Not sure how I'd rank them, but I can say that I finished DS2 in the quickest amount of time and was enjoying it a lot. Some of this factors into craving a specific type of experience/genre at certain times though IMO. There are legitimately times I have no interest in a Dark Souls (like) experience...other times though, a fiendish addict.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dark Souls VS Dark Souls II
- Thread starter Trick_GSF
- Start date
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Dat Maiden of Astraea Theme
This is like comparing Batman Begins and TDK for me.
I feel like Dark Souls (the TDK) is objectively the better game but Dark Souls II (the BB) is the one that just resonates with me in a unique way.
EDIT:
DaS is a stronger overall experience, DaSII has a higher fun-per-minute ratio imo
I feel like Dark Souls (the TDK) is objectively the better game but Dark Souls II (the BB) is the one that just resonates with me in a unique way.
EDIT:
DaS is a stronger overall experience, DaSII has a higher fun-per-minute ratio imo
Robot Pants
Member
Dark Souls 1 by a mile.
It's a once in a lifetime game that they will probably never be able to recreate. They just knocked it out of the park.
It's a once in a lifetime game that they will probably never be able to recreate. They just knocked it out of the park.
Well, there is. I mean, you can choose not to use the hub if you want to do a level 1 run. I didn't mention this as a negative though.
This is often an argument that pops up about players imposing restrictions on themselves to make things harder or more enjoyable. I think it's a flaw in design that the tension is gone unless you put it back yourself. The game is designed to let you warp.
I also find a problem with the people complaining about the health decrease with each death. Just use the ring of binding. Problem solved.
Romars202129
Member
I feel like the level designer of this game went into this thinking Sen's Fortress was a terrible level. Because the level design is incredibly weak. There's not one area not only as good as that that I've found, but there's not even one area even trying to be it. It's all just guantlets with no thought to true challenge.
Level design is shit, in plain terms.
What's worse though, is the boss battles are a downgrade as well. So dissappointing, especially since From freaking killed it in this regard with their last release[Artorias DLC].
However, I don't get the comments about the combat. In my oppinion, combat is the same/slightly better than the original.
Anyways, it's still a good game though. Wouldn't be surprised if it ended up as my goty.
Level design is shit, in plain terms.
What's worse though, is the boss battles are a downgrade as well. So dissappointing, especially since From freaking killed it in this regard with their last release[Artorias DLC].
However, I don't get the comments about the combat. In my oppinion, combat is the same/slightly better than the original.
Though, one thing I am completely unable to understand is those that think this is better than Dark 1. ENB, I don't get it, the lore isn't even better!
Anyways, it's still a good game though. Wouldn't be surprised if it ended up as my goty.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I thought Demon's Souls was just ok, but Dark Souls was incredible thanks mostly to the openness and connectivity of the world, particularly with the master key. The level design really went closer to Demon's Souls with this one so personally I'm not going to like it as much.
Dark souls by far.I havenot found a single aspect in Dark Souls 2 that is superior to the first.
Aesthetically as well as in terms of gameplay the first game is just so much better.The music was somehow much better in the first as well.Although both games share the composer.
The insane recovery times on every action you execute was terrible.
The bosses were mostly pretty boring.
The ability to warp really took out the threat of the world imo.They added too many bonfires so you basically don't have to move an inch.
Disappointing lore , Visuals and very bland armor designs.
Enemy tracking pretty damn annoying.
So compared to Dks, Dks2 is disappointing.
Its stilla great game in its own right.
Aesthetically as well as in terms of gameplay the first game is just so much better.The music was somehow much better in the first as well.Although both games share the composer.
The insane recovery times on every action you execute was terrible.
The bosses were mostly pretty boring.
The ability to warp really took out the threat of the world imo.They added too many bonfires so you basically don't have to move an inch.
Disappointing lore , Visuals and very bland armor designs.
Enemy tracking pretty damn annoying.
So compared to Dks, Dks2 is disappointing.
Its stilla great game in its own right.
MikeE21286
Member
DSI never really grabbed me.
DSII is grabbing me really hard. Haven't played as much as others due to, well life, but I've alraedy played about 25 hours in it and am not slowing down.
Most I've been drawn into a game in a long time.
DSII is grabbing me really hard. Haven't played as much as others due to, well life, but I've alraedy played about 25 hours in it and am not slowing down.
Most I've been drawn into a game in a long time.
AKingNamedPaul
I am Homie
For me all 3 souls games have differences , but are still of the same tier. Any list I comprise would just be about how I'm feeling on that day and how much nostalgia I'm influenced by. 3 great games, I believe dark 2 to be the best built game of the 3 mechanically.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
Same shit, different number. It's not even about 1, 2 & 3, it's just "Souls games" now; they all bleed together and are all fucking awesome.
I found it just as good as the first game. I don't get the complaints about bosses being easy though, Dark Souls vanilla bosses were ridiculously easy, imo. You could cheese everyone of them even Gwyn, and the fact that you can parry him makes that fight a joke! The only fight that was hard was Orns and Smough, depending on your build. Hell I took em both down very easily with just bows and crossbows so even they aren't above cheesing. I don't remember any boss being really that hard. Now DLC bosses were quite hard at first and it took me a while to get used to their aggressiveness. I think Lost Sinner and Smelter Demon are kinda like the DLC bosses, at least to me they were. I couldn't heal for shit during Lost Sinner. Smelter, like Artorias you could heal while he was buffing. I didn't like that almost every boss encounter was either 2 or 3 bosses to fight but they weren't really that bad or tough. I enjoyed the Chariot boss fight the most, though, and also had the most trouble with it as well because of the skeletons and the freakin' necromancers. But I seriously don't get the complaint that every boss is easy compared to first game. Capra was hard at first in the first game but it wasn't him itself though, it was partly because of the tiny boss area but mostly because of the dogs, but other than that I don't remember having as much trouble with any boss in the first game.
As far as the world goes for me Demon's world and atmosphere is still the best. I haven't really experimented with weapons as much but I prefer Demon's weapons and the upgrade paths much better.
So far, for me its Demon's >>>>DaS = DaS2
Here's to hoping all the rumours about Demon's are true and that it would be just as good as that game!
As far as the world goes for me Demon's world and atmosphere is still the best. I haven't really experimented with weapons as much but I prefer Demon's weapons and the upgrade paths much better.
So far, for me its Demon's >>>>DaS = DaS2
Here's to hoping all the rumours about Demon's are true and that it would be just as good as that game!
Really didn't care for the way levels were laid out in Dark Souls II, both on the scale of the world and reduced to individual areas. The ability to warp everywhere all the time did hurt the game, and the numerous instances where the level cut you off from walking back to the bonfire you had even come from felt so bizarre. The levels themselves were all just really dull. I think The Gutter is literally just a series of magical floating wooden boxes. It doesn't help that most of the basic enemies are completely and utterly trivial. There are small glimpses where Dark Souls 2 feels like the hardest in the series, but for the most part I found myself easily overpowering regular enemies. Even most of the bosses wound up being things I could conquer in my first attempt. I think the moment that defined Dark Souls 2 the most was when I met
again, and beat him without ever taking a hit.
Ornstein
that is really a baffling statement to me...
What do we really get in the second half of Dks2 that's better than 1 ?
Aldia's keep, shrine of amana, dragon's shrine, drangleic castle really aren't that great.
These areas, except the castle, are pretty linear and boring. They are the best looking areas sure but they aren't that great still.
Trying to hunt the four lord souls in Dark Souls 1 was a much more thrilling experience.
Just because the bed of chaos sucks doesn't mean the rest of the game does too.
Dark Souls 1's second half is better than 2's second half.
ExiledMarkzmen
Neo Member
Im at the end of Dark Souls 2 now and while I enjoy the game ... its no where near as good as the first one to me anyway. The bosses arent memorable and neither are the areas. Seeing places like Anor Londo and Ash Lake for the first time were amazing. Than bosses like
were amazing. The only area I thought was great in Dark Souls 2 is
. That part when you cross the bridge into the
looked amazing. As for bosses so far I think the
was a pretty cool design. Oh and seeing
was pretty cool too.
sif, gaping dragon, nito, moonlight butterfly, seath and the four kings
Aldias Keep
dragon fight
Demon of Song
Drangleic Castle
Dark Souls 1 by far !
More memorable locations, better connected worlds, makes more sense. I don't even know wtf I am doing in DS2. Eventhough performance on average is better than DS1, Dark Souls 2 has input lag in controls which is frustrating due to the slow ass animations (including the estus animation which was slowed down due to balancing, which is fine but why can't I immediately run after I am done with it?), and the disc version is fucked due to menu lag and audio lag.
EDI: DS2 lacks a lot in terms of loots compared to DS1 imo. I am 30-40 hours in and I still haven't found an armour set that was better than the one I had 10 hours in. Whereas in DS1 I wouldn't even have to look around and find them as time passes.
More memorable locations, better connected worlds, makes more sense. I don't even know wtf I am doing in DS2. Eventhough performance on average is better than DS1, Dark Souls 2 has input lag in controls which is frustrating due to the slow ass animations (including the estus animation which was slowed down due to balancing, which is fine but why can't I immediately run after I am done with it?), and the disc version is fucked due to menu lag and audio lag.
EDI: DS2 lacks a lot in terms of loots compared to DS1 imo. I am 30-40 hours in and I still haven't found an armour set that was better than the one I had 10 hours in. Whereas in DS1 I wouldn't even have to look around and find them as time passes.
Fuck blighttown and it's glitchy, thrown together design (just had to say that).
Dark souls 2 is better in almost every way. Fast travel is actually great and is a much needed improvement over the first game. And a lot of the areas are actually amazing. The only negative is that the world doesn't feel quite as cohesively designed.
Dark souls 2 is better in almost every way. Fast travel is actually great and is a much needed improvement over the first game. And a lot of the areas are actually amazing. The only negative is that the world doesn't feel quite as cohesively designed.
40 hours can mean a lot of things in DS2 with how non-linear the first half is, but I'm not seeing this at all; there's multiple armoursets around in the initial areas, and you can expand the shops very early to sell several more too (spending souls there causes some of the shops to sell new stuff). In release Dark Souls 1, as a light-armour build, I basically used the armour you get from the Ceaseless Discharge arena for the entire rest of the game, as it's weight-defense value was far ahead of every other light armour until they nerfed it in a patch.
Edit: and that's without even getting into the Havel and Giantdad ninjas.
Eh, I don't judge an area on whether it is linear or not, but if you do, you should be aware that the areas in the second half of DaS1 were still very linear. Lost Izalith is still shitty, and it's only exaggerated by how they had to patch out a lot of the enemies in there. Four Kings was a really crappy boss fight in my opinion as well, though New Londo Ruins was nice. Nito had a good atmosphere but was a complete pushover. The crystal cave looks pretty but is extremely linear.
Not to mention that the second half of DaS2 is more than those areas considering the length of the game. None of the late game areas in DaS2 are as bad as Lost Izalith at the very least.
Not in all battles. I've had several extended PvP battles and they've been fun. PvP is better now than in DkS1 with constant lagstabs.
I don't know how Lost Sinner is boring with how aggressive she is.
IMO Old Dragonslayer, Ancient Dragon, Ruin Sentinels. On the DkS1 side I liked Kalameet too...
Either way I don't think the OST of these games is that great overall, Demon's Souls included, where I can only remember Astraea's theme. Sakuraba has much stronger soundtracks than Dark Souls.
Dark Souls 1 is the better game due to its world. I think the warping in 2 is alright, but in future games I think they should let you warp later. 2 is more open, yet more linear if you just continue on the specific world branches.
Combat is basically the same in both games. There are minute differences that don't really change how the games are played. I just like that in PvP, backstabs are not as commonplace in 2.
Level design is probably better in 1. I felt areas in 1 where generally longer which I prefer. I don't think there's an area in 2 as long as Anor Londo. Dragon Shrine looked a bit similar to Anor Londo, but it's not as good due to being short and level design being basic. However, the game does have better areas.
Animations are alright in 2. The run is similar to Dark Souls and the walk looks fine. The jump looks kinda dumb since your character jumps an inch off the ground, but I don't place much if any importance on animations in these games either way, since they're so grounded, not some crazy anime style game. I really like the new spell animations though.
The hitboxes are OK except for really small enemies like crystal lizards or the wolves where you need a weapon that strikes the ground directly, or a bow or something. Other than that, never had a problem.
The framerate is easily better and more consistent in 2. Some people will say otherwise, either due to a completely different experience or they forgot how DkS1 ran on PS3 at times, and I'm not just talking about Blighttown. However, load times are worse :/
Overall, Dark Souls 1 is better, but I wouldn't say way more so. In ways I felt like it was Luke a followup to Demon's Souls than Dark Souls. For the next Souls game, I hope they model Dark Souls 1 more closely.
Kevin Shields
Member
Man, I'm getting close to the final stretch of areas and if DS2's end game sucks as bad as Ds1s then I am going to be pissed... Lost Izalith was lazy design wise besides the awful boss. I think game would be objectively better if they could just patch out that whole area.
Metalingus5150
Member
I feel like Dark Souls 2 had a REALLY strong later half.
There was a part in Dark Souls 2 that just grabbed me and I couldn't put the game down.
There was a part in Dark Souls 2 that just grabbed me and I couldn't put the game down.
GodParticle
Member
I think DS1 had a better fleshed out world. DS2 had a lot of variety, but a lot of the areas felt like bite-sized levels. I think I've had more fun in DS2 so far, though. I like how much better it runs(on 360) and there are some interesting ways to play
I've seen most people agree Dark Souls 2's second half is better. Though I really like New Londo.
There's nothing like Lost Izalith. Which I didn't think was that terrible, but...
Not even remotely. I'm not convinced DS2's endgame is quite as big an improvement as I hoped based on some early impressions, as the late parts still feel a bit short and linear at times and
the Giant memories feel a bit cheap
N
Noray
Unconfirmed Member
Dark Souls 2 is categorically the better game, imo. Some context: I've played somewhere between 300-400 hours of Dark Souls across all three platforms. And every time I get past Anor Londo, my will to continue is sapped. I just do it and get it over with, but I don't enjoy any of those areas with the exception of the Duke's Archives. But then I hate the Crystal Caves. New Londo is alright, but it's over really quickly, and the ghosts are just annoying.
The most common complaint I see is that Dark Souls 2 doesn't have the connected world of the first. But once you know how it connects, the net effect is just that it feels really small. Dark Souls 2, by comparison, feels HUGE. And it definitely is bigger and longer than Dark Souls. The sprawl of the world, rather than the corkscrew nature of DkS1, feels like a deliberate design choice. I think the people saying the level design is worse are misguided. I mean, it's fair if you like that style of design better, but that doesn't make Dark Souls 2's design worse imo. And individually, I like all the areas better, though sometimes the bonfires really are too close together, and sometimes you get a pretty long run to the boss (Brightstone Cove), so it's slightly inconsistent. But I don't miss boss runs like going from fucking Firelink to the Four Kings if you screw up, dear lord. I know there are lore reasons for there to be no bonfires in New Londo, but come on son.
I think the complaints about the bosses are somewhat more valid, but only because there isn't really any boss that struck me as incredibly novel in Dark Souls 2, except the Executioner's Chariot. Some of them aren't great, but there are also more bosses than in Demon's and Dark Souls combined, so I'll still take it. I'd put Darklurker up there with any Dark Souls boss, though, but he's optional and easily missed.
Story-wise, although I find it a lot more confusing and vague, Dark Souls 2 blew me away with some moments, like the end of the Crypt. From Drangleic Castle onwards, the momentum is incredible and the areas are fantastic. People complaining about Shrine of Amana? Git gud. Seriously. Learn to roll. Bring a bow, or throwing knives. Don't go crying because you're pure melee and ignoring the many, many consumable items you can use to make your life easier even as pure melee, or crossbows, or shields with strong magic resist. I never felt like the game was cheap at all, there wasn't a moment like those asshole Anor Londo archers, but then I'm also a better player than I was then, so ymmv.
So yeah, better level design, more intriguing story, more bosses, more variety in builds and combat styles, I think it's absolutely better, no caveats. The only thing it suffers from is that it just isn't new, it is mostly more of the same. But better. That's all I ever wanted, though. This series has improved with every installment as far as I'm concerned.
The most common complaint I see is that Dark Souls 2 doesn't have the connected world of the first. But once you know how it connects, the net effect is just that it feels really small. Dark Souls 2, by comparison, feels HUGE. And it definitely is bigger and longer than Dark Souls. The sprawl of the world, rather than the corkscrew nature of DkS1, feels like a deliberate design choice. I think the people saying the level design is worse are misguided. I mean, it's fair if you like that style of design better, but that doesn't make Dark Souls 2's design worse imo. And individually, I like all the areas better, though sometimes the bonfires really are too close together, and sometimes you get a pretty long run to the boss (Brightstone Cove), so it's slightly inconsistent. But I don't miss boss runs like going from fucking Firelink to the Four Kings if you screw up, dear lord. I know there are lore reasons for there to be no bonfires in New Londo, but come on son.
I think the complaints about the bosses are somewhat more valid, but only because there isn't really any boss that struck me as incredibly novel in Dark Souls 2, except the Executioner's Chariot. Some of them aren't great, but there are also more bosses than in Demon's and Dark Souls combined, so I'll still take it. I'd put Darklurker up there with any Dark Souls boss, though, but he's optional and easily missed.
Story-wise, although I find it a lot more confusing and vague, Dark Souls 2 blew me away with some moments, like the end of the Crypt. From Drangleic Castle onwards, the momentum is incredible and the areas are fantastic. People complaining about Shrine of Amana? Git gud. Seriously. Learn to roll. Bring a bow, or throwing knives. Don't go crying because you're pure melee and ignoring the many, many consumable items you can use to make your life easier even as pure melee, or crossbows, or shields with strong magic resist. I never felt like the game was cheap at all, there wasn't a moment like those asshole Anor Londo archers, but then I'm also a better player than I was then, so ymmv.
So yeah, better level design, more intriguing story, more bosses, more variety in builds and combat styles, I think it's absolutely better, no caveats. The only thing it suffers from is that it just isn't new, it is mostly more of the same. But better. That's all I ever wanted, though. This series has improved with every installment as far as I'm concerned.
My favorite game in the series is still DeS, but I admit that it might be nostalgia talking, mixed with the newness of the experience back then. I prefer DkS1 over DkS2.
The second game was a lot of fun, but it felt like a "Greatest Hits" version of the Souls series, which is fine, but they didn't really add a lot of new gameplay ideas (the torch was criminally underused) or settings (at least in the first 2/3rds, and one could argue that there's a story-related reason for that). In almost every area of the game, I was thinking about this either being a nod to Des or DkS1. Same with the bosses; There were more of them, but they felt a lot less memorable (neither in design nor in their fighting style). Some of the game felt a bit like filler material, or at least a bit unfinished design-wise, but I had the same complaint about parts of the second half in DkS1.
That being said, once you get to Drangleic Castle, the game got a lot more interesting. Sure, Aldia's Keep felt a bit like Painted World, but I freaking loved it. Dragon Shrine was incredibly impressive and Shrine of Amana was such an atmospheric and challenging area. I was not disappointed by DkS2 and enjoyed most of my time with it, but the game didn't leave me in awe like DeS and DkS1.
The second game was a lot of fun, but it felt like a "Greatest Hits" version of the Souls series, which is fine, but they didn't really add a lot of new gameplay ideas (the torch was criminally underused) or settings (at least in the first 2/3rds, and one could argue that there's a story-related reason for that). In almost every area of the game, I was thinking about this either being a nod to Des or DkS1. Same with the bosses; There were more of them, but they felt a lot less memorable (neither in design nor in their fighting style). Some of the game felt a bit like filler material, or at least a bit unfinished design-wise, but I had the same complaint about parts of the second half in DkS1.
That being said, once you get to Drangleic Castle, the game got a lot more interesting. Sure, Aldia's Keep felt a bit like Painted World, but I freaking loved it. Dragon Shrine was incredibly impressive and Shrine of Amana was such an atmospheric and challenging area. I was not disappointed by DkS2 and enjoyed most of my time with it, but the game didn't leave me in awe like DeS and DkS1.
Valkerionseven
Member
Personally had to just straight up admit this morning... I'm not enjoying Dark Souls 2 at all. I keep trying to play it but each time has been worse than the last which is weird since I loved the previous two games.
Just put it down and have 0 interest in the game at the moment. Made it past the Lost Sinner but man it feels like the game is fighting itself half the time in the worst ways.
Just put it down and have 0 interest in the game at the moment. Made it past the Lost Sinner but man it feels like the game is fighting itself half the time in the worst ways.
Since you're talking about making it "past" Lost Sinner like you're somehow forced that way it sounds like you've missed all the alternative ways that are much more reasonable for an early game character, also
did you fight Lost Sinner in darkness?
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
Kevin Shields
Member
On my impressions so far I would agree with you that the combat (in mechanics and viable options) is better than DS1, although level design I would still prefer DS1 (especially first half) and I don't think more bosses makes DS2 better but may hurt it more in the end. With that said, the more I play the more i think I like it on par with DS1 and hopefully endgame will be as good as most people are hyping it up to be (although its good that some people have tempered my expectations so I'm not expecting to meet Jesus Christ at the gates of Drangleic Castle...)
As someone who played DeS AFTER DkS (and haven't played DkS2 yet) i can tell you that DeS definitely has some aspects better than DkS, imo.
For one the atmosphere of DeS' highs was never reached by DkS: Maiden Astrea, Flame Lurker, the claustrophobic tunnels, the whole Tower of Latria.
Basically: DkS was more consistently good and had a lot more content, DeS had higher highs and lower lows.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
Wonderful point.
Nocturnowl
Member
I'm definitely leaning in favour of the first Dark Souls right now with most of my reasons already stated by others.
In particular I was incredibly disappointed to see that DS2 dropped the interconnected world design of Dark Souls, for me that was one of the defining strengths of that game and what elevated its overall design to the next level.
Stronger bosses as well in DS, with its sequel they seemed to be expanding things under the notion of bigger is better with more content yet there are few areas and bosses within the sequel that I find match the best of DS but who knows how I'll feel about things further down the line. Dark Souls after all has only grown on me more in the time since its release so perhaps Dark Souls 2 will do the same. There are a few points in the sequels favour but even then I'm reminded of other small niggles that work against it like only being able to level up at the hub area is a flow breaking change that I struggle to see the point of, little things that add up and bring the game down that bit more I suppose.
In particular I was incredibly disappointed to see that DS2 dropped the interconnected world design of Dark Souls, for me that was one of the defining strengths of that game and what elevated its overall design to the next level.
Stronger bosses as well in DS, with its sequel they seemed to be expanding things under the notion of bigger is better with more content yet there are few areas and bosses within the sequel that I find match the best of DS but who knows how I'll feel about things further down the line. Dark Souls after all has only grown on me more in the time since its release so perhaps Dark Souls 2 will do the same. There are a few points in the sequels favour but even then I'm reminded of other small niggles that work against it like only being able to level up at the hub area is a flow breaking change that I struggle to see the point of, little things that add up and bring the game down that bit more I suppose.
what?
it ran terrible on consoles, but looked great and the design was awesome.
jip, said the same long before the game came out.
That's good to hear, I feel the same way. The Tower of Latria and the Old Monk boss, Maiden Astrea and Shrine of Storms including the Manta Ray boss are still my favorite areas in the Series. Same goes for Boletarian Palace; it's still my favorite representation of the dilapidated castle motif that they re-used in Undead Burg and Forrest of the Fallen Giants.
Blighttown hardly feels thrown together. If it ran better on console I think most people would appreciate how well constructed it is overall.
Also, to the poster claiming lost sinner is boring, how? I thought that was the most difficult boss since o+s
They are good looking areas graphically.The best in the game.
But they aren't as good as Dark Souls 1 areas at all imo.
Tomb of the giants, the duke's archives, the demon ruins were pretty epic imo..Gwyn was better than Nashandra.
The best area in DS2 has to be lost bastille and sinner's rise.It had was really satisfying to beat that part.
I enjoyed TotG and Duke's Archives to be honest, but Demon Ruins didn't do much for me, especially with the 3 crappy bosses.
I see that we have much different taste in areas though, as Lost Bastille is one of the weaker points of DaS2 for me.
I agree with everything here. Especially your point about how ds2 is more of a sprawling world. ds1 was more connected.But it felt pretty small in comparison to ds2. ds2 felt more epic in scale.
I fell through geometry multiple times in blight town. Had the most amount of cheap deaths there too. Got stuck in geometry for a few seconds then got shot down into the swamp like a bullet multiple times (obviously died instantly). It got so annoying that I finally removed all my equipment, charged past all the enemies, quickly found the second bonfire, and took care of quelaag without much effort.
Maybe I ran into more glitches than normal there. But that combined with the framerate issues made me want to snap my disk in two.
Dunno what's up with your exploration but there are plenty of people who talk about the Old Ones and who they are/were/etc.
(Boss Spoilers)
The Lost Sinner
The place is a prison and the Lost Sinner was locked away in the deepest lowest cell. She committed a most heinous crime and thus was incarcerated for it.
The Rotten I will grant you probably could have used more build up. The area itself I thought was very well designed but there really wasn't anything to tell you about it.... that is until much later in the game and you realize what The Rotten is/was/etc.
I understand the complaints levied against the Huntsman's Copse -> Iron Keep and sort of how you don't really know where you're headed from each area. Or rather there isn't quite enough build up or hints at what's to come. I felt the areas had a cohesive theme throughout but as far as visually drawing you in from a distance and creating build up through that? I agree that that was lacking. I felt most other areas in the game at least did that fairly well but I found distinct lack of build up between poison valley to molten keep. Lore-wise it makes quite a bit of sense why it has such a change or why it is the way it is and that element is very understandable between the areas. However, like I keep saying, visually it isn't quite so obvious and thus there isn't really much build up to it. You can't really even see Iron Keep from below, only Earthen Keep.
Overall, I think Dark Souls 2 is the better game. Better constructed, Better designed and more interestingly varied levels. I understand why people want to jump on how intricately interwoven the first half of Dark Souls 1 was, but to say Dark Souls 2's level design is objectively worse is completely laughable. They are just two different approaches to level design. Dark Souls 2 clearly feels like it tried to find a center mix between Demon's Souls branching path ways and Dark Souls 1's design interwoven structure. Of course, that is also ignoring how Dark Souls 1's latter half is just the same as Dark Souls 2's where the last 4 areas are pretty much straightaways much like DeS and DaS2. The only downside is those latter areas were just not well made, ended up feeling rushed, or just pretty frustrating or boring.
The story was very disappointing in Dark Souls 2.The weakest out of the three.Its also the most cryptic.
The opening tells you nothing of value and there was no lead up to drangleic castle.
Go meet the king, seek larger souls.That's literally all you are told in Dark Souls 2 till you reach the castle.
The opening In Dark Souls establishes the lore and you actually see some of the enemies you have to take down later on.
Anor Londo archers are actually more skill based than anything in Shrine of Amana.
Shrine of Amana is super easy with a bow and A LOT of patience.
I fell through the gutter's geometry as well.
The gutter has all the flaws from blighttown and world 5 in Des but non of the strong points.
There is no feeling of dread or good lore to be found there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also what happened to the Armor Design in Dark Souls 2 ? Where's the stuff like this ?
@Noray
I agree, I think the series is getting better with each installment. DS and DS2 are so close I can't fully say one is better then the other. Each has great things I like. Overall I'd say they are equal but both are better then Demons. The Hub-world, level selection is a far worse way to go about things in a game like this. That alone puts DS and DS2 above DeS.
I agree, I think the series is getting better with each installment. DS and DS2 are so close I can't fully say one is better then the other. Each has great things I like. Overall I'd say they are equal but both are better then Demons. The Hub-world, level selection is a far worse way to go about things in a game like this. That alone puts DS and DS2 above DeS.