Being able to teleport from the start was a great choice for DS2 imo, It allowed me to really vary what I was doing without having to worry about making the hike back and forth just because I wanted to do some little thing.
Anyway I'd say for DS2 I prefer things like, the core gameplay/UI experience, character creation, the art "styles" of the areas/equipment etc, and the music. And of course the obvious things like semi-reliable multiplayer systems. I even liked the ability to enable voice chat if I wanted, despite the haters.
For DS1 I only prefer things like the area layouts, the boss fights and boss designs. For the most part. Some DS2 areas have excellent layout design and/or excellent boss fights, too.
Londo ruins is bad? Are you on crack OP? Londo ruins is one of the bleakest, most depressing and atmospheric areas in any game. I fucking love that area. Blightown is great too, its just the framerate thats annoying. I agree with the catacombs though. That place can fuck off. Still haven't gotten around to playing DS2, my PS3 died the month it released. Its seriously annoying as DS1 is my favourite game of last gen.
What I hope to accomplish: I know I'm not going to sway the opinion of the super die hard nerds who have gone past NG+10 and have extensively researched the Lore because their opinion cannot be changed. But I hope to maybe the sway the opinion of the indifferent or the guys who watched that hour long critique of DS2 on YT or read forum comments and have based their opinion off that.
You lost me there. if you liked DkS2 is fine but most of your statements are so wrong for players who wants a real challenge compared to the joke mechanics DkS2 to be tunedown of DkS1 mechanics to be more appealing and easy to play so you can find it fun for you.
And since you dont care about "super die hard nerds" arguments then there is no point of discussion here
I enjoyed both games for different reasons. I dont really feel the need to compare them as they stand on their own terms. I do think a lot of the complaints about Dark Souls 2 are stupid, or overly critical, and often show a strong bias one way or another. But theyve already been batted about in previous threads on the subject.
Though, because it stands out, I feel the complaints about Dark Souls having a better story are, suspect, perhaps? Leaving aside the subjective judgement involved both stories are remarkably bare bones and it always feels that Dark Souls has the upper hand because of the numerous posts and videos posting all its disparate parts together for people, i.e. people prefer it because it was delivered to them in an easier to digest form. Then again, it feels a bit unfair to simply deny peoples opinion of it.
And I suppose, all the "B team" stuff always made it feel like people were pre-disposed to dislike it (the lightning engine stuff didnt really help there)
Absolutely not. Terrible decision. Allows for lazy design (no interconnectedness, more like a central wheel with spokes radiating outwards) and doesn't promote a sense of familiarity and accomplishment that Dark Souls 1 begat. I can map out the entire game in my head, crystal clear. Same can't be said for Dark Souls II.
Variations on this point keep cropping up, and theyre just as subjective as saying that DS2 is more fun. Its not lazy design, its simply a different design, Demon Souls used a hub system as well as similarly wasnt "lazier" than Dark Souls. It was simply different. Similarly a connected world isnt inherently better than a hub system, which seems to be the implicit value judgement behind a number of these comments. It is again simply different. Of course the implementation of a specific interconnected or hub system can be better analysed, but theres no intrisnic superiority of one sytem over the other.
Londo ruins is bad? Are you on crack OP? Londo ruins is one of the bleakest, most depressing and atmospheric areas in any game. I fucking love that area. Blightown is great too, its just the framerate thats annoying. I agree with the catacombs though. That place can fuck off. Still haven't gotten around to playing DS2, my PS3 died the month it released. Its seriously annoying as DS1 is my favourite game of last gen.
The Kiln is definitely the exception to the rule. My first time there I was in sheer awe at the fact that I was about to reach the first flame and see where everything had started. That's another thing which DaS1 feels stronger to me on. They built up the world like nothing else and then let you tear all the gods down.
Fast Travel available from the start is a good thing. Fast Travel is good, it reduces the frustration and tedium of back tracking. The game is balanced around it. I don't care if every single environment isn't interconnected perfectly because it's a video game and it's not made to be completely realistic.
I won't diminish you or anyone for holding this opinion, but man, are we configured differently from eachother in terms of how we like our video games to be. Fast travel was a huge negative, a huge immersion breaker for the game, and I do care that the environment is so broken up and disjointed and nonsensical. This is one of the biggest negatives about the game -- the terrible world design.
The world of Dark Souls 1 had enormous weight to it because of the sense of placement you had in the world. In Dark Souls 2 I never really feel like I'm anywhere because nothing matters. You can warp anywhere from anywhere. Zzz.
If the game was designed around FT then maybe it shouldn't be. I hate overly easy FT because you rob your world of any sense of placement, meaning, or beloning -- You remove any sense of heft to exploration.
No one likes Blighttown, the Catacombs or Londo Ruins. No one. Enough has been said about Blighttown. Catacombs isn't too bad, though still annoying, until after you beat the first boss. The necromancers aren't too bad and you can use a holy weapon to easily kill the Skeletons but then you have an NPC who can kill you if you cross the bridge which is a beginners trap. 2nd half is when it gets annoying with plenty of giant Skeletons, archers, and beast Skeletons who cannot really be stunned, do tons of damage and can easily knock you off to your death. On the plus side you can speed run the 2nd half of the catacombs. So there's that.
So I've played Dark Souls 1 about 15-20 times, give or take. I finished it at least 5 times on 360 and I'm addicted to just picking a random weapon and playing through the whole game with it. I've finished it with nothing but Whip, Claws, Pick Axe, Zweihander (few times), Battle Axe, Great Axe, Butchers Knife, Long Sword, Bastard Sword, Mace, Morning Star, Uchigatana (couple times), Washing Pole, Few boss weapons, a scimitar of some sort and of course all magic types. There's probably a few I've forgotten... Oh I did Caestus Fist and Short Bow as well. So yeah, I'm a bit mental about this game, but for me I don't think it comes from any OCD or anything; I just have a genuine draw to play it again and the weapons all play so different it feels so fresh taking on bosses with different weapons. Dark Souls 2 had a lot of weapons it felt like so much of it was filler and less care was given to the uniqueness off the attack animations.
Dark Souls I was completely drawn in by the world setting and brilliance of the interconnected levels and the challenges of the bosses is so finely tuned between almost unbearable the first few times and then a beautiful dance once you've mastered their movesets. The game still looks beautiful on PC, I basically justified buying a Sony 4k TV so I could play Dark Souls in native 4k... OK, I'm a little nuts. I really like the game ok.
There will be endless arguments about Dark Souls 2's quick travel being available early (which I personally think was a bad idea) and I still think there is just something that feels a bit off with the animations in Dark Souls 2. Something about the sword swings and even the sound design just feels a bit less fluid. And the jump noise, yeugh. I enjoyed it as a level pack, it was like, oh cool, new things. But it almost felt like just a giant DLC pack. Dark Souls: More Edition. Oh and with a few weirdly tweaked trade offs, like how weapons degrade. Oh and the copy and paste boss design. And vsing 6 gargoyles instead of 2.
But the real reason Dark Souls stands out as GOTG and a true head above it's sequel is just how much inherently fun the game is. Although both are in these drab dark worlds and have these lessons of punishment, pattern learning and triumph. Dark Souls just makes me want to play it more. I feel like there's an analogy about testing on people and rats about what food they like is the exact same process. Give them both and see which ones they want to play. It's been what, almost 3 years since Dark Souls came out? And still I just want to gush to people about how good it is and I'm replaying it this holiday break and just almost finished my butchers knife playthrough (doing Oolacile presently).
DS2 was fun and I can't begrudge anyone who enjoys playing it, but for me it's just not as fun, it just doesn't have that tantalising draw.
I played Demon's Souls after playing Dark Souls about 3 or so times and I felt so excited to get new area's, to experience slightly different mechanics and progressions. It made me completely respect From's talents and both how strong and bold their game direction is, how much they learnt and improved in Dark Souls and just came out after playing it so impressed at the love and care I can feel put into both games development. Demon's Souls made me appreciate Dark Souls even more and I've since beaten Demon's I think 5 times as well. Dark Souls 2 just made me want to go back and play Dark Souls or Demon's Souls again.
Also this. I liked Blight Town and am glad it exists. My first trip down there from the sewers was amazing. I had no idea what I was in for. The only negative was the framerate.
I really take exception to so much of OP. "No one likes blight town or catacombs". Yes, they actually do. I really like them both. The journey through catacombs and through the tomb of giants was one of the most memorable and intense gaming experiences of my life.
Your post amounts to FT is good and anything challenging or inconvenient is bad. Anyone who has that view should consider if they're playing the wrong game series all together.
The loop of stepping carefully through an environment, careful to avoid pitfalls or getting killed by enemies, making meaningful progress, and eventually finding a bonfire is defining. If you fuck up, you have to try again, and, oddly, I enjoy that. I enjoy getting a little further each time. progress is only meaningful if anything is on the line. I REALLY enjoy that gameplay. If you take away things being difficult or confusing or challenging or take away the game ever poking you in the eye then you take away the entire essence of the experience. If you want a game that is pointless popcorn fun with nothing on the line, nothing risked, nothing ventured, and little or no possibility of ever having to replay any section ever, then you're in luck because 99% of games are tailor made for you.
Dark Souls 1 was nearly perfect exactly how it was. You can make some fair criticisms about certain later-areas of the game where things weren't quite as lovingly made, but in terms of the formula and the philosophy of the game, it's perfect. Dark Souls 2 turned the formula on its head and fucked with it while offering nothing new that meant anything.
OP i respect your opinion and can see why you enjoy DS2 better. Sounds like convenience is the reason. However, for me and many others the thing that made DS1 their GOAT was the immersion and the sense of feeling they were in an actual, relevant place. DS2 never gave me that feeling, and while improving on some technical aspects it falls short in others that would push it over the top.
1. Environments: DS2 has more environments than DS1 but IMO at the cost of making them believable and sprawling. Compare the interior of Drangleic Castle to Anor Londo. One gave me the feeling of exploring an actual lived in Castle of the Gods while the other felt very much like a video game level. When you say not everything has to be realistic I reply with an heir of believability in environments makes me care much more about the place, why I'm there, and its backstory.
Sorry to quote just this but this is something that I don't really get: Why it is too bad that a videogame feels like a videogame? Nowadays, videogames try too hard to feel more like bluckbuster movies or TV series instead of just being videogames and take advantage of just that (in that regard Dark Souls, DS II, and Demon's Souls are some of the best titles that take advantage of just being games). I really think that that mentality is hurting rather than helping the industry.
Also this. I liked Blight Town and am glad it exists. My first trip down there from the sewers was amazing. I had no idea what I was in for. The only negative was the framerate.
I really take exception to so much of OP. "No one likes blight town or catacombs". Yes, they actually do. I really like them both. The journey through catacombs and through the tomb of giants was one of the most memorable and intense gaming experiences of my life.
Yeah, I cheated my way through the catacombs, fell about 500 feet and ended up killing Pinwheel on my first try. The feeling of being in a place that I had no business being was awesome.
Blighttown and New Londo Ruins are both awesome though. Catacombs are also fucking scary because of the giant skeleton dogs. Only bad area in DkS1 is Lost Izalith and that's mostly skippable.
Dark Souls 2 is just... dumb. It's fucking dumb. It gets almost every single thing wrong when it comes to what makes a good, fun Souls game. Atmosphere is gone. Tight combat is gone. It's slow as fuck. Shieldless combat is less satisfying. The story is terrible. The characters aren't as good. The art style has taken a huge step down. The level design sucks. The world design sucks. The enemy design sucks.
On the plus side, we have... cloth physics, functional multiplayer servers, and power stance. Cool, I guess. Too bad the game isn't fun.
The entire game is intentionally confusing and mysterious, so the only thing that's left extremely clear to me is that it was Baby's First Souls Game by a team of scrubs trying to fill in the shoes of actual inspired people.
edit - oh and Demon's Souls is the best game ever made, but it only very slightly gets the edge over DkS.
I really like Blighttown, New Londo and the Tomb of Giants.
Warp from the start created a game way more linear than the first one. The bosses are inferior, the OST is inferior, level design is worse, Agility stat sucks (it doesn't make your character better, it makes the character not suck) and the hit detection is terrible.
I like Dark Souls 2, but it's way inferior than the first one. Demon's Souls is also better. I started replaying it yesterday, and I think I like it more than Dark Souls 1 too.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with almost everything.
Sorry to quote just this but this is something that I don't really get: Why it is too bad that a videogame feels like a videogame? Nowadays, videogames try too hard to feel more like bluckbuster movies or TV series instead of just being videogames and take advantage of just that (in that regard Dark Souls, DS II, and Demon's Souls are some of the best titles that take advantage of just being games). I really think that that mentality is hurting rather than helping the industry.
Because it breaks the inmersion the world is trying to be, You can say dark souls 2 is more simplified in that regard with the short zones transitions and fast traveling didnt help either.
Because it breaks the inmersion the world is trying to be, You can say dark souls 2 is more simplified in that regard with the short zones transitions and fast traveling didnt help either.
I don't see how. Demon's Souls has the same mechanics regarding "transitions" and fast traveling too, to the point that even the names of areas don't even matter and people keep calling them 1-1, 1-2, etc. making a clear distinction that the areas are "videogame levels".
I still don't understand why it is a bad thing that areas "feel like videogame levels".
Sorry to quote just this but this is something that I don't really get: Why it is too bad that a videogame feels like a videogame? Nowadays, videogames try too hard to feel more like bluckbuster movies or TV series instead of just being videogames and take advantage of just that (in that regard Dark Souls, DS II, and Demon's Souls are some of the best titles that take advantage of just being games). I really think that that mentality is hurting rather than helping the industry.
When I play a game like Dark Souls I want to be immersed. I really hate being fully aware of the fact that I'm just a college student sitting in front of a screen pushing buttons on a controller. An adventure game that doesn't hide the puppet strings well enough to convey a real sense of adventure is, to me, badly designed.
I won't go over the same old arguments again, but I'd like to bring attention to something that bothers me personally about DaS2 and no one else seems to bring up. Look at this:
What is this shit? Has the B-Team ever heard of these things called ankles or toes? Just awful. The Maiden in Black would be shaking her head.
EDIT: Seriously From, you'd better fix this in Scholar of the Lost Sin.
The biggest gripe I had with DS2 was the hit boxes. It just seemed that (in boss fights particularly) my perception of my enemy's move-set and my efforts to evade were always off. Aava, the King's pet for instance, had a MASSIVE and INCONSISTENT area of effect with several of its lunge/paw attacks. DS on the other hand was infallible in this regard.
DS2 felt like a direct-to-DVD sequel that really didn't need to be made. I didn't put more than a few hours in and never touched it again. I've put a couple hundred hours into both Demon's and Dark, and DS2 just made me appreciate both those games even more.
I don't see how. Demon's Souls has the same mechanics regarding "transitions" and fast traveling too, to the point that even the names of areas don't even matter and people keep calling them 1-1, 1-2, etc. making a clear distinction that the areas are "videogame levels".
I still don't understand why it is a bad thing that areas "feel like videogame levels".
When the game was originally released, the Shrine of Amana was WAY more annoying than Blighttown or New Londo Ruins. On top of that, many of DSII's areas are just plain lazily designed. Aldia's Keep, Drangleic Castle, Black Gultch, Heide's Tower of Flame, and the Shaded Ruins are simple and boring to traverse. Hell, Heide's Tower of Flame is just a t-junction.
Also, I think the fast-travel is partially to blame for none of the worlds fitting together and the lack of interesting or meaningful shortcuts. You're right, for new players, there was a tone of back-tracking. That made it all the better when you discovered some new way of getting to and from an area. The DSII world never feels cohesive because when you leave Majula, you're going through a dead-end linear path. Not to mention you find physically impossible shit like the Iron Keep being somewhere in the sky. All that does is punish people for paying attention to your game.
The music isn't as memorable, probably because the bosses aren't as memorable.
The game is kind of a mess in terms of lore and characters because it intentionally borrows so many things from DS1. There are so many areas and character that are off-brand versions of DS1 areas and characters. Najka is just a less interesting Quelaag, the Royal Rat Authority is just a shitty Sif with enemies in the boss arena, the Fume Knight is just Artorias, the Gutter is Blighttown, and Lucatiel is a boring Solaire. I know they make an attempt at justifying this in the lore, but it just comes across as lazy.
Then again, I think Dark Souls 1 is better in almost every way.
The OP's statements were inflammatory indeed, just like some of his posts that I've seen in the community threads. New Londo Ruins is one of my absolute favorite places to farm. I don't mind Blighttown or Tomb of the Giants at all. A blind man could see the superiority in DS1's level design and game play. Sure, there are bits and pieces of DS2 that are improved but the whole package doesn't compare to either of its predecessors.
I like DS2 better than any other game of its time with GTAV closely behind. DS1 though, is on another level in almost every way except for frame rate and PvP (I'm nearing the end of DS2). Everybody is pretty much in consensus with this and has been for some time.
This game, in scope and design, seems to me to be better compared to Demon's Souls, but again, it's inferior.
The fast travel decision is hands down one of the worst design decisions of the year. Building such an interconnected world and forcing the player to learn how the world bends back around is a huge part of what made that world so memorable and it was one of the defining characteristics of Dark Souls. In DS2 you just fast traveled everywhere.
Playing through Dark Souls 2 right now, and I agree completely. I'm enjoying DS2 a lot, but this is an area where the game is really falling short. In DS1, finding a shortcut was such a great moment, because on top of the shortened travel time you get the thrill of discovering that you've looped around without even knowing it. The world in 1 is so interconnected.
This map is a great example. It's just the first chunk of the game, but you can see how it loops around itself and where all the shortcuts are, and it all makes sense. Fast travel up front kind of ruins that sense.
Every so often in 2 I'll discover a shortcut and I won't care, because I just warp everywhere forever. Still a great game, but I definitely agree with the criticisms I've read from other people.
I like the Catacombs, I like how you play it the first time and it's tough but having the Necros there getting permanently killed helps ensure progress. New Londo Ruins are good too although the ghosts going through the floor I don't like much. Blighttown is a mixed bag but I mostly like it.
For me the worst areas of DS1 is Lost Izalith which looks like it was designed by an 8 year old. The Great Hollow which looks ok but is really boring and frustrating to play, and Ash Lake which is just a big boring area with the flying Hydra being the only thing I liked.
DS2's levels just don't stand out enough in a good way, they're kinda dull and lack the wow factor of the first game's levels. The Gutter sucks after the first play through and Tseldora is a mess of random terribleness.
The meat of these games is the combat and it's more satisfying and responsive in the first game and that's the biggest reason why it's better.
Yeah, didn't like how early they gave you fast travel in 2. I have a mental map of the1st game up to sens fortress thanks to that and it's good thing IMO. The only thing I really remember of 2 is the path from majula to the forest of fallen giants and I've put in about the same amount of time into both according to steam.
I've wrote a lot on this subject in the past so I'll just condense my feelings into two self-explanatory points and leave it at that.
Soul memory sucks
Hinting at how old something is or how it might connect to the lore of a superior game does not make a world compelling
DS2 was a one step forward, two steps back kind of game. Still had a lot of fun with it, but I can't think of any reason to return to it over its predecessor.
Pisses on Dark Souls, outright shits on Dark Souls 2.
The magic of Demon's isn't just nostalgia. Semi recently watched a let's play all the way through. It was fantastic.
Amazing atmosphere, great characters, etc.
Dark Souls definitely has the superior mechanics, but Demon's wins the day all around in most regards.
In Demon's and Dark, I wanted to get right back into the world after beating them.. In Dark Souls 2, I could barely be bothered to finish it. It's definitely an engaging game, but it's not the better game, to me.
Variations on this point keep cropping up, and theyre just as subjective as saying that DS2 is more fun. Its not lazy design, its simply a different design, Demon Souls used a hub system as well as similarly wasnt "lazier" than Dark Souls. It was simply different. Similarly a connected world isnt inherently better than a hub system, which seems to be the implicit value judgement behind a number of these comments. It is again simply different. Of course the implementation of a specific interconnected or hub system can be better analysed, but theres no intrisnic superiority of one sytem over the other.
I agree with you that hub-based systems (DeS) are not inherently superior or inferior to interconnected systems (DkS). It is why some people prefer DeS over DkS and vice-versa, among other valid reasons.
However, I feel that DkS2's implementation of a hub-based system was very poor in comparison to Demon's Souls. Demon's Souls levels, although hub-based, were very complex with interconnectedness within each level to make up for the segregation of each stage. This adds complexity to the levels and enhances enjoyment/re-playability.
It is in this respect that people lament DSII's world design because it's essentially narrow corridors that attempt (but fail) at connecting disparate elements with no rhyme, reason, or freedom of player exploration. You end up with very silly instances like an elevator taking you to a volcano (which sits where you previously saw nothing but open sky).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Demon's Souls hub-based approach enables variety. Each of the stages was unique.
Dark Souls interconnected, labyrinthine approach enables an incredible level of cohesion. The world feels complete.
Yeah, it's just one of the ways (let's be honest, there are a handful) in which DS2 is a pale imitation of what made the first so great. Way too many enemies in DS2 have infinite stamina, unrealistically high poise and attacks that track like we're playing a turn based RPG. That shit can fuck right off.
Unrelated: Freja is a stupid fight. I'd be willing to defend Freja if it they didn't give it wasn't for the giant laser beam. Seriously, one of the designers actually thought the giant frickin laser beam fitted in with all the other elements of Freja's look and feel.
There's a lot about New Londo that I like, primarily the environmental art design (even if it could use more internal variety), and the core idea that the place had to be "sealed" by dumping a lake on it and literally sealing the gates shut to drown it. The Four Kings are pretty neat designs, too.
The problem is, though, if I try to think of it from any sort of deeper lore perspective the place is just a huge mess. Why are there ghosts? Yes, what happened there was tragic, but the areas of Dark Souls are a morass of non-stop tragedy, and yet none of the other places seem to be haunted. What even are ghosts in the context of a world where Undead and Nito exist?
Why does being cursed allow you to hit them, when "cursed" in the context of Dark Souls actually just means "petrified" (as opposed to Dark Souls II, where the Curse mechanic is a more distinct thing)? I actually imagine this one was a split somewhere in development where Curse and Petrification were two separate things that got rolled together when they realized there were barely enough instances of either to justify their inclusion, but it still makes for some bizarre mental gymnastics when it comes to reconciling it with the rest of the elements on display.
There's a lot about the area that makes me think that either it was designed partially in a vacuum compared to the rest of the environments, or that it may have been slightly rushed or paired down in terms of content. What's there is still pretty interesting conceptually and visually, but it feels like an incomplete form of something much better.
(Oh, and as far as the actual play-space goes: it's pretty cool the first time through, but it's definitely an area I started to speedrun on later playthroughs. The charm was lost pretty quickly for me, especially compared to places like Sen's Fortress or Undead Burg/Parish that I actively enjoy revisiting and don't just blitz through.)
I agree that DS1 has more rough edges than DS2, just in terms of things that didn't really come together or actually feel unfinished (hi, Lost Izalith!), but I still have a lot more fondness for it than DS2. The basic problem with DS2 is a lack of creativity and ambition, two things the original had in spades. DS2's hub-and-spoke world with its linear levels (with far too many bonfires and few meaningful shortcuts or interconnections) and rote enemy design just didn't inspire the same wonder that made the original so amazing. I'll take something like New Londo-- glitchy but creative, with a compelling story told by unique enemies, NPCs, item descriptions, and the level design itself--over just about any area in the sequel. Seriously, I can't think of any place in DS2 that compares to that one example, and it's hardly my favorite place in DS. DS2 is safe and formulaic in comparison, which is probably my biggest problem with it.
It's probably still my favorite game in 2014, so don't get the wrong idea. I definitely don't hate it.
DS2 is probably my GOTY but it isn't better than DS1 in my eyes. Its always one step forward then two steps back with this game for me. Love the dual wielding but you really don't have any interesting enemy encounters to utilize it with. Love rolling in any direction but then they tie i-frames to both weight and a stat making it nearly unreliable until end game when you need it less. Hit detection is significantly worse and the tracking on some the enemies attacks is just bs.
There are also little things I dislike like why can't I check my item discovery like in dark souls? Or why can't I check how much health I have when I open up the menu like you could in dark souls? Why did they nerf the red tearstone ring? Most people might not care about that last one but I really loved using red tearstone set ups and now their really no reason since it only gives a 20% attack boost when at low health. I could probably get the same boost buy wearing ring of blades +2 and buffing my weapon with a resin. Really no point in even using it. Yeah, you can use multiple souls but you can't turn in multiple faction items. Why? It makes no sense since you can use multiple items in your inventory and this was something people complained about in Dark Souls.
Also I liked all of those areas especially Blighttown. Its honestly one of the best areas in Dark Souls 1. The only bad part about it was the bad frame rate on consoles.
I disagree with most of the points. DS2, while above average, can't live up for DS1 in any way, in my opinion.
First of all, the art style, boss and enemy and field designs are solid, with different variations in accordance with each environment. Each design contributes to the story of the enemy/boss/place. That made the story much more opulent. For example:
Priscilla's giant physique hints to her origin; a crossbreed between a possibly a dragon and a god. The number of different enemies in the world of Ariamis, and the general atmosphere of the area tells you that the world is in fact a prison in which peculiar artifacts are banished into
. All of this is not given to the player directly.
The world in Dark Souls 1, Lordran, is much more consistent and organized.
You are at the Firelink Shrine, you go down to the depths, then further down into Blighttown, then further down earth to reach demon ruins and further down to the lowest point which is lost Izalith.
That was one of the major things that made the game much more enjoyable for me.
I hated how areas in Dranglic were seemingly random, and how the connections between them made absolutely no sense.
At Majula you go a fire tower in the middle of nowhere which links to a cathedral and underground port?!
.
Furthermore, the early fast travel option in DS2 was completely unnecessary. And I'm sure it was the cause for the ridiculously abundant number of bonfires in each area, something that made the game easier and less threatening.
Also, maybe it's just me, but the battle system in DS2 was way too sloppy. I played the majority of the game with a plain mace. Didn't feel the need to change armor, and leveling up didn't seem to show effect unless it was 10 levels or more at a time. The covenant system, least to say, was a downgrade from the DS1; each covenants perks were trivial.
Finally, Dark Souls 2 lacked iconic features. This is purely subjective of course. Nothing in the game was as iconic as Solaire, as matter of fact NPC's were so boring. Nothing was as frightening as walking in the
Tomb of Giants looking for fucked up skeletons
. Nothing was as stressful as handling
the "four" kings
. Nothing was as breathtaking as seeing
Anor Londo
for the first time.
In my opinion, Dark Souls 2 aspired to surpass Dark Souls 1 by adding too much of everything and forgetting what made Dark Souls 1 truly special. It still stands as a true example of how quantity means nothing if there's no quality.
