this correct? Is it changed in the ps4 version?

I might be remembering this wrong.

I believe it was that if you kept trudging through the area, killing enemies and dying, eventually the enemies stopped respawning. Can't remember if this applies to every area or how many times one needed to kill them but it did happen.
 
Are you kidding? Every single thread about Dark Souls II is peppered with "B team" nonsense, you'd need to have had your head under a rock not to know about this stuff. I've zero issues with people not liking DS2 (I mean people are allowed to be wrong ;) ) but pushing the idea that it was worked on by a sub-par team (as B intrinstically implies) as opposed to simply a different team always feels a little, intellectually dishonest perhaps? Why not refer to the teams in a more value netural manner? e.g. Team Miyazaki and Team Shibuya/Tanimura (or to save people the onerous task of typing more letters, TM and TST)

The OP, which seems familiar, was it pulled from one of the other DS2 threads? Is a mix of decent fact finding and wild speculation, the latter often revealing, I dont want to use the term agenda, so lets say the posters, perhaps unconscious, bias e.g. " I’m no game developer, but all of this may indeed explain the change in atmosphere, the less organic gaming world, as well as the unbalanced PVP. "..and the lack of veteran developers is apparent as well. Is both entirely subjective and does even really make sense. "The less organic gaming world" was a design decision, not a result of a "lack of veteran developers" (and also plays into the the idea that an interconnected world is intrinsically better as opposed to simply a style some prefer)

Edit: Ah just realised its a necro, thats what I get for not paying attention to the date in the OP

lookskyward.gif
 

Grady

Member
Bloodborne was being developed at the same time. So yes, there was a different team of core people working on it.
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
I remember Dark Souls 2 supposedly didn't have returning mobs, making grinding harder. Was this correct? Is it changed in the ps4 version?

I might be remembering this wrong.

Enemies have 15 or so respawns, though apparently they're turning it back to unlimited respawns for Scholar of the First Sin.

And great analysis OP. Hopefully the A-Team will wow us again.
 
Dark souls 2. Is a great game, it's a top-tier AAA game. But it is definitely lacking compared to dark souls one.

Glad to see this OP was bumped so I could stumble into it.
 

Rising_Hei

Member
PvP is most certainly not laggier than DS. DS2's online stability is one of the few things it undoubtedly does better than DS IMO.

EDIT: Now I'll read the rest. :)

That's because DS2 has dedicated server like Demon's Souls did, whereas Dark Souls was p2p servers :/, i guess.
 

usp84

Member
What dark souls 2 did wrong was too many bosses.41 bosses is too much.Dark souls 1 had 25(?) and some were not that good plus the reskinned asylum demon.

However it is a great game adn i am excited to play it at 60fps
 

Hiko

Banned
It was obvious to me very early on in the game that something was off. It didn't feel like Dark Souls, despite having all the surface trappings. There was no way this could have been made by the same people who made the first two games. Dark Souls felt like a clear evolution from DeS. DS2 never felt like an evolution from DS1. It felt like an imitation. Like someone else's take on the series.

The credits confirmed that Miyazaki took his entire team with him. Which also should have been obvious in hindsight when Miyazaki said he wasn't going to direct DS2. It's not like he was going to work on a new game all by himself. But looking back at this thread, that's exactly what some people believed.
 

Carl7

Member
No, it was not. That team B talk and Myazaki worship are nonsense, Dark Souls was the 8th action rpg developed by From Software, they had a lot of experience with it and that's why it was so good.

The flaws of DSII are in my opinion the result of trying to reach an wider audience, the game breaking soul memory for example was specifically designed to not allow veterans to scare newcomers.
 

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
People bash Dark Souls 2 so much and completely ignore the terrible second half of Dark Souls 1. Once you get the Lord Vessel, 75% of the content and bosses are wretched.
 

Hiko

Banned
No, it was not. That team B talk and Myazaki worship are nonsense, Dark Souls was the 8th action rpg developed by From Software, they had a lot of experience with it and that's why it was so good.

The flaws of DSII are in my opinion the result of trying to reach an wider audience, the game breaking soul memory for example was specifically designed to not allow veterans to scare newcomers.

Lol
 
I don't know why people get so hung up on this. For me, it definitely had the "flavor" of Souls. I will acknowledge that I prefer Dark 1 and Demon's, but not by a large margin. I know some people seem to genuinely hate Dark 2, but I don't understand it. It's very faithful to the spirit of the franchise imo.
 
Edit: Ah just realised its a necro, thats what I get for not paying attention to the date in the OP

1308281826153.png
 
I don't know why people get so hung up on this. For me, it definitely had the "flavor" of Souls. I will acknowledge that I prefer Dark 1 and Demon's, but not by a large margin. I know some people seem to genuinely hate Dark 2, but I don't understand it. It's very faithful to the spirit of the franchise imo.

It's very faithful to a checklist of what makes Dark Souls.

They beat you over the head with the 'losing sanity'.. Bludgeoned me near to death with it.


I mean I had a ton of fun playing the game, but it was uncomfortable for me to call it Dark Souls.. It felt like a little brother trying desperately to be like his older brother..
 

NeoFaff

Member
To answer the OP's question - I don't give a shit about who made it. The mechanics and areas in Dark Souls 2 felt more like Demon's Souls to me than Dark Souls 1, which is not a problem. I liked Demon's Souls for different reasons than I did Dark Souls 1.

I also didn't care about the graphics in the prerelease footage of the 3rd game. Why?
1. Graphics aren't everything to me. I've enjoyed a lot of Peter Molyneux's games despite him promising the world each time, because I don't buy into hype.
2. From Soft don't make technical marvels. They have alright art direction with pretty vistas.
Bloodborne isn't going to look great up close either :p
 
The "B-Team" brought their A game, because Dark Souls 2 is my favorite in the series. It focuses on what I like most about the series, which is exploring diverse and interesting dungeons that are rich with options. Each entry just got better and better starting with Demon's Souls. I still play all three games for different reasons, but Dark Souls 2 sits at the top.
 
some examples?

How about this?

Otogi and Lost Kingdoms need their 3rd games tbh.

I keep hoping they'll announce a next gen Armored Core. Sometimes I see it in my dreams and it's beautiful. *sheds a solemn tear*

How many are still making games or working there? He certainly seems to be their most talented director of last gen or since demon souls launched.

They've produced a lot of niche titles throughout these years. Last gen they released Armored core and Tenchu titles too. But Miyasaki is the only one who directed a game that found a wider appeal compared to everything they released previously and suddenly many people act as if Demon's and Dark Souls are the only good thing FS has ever done, that's quite sad and it's not true either.
 

tcrunch

Member
It's probably been mentioned before but 7 pages eh I'm lazy - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=840059

4Gamer:
Another question I had was if the teams working on Bloodborne and Dark Souls II are completely different or not.

Miyazaki:
They are totally separate teams. At From Software, we have the development resources to work on two so-called “high-end” games simultaneously. Bloodborne is one of those titles, and we’ve been working on it in parallel with Dark Souls II.

e: fuck it's a necro
 
Enemies have 15 or so respawns, though apparently they're turning it back to unlimited respawns for Scholar of the First Sin.

Wait, seriously? I'm happy for that but they really better rework some of the spawns then if that is the case. Like the exploders around that vendor, or any near a campfire.
 

Hiko

Banned
The "B-Team" brought their A game, because Dark Souls 2 is my favorite in the series. It focuses on what I like most about the series, which is exploring diverse and interesting dungeons that are rich with options. Each entry just got better and better starting with Demon's Souls. I still play all three games for different reasons, but Dark Souls 2 sits at the top.

Which dungeons were those? I just remember a bunch of corridors.
 
I also didn't care about the graphics in the prerelease footage of the 3rd game. Why?
1. Graphics aren't everything to me. I've enjoyed a lot of Peter Molyneux's games despite him promising the world each time, because I don't buy into hype.
2. From Soft don't make technical marvels. They have alright art direction with pretty vistas.
Bloodborne isn't going to look great up close either :p

This always has and always will be a disingenuous argument.

The fact that people are pissed at the bait-and-switch of the "vertical slice" demo that turned out to be a complete fabrication doesn't mean "graphics are everything" to those people. Just because the graphics in the final build are fine (and I'm sure they are), that doesn't excuse the colossal downgrade that would make Ubisoft blush, and it doesn't excuse From never acknowledging it, especially after the PS4/XB1 re-release when that kind of visual fidelity is obviously doable on a current-gen console.
 

Mman235

Member
Wait, seriously? I'm happy for that but they really better rework some of the spawns then if that is the case. Like the exploders around that vendor, or any near a campfire.

They aren't. The change is already implemented in that enemies respawn infinitely if you are part of the Champion's Covenant.
 
Yes, there it is. Miyazaki clearly stated that Dark Souls II was made by a shitty B-team and that it's horrible and should die in a fire.

People always want to jump to the conclusion that others believe the DS2 team is shitty which I find isnt really the case. The team that made DS2 simply didnt know what makes souls, souls except for a few trappings like "difficulty".

Its clear in the game and has been comfirmed all through this thread that the people who were the originators of the souls concept are back at the helm of BB which is why so many who were disappointed with DS2 are excited for it.

This isnt to say Team B, for souls(happy now?), are horroble developers or wont improve on their take of souls. Im sure they will and those that were happy with DS2 will continue to be with whatever else they put out.
 
Said it before, I'll say it again; DS2 was a direct-to-DVD sequel to a great theatrical release that didn't need a follow-up. It's like Cinderella 2 or Ariel's daughter in some Little Mermaid spinoff.
 

Carlius

Banned
Said it before, I'll say it again; DS2 was a direct-to-DVD sequel to a great theatrical release that didn't need a follow-up. It's like Cinderella 2 or Ariel's daughter in some Little Mermaid spinoff.

i woudlnt go as far as to say its cinderella 2. ill go with lion king 2 or return of jafar, far better sequels than most others and to some even better than the originals.
 

NeoFaff

Member
This always has and always will be a disingenuous argument.

The fact that people are pissed at the bait-and-switch of the "vertical slice" demo that turned out to be a complete fabrication doesn't mean "graphics are everything" to those people. Just because the graphics in the final build are fine (and I'm sure they are), that doesn't excuse the colossal downgrade that would make Ubisoft blush, and it doesn't excuse From never acknowledging it, especially after the PS4/XB1 re-release when that kind of visual fidelity is obviously doable on a current-gen console.

I am well aware of the outcry about the game looking progressively worse each time it was showed off. The initial preview, the ps3 beta and then the final release. I worded my second point poorly.

Yes, the downgrade sucks. Yes, complaints about it were brushed off. The fact remains that we have no way of knowing if the A team could have delivered a game matching the initial reveal, so I personally do not care for the B team bashing going on every time Dark Souls 2 is mentioned.
 

Sanctuary

Member
A lot actually, demon's and dark souls are not the only good games From Software has released.

That's true, but they certainly are essentially the apex of FROM's work over the years, which mostly begain with the King's Field series. They even mentioned how Demon's Souls was like a perfect storm and almost an accident too. You can't just have any random director pull that off. Look at Capcom as another perfect example of how switching directors can radically change a series, and not for the better.
 
I am well aware of the outcry about the game looking progressively worse each time it was showed off. The initial preview, the ps3 beta and then the final release. I worded my second point poorly.

Yes, the downgrade sucks. Yes, complaints about it were brushed off. The fact remains that we have no way of knowing if the A team could have delivered a game matching the initial reveal, so I personally do not care for the B team bashing going on every time Dark Souls 2 is mentioned.

No worries, I respect that opinion. It's just that many times that the downgrade is mentioned there's some people who would rather turn around and blame the people calling From's bluff instead of admitting the downgrade was in very poor form. Glad to know you're not one of them.

I don't know if "the A team" would've delivered on the initial reveal. It certainly would've taken a lot more time to make the entire game match it. The only true long-lasting issue with the downgrade is that the torch mechanic they raved on about is barely usable. It's just so sloppy knowing there are torches and sconces everywhere in the final game rendered pointless because of a graphical downgrade. It's very amateur. I'm not talking "A-team", "B-team" shit on that, I'm strictly just talking about the final product regardless of who made it.
 
Not significantly better than King's Field II or IV. Have you played either of those?

Yes I have and yes they are lol

I don't agree with that at all. King's Field IV (The Ancient City) is amazing. Sure its movement is slow, but the game is phenomenal- one of my all-time favorites. I can't imagine many Souls fans going back and playing KF IV and thinking the game is bad, or "miles and miles" worse than Souls. It stands nearly as tall as any of the Souls games.
 
Top Bottom