Red Liquorice
Member
If you thought DS3 was too fast, the slow, clunky, janky, jerky, unresponsive controls of DS2 should be right up your alley.
the developers know all they need to do is release a game that is brutally difficult and bam, critically acclaimed.
have fun with all the generic bosses and bad hit boxes
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.
have fun with all the generic bosses and bad hit boxes
lol, this explanation right here is exactly why I hate the story in these games, there is no relativity to any of it, it's just a load of loosely connected made up names and terms to build a bloated and convoluted narrative.
A simple story told with heart and integrity is much more engaging to me than some generic ye olde shite about unkindled flames and ashen ones and cinder lords, etc. Why should I care about any of this?
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.
Personally if you didn't like 3 you probably wouldn't like 2 at all. 3 has massive improvements in gameplay where it improved from the previous 3 games so going back to 2 will not only be annoying but make you struggle. Dark and Demon are still the best ones in the series imo, Demon might be harder to get into because it's oldest but I still find Dark 1 to be amazing. Dark 2 has a lot wrong with it too from hitboxes, to weird animations, to a weird stat that changes your invincible frames. The game also purposely ambushes you into fights you do not expect. Example:
Any souls game: Ok, I see Enemy A in the distance, Enemy B is to the left, Enemy C-F are waiting in this room for an ambush. Let me plan my attack
Souls 2: Hm, no enemies? around? Maybe up? nothing. Strange. Let me take 1 step forward and....
10 enemies jump from behind you, 10 from in front and they all sandwich you.
I always loathed that design from 2.
Personally if you didn't like 3 you probably wouldn't like 2 at all. 3 has massive improvements in gameplay where it improved from the previous 3 games so going back to 2 will not only be annoying but make you struggle. Dark and Demon are still the best ones in the series imo, Demon might be harder to get into because it's oldest but I still find Dark 1 to be amazing. Dark 2 has a lot wrong with it too from hitboxes, to weird animations, to a weird stat that changes your invincible frames. The game also purposely ambushes you into fights you do not expect. Example:
Any souls game: Ok, I see Enemy A in the distance, Enemy B is to the left, Enemy C-F are waiting in this room for an ambush. Let me plan my attack
Souls 2: Hm, no enemies? around? Maybe up? nothing. Strange. Let me take 1 step forward and....
10 enemies jump from behind you, 10 from in front and they all sandwich you.
I always loathed that design from 2.
Must be interesting to loathe design that only exists on your mind.
From what I recall, Attunement also raised Agility in DS2. If OP's looking to make a sorcerer, could he get away with just leveling ATN?
Souls 2: Hm, no enemies? around? Maybe up? nothing. Strange. Let me take 1 step forward and....
10 enemies jump from behind you, 10 from in front and they all sandwich you.
I always loathed that design from 2.
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?
You could, depending on your starting class and with the caveat that your roll won't be as good as a typical melee character. A Sorcerer with 25 ATT for instance gets you 92 AGI/10 iframes during your roll - not great, but fine if you're focused on ranged combat. With ADP being worth 3 times that of ATT though, in most cases you'd still want to put some points into it.
Here is the page on agility and iframes and down below it references the iframe values in Dark Souls 1 for comparison. Something to keep in mind when comparing the two is that the actual roll mechanics between the games differs in that DS2 only has 2 roll speeds (for under/over 70% equip load) and varying roll distance which is all independent of the number of iframes you get from agility, while in Dark Souls your roll speed and iframes are tied to different equip load tiers. Here is a character planner that shows you how much ADP/ATT you'll need for your class to hit those breakpoints.
Ech... What a thread. People who are too stupid or lazy to try and understand the plot, and therefor it's bad. Spoon feed everything!
I hope fighting bosses aren't OP's thing if he goes with DS2, because most of 'em there suck royally, and is coming from someone who actually thinks Dark Souls 2 was great.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. I think Demon's Souls started off pretty well for a first game. DS1 was okay, but it got so convoluted and crazy that it just started making no sense at all.
There is nothing engaging about the mediocre stories in these games really. They have some cool lore bits, and I appreciate some of the details and intertwined natures of these games, but the storytelling is not good by any known standard we have. It's poor and very random writing with characters that make as much sense as any absurd painting. There is basically no attempt at facial details, animation, characterization beyond the most basic shells, et cetera. By objective standards there is poor character development here. And I'm not gonna just accept some random excuse that the atmosphere always makes up for it.
It does in some ways, and it doesn't in others.
Yes, in some ways the story can be tailored to the user, and it does engage them, but it's still poor writing, storytelling in general, and it offers nothing new or bold in this category.
That doesn't matter to some. Fine by me. But I would not mind if these games were written by competent writers. I definitely don't want Witcher 3, but I do want something that makes sense, that is in any possible way a tad more realistic.
Also, I'm not here to argue with Soul's apologists. To some people these games can do no wrong. That is fair. But there are people that want more out of the series. It was getting really stale by 3. I am playing Bloodborne right now, but nothing is really pushing me forward but the art and the gameplay. I sure as hell am not playing to see what happens next in random fantasy zone #34 where random character talks about blood and umbilical cords lol.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. I think Demon's Souls started off pretty well for a first game. DS1 was okay, but it got so convoluted and crazy that it just started making no sense at all.
I do like the game a lot, but I don't go through them again. I have no attachment to the character in these games.
DS2 actually started off the best of them all story wise, but I only got to the hubworld so far. But at least the people are kind of in a town.
Bloodborne is cool, but to me is a bit overrated all told. The gameplay is great, but it's just sad they can't even try to make a cohesive and involving story.
I do like some parts. I like meeting with NPCs, but as you said it's all kind of remote and pointless.
There is nothing engaging about the mediocre stories in these games really. They have some cool lore bits, and I appreciate some of the details and intertwined natures of these games, but the storytelling is not good by any known standard we have. It's poor and very random writing with characters that make as much sense as any absurd painting. There is basically no attempt at facial details, animation, characterization beyond the most basic shells, et cetera. By objective standards there is poor character development here. And I'm not gonna just accept some random excuse that the atmosphere always makes up for it.
It does in some ways, and it doesn't in others.
Yes, in some ways the story can be tailored to the user, and it does engage them, but it's still poor writing, storytelling in general, and it offers nothing new or bold in this category.
That doesn't matter to some. Fine by me. But I would not mind if these games were written by competent writers. I definitely don't want Witcher 3, but I do want something that makes sense, that is in any possible way a tad more realistic.
Also, I'm not here to argue with Soul's apologists. To some people these games can do no wrong. That is fair. But there are people that want more out of the series. It was getting really stale by 3. I am playing Bloodborne right now, but nothing is really pushing me forward but the art and the gameplay. I sure as hell am not playing to see what happens next in random fantasy zone #34 where random character talks about blood and umbilical cords lol.
We'll see how Dark Souls II turns out. Right now I am liking the story in that one a bit more. I thought Demon's Souls did things alright too.
People in this thread claiming you can just spam attacks and rolls throughout DS3.
Just stop spreading bullshit 'facts'.
As in Bloodborne, enemies in DS3 are designed with the bigger stamina in mind and they will play accordingly.
This isn't as if they put DS1's enemies there and gave you double the stamina. Look no further than the silver knights. They are a joke in Dark Souls 1 compared to 3.
If the game was as slow as DS1 people would be complaining it's too easy.
There's still a million times more thought, design, strategy and 'method' in DS3's encounters and enemies than the NES level AI of the enemies of the 'slow and methodical' DS2 and its amateur, cheap encounter design.
Also try to spam rolls and attacks around Old Demon King or Sulyvahn (or any boss for that matter), let's see how far that gets you.
The fact that it's faster doesn't mean it's mindless, stop with that bullshit.
Souls 2: Hm, no enemies? around? Maybe up? nothing. Strange. Let me take 1 step forward and....
10 enemies jump from behind you, 10 from in front and they all sandwich you.
I always loathed that design from 2.
Souls fanbase is truly the worst.
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.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. I think Demon's Souls started off pretty well for a first game. DS1 was okay, but it got so convoluted and crazy that it just started making no sense at all.
I do like the game a lot, but I don't go through them again. I have no attachment to the character in these games.
DS2 actually started off the best of them all story wise, but I only got to the hubworld so far. But at least the people are kind of in a town.
Bloodborne is cool, but to me is a bit overrated all told. The gameplay is great, but it's just sad they can't even try to make a cohesive and involving story.
I do like some parts. I like meeting with NPCs, but as you said it's all kind of remote and pointless.
There is nothing engaging about the mediocre stories in these games really. They have some cool lore bits, and I appreciate some of the details and intertwined natures of these games, but the storytelling is not good by any known standard we have. It's poor and very random writing with characters that make as much sense as any absurd painting. There is basically no attempt at facial details, animation, characterization beyond the most basic shells, et cetera. By objective standards there is poor character development here. And I'm not gonna just accept some random excuse that the atmosphere always makes up for it.
It does in some ways, and it doesn't in others.
Yes, in some ways the story can be tailored to the user, and it does engage them, but it's still poor writing, storytelling in general, and it offers nothing new or bold in this category.
That doesn't matter to some. Fine by me. But I would not mind if these games were written by competent writers. I definitely don't want Witcher 3, but I do want something that makes sense, that is in any possible way a tad more realistic.
Also, I'm not here to argue with Soul's apologists. To some people these games can do no wrong. That is fair. But there are people that want more out of the series. It was getting really stale by 3. I am playing Bloodborne right now, but nothing is really pushing me forward but the art and the gameplay. I sure as hell am not playing to see what happens next in random fantasy zone #34 where random character talks about blood and umbilical cords lol.
We'll see how Dark Souls II turns out. Right now I am liking the story in that one a bit more. I thought Demon's Souls did things alright too.
Bloodborne has the most concise story in the psuedo-series. It just, like all the titles, asks you to meet it halfway.
Literally does not happen a single time
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.
bashing Souls for storytelling is a nonstarter because it isn't a narrative based game and the story can be more or less ignored. so it's kind of hard to deduct somebody criticizing from that angle doesn't want a curated "AAA rpg" experience and shouldn't be wasting time with the game anyway, as it's 99% combat and stat management.