While I think the poster was exaggerating how bad it is, the part where you pull the lever after unpetrifying that girl is literally like that. Lothric Castle had a room like that too iirc.
-
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?
- Thread starter Weiss
- Start date
Soul of the Beast
Member
No, people like you are the worst.
Who are you to judge a group of people based solely on what you read on one website?
''This game's fanbase is the WURST!!!!!!''
Oh wow I didn't know you are some kind of fucking internet community critic, would you like to talk to our manager or something?
This kind of fanbase crying is just hilarious, fucking nerds whining about other group of nerds.
Have you guys played recently? The entrance towards shaded woods where the door literally closes behind you and have about 4 enemies jump from out of nowhere and doors open where even more enemies show up and a basalisk to ambush you too? Speaking of shaded woods, the entire area is meant to ambush you and then don't get me started on Earthern peak/Harvest Valley where enemies literally jump from lower levels to ambush you at all angles. How are you going to see those headless enemies jump literally from a lower level?
And yeah I exagerrated a bit but it happens way more in 2 than in any souls game. Makes me wonder if they added the mechanic of permanently removing enemies as a measure to counter it. It's the only souls game where you can kill an enemy a number of times to prevent them from respawning until NG+ or burning an ember.
My two cents.
I'm playing through Bloodborne for the first time right now. Bloodborne is running on my PS4 Pro at this very exact moment. I'm in the Hunter's Dream while I write this post.
Anyway. So far, from what I've played (just finished the
), I'm not fully sure how I feel about Bloodborne. I'm tentatively putting it a few steps above Dark Souls II, but below Dark Souls III and Dark Souls. Even though I like the lore and world-building of Bloodborne, there's something that isn't fully clicking with me like DS1 and DS3 did. I'll try to give Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin a fresh try on PS4 once I'm done with Bloodborne.
I've never played Demon's Souls, though.
I'm playing through Bloodborne for the first time right now. Bloodborne is running on my PS4 Pro at this very exact moment. I'm in the Hunter's Dream while I write this post.
Anyway. So far, from what I've played (just finished the
Shadow of Yarham boss in the Forbidden Woods
I've never played Demon's Souls, though.
paperspace
Member
Last edited:
killatopak
Member
Play Bloodborne first.
It eases you into the souls series.
It eases you into the souls series.
Banana Aeon
Member
I enjoyed it for what it is.
Game actually has an alright tempo if you play without the crutch of a shield. It's slowness isn't really methodical, but sluggish due to how floaty the combat is, but magic feels fine.
I really do like DS2 a lot, but I can not stand SotFS. It is the hyperbole of DS2 made real. You would have been better off playing DS2 vanilla on PC.
Perhaps.
Wait, what? The gameplay is faster compared to previous Souls games but no, it works fine. Enemies are designed around the faster gameplay and they will catch you if you roll spam.
...
Sorcery is god-mode in coop. You might struggle solo at points (Catacombs!) especially early, but it trivializes sections of DS3 and certain bosses. Yes, the investment is high.
If you want to complain about something, complain about miracle builds. From still hasn't fixed those to a state that I'd call desirable.
Except for Yhorm, the Lords of Cinder fights are all pretty good IMO. The Twin Princes fight is awesome. Then you have Dancer, which is an amazing fight, Sulyhan, Gael... some of the best fights of the entire series. No, I disagree strongly, the fights of Dark Souls 3 are some of gaming's best.
Weiss said:
Try a strength build. Straight sword builds/estoc ARE spammy. STR builds require methodical planning.
I mean, to me, DS3 has the best combat of any game of its type this generation. It makes other action RPGs that reviewed higher (TW3, BotW) look like shit in that area. 3 has a ton of build/gameplay variety as well. Some of it is less well-balanced but good players can make stuff work. Which is the point of the Soulsborne games! "Get better."
I do agree with some of what you're saying. Dark Souls 3 felt kind of "phoned in" at points. Like, there were some amazing fights, but most of it felt like ground that we already covered. Irithyll was the standout area but the rest of the areas were nowhere near as good.
3 is in a good niche, still. It has better gameplay/boss variety than Bloodborne and lots of quality-of-life improvements over DeS/DS/DS2.
YoRHa No.2 Type B
Banned
Only if you enjoy PVP trash.
You are literally in a chamber surrounded by doors, and you can even get in the bottom ones to see that an enemy occupied it.
Not to mention you can see other enemies through the cracks of the above doors. Not to mention the ambush only starts after you intentionally trigger it by pulling a lever. Oh and the enemies are incredibly weak unless you went to shaded first which is unlikely to happen for a new player due to the branch requirement.
And earthen peak those enemies can also be spotted. It's literally one of the first major ambushes in the undead burg in DS1.
There is only one ambush that I can think of in the entire game that is utterly without warning and therefore unfair, and it was corrected in SOTFS
ogre behind solid wall that crashes through with no warning. In SOTFS they added a window to let you see him
I'm glad OP didn't listen to people with driveby shit posts like this. At least other people actually explain what bothers them about the games.
It lacks the correct sense of dread in the world atmosphere. The world building is off. The entire beginning of the game with bosses and areas drags at a crawl and is dull as hell. Pacing is piss poor.
That enough for you? Or do you need more reasons why B team game is D tier quality ?
GreenMonkey
Member
DS2 is the worst of the franchise (gfx, floaty feeling of the engine, glitches, a lot of boring dudes in armor bosses, cheap group ganks, bad/nonsensical geography), enemies vanishing over time, Soul Memory for PvP).
But it has really, really good PvP except for the soul memory thing, and sorcery/miracles/hexes are worthwhile builds and have some fun variety. A lot of interesting weapons too that are worthwhile.
Makes for a lot of variety in playthrough style. I had a lot of fun with it despite its flaws.
But I thought DS3 was great, minus PvP being turned into a rollfest, and a lack of the fun variety of spells and weapons that DS2 had.
But it has really, really good PvP except for the soul memory thing, and sorcery/miracles/hexes are worthwhile builds and have some fun variety. A lot of interesting weapons too that are worthwhile.
Makes for a lot of variety in playthrough style. I had a lot of fun with it despite its flaws.
But I thought DS3 was great, minus PvP being turned into a rollfest, and a lack of the fun variety of spells and weapons that DS2 had.
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.
Bloodborne's lore is good. The story is trash and amounts to the player being an archeologist, finding out about interesting stuff that happened in the past while experiencing none of it themselves.
iHaunter
Member
I returned Nioh after 6 hours. I don't get the hype, it was boring and repetitive.
My god the b team shit is like a parody at this point lol, I'm actually embarrassed for you if you think half your criticism is actually objectively correct lol.
Atmosphere: aside from being incredibly subjective in most games, the hell is "correct sense of dread"? The entire game's themes revolve around passing away quietly, it's the entire reason Majula is designed to be forever in sunset with incredibly soft gentle music reminiscent of a luliby. So it sounds to me your complaint is actually "the atmosphere wasn't the same as the first so it's automatically shit".
The world building is "off"? Again wow great explanation, I assume you mean that the world geometry doesn't fit properly like in ds1? Well yeah because I'm DS2 your essentially travelling across an entire continent. Not to mention that the area transitions fit the overall themes as well, being dreamlike.
And especially the "pacing" for the starting areas? Do tell because ds2 has more options for where to go than any other souls game aside from arguably DS1.
Not to mention that you can burn through the starter areas just as fast as any of the other souls games, on top branching out, so how exactly does it slow to a crawl?
I agree 100% with all of this. I had fun with the original over SOTFS. I recently played through SOTFS and it reminded me why people blacklist 2 so often, especially when comparing every other game before and after it. Soul Memory is another stupid thing, prevented PVP and Co-op with some friends. I get the idea behind it was to prevent people from being overpowered but it really limits who you interact with to a certain degree. PVP was prob the best in 2, worse in 3 but I prob spent the most PVP in Dark 1. I'm a fan of poise, I know a lot of people hate it but I rather have poise than the rolling shenanigans that 3 introduced.
LOL NO not even close LOL. I get really sick of all the brown nosing and intoxicated obsession of Souls players but they are nowhere near the idiocy in the big games like Dota.
BB doesn't play like any of the other games in the series tho.
Pretty much, it's what I hate about Souls threads.
The three games are pretty dramatically different from each other in some specific gameplay standpoints, and I feel that's a strength of the series because it gives people more options.
For me DS3 is my least favourite of the three, but I would never call it trash.
Honestly, I agree in some sense here. There are way too many boners for DS1 without any objective or even constructive criticism of its flaws.
You are telling me Dark Souls makes any fucking sense after about half way through it lol? It too has its fair share of random locations.
Sure, Dark Souls really did its locations rather well, and for the most part it is a great game, but from the small parts I have played of Scholar it is fine. I really don't see that big of a deal. And you are tripping hard balls and blind if you think Scholar at 4K looks worse than DS1. It most definitely does not even with a texture pack for DS1. There are a lot of improvements to graphics.
And so far I kind of like the hub town better than Dark Souls.
Any time I run into the usual Souls narrative praise I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. And if you dare to criticize any of it you get the same tired "you want to be spoon fed exposition in 1 hour cutscenes?" rebuttal which pretty much entirely misses the point of the criticism. I think the way Souls games deliver lore and narrative is amazing, but the actual execution of it leaves much to be desired.
Seriously, if there is one tiring aspect to all of the adoration with these games it is most definitely shit tier storytelling.
Yes, the lore is cool. But none of it really matters. Yes, there are some well-written parts, but in no way really am I really attracted to my character or many of the NPCs. I feel nothing for them. I never have really except for one or two in each game. Even then.... No Souls game has ever made me cry or get emotionally invested. The closest I ever had to an emotional punch was the girl in the prison in Demon's Souls. That part was beautiful. That game probably had me going more than any other truth to be told.
Bloodborne is the essence of cool and gothic and all but it makes no sense. At all. And it's a big step down from what I want out of a cohesive and worthy storyline that does all the lore justice.
I'm currently playing Scholar and I do actually like the NPCs in the hub world. I don't think it will really go anywhere, but hey it's a start.
Dark Souls had a decent story. But somewhere along the line I just stopped caring. It became an amalgamation of too many things, too many different ideas and concepts that had no time to actually build or be detailed enough for me to care for them.
I don't want Souls to be Witcher 3, but with Witcher 3 you get legitimate plot points and reasoning for what you are doing. If the Souls games had like 25% of that I might be fine.
I can understand that. To me the lore for the games made sense and I had fun with them, but for me the gameplay is what I always cared about the most. I also would prefer if the lore was more clear cut in certain parts, because most agreed upon theories are still just theories for the nkist part to a certain extent.
It's like another poster said, the lore in general is good, but the story of your character is literally "person trying to achieve thing" and doesn't really go beyond that concept. Which imo suits the gameplay just fine as there isn't a way I can see to fit a more traditional narrative.
Oh they can build a narrative. But that takes time. And talent. And it's not easy. They are spitting these games out because they basically have to do nothing with characters. It's basically PS2 level interactions with characters here. Barely sometimes. There is hardly any animation. The details of their past, their needs, wants, reasons, et cetera, are for the most part random and hardly intertwine with what you are actually doing. They tell stories, give you things, and tell you where to go. But that is it. You mostly just hear about stuff in these games, and then piece things together from a couple bits you have read. It gets old at some point.
I do appreciate some of the NPCs and stuff in Bloodborne, but parts of it are so random as to be ridiculous, even more so than DS1. I guess I just wish they invested that extra 5-10m for a really awesome and cohesive storyline to go along with their game.
I think Demon's Souls might still have the coolest lore and characters to be honest. Not sure as it has been some time. It was my first Souls game so it has that place for me. But even that game seemed slightly unfinished in parts.
Sanctuary
Member
No, it was the best in Demon's Souls. Magic in general though is probably the best in Dark Souls 2, but it was even better at launch prior to the massive nerfs. Sorcery itself though was rather weak at launch until the later half of the game. Hexes and Miracles on the other hand (and a few Pryo spells) were extremely powerful.
Sorcery (or specifically starting as a Sorcerer) was hard mode compared to other options. It was more efficient simply starting as a Knight and then slowing converting into a Sorcerer as the actual spells and items (that were slowly drip fed to you) appeared. You're right, it "gets good" somewhat, but you don't start out good. It's simply annoying to play until you have what you need around halfway through. If you want to start out as a caster, the Pyromancer is a much better option. You could simply stay Pryro and supplement with Sorceries later too. The best boss killers for a long time are Pyromancies anyway.
Really though, I really like the way how the world is presented in the Souls and you're just thrown in there. The lore in general (especially BB, DeS, and DS1) is very interesting, although some aspects could be a bit more clear. There are are plenty of other games with a traditional presentation which I have greatly enjoyed, but this is one of the few rpg's with this particular style.
I think sorcery in Demon's souls was a bit overpowered; I remember killing most bosses fairly easily with firestorm
I think sorcery in Demon's souls was a bit overpowered; I remember killing most bosses fairly easily with firestorm
Sanctuary
Member
It was, although I guess my assumption was that "best" didn't simply mean "most balanced". This was also before they decided to make Pyromancies their own separate school. I personally thought Fire Spray was one of the best spells ever in the series though.
It's not really that I want a traditional presentation. I don't think anyone does. It's that we want a higher quality presentation in general. The Souls get by with the barest of features when it comes to story. And the more you look at what they offer the more it becomes apparent how low budget every thing is.
The series is very successful. At some point I would like them to try harder.
Soodanim
Member
As much as I love the Souls series, and by that I mean I adore 1 and have played 400+ hours and dream of a improved version with 3's QoL improvements and better late game, with 3 also being great once I figured out how to play it (not like 1, that's for sure) and 2 not existing (although if I ever get a chance to play the non-SOTFS version for super cheap I will buy it and throw on the deadzone fix mod)... What was I saying?
Oh yeah. The lore is good stuff, but I only appreciated it when people started doing lore videos. My mind doesn't work like they want it to work. When I see a corpse or something else, I don't think it has lore significance. I just think it's world building. There's a difference between the past and the story. If you want to work it out yourself you have to consider that everything is there for a reason but also that not everything is there for a reason, so you're throwing together everything you have and trying to make it fit and filtering out the nonsense. I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't bother with all that and just waits for ENB or VaatiVidya to do videos for me and just accepts what may be loose interpretations as canon, because I'm not receiving what the devs are sending (which is not much as all, half the time).
Oh yeah. The lore is good stuff, but I only appreciated it when people started doing lore videos. My mind doesn't work like they want it to work. When I see a corpse or something else, I don't think it has lore significance. I just think it's world building. There's a difference between the past and the story. If you want to work it out yourself you have to consider that everything is there for a reason but also that not everything is there for a reason, so you're throwing together everything you have and trying to make it fit and filtering out the nonsense. I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't bother with all that and just waits for ENB or VaatiVidya to do videos for me and just accepts what may be loose interpretations as canon, because I'm not receiving what the devs are sending (which is not much as all, half the time).
Ghost is Bad
Banned
oh boy if you thought the bosses in ds3 were bad then youre gonna hate dark souls 2 lol.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
The lore and story and everything in Dark Souls and Bloodborne are good and grandiose and all that but often they can be pretty obtuse about stuff.
You kinda have to give the haters this one because it was later revealed that due to the game's troubled develop and rushed sched some parts were literally stapled together.
I have finished DS3 and DLC only twice and that is enough.
Why I like DS2 more is how open the beginning is. After reaching Majula there are multiple ways to go, Forest, Heide or well.
DS3 beginning it's always the same thing. Travel to Firelink and then Highwall and then Undead Settlement.(unless you beat Dancer at low level, and that is quite a challenge.)
Why I like DS2 more is how open the beginning is. After reaching Majula there are multiple ways to go, Forest, Heide or well.
DS3 beginning it's always the same thing. Travel to Firelink and then Highwall and then Undead Settlement.(unless you beat Dancer at low level, and that is quite a challenge.)
AzureFlame
Member
I preferred Dark Souls 1 alot over 2 and 3.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Weird bump
So OP, did you end up playing Dark Souls 2? If you're still on the fence, it does have the best sorcery and the more methodical combat. I think you'd like it.
Sorcery is even more overpowered in Demon's Souls, though, so you should play that one too
So OP, did you end up playing Dark Souls 2? If you're still on the fence, it does have the best sorcery and the more methodical combat. I think you'd like it.
Sorcery is even more overpowered in Demon's Souls, though, so you should play that one too
Sorcery in the Souls series is generally really overpowered. I very recently finished a Pyromancy run of Dark Souls, I had no problem killing any boss (minus the three that are fire resistant) by just using the basic fireball and fire orb spells. Then I got Lingering Dragoncrest Ring, Crown of Dusk and Power Within and things just became stupid. I killed Kalameet by using Firestorm twice and throwing three greater fireballs and Gwyn didn't even get the chance to get close to me, he was dead after using Fire Tempest once (1300 dmg per pillar hit, which means he's dead if he hits three).
Did you actually play 1 and 3 after one another, because they're nowhere near the same combatwise IMO. Dark Souls 3 combat is about three or four times faster than the first game's. Both are faster than 2, though.
Weird bump
So OP, did you end up playing Dark Souls 2? If you're still on the fence, it does have the best sorcery and the more methodical combat. I think you'd like it.
Sorcery is even more overpowered in Demon's Souls, though, so you should play that one too
Weird seeing this bumped.
Anyway I gave it a shot and found it really lacking. Attacks felt weightless and all of my enemies felt like damage sponges. Gave up after I beat the Pursuer, which was all of my problems with the game wrapped into one package.
My first attempt was as a sorcerer, and the game didn't even start me off with a shield, or the stats to wield one. Kinda soured me on the whole experience.
I'll probably try again sometime.
i felt like DS2 legit set out to do something different, for better or worse. and DS3 was the true sequel to DS1, and like a lot of sequels it didn't quite replicate the brilliance of what came before.
ultimately i liked the "b-team" take more. though DS3 completely schooled DS2 on level design. and DS2 has a host of other issues with adaptability and technical nuances but YMMV how it affects your gameplay
ultimately i liked the "b-team" take more. though DS3 completely schooled DS2 on level design. and DS2 has a host of other issues with adaptability and technical nuances but YMMV how it affects your gameplay
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Almost none of the classes start with a shield. IIRC only the Warrior does but they also start with a broken weapon, lol. The starting equipment in this game is harsher than in the other games.
Still, you can pick up a halfway decent one very early on, though, the Large Leather Shield is in the first area (before you fight Pursuer) and only has a 7 str requirement and is pretty light too. It has 90% physical block and decent stability.
Also, if you do decide to try again, head to No Man's Wharf ASAP if you're playing a sorcerer. There's an important NPC for sorcerers there and you want to unlock him as soon as you can.
I feel like DS3 kind of screwed up the story of the Dark Souls franchise. I really enjoyed how Dark Souls 2 was all about how the world kind of moves in cycles. The fire might've been rekindled or not, it doesn't matter. In the end someone rekindled it and everything started over again, Lordran and all the old gods became forgotten and people build new stuff on top of the old stuff. Things that were common knowledge in Dark Souls 1 were (almost) completely forgotten in Dark Souls 2 because Dark Souls 2 is set thousands of years after that time. And in comes Dark Souls 3, which is again set years after 2, but for some reason everybody suddenly remembers names like Gwyn and The Witch of Izalith again.
It's interesting because Dark Souls 2 got/gets a lot of flak for Ornstein kind of showing up again, but Dark Souls 3 is almost always excused for the blatant winks and nods to Dark Souls 1.
It's interesting because Dark Souls 2 got/gets a lot of flak for Ornstein kind of showing up again, but Dark Souls 3 is almost always excused for the blatant winks and nods to Dark Souls 1.
I agree, that it has best characters in the Dark Souls series.
As for liking 2 if you didn't like 3. I myself didn't enjoy 3 but loved 2. Though in my case, it had more to do with Souls fatique setting in and not with the qualtity of the game itself. Also they play rather differently from one another. With 3 having so much faster gameplay and expecting you to be rather aggressive in your approach.
The magic is much more useful in 2, so if you are in playing mage heavy builds, it has that.
The only real negative i have with 2, is with some of its locations being really bad. I mean Forest of Fallen Giants, how this ever made the cut...
I agree. I liked Dark Souls 2 a lot, but I think Shrine of Amana is one of the worst location in a game ever. How the hell did that ever get through testing? I get Dark Souls is supposed to be hard, but that shit was just unfair.
I think it shouldn't be forgotten. DS2 wanted it to be this way, added it as a side effect of Hollowing (?), but it's a tiresome theme and concept in general. The fact that these cycles exist doesn't mean everything should be forgotten during the next iteration.
What DS3 did was to finally bring this endless cycle to a close (not without leaving the hope that it might begin anew).
And regarding Ornstein: What did DS2 do exactly? It put a grey Ornstein model in a small church connected by a ridiculously large drawbridge, and let you fight it in a bossfight that plays out like fighting Ornstein in DS1 without Smough and without a second phase. Then it proceeds to never really mention this guy again. Everything about this encounter - hell, his entire existence in this game - was forgettable and meaningless.
Compare this to the Nameless King in DS3 and realize the immense difference in substance in terms of fanservice for this character.
Killer Queen
Banned
Probably because most Dark Souls 3 callbacks serve a purpose and Dark Souls 2 callbacks are literally fanservice just because.
Also this. We don't forget figures like Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Cyrus, etc despite them living hundreds of years ago. Ancient kingdoms still stand today despite them being abandoned hundreds of years ago. The idea that everything would just dissapear and people would forget such monumental figures and events because reasons is fairly ridiculous.