Oh my god I want that as my avatar lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Epicnamebro - Why do People Hate Dark Souls 2
- Thread starter xuchu
- Start date
Oh my god I want that as my avatar lol
pretty done
Member
What did he say that isn't true?
"Worst netcode in the series" when it's the best.
"Invasions almost never happened" when it's the title in the series where you can get the most invasions.
And unless your friend has had a vastily different game experience than you, it's not that hard to keep your soul memories in co-op range.
The complaining about the penalty when running out of stamina is weird. If you waste every single point of your stamina you should absolutely be punished. One of the worse things in DS3 is how you can just roll 10 times backwards to dodge anything in existence and barely wait to be able to roll again.
pretty done
Member
lol @ defending soul memory
Sounds like you just love DS2 unconditionally. His first two points are correct btw, at least for vanilla DS2. The netcode is fucking atrocious to the point where you can just swing in the air nowhere near people and get hits on them. I'd really love to know how "it's the title in the series where you can get the most invasions" when you can't even buy red eye orbs until NG+ but you just don't seem to back up anything you say with actual facts. DS2 is best crew is so funny :x
I wouldn't say "hate", it certainly isn't as good as the rest, but "hate" is a strong word. Certainly, there are those who'd vocally dissuade people from playing the game, as well as attacking any who dare to defend it, but they are the minority, a vocal one, that's all.
As for the reasons, it's pretty much detailed in the video: The game is average compared with the rest of the Soulsborne games. The level design feels separated from the lore, which is something that every other game(I think, not played PS entries) does really well, players could learn the story of a character by where their corpse ends up. The storytelling went a bit too in-your-face, leaving very little for players to explore. The horrible horrible decision to have iframe as a stat. The multiple-enemies per encounter design(though, I'm fine with that myself). The humanoid boss spam as you noticed, though we do have
second-wind-spam
It is a good game, sure enough, but just wasn't as good as the other games. I guess to some souls fans, that's just unforgivable, so they must spread their words like a doomsayer.
I personally like the game for what it is. What I dislike the most, aside from the adaptability bollocks, is the art style, there's just something that feels odd about the whole art style...
texhnolyze
Banned
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm thinking of Dark Souls 2 (especially with SotF update). It's still pretty much a Souls game through and through. Also, Souls games are all about adjusting and adapting to situations to me. And yet people lose their minds when they have to adapt a little bit for the changed mechanics in DS2.
I've let GAF talk me into buying DS1 and I hated it.
For that reason I kind of ignored Bloodborne at launch but watching the streams made me WANT to play this myself so I bought it a few days after launch.
When I started playing this game I was careful at every step I took. I never rushed into anything and repeatedly went back to a lantern to level up before engaging a group of enemies. I think it took me an hour to get past the mob with the fire in the street right at the beginning.
I loved it though. It clicked. I was fairly overleveled for the entire game but I never summoned someone until the DLCs.
Then DS3 was announced and I knew I had to play it. I couldn't wait for it to come out so in preparation I bought DS2 SOTFS. I had to get used to the mechanics because it is so very different from BB and after learning how to not fat-roll I got really into it.
I really enjoyed DS2 so I personally rate it higher than DS1. To be fair, though: I played DS2 after I "got" Souls games. I played DS1 before that. Who knows how I would see these games if it were the other way around.
For that reason I kind of ignored Bloodborne at launch but watching the streams made me WANT to play this myself so I bought it a few days after launch.
When I started playing this game I was careful at every step I took. I never rushed into anything and repeatedly went back to a lantern to level up before engaging a group of enemies. I think it took me an hour to get past the mob with the fire in the street right at the beginning.
I loved it though. It clicked. I was fairly overleveled for the entire game but I never summoned someone until the DLCs.
Then DS3 was announced and I knew I had to play it. I couldn't wait for it to come out so in preparation I bought DS2 SOTFS. I had to get used to the mechanics because it is so very different from BB and after learning how to not fat-roll I got really into it.
I really enjoyed DS2 so I personally rate it higher than DS1. To be fair, though: I played DS2 after I "got" Souls games. I played DS1 before that. Who knows how I would see these games if it were the other way around.
I think this just irks me.
Yeah, poison sucks to have in Dark Souls 2. It should suck, you're fucking poisoned.
It's not impossible to deal with. Even Mytha isn't that difficult with the poison if you have ample life gems and are aggressive. But it demands your attention, which I enjoy. Bloodborne also has fairly fast poison, and I enjoy it in that game too.
Dark Souls 3's original implementation of poison was so meaningless they buffed it in a patch.
affleck1981
Member
The way I get past this is that I'll do the ironing whilst watching a video of his - works like a podcast that I can stop and watch when he's doing something I find particularly interesting!
Swinging a weapon in the air nowhere near people and get hits on them? Sounds like every souls game, but sure.
Red eye orb ain't the only way to invade/get invaded but I guess you'd have to have played the actual game to know that.
If you actually played the game you would also know it's the only one in the series that allows for people to be invaded at basically every location even after the location is complete.
Funny that you try to say anything about "facts".
Conrad Link
Member
I really loved DS2 and never understood the hate it got, then Scholar of the First Sin came along and made it even better!
That package is so full of Souls content, kept me busy for a looong time, it's glorious.
While at the same time, I 100%'ed and enjoyed Bloodborne+DLC but never understood the extra huge erection everyone has for that one over say any of the other awesome FS titles. *shrugs* Opinions etc.
That package is so full of Souls content, kept me busy for a looong time, it's glorious.
While at the same time, I 100%'ed and enjoyed Bloodborne+DLC but never understood the extra huge erection everyone has for that one over say any of the other awesome FS titles. *shrugs* Opinions etc.
Arguing that the sequels lack creativity is very valid. People like these games for various reasons and when you have a sequel that is pretty predictable and by the numbers then it should be understandable to you why someone might be a little disappointed. I have just just gotten back into playing DS3 after putting it off for a while. If you care I can elaborate on why it feels off and I am probably only a third of the way through.
The biggest draw of souls games for me has been the mystery and exploration. Trying to piece together the story as I go, and predict where things are heading and the motivations behind characters' actions. Moments like the PVP boss fight in demon's, finding the painted world in DS1, getting infected with the egg parasite in DS1, the Alfred/Annalise/Logarius quest line in BB, and the multiple twists and turns in the stories when they are new are what make these games enjoyable for me.
Again, I have only played through a third of DS3 but there has been nothing like this so far. Instead...
- From the outset you get to firelink shrine and it feels too familiar and safe. Andre is there, you meet a tragic thief/masked merchant character like you did in DS1, you get the broken down cynical knight, you get the ominous visitor NPC that shows up from time to time. The trainers are all very basic with limited dialogue. Another onion knight from Catarina. Most of them still end their lines with an ominous laugh. It just feels like they ran out of ideas. Granted some of the quests are pretty interesting but most of the mystery and magic is completely gone. Are you telling me I should be as excited rescuing Sieg or getting trapped by patches now as I was when it happened the first time so many years ago?
- The same can be applied to bosses and zones. I get that the theme of this series is that the world is going through cycles but I feel like even DS2 handled this aspect better by being a hair more subtle about it. Abyss watchers feel too familiar due to the four kings. Oh hey another poisonous swamp with corpses of mushroom people from laid in a corner. It just leaves very little to the imagination. I was at least hoping I'd get some interesting dialogue after returning the undead legion to the throne, thinking an NPC would sit beside Ludleth... but not I just get an ember to put there instead. I was even disappointed to find out the first DLC is another painted world. It just feels like I played this game before.
- The covenants so far feel familiar as well. Finding the access to the bridge and Watchdogs of Farron was cool but seeing that it is a motionless NPC and that the covenant is basically a renamed Forest Watchers is not particularly exciting. I know there is only so much new stuff you can do in a setting like this, but they could have done a little better differentiating them or at least putting some nice lore there besides a sleeping wolf.
- Even though we are getting direct references to DS1 and DS2 I feel like I am learning very little so far about those old characters/cities/factions. Seeing a statue of Velka was cool, meeting a bunch of NPCs from Carim is interesting enough, finding new Mirrah gear is nice because Lucatiel was my favorite souls NPC. Still, I feel like if they decided to go this route there could have been more interesting things to say.
- Some of the new things they implemented are not very well done. FP in particular is not very well balanced. Many weapon arts are too weak for the cost and many are the same for a particular weapon class.
Again, I have only played through a third of DS3 but there has been nothing like this so far. Instead...
- From the outset you get to firelink shrine and it feels too familiar and safe. Andre is there, you meet a tragic thief/masked merchant character like you did in DS1, you get the broken down cynical knight, you get the ominous visitor NPC that shows up from time to time. The trainers are all very basic with limited dialogue. Another onion knight from Catarina. Most of them still end their lines with an ominous laugh. It just feels like they ran out of ideas. Granted some of the quests are pretty interesting but most of the mystery and magic is completely gone. Are you telling me I should be as excited rescuing Sieg or getting trapped by patches now as I was when it happened the first time so many years ago?
- The same can be applied to bosses and zones. I get that the theme of this series is that the world is going through cycles but I feel like even DS2 handled this aspect better by being a hair more subtle about it. Abyss watchers feel too familiar due to the four kings. Oh hey another poisonous swamp with corpses of mushroom people from laid in a corner. It just leaves very little to the imagination. I was at least hoping I'd get some interesting dialogue after returning the undead legion to the throne, thinking an NPC would sit beside Ludleth... but not I just get an ember to put there instead. I was even disappointed to find out the first DLC is another painted world. It just feels like I played this game before.
- The covenants so far feel familiar as well. Finding the access to the bridge and Watchdogs of Farron was cool but seeing that it is a motionless NPC and that the covenant is basically a renamed Forest Watchers is not particularly exciting. I know there is only so much new stuff you can do in a setting like this, but they could have done a little better differentiating them or at least putting some nice lore there besides a sleeping wolf.
- Even though we are getting direct references to DS1 and DS2 I feel like I am learning very little so far about those old characters/cities/factions. Seeing a statue of Velka was cool, meeting a bunch of NPCs from Carim is interesting enough, finding new Mirrah gear is nice because Lucatiel was my favorite souls NPC. Still, I feel like if they decided to go this route there could have been more interesting things to say.
- Some of the new things they implemented are not very well done. FP in particular is not very well balanced. Many weapon arts are too weak for the cost and many are the same for a particular weapon class.
All these things and more got me feeling like I played this game before. Those reasons are why it feels like there is a lack of creativity with the sequels. Granted there is a lot to love here, namely that I am finally playing this at 60 fps on PC on a well optimized and beautiful port. There are many quality of life improvements like being able to change armor sets without losing too much. It still is very fun and challenging to go through the dungeons. So all in all they are all fantastic games. I also recognize that a lot of my qualms may be remedied as I play more since I have only played a small chunk of the game. I feel like criticism of the first 14 hours or so is still valid.
Com Truise
Member
Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne are the best and most interesting games in the series. Sequels just don't work for these kind of games, Dark Souls basically turned into comfort food instead of providing excitement and mystery.
I was so incredibly hyped for this game. I expected great things after Dark Souls 1. Most of all, I expected the same movement and combat style, as well as another holistic and organic world design.
Boy was I in for a rude awakening. It's my fault for expecting a worthy successor to Dark Souls 1 I guess.
Boy was I in for a rude awakening. It's my fault for expecting a worthy successor to Dark Souls 1 I guess.
miller.skippins
Banned
DS2 is a good Action RPG...however, the level design is very 'last minute stitch together' and it's very apparent due to their troubled development (and less said about that fabled lighting change and graphic downgrade, the better)...
I think people 'hates' DS2 because it is just that.....it is the sequel to Dark Souls. If it's called any other name....Accursed Kingdom, Forbidden Territories, The Forgotten Throne, etc...it will be definitely less 'hated' than what it is now..
I think people 'hates' DS2 because it is just that.....it is the sequel to Dark Souls. If it's called any other name....Accursed Kingdom, Forbidden Territories, The Forgotten Throne, etc...it will be definitely less 'hated' than what it is now..
that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Dark Souls 2 is total "sequel", with little to no consequence to the main plot of the dark souls series.
Dark Souls 3 is better, since it has more Miyazaki direction and tie ins to the original story of Dark souls 1, but a lot of still feels tacked on or rushed.
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
Man. I will never forget how hyped I was on release day. How I slowly, over the course of 2-3 days, realized that I wasn't actually having fun. It was... confusing. There was no "look to the dlc!" to dangle in front of me either.
DS2 is a good example of death by a thousand cuts. It's missteps are not individually egregious, but when you combine ADP, bad animations, hitboxes, lighting/torch mechanic being ripped out, disjointed world, and more, the poo adds up to greater than the sum of its parts. As time passed, I've grown less harsh towards the game. SotFS does feel more fun to play (but I imagine is absolutely brutal for first-timers), but still too little and way too late.
DS2 is a good example of death by a thousand cuts. It's missteps are not individually egregious, but when you combine ADP, bad animations, hitboxes, lighting/torch mechanic being ripped out, disjointed world, and more, the poo adds up to greater than the sum of its parts. As time passed, I've grown less harsh towards the game. SotFS does feel more fun to play (but I imagine is absolutely brutal for first-timers), but still too little and way too late.
Yeah, the director basically admits it in the Design Works interview. Maybe not really "last minute", but still they had to work under severe time constraints after development problems arose.
Thanks very much for this post it was genuinely great
I have no problems with people disliking or having issues with whatever Souls game (goodness knows I have my issues with some of them, even DS1) and you've given (as well as others in the thread) clear and very pleasant explanations as to why. That's all good and I honestly appreciate reading someone's constructive reasons/critique.
It's more the elitist attitude you see at times where some Souls fans talk down to others about liking a Souls game they dislike, especially with Dark Souls 2 and can't even comprehend that someone else has different tastes. I realise at the end of the day it's just opinions, it's just an attitude I find to be very offputting. Anyway I'll leave it at that, what this thread has reminded me of though is that I haven't played any DLC for Dark Souls 1, 2 or 3! I really should remedy that.
Red Liquorice
Member
lmao, I never thought about that room but you are completely right, it makes absolutely no sense. On par with the invisible lava casle in the sky.
I'm sure there are places in all the games that can be nitpicked too, but yeah that's a doozy!
jipewithin
Member
Didn't like DS2 at launch mostly because of adp and zones were just not nicely connected like in DS1. However after buying sotfs and playing it again I actually really loved the game, like it more than DS3.
toastyToast
Member
Played DS2 completely blind after having gone through the first one maybe a dozen times. Something struck me as off from the beginning. Mechanically it has the feel of Demon's Souls but it just seems like a worse, low rent version of that. Doesn't help that so many of the bosses stink. Didn't even bother to finish it it until I got the SOFTS version a year and a half later.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
While it has plenty of positive points, I think my biggest issue with DS2 is the controls; they don't seem to feedback to the player as well here as they have done in the rest of the series.
Everything lacks weight and heft, particularly the PC, and as a result I feel slightly removed from everything in the game, particularly in terms of physicality/interacting with the world. It has the knock-on effect of making the whole experience seem less threatening, especially when many of the locations lacking in the series' trademark oppressive atmosphere.
Not sure if that makes sense, but that's best way I can describe how 'off' DS2 seems compared to the other games.
Everything lacks weight and heft, particularly the PC, and as a result I feel slightly removed from everything in the game, particularly in terms of physicality/interacting with the world. It has the knock-on effect of making the whole experience seem less threatening, especially when many of the locations lacking in the series' trademark oppressive atmosphere.
Not sure if that makes sense, but that's best way I can describe how 'off' DS2 seems compared to the other games.
This. Coincidentally, those are the only 3 that Miyazaki truly worked on.
I avoided DS2 for a long time because of how people were saying it was the worst DS but finally got SotFS for cheap and really liked it. I had played Bloodborne, DS3 and DS1 before it, in that order.
It's a good game with tons of content and most of the levels are good. Bosses are pretty unremarkable compared to the other games in the series though. There's lots of them but most are just "big knight dude" types. The only standout ones are the DLC bosses.
For me the biggest flaw is the Agility stat. It seems totally unnecessary. I wish they had just made the early enemies faster and harder to match the faster movement speed and higher roll iframes. The start of the game is now really brutal but thankfully it gets better as you level up and make progress.
The real shame is that Dark Souls 3 ditched all good ideas from DS1. Bonfire ascetics are fantastic, life gems as alternative to Estus are good, power stancing is fun (though poorly explained in DS2), Pursuer is a great idea, Bone Fist is awesome and PvP is more interesting because it isn't just a roll fest. DS3, despite being one of the games I've played the most, is doing way too much fan service with far too few new ideas.
It's a good game with tons of content and most of the levels are good. Bosses are pretty unremarkable compared to the other games in the series though. There's lots of them but most are just "big knight dude" types. The only standout ones are the DLC bosses.
For me the biggest flaw is the Agility stat. It seems totally unnecessary. I wish they had just made the early enemies faster and harder to match the faster movement speed and higher roll iframes. The start of the game is now really brutal but thankfully it gets better as you level up and make progress.
The real shame is that Dark Souls 3 ditched all good ideas from DS1. Bonfire ascetics are fantastic, life gems as alternative to Estus are good, power stancing is fun (though poorly explained in DS2), Pursuer is a great idea, Bone Fist is awesome and PvP is more interesting because it isn't just a roll fest. DS3, despite being one of the games I've played the most, is doing way too much fan service with far too few new ideas.
I always find it interesting that prior to Dark Souls II's release, there were interviews with the two directors who claimed that the game would be more welcoming to newcomers, possibly more streamlined. There were accusations of Souls becoming casual or chasing the money etc.
However, when Bloodborne was released, a game that is undeniably more streamlined/casual than the original Souls games: lack of build variety, nerfed magic, simplified/less tactical combat (to name just a few examples), fans vehemently defend its design choices.
I'm not railing on the game but I find it interesting how much more leeway games that have Miyazaki's involvement are given.
Bloodborne gets away with it because it's not a sequel, so there are no previous standards to live up to.
People go into a Dark Souls game with certain things they expect to be there in a Dark Souls game- that's why when they talked about Dark Souls 2 being more streamlined people got upset.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Bloodborne is its own thing. It has no precedent to live up to.
I know you're not bashing the game, but I disagree with both the bolded assessments too.There's plenty of build variety, especially when you take into consideration the combinations of trick weapons, and the combat is just as tactical even if it is faster paced. You have access to two movesets per weapon you carry (four movesets in total), so I'd argue you have loads of offensive options available in fights.
Red Liquorice
Member
Many people consider it one of the best, if not the best, bosses in the game.
Jimnymebob
Member
Darklurker depends on the build in my opinion. With some builds he's an absolute nightmare whose access is locked behind an item that you need to farm for.
I definitely struggled with him on my first playthrough, just because there wasn't much I could do against him.
Almost all trick weapons in BB play the same. When I switch weapons my playstyle doesn't really change at all. They might have different movesets but they all result in the same build.
Well Bloodborne is just one of the best games of the decade.
So even if it isn't what the soulborne veteran expected, the overall package is just too good.
Also simplified/less tactical?I don't agree.
Hostile_18
Banned
I think he's the only Souls boss I couldn't beat with my melee build. Any tips? If I remember correctly it's the only thing stopping me getting the plat.
Red Liquorice
Member
It's been a fair while since I played DS2, what farmable item is needed to fight Darklurker?
Human Effigy. Costs one to enter the abyss, then you you have to fight the gank squad and finally face the Darklurker. I agree it can be a nightmare for some builds, I think I beat it with some fire sword type weapon.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Fair enough if that's how you play. I don't think that's a terribly effective way to approach it though.
Example: on my Blades of Mercy/Burial Blade Skill build, it'd be wildly inefficient of me to rely on dodge attacks for both weapons, rather than dodge attacking with the former and using the range of the latter. I could use the same weapons on an Arcane build and have access to magic, which opens up more offensive possibilities that would alter my playstyle further.
There are plenty of examples of weapon combos and stat distribution that alter my playstyle significantly. I'd say there are more unique weapons and movesets than most of the Souls games, which largely tend to copy and paste within the same family (with occasionally heavy attack being changed).
So yeah, I'd have to continue to disagree.
EvilKatarn
Member
Really? Awesome, wanna watch it.
Jimnymebob
Member
I ended up equipping a dark pyro flame for fire tempest, just to get hits when the second one spawns, and swapping my great shield for a smaller shield that resists dark damage when I beat him. But it's literally just a case of not being greedy with hits, and keeping an eye on both of them.
AuthenticM
Member
The game is better than Dark Souls 1.
The only reason it's less liked that its predecessor is because Miyazaki wasn't as hands-on on it during development, and it created this confirmation bias amongst part of the fanbase that the game wasn't as good.
The only reason it's less liked that its predecessor is because Miyazaki wasn't as hands-on on it during development, and it created this confirmation bias amongst part of the fanbase that the game wasn't as good.
blasphemy!
Well it doesn't have that deep turtling behind a shield tactic apparently
Aaltopahvi
Neo Member
Dark souls 2 is one of my favorite games ever. I don't really care that much about the DaS story and 2 plays the best and has amazing DLC. Never understood the hate it got. Normally i jump from game to game but DaS2 has me always coming back. Even after +10 playthroughs i enjoy it as much as ever.
Edit: 2 also has the best magic.
Edit: 2 also has the best magic.
Or, and bare with me here, there are reasonably specific reasons people just like the first game more or don't like the 2nd game as much.
Contrary to your notion, not everyone's issue with Dark Souls 2 stems from the "but where is M-dawg?"