Support NeoGAF

[Gestahl]

I'm not sure this is true, actually. What are some of the coolest plotlines in DS1? Solaire as Gwyn's amnesiac son trying to inherit his father's legacy, the illusion of Anor Londo maintained by the deformed last god, the whole story with the Daughters of Chaos, the tragic fates of Havel and Tarkus and Kirk, Siegmeyer and Sieglinde, the entire Artorias of the Abyss expansion (with Artorias and Ciaran and Sif and Gough), Seath kidnapping maidens to use in his experiments and probably creating Priscilla. A lot of these plotlines are interesting because they have interesting characters at their centers: Dark Souls manages to unite lore and storytelling in a way that few other games can match.

What cool plotlines are there in DS2? There are a few, sure, I don't mean to suggest there are none. But can you really argue that DS2 comes anywhere near DS1 in this regard?



This is a rather blinkered way of approaching art criticism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't mean that sustained critical engagement with a work of art is useless. This is like telling film buffs who lament the many flaws of The Godfather Part III that "that's just your opinion man."

Most of the DS story bits have some actual concrete basis in the game too. You can figure out the truth of Anor Londo in something like 3 item descriptions without having to consult some yahoo on youtube. Because DS2's world was designed in a hodge-podge way and the writers cared more about being as uncertain and cryptic as possible these kind of concrete details are much harder to find and often times when they are found they either mean little or have been rendered ambiguous due to some other detail

 

[darkistheway]

This is a rather blinkered way of approaching art criticism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't mean that sustained critical engagement with a work of art is useless. This is like telling film buffs who lament the many flaws of The Godfather Part III that "that's just your opinion man."

Where did I say useless?

you seem to think art criticism is building up to some sort of majority consensus and then preventing any further discussion.

Often we can revisit a piece of art with perspectives gained from our experiences- collective and otherwise, and it totally changes our subjective opinions, collective or otherwise (Note: this can't ever happen with The Godfather Part 3).

I certainly don't mind the conversation about Dark Souls 2; I just don't like the tone. There is a sense that dissenting opinion isn't really welcomed.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Where did I say useless?

you seem to think art criticism is building up to some sort of majority consensus and then preventing any further discussion.

Often we can revisit a piece of art with perspectives gained from our experiences- collective and otherwise, and it totally changes our subjective opinions, collective or otherwise (Note: this can't ever happen with The Godfather Part 3).

I certainly don't mind the conversation about Dark Souls 2; I just don't like the tone. There is a sense that dissenting opinion isn't really welcomed.

It's not that it's unwelcome, it's that it's by and large not very convincing. When people like hydrophilic attack make worthwhile posts in defense of Dark Souls 2 no one sneers at them for it.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I'm not sure this is true, actually. What are some of the coolest plotlines in DS1? Solaire as Gwyn's amnesiac son trying to inherit his father's legacy, the illusion of Anor Londo maintained by the deformed last god, the whole story with the Daughters of Chaos, the tragic fates of Havel and Tarkus and Kirk, Siegmeyer and Sieglinde, the entire Artorias of the Abyss expansion (with Artorias and Ciaran and Sif and Gough), Seath kidnapping maidens to use in his experiments and probably creating Priscilla. A lot of these plotlines are interesting because they have interesting characters at their centers: Dark Souls manages to unite lore and storytelling in a way that few other games can match.

What cool plotlines are there in DS2? There are a few, sure, I don't mean to suggest there are none. But can you really argue that DS2 comes anywhere near DS1 in this regard?

Well, here are a few plotlines that I thought were cool in DS2: The lengths Vendrick went to to stop Nashandra from getting the throne, Aldia's and Vendrick's attempts to break the cycle and end the curse (e.g. Aldia experimenting with creating dragons to achieve immortality) Pharros's travels and possible tragic end at the bottom of the gutter (where the multiple ladders and large wooden constructs may have been the results of his coordination of efforts, by everyone living there, to escape), Navlaan = Olenford, Straid's backstory (why was he so feared?), Licia the thief and fraud, Pate's and Creighton's rivalry, Lucatiel's descent into madness (Lucatiel = Alsatiel???) the love triangle between Iron King, princess of Venn/Alken and Mytha and my own pet theory about the dwarf in the bell towers being the source of all the different dwarf phantom enemies you fight in the bell towers (trying to control and maintain so many phantoms at once would explain why he seems to be a tiny bit off the rocker).

 

[Sullichin]

What I would keep from Dark Souls 2:
- Bonfire ascetics and the different approach to farming compared to DS1 is a huge improvement.
- Power stancing, dual wielding, new PVP mechanics that work really well when one person isn't being a total tryhard (fun/ "fair" matches DO happen!)
- Streamlined upgrades
- Better poison mechanic
- The latest patch really nerfed lightning spears, which previously made it really easy to get through PVE and trivialized some of the best bosses. This is a good change but the game's been out for a while. I think some people who didn't like the game would have enjoyed some of the boss fights more if they weren't over after 30 seconds of safely casting spells.
- But being a caster is more fun than it ever was in previous Souls games. I like hexes a lot and stuff like the Soul Greatsword makes it more interesting than the typical soul spear suite. Manually aiming / changing direction of fireballs is too hard now though.
- Soul Vessels. I thought it was kind of lame at first but I like farming a bunch of them and trying out new builds.
- There are a ton of fun ways to build your character. The concept of a build is hindered by Soul Memory based matchmaking though; it's a self imposed limit as before but now there's no real reason to stop leveling and you're at a bigger disadvantage if you do so.
- The Arenas - Again, besides the problem of SM based matchmaking, the arenas are fun especially now that you can't use estus. I've had a ton of great fights and way less waiting around than DS1. The key is to stay in NG, and maybe don't go overboard grinding as to not have a super high SM. SM hasn't actually been a problem in practice, lately, for me, but...

What I would remove / change back:
- Soul Memory; use Soul Level based matchmaking instead, or at least use SL for the second half of the game, or make it the primary matchmaking criterion, with SM as backup.
- Much of the best content is optional, especially now that the DLC is out. I hope the next game doesn't make bosses like Smelter and Darklurker optional.
- Splitting NG and NG+ PVP
- I prefer the weird looking backstabs of DS1 compared to DS2. I hate that you can start the backstab animation and not always pull it off.
- Too many bonfires, and respawning at a bonfire that you lit but did not rest at makes the game too easy.

Could go either way:
- Non respawning enemies. I only disliked it on my first playthrough where I obviously died more than on consequent runs. I didn't like that the game was basically giving me an advantage for doing poorly. It feels like it's mocking you and the levels start to feel really empty. But, I think it's an interesting mechanic that pairs well with bonfire ascetics.

 

[Creamium]

Yeah it's one of the most obvious and big differences between the two. Made this to illustrate how I see the games compared to each other.

All things considered I think this is my biggest issue with the game. Part of DkS1's high replay value was getting to know the world better. If you picked the master key on your second run, you still discovered a few new shortcuts and ways to traverse through the game. For instance there's the realization that the Depths is completely optional and you can go straight to lower B'town.

Figuring out the world and how it connects is a game in itself, and that's a huge miss in DkS2. Not only is there the wheel-ish structure, but with the bonfire warping you may even forget how those few areas connect after a while. Those 2 factors contribute to the general feeling that DkS II is a bunch of levels duct taped together. For instance I found the transition from poison swamp to lava castle jarring as well. The structure in DkS II does not have the imagination DkS1 had.

 

[Neff]

Thought it was the best one by far, myself.

 

[Jazzkokehead]

I got about halfway through this video before I got bored enough to turn it off. I'm definitely in favor of intelligent critique of games, but this felt like such a rehash of all the issues I've already heard about that people have with Dark Souls II, with nothing new added.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

What I would keep from Dark Souls 2:
- Bonfire ascetics and the different approach to farming compared to DS1 is a huge improvement.
- Power stancing, dual wielding, new PVP mechanics that work really well when one person isn't being a total tryhard (fun/ "fair" matches DO happen!)
- Streamlined upgrades
- Better poison mechanic
- The latest patch really nerfed lightning spears, which previously made it really easy to get through PVE and trivialized some of the best bosses. This is a good change but the game's been out for a while. I think some people who didn't like the game would have enjoyed some of the boss fights more if they weren't over after 30 seconds of safely casting spells.
- But being a caster is more fun than it ever was in previous Souls games. I like hexes a lot and stuff like the Soul Greatsword makes it more interesting than the typical soul spear suite. Manually aiming / changing direction of fireballs is too hard now though.
- Soul Vessels. I thought it was kind of lame at first but I like farming a bunch of them and trying out new builds.
- There are a ton of fun ways to build your character. The concept of a build is hindered by Soul Memory based matchmaking though; it's a self imposed limit as before but now there's no real reason to stop leveling and you're at a bigger disadvantage if you do so.
- The Arenas - Again, besides the problem of SM based matchmaking, the arenas are fun especially now that you can't use estus. I've had a ton of great fights and way less waiting around than DS1. The key is to stay in NG, and maybe don't go overboard grinding as to not have a super high SM. SM hasn't actually been a problem in practice, lately, for me, but...

What I would remove / change back:
- Soul Memory; use Soul Level based matchmaking instead, or at least use SL for the second half of the game, or make it the primary matchmaking criterion, with SM as backup.
- Much of the best content is optional, especially now that the DLC is out. I hope the next game doesn't make bosses like Smelter and Darklurker optional.
- Splitting NG and NG+ PVP
- I prefer the weird looking backstabs of DS1 compared to DS2. I hate that you can start the backstab animation and not always pull it off.
- Too many bonfires, and respawning at a bonfire that you lit but did not rest at makes the game too easy.

Could go either way:
- Non respawning enemies. I only disliked it on my first playthrough where I obviously died more than on consequent runs. I didn't like that the game was basically giving me an advantage for doing poorly. It feels like it's mocking you and the levels start to feel really empty. But, I think it's an interesting mechanic that pairs well with bonfire ascetics.

I agree with most of this, except I'm not personally a big fan of power stancing, have nothing against them making a lot of cool stuff optional and loved how they changed the backstabs, which were OP in DaS.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Well, here are a few plotlines that I thought were cool in DS2: The lengths Vendrick went to to stop Nashandra from getting the throne, Aldia's and Vendrick's attempts to break the cycle and end the curse (e.g. Aldia experimenting with creating dragons to achieve immortality) Pharros's travels and possible tragic end at the bottom of the gutter (where the multiple ladders and large wooden constructs may have been the results of his coordination of efforts, by everyone living there, to escape), Navlaan = Olenford, Straid's backstory (why was he so feared?), Licia the thief and fraud, Pate's and Creighton's rivalry, Lucatiel's descent into madness (Lucatiel = Alsatiel???) the love triangle between Iron King, princess of Venn/Alken and Mytha and my own pet theory about the dwarf in the bell towers being the source of all the different dwarf phantom enemies you fight in the bell towers (trying to control and maintain so many phantoms at once would explain why he seems to be a tiny bit off the rocker).

But don't you see the difference between the two?

Vendrick has no lines of dialog in vanilla DS2, Nashandra says very little of worth, Aldia, Pharros, and the Prince and Princess don't even show up. Those aren't really characters, they're just lore, like whoever that goddess in FFXIII is. Navlaan, Straid, Licia, Pate, Creighton, and Lucatiel are all characters who are basically irrelevant to the lore. Plenty of RPGs have neat NPCs and interesting backstories - that's not what made Dark Souls special. What made Dark Souls special was integrating the lore into the NPC storylines in such a way that you learned more about the world as you uncovered the stories of these individuals - and vice versa.

Artorias is comparable to Vendrick in that he has no dialog, and Siegmeyer doesn't have any lore relevance, but Solaire, Gwyndolin/Gwynevere, the Fair Lady and Quelana, Ciaran, Gough, Sif, and others are all actual characters in DS1 who are perfectly integrated into the worldbuilding.

 

[Reisläufer]

The bolded points are the very things that bother me about the level of criticism currently being leveled. There is this sense that people think their criticisms are somehow objective.

Well insofar as I don't think that my criticism is just plainly coincidental of course I want to claim that there is an objective core there. That doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be anyone who likes the game or that I'm better than them of course.

Of course, DS2 has flaws but for you to tell that I like it because the flaws are part and parcel of an effort to make it more streamlined or accessible or that I like it only because of that process is flat-out insulting.

If you don't like it, then that's just fine but I am getting tired of the implication that I shouldn't like it either or the fact I do like it is somehow the downfall of the series.

I think I mentioned in my post that I don't want to persuade anyone to not like the game anymore,

It’s not that I want to make some people enjoy DaS 2 less…

what I said was that I think those people don't care enough about the things that I think made the Souls games great. I mean DaS 2 is still a good game, there are enough things to like about it but that is not the point. I tried to explain why I don't think that the flaws of the older titles (which seem to me to be problems concerning accessibility) are somehow on the same level as the flaws DaS 2 possesses now by having changed fundamental things of those titles. And I certainly don't want to say that the series is doomed or anything, nor do I want to say that it is the fault of those who like the new game, that would be absurd. It's more about getting the word out there that I and seemingly a lot of other poeple cared about those significant details in the structure of the game.

To then go further and say that it is no longer a Souls game is just plain wrong.

Well it is in name still a Souls title and its general structure is that of a Souls title. It's just missing some important things that made the Series the phenomenon it is imo. Whether one should or shouldn't call it a Souls title is of no importance to me.

 

[darkistheway]

Well insofar as I don't think that my criticism is just plainly coincidental of course I want to claim that there is an objective core there. That doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be anyone who likes the game or that I'm better than them of course.





I think I mentioned in my post that I don't want to persuade anyone to not like the game anymore,



what I said was that I think those people don't care enough about the things that I think made the Souls games great. I mean DaS 2 is still a good game, there are enough things to like about it but that is not the point. I tried to explain why I don't think that the flaws of the older titles (which seem to me to be problems concerning accessibility) are somehow on the same level as the flaws DaS 2 possesses now by having changed fundamental things of those titles. And I certainly don't want to say that the series is doomed or anything, nor do I want to say that it is the fault of those who like the new game, that would be absurd. It's more about getting the word out there that I and seemingly a lot of other poeple cared about those significant details in the structure of the game.



Well it is in name still a Souls title and its general structure is that of a Souls title. It's just missing some important things that made the Series the phenomenon it is imo. Whether one should or shouldn't call it a Souls title is of no importance to me.

You are of course free to believe that your criticisms are objective but I don't believe that your viewpoints are free from personal bias. The very fact that I could have a differing opinion suggests that you haven't found an objective truth.

The things you think define the Souls series, and suggest any fans of Dark Souls 2 must not care about are, for me, present in the sequel, admittedly in altered form. I play it and it 'feels' like a Souls game.

(I'm on my phone and my kids are going mental so I have to leave it at that, for the time being)

 

[Zocano]

I get the feeling that people that either never played Demon's souls, or don't care for it in relation to Dark Souls are those criticizing Dark Souls 2 the hardest. I understand this game is called Dark Souls and not Demon's Souls, but I don't think that should demand the sequel be a carbon copy of Dark souls.

The two biggest complaints Dark souls 2 gets is structure and lore.

I will concede and agree that Dark Souls is much more focused in its setting and world building. I however think the sequel has plenty of other things to offer and enjoy a lot of the plot threads moreso than its predecessor, specifically Vendrick and Aldia's methods to cure the curse.

The structure on the other hand I would say is purely subjective. I prefer the more structured and linear design of Demon's Souls. It generally has more consistent and stronger level design. Demon's still has the best level design in the series. Sen's and the new Dark Souls 2 dlc closely follow it. Dark Souls 2 also has strong and consistent level design. I will continually denounce and call out Dark Souls' shoddy second half.

Lastly, I'd like to bring up the bosses. Another common complaint is the simple and overused bosses. Yah, I'll agree that fights like the twin dragonriders shouldn't have been done. But many of the bosses either have interesting concepts or are just plain fun no matter how "simple".

I'll quickly get a jab in and say Dark Souls was not without similar simple or reused bosses and I find it funny when criticisms are thrown at the sequel when the predecessor has similar faults.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I get the feeling that people that either never played Demon's souls, or don't care for it in relation to Dark Souls are those criticizing Dark Souls 2 the hardest. I understand this game is called Dark Souls and not Demon's Souls, but I don't think that should demand the sequel be a carbon copy of Dark souls.

I started the series with Demon's Souls. I knew Demon's Souls. Demon's Souls was a friend of mine. Dark Souls 2 is no Demon's Souls.

The structure on the other hand I would say is purely subjective. I prefer the more structured and linear design of Demon's Souls. It generally has more consistent and stronger level design. Demon's still has the best level design in the series. Sen's and the new Dark Souls 2 dlc closely follow it. Dark Souls 2 also has strong and consistent level design. I will continually denounce and call out Dark Souls' shoddy second half.

You can very fairly make the argument that Demon's has the best level design in the series. I personally agree with that, though I think Dark Souls is a better game overall. Dark Souls 1 has much better level design than Dark Souls 2, however.

Dark Souls's "shoddy second half" is really just Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith, and even those areas aren't appreciably worse than a lot of Dark Souls 2's levels, a very large proportion of which are bland linear corridors with little loot cubbies like FFXIII. Of Dark Souls 2 levels the only ones I think can be said to be up to the standards of the series are Forest of the Fallen Giants, Lost Bastille, and (especially) No-man's Wharf, as well as the DLC and maybe Huntsman's Copse. A lot of the coolest levels in Dark Souls 2, like Heide's Tower of Flame, Black Gulch, Aldia's Keep, Drangleic Castle, Shrine of Amana, and the Dragon Shrine, are actually awful levels redeemed only by fantastic art design. And then you have all the awful levels that also have awful art design, like Harvest Valley, Shaded Woods (misty part excepted), Tseldora, and the Gutter.

Lastly, I'd like to bring up the bosses. Another common complaint is the simple and overused bosses. Yah, I'll agree that fights like the twin dragonriders shouldn't have been done. But many of the bosses either have interesting concepts or are just plain fun no matter how "simple".

I'll quickly get a jab in and say Dark Souls was not without similar simple or reused bosses and I find it funny when criticisms are thrown at the sequel when the predecessor has similar faults.

Dark Souls has a few bad bosses and a couple of reuses, but the main criticism of Dark Souls 2 bosses is that so many of them are mechanically identical circlestrafe big weapon humanoids. Dark Souls 1 bosses are much more mechanically varied.

Compare Ornstein and Smough, for instance, to Throne Watcher and Throne Defender who don't even have names much less personalities or distinctive fighting styles.

 

[Dice]

I like how in this video he goes over all these apparently great aspects of Dark Souls that I would explain in a much different way because they were everything that made the game a joyless chore to me. If DS2 lacks such design aspects, I might actually like it.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I like how in this video he goes over all these apparently great aspects of Dark Souls that I would explain in a much different way because they were everything that made the game a joyless chore to me. If DS2 lacks such design aspects, I might actually like it.

Dark Souls is one of the greatest games of all time. I honestly don't see how any discerning gamer could call it a "joyless chore."

 

[Dice]

Dark Souls is one of the greatest games of all time. I honestly don't see how any discerning gamer could call it a "joyless chore."

Good for you, but I don't see a reason to presume anyone who doesn't like it (there are tons) are "undiscerning" gamers. I've gotten roped into the debate way too many times and won't do so again. However it is interesting to hear that design changes I would much prefer may have been put into effect with the sequel. I gave DS2 no attention since DS1 was one of the least enjoyable experiences I've ever had with a game and people were saying that they are the same. Now people are saying they are very much not the same? A bit confusing, but maybe I'll take a look now.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Good for you, but I don't see a reason to presume anyone who doesn't like it (there are tons) are "undiscerning" gamers. I've gotten roped into the debate way too many times and won't do so again.

What exactly are the things that DS2 changed that you would find an improvement over DS?

 

[Renekton]

What exactly are the things that DS2 changed that you would find an improvement over DS?

The combat system is smoothened out and allows for wider variety of playstyles. Dual-wielding is better. Parry is tighter. DS1 vets may be miffed at tying roll iframes to AGI, but I thought it made for some interesting stat choices.

It's hard to have a decent discussion about DS1-DS2 combat system, because it tends to degenerate into lag-stabs, SM and hitbox gif spams.

 

[Dice]

Everything the guy mentioned, sans perhaps the awkward artistic inconsistency. Really everything he praises and found enjoyable in DS, I experienced as the opposite. Instead of "pressure" and anxious excitement from it, I experienced it as boring drudgery, like pointlessly turning the ground into mud because some people like it better for who-knows-why. I guess risk/reward doesn't work on me, because even major victories gave me no satisfaction of accomplishment. Losses also didn't strike me as a sting of defeat (since there is no real defeat in the game) but another point of slowing down the already chore-like nature, making it all the more boring by forcing you to redo things you already didn't enjoy doing.

I enjoy the playing of games for different reasons, as evidenced by my fav genres being fighters and racers, which have a very complex and immediate nature that make me feel alive. I still play adventure games, but likely with a much different attitude and focus than people who like DS. I have noticed I do play MMORPGs in a much less determined sort of way from many very "missional" players. I think DS is reliant on the notion the game is a formal challenge to you, for you to overcome it and prove yourself. I don't care about any of that, so I am mostly interested in exploring and the wondrous reception of its world. So hindrances are not an assault on my ego and chance to prove my mettle, but just a hindrance from accessing what I am interested in. And yet upon success, it is discovered that the challenge in itself was the entirely of their substance, and the game is revealed as meaningless to a person like me.

All the changes and removals that he felt took away from what he considered positive aspects, I see as potentially streamlining and alleviating exactly what should be. They sound like they may make the game more about discovery and experimentation with elements than getting in your way of discovering and experimenting. It seems more play-oriented. To me there is a very large difference between a challenge and a bother, and all DS wanted to be was a bother in every moment. Sucked the joy right out of it and any measure with which you learned and overcame it as you progressed.

*cue DS defenders trying to explain to me how DS actually is all about exploration and experimentation and I just didn't play it 2000 hours enough to realize its beauty*

Spoiler

always happens

 

[RPGam3r]

It did something right because DaS2 was the reason I got hooked on the Souls series, eventually going back and enjoying DeS and DaS. I enjoyed the pacing of the combat, the different health options, immediate warp points,and how the game didn't feel the need to be a jerk out the gate and kill me with some giant mid boss. There is more that I thought made it better than its predecessors, but these are the ones that stuck out the most up front.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Everything the guy mentioned, sans perhaps the awkward artistic inconsistency.

Like what, exactly?

I enjoy the playing of games for different reasons, as evidenced by my fav genres being fighters and racers, which have a very complex and immediate nature that make me feel alive.

Souls games are very similar to racers and fighters in that you have to put in a lot of effort to get good at them, and until you do they can be frustrating. Imagine playing a game like Gran Turismo or Street Fighter as a complete novice, failing over and over at the same races or the same bosses. You'd think they were the most boring, repetitive, frustrating games ever. But if you invest yourself in them you quickly realize that they're incredibly deep, rewarding experiences.

It's well within your right to be unwilling to master the Souls series's systems, but you can't then complain that the games are drudgery. They're not, they just require you to improve and adapt, as with any mechanically deep game. Once you're good at them you can play them as smoothly and skillfully as you play Street Fighter or whatever it is that you play. At this point I can blast through Souls games, even new areas, at a lightning pace. Between the three new Dark Souls 2 DLC bosses I think I died three times, which is much less than I died or failed on my average mission in Assassin's Creed IV, a much "easier" game. The games are not frustrating at all once you're skilled at them.

*cue DS defenders trying to explain to me how DS actually is all about exploration and experimentation and I just didn't play it 2000 hours enough to realize its beauty*

Spoiler

always happens

Dark Souls is about exploration and experimentation. It's also about challenge, perseverance, fear, and mastering its systems.

Dark Souls 2 is just as hard as Dark Souls. The accessibility concessions it made are on the balance quite minor.

 

[DoubleTake]

Everything the guy mentioned, sans perhaps the awkward artistic inconsistency. Really everything he praises and found enjoyable in DS, I experienced as the opposite. Instead of "pressure" and anxious excitement from it, I experienced it as boring drudgery, like pointlessly turning the ground into mud because some people like it better for who-knows-why. I guess risk/reward doesn't work on me, because even major victories gave me no satisfaction of accomplishment. Losses also didn't strike me as a sting of defeat (since there is no real defeat in the game) but another point of slowing down the already chore-like nature, making it all the more boring by forcing you to redo things you already didn't enjoy doing.

I enjoy the playing of games for different reasons, as evidenced by my fav genres being fighters and racers, which have a very complex and immediate nature that make me feel alive. I still play adventure games, but likely with a much different attitude and focus than people who like DS. I have noticed I do play MMORPGs in a much less determined sort of way from many very "missional" players. I think DS is reliant on the notion the game is a formal challenge to you, for you to overcome it and prove yourself. I don't care about any of that, so I am mostly interested in exploring and the wondrous reception of its world. So hindrances are not an assault on my ego and chance to prove my mettle, but just a hindrance from accessing what I am interested in. And yet upon success, it is discovered that the challenge in itself was the entirely of their substance, and the game is revealed as meaningless to a person like me.

All the changes and removals that he felt took away from what he considered positive aspects, I see as potentially streamlining and alleviating exactly what should be. They sound like they may make the game more about discovery and experimentation with elements than getting in your way of discovering and experimenting. It seems more play-oriented. To me there is a very large difference between a challenge and a bother, and all DS wanted to be was a bother in every moment. Sucked the joy right out of it and any measure with which you learned and overcame it as you progressed.

*cue DS defenders trying to explain to me how DS actually is all about exploration and experimentation and I just didn't play it 2000 hours enough to realize its beauty*

Spoiler

always happens

Look its different, but its not that different. Youll probably hate DaS2 as well. Combat is for the most part the same and enemies in two at can be cheap with hitboxes and attacks that track you. The story isnt on the level of the first two games either, but that may not matter to you since you didnt enjoy the first.

However if youre okay with dying numerous times and then enemies despawning leaving a clear path for you then this may be the game for you!

 

[njean777]

I watched the video and agree with him, but at the same time still love Dark Souls 2. At a point during playing I let all of the prior game fade away from memory and started to enjoy DS2 for what it is and how it decides to do things. It is still my GOTY still for right now. I love Dark Souls and DS2. The only weak link in the series to me is Demons Souls (though I still like it).

 

[Dice]

Souls games are very similar to racers and fighters in that you have to put in a lot of effort to get good at them, and until you do they can be frustrating. Imagine playing a game like Gran Turismo or Street Fighter as a complete novice, failing over and over at the same races or the same bosses. You'd think they were the most boring, repetitive, frustrating games ever. But if you invest yourself in them you quickly realize that they're incredibly deep, rewarding experiences.

Every DS defender says shit like this, but it is completely off the mark. I have been playing games for 28 years and know perfectly well what adaptation and advancement of skill is. The qualities I'm talking about with those has nothing to do with winning or losing.

It's well within your right to be unwilling to master the Souls series' systems, but you can't then complain that the games are drudgery.

Yes I can. If the experience is boring to me even once adapted, then it is boring to me. I have every right to feel that way. It is not an objective fact that the game is enjoyable, that everyone who disagrees is somehow simply doing it wrong.

They're not, they just require you to improve and adapt, as with any mechanically deep game.

Deep mechanics are not inherently universally fun mechanics. They may be to you, but the game simply is not for me.

The games are not frustrating at all once you're skilled at them.

My level of enjoyment had nothing to do with skill. I got good enough that I was killing black knights with unleveled weapons. The lack of fun wasn't a matter of challenge, but simple drudgery, the way that things were made and done, and to what ends they opened and resolved. Whatever it is in the game that does it for you doesn't do it for me. Why can't any DS fans seem to comprehend this as a possibility?

 

[gogosox82]

I like how in this video he goes over all these apparently great aspects of Dark Souls that I would explain in a much different way because they were everything that made the game a joyless chore to me. If DS2 lacks such design aspects, I might actually like it.

Given your posts, you would hate ds2 as well. The things that are "different" you wouldn't really get and would think it was the same as ds1 which you hate so I wouldn't bother if I were you.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Every DS defender says shit like this, but it is completely off the mark. I have been playing games for 28 years and know perfectly well what adaptation and advancement of skill is.

Explain why.

Yes I can. If the experience is boring to me even once adapted, then it is boring to me. I have every right to feel that way. It is not an objective fact that the game is enjoyable, that everyone who disagrees is somehow simply doing it wrong.

If you're dying a lot and losing progress in a Souls game that is sort of evidence that you haven't really learned how to play them, isn't it? Skilled Souls players die infrequently.

If your problem isn't with dying and losing progress then what is it with? Having to play cautiously and attentively?

My level of enjoyment had nothing to do with skill. I got good enough that I was killing black knights with unleveled weapons. The lack of fun wasn't a matter of challenge, but simple drudgery, the way that things were made and done, and to what ends they opened and resolved. Whatever it is in the game that does it for you doesn't do it for me. Why can't any DS fans seem to comprehend this as a possibility?

Everyone kills black knights with unleveled weapons. You can't even level your weapons when you meet your first two black knights.

What exactly is simple drudgery, if not your reaction to the game's level of challenge?

Souls fans discount what you're saying because the games (Demon's and Dark 1, anyway) are unquestionably masterpieces of the medium. This is like someone coming along and saying "the Taj Mahal is really dull" or "Lawrence of Arabia is a really tedious film" or "One Hundred Years of Solitude was too confusing I didn't like it." You're more than welcome to believe that, but just repeating "I just didn't like it that's my opinion" isn't going to convince people to take you seriously.

 

[Dice]

What exactly is simple drudgery, if not your reaction to the game's level of challenge?

I already told you. It is that the experience in itself that is boring to me. Exploring is boring. Risking is boring. Playing cautiously is boring. Developing skill is boring. Dying is boring. Winning is boring. I was never not bored while playing the game. Through the process of learning, through finding new areas, through facing and overcoming challenges; It was not fun.

You just need to get over your mindset that what you personally find to be fun must be objectively so, universally applicable to every human being. It is not the case.

Souls fans discount what you're saying because the games (Demon's and Dark 1, anyway) are unquestionably masterpieces of the medium. This is like someone coming along and saying "the Taj Mahal is really dull" or "Lawrence of Arabia is a really tedious film" or "One Hundred Years of Solitude was too confusing I didn't like it." You're more than welcome to believe that, but just repeating "I just didn't like it that's my opinion" isn't going to convince people to take you seriously.

We aren't talking about the principles behind an art piece, and I am not trying to claim that it is a bad game, so I don't see what your issue is. We are talking about subjective experience. Anyone is perfectly well allowed to find the experience of something, no matter how meticulously and intricately designed, to be boring. Simply understanding the nature of a thing does not instill excitement and pleasure in every single person who experiences that understanding in practice. Where do you get this idea? If it were true, everyone would have to like everything, because we live in a marvelously complex and dynamic world.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I already told you. It is that the experience in itself that is boring to me. Exploring is boring. Risking is boring. Playing cautiously is boring. Developing skill is boring. Dying is boring. Winning is boring. I was never not bored while playing the game. Through the process of learning, through finding new areas, through facing and overcoming challenges; It was not fun.

Why is developing skill boring in Dark Souls but not in Street Fighter or Gran Turismo? Obviously developing skill is not in itself boring. Obviously exploring is not in itself boring. Obviously playing cautiously is not in itself boring. Obviously winning is not in itself boring. So why were these things boring to you in Dark Souls?

We aren't talking about the principles behind an art piece, and I am not trying to claim that it is a bad game, so I don't see what your issue is. We are talking about subjective experience. Anyone is perfectly well allowed to find the experience of something, no matter how meticulously and intricately designed, to be boring. Simply understanding the nature of a thing does not instill excitement and pleasure in every single person who experiences that understanding in practice. Where do you get this idea? If it were true, everyone would have to like everything, because we live in a marvelously complex and dynamic world.

Sure, but if you come along and say the Taj Mahal or One Hundred Years of Solitude is dull or "just didn't do it for you" I think most appreciators of architecture or literature would draw the quite reasonable conclusion that you just didn't really understand them. The same applies here.

 

[Dice]

Why is developing skill boring in Dark Souls but not in Street Fighter or Gran Turismo? Obviously developing skill is not in itself boring. Obviously exploring is not in itself boring. Obviously playing cautiously is not in itself boring. Obviously winning is not in itself boring. So why were these things boring to you in Dark Souls?

How am I supposed to magically quantify this for you? While experiencing one, I feel a feeling of fun. While experiencing another, I do not. Why do you need some concrete explanation of elements to explain it? Even if I could provide such a thing, what justification would there be for one set of mechanics and dynamics to be more fun than the other? There wouldn't be. That is like arguing over why I find the features of one girl's face attractive over another, or why I like one music group over another one. Simply denoting differences does nothing to explain differing pleasure responses. There are fighters and racers I don't enjoy as well.

Sure, but if you come along and say the Taj Mahal or One Hundred Years of Solitude is dull or "just didn't do it for you" I think most appreciators of architecture or literature would draw the quite reasonable conclusion that you just didn't really understand them. The same applies here.

Do you realize you're making the case that anyone should enjoy anything? Naming things that are considered masterful achievements of their craft has nothing to do with the argument you are seemingly trying to justify in regard to the dynamics of enjoyment in ones subjective experience. A person could just as well say that simplicity ought to be universally admired. The things you are implying make no sense.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

How am I supposed to magically quantify this for you?

Try introspecting.

While experiencing one, I feel a feeling of fun. While experiencing another, I do not. Why do you need some concrete explanation of elements to explain it?

Because I want to know what about the game caused you to not find it enjoyable? I already know you didn't find it enjoyable, you don't have to keep reiterating that. I want to know why.

Even if I could provide such a thing, what justification would there be for one set of mechanics and dynamics to be more fun than the other? There wouldn't be. That is like arguing over why I find the features of one girl's face attractive over another, or why I like one music group over another one. Simply denoting differences does nothing to explain differing pleasure responses.

This isn't about comparing one girl to another. This is more like: there's a girl that most people think is super hot and you don't. Let's say Beyoncé or Scarlett Johansson or someone. People ask you why you don't think she's attractive and you say I just don't. People say OK but what is it? What specifically about this gorgeous woman do you find unattractive? And you say when I look at her I do not feel she is pretty.

OK, but there's got to be a reason, right? Do you prefer thinner girls, for instance? Or chubbier ones? Do you have a preference for a particular ethnic group?

This is what is happening right now. There's a game that is universally lauded as one of the greatest games of the last console generation and you don't like it. I ask you why, you say it wasn't fun. I ask you what about it wasn't fun, if maybe it was the difficulty, or maybe you didn't like losing progress, or maybe etc etc, and you say it just wasn't fun. That's not a satisfying or easily comprehensible answer. It doesn't really get us anywhere.

Do you realize you're making the case that anyone should enjoy anything? Naming things that are considered masterful achievements of their craft has nothing to do with the argument you are seemingly trying to justify in regard to the dynamics of enjoyment in ones subjective experience. A person could just as well say that simplicity ought to be universally admired. The things you are implying make no sense.

Hmmm? I'm making no such argument. I'm making the argument that there are some works of art that are generally considered masterpieces, and that when someone comes along and says those works of art just didn't do it for him and then claims to be incapable of explaining why the reasonable conclusion to draw is that that person doesn't have very good taste, not that he's found something actually objectionable in the masterpiece.

 

[CTLance]

Quite a lot of videos to watch for me in this thread. Haven't played Ds2 yet, probably won't ever because I'm still picking at Demons souls, which I think is a game I will only come to like when it's way past its prime, just like with e.g. Smashbros.

Enjoyed the MattLees video, but it contained too much high level critique for me, so until I watched MatthewMatosis's video to fill me in on the more base level problems I was a bit lost. All in all two very enjoyable and interesting videos, and in combination a pretty damn good overview of what troubles the game.

Makes me imagine they had initially implemented some sort of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles like mechanic with the torches. Enemies in the dark being more vicious and dangerous, so you have to create your own safe passageway by fighting tooth and nail to bring light to more areas so you could arrive at endbosses in decent shape. Something like that.

Some of the points both vids raise are plain bad design though. The combination of bonfire warp points and lack of truly useful shortcuts seems like such a strange oversight. That's one of the basics of map design, and they apparently blew it.

Thanks for the thread, OP.

 

[Banjo Tango]

Dark Souls's "shoddy second half" is really just Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith, and even those areas aren't appreciably worse than a lot of Dark Souls 2's levels...

I always thought the Crystal Caves were terrible, and the Kiln of the First Flame (while very pretty) was a big letdown. IMO, the problem was that everything after O&S paled in comparison to the first half of the game. Dark 2, while it had overall worse design, still had some interesting stuff at the end.

...A lot of the coolest levels in Dark Souls 2, like Heide's Tower of Flame, Black Gulch, Aldia's Keep, Drangleic Castle, Shrine of Amana, and the Dragon Shrine, are actually awful levels redeemed only by fantastic art design.

Wha, awful? Really? I'd put Drangleic Castle and Dragon Aerie / Shrine over any of the post-Lordvessel maps in Dark Souls.

 

[Gestahl]

Dragon Aerie is a pretty background map filled with literally 6 enemies, three of which are equipment trolls, the other three being easily dispatched dragons. It is nothing. At least Crystal Caves had a gimmick even if it's nullified on future playthroughs

 

[Banjo Tango]

Dragon Aerie is a pretty background map filled with literally 6 enemies, three of which are equipment trolls, the other three being easily dispatched dragons. It is nothing. At least Crystal Caves had a gimmick even if it's nullified on future playthroughs

I only had an easy time with the dragons when I played a caster - plus, ziplines - wheeee!

 

[Menome]

Hmmm? I'm making no such argument. I'm making the argument that there are some works of art that are generally considered masterpieces, and that when someone comes along and says those works of art just didn't do it for him and then claims to be incapable of explaining why the reasonable conclusion to draw is that that person doesn't have very good taste, not that he's found something actually objectionable in the masterpiece.

No, it just means they have a different personal taste to you. I loved Dark Souls, but have no problem with people saying they don't like it. It's like music; it's very rare to find someone who enjoys listening to every single genre and every single artist within those genres, even with albums declared all-time classics. For instance, despite liking The Beatles and The Beach Boys, I think their two most lauded albums, Sgt.Pepper's and Pet Sounds aren't that great. I'm still able to listen to everything else in their respective back catalogues and enjoy it though.

So, he/she doesn't like Dark Souls. I'm sure they still have "good" taste in other third-person RPGs and action-adventure games. They probably like The Last of Us whereas I didn't. It's all down to personal subjective enjoyment and no objective measuring stick is available here. Nobody is obliged to automatically enjoy what a large number of other people enjoy.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I always thought the Crystal Caves were terrible, and the Kiln of the First Flame (while very pretty) was a big letdown. But really, the problem was that everything after O&S paled in comparison to the first half of the game. Dark 2, while it had overall worse design, it still had some interesting stuff at the end.

Crystal Cave is awful, but it's also tiny and not really a fully-fledged area. Same with the Kiln, they're both basically just boss fight minizones.

I do agree that the second half of DS1 is much worse than the first, but I don't think it's by and large worse than DS2's second half, or any other part of DS2 for that matter. Duke's Archives, Catacombs/Tomb of the Giants, and New Londo would all be noticeably complex and interesting levels by DS2 standards. Even Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith would be pretty middle of the pack.

Wha, awful? Really? I'd put Drangleic Castle and Dragon Aerie / Shrine over any of the post-Lordvessel maps in Dark Souls.

Really? I found Drangleic Castle and Dragon Shrine to be really dull, principally because they're full of enemies that are just so tedious that you're always better off just running past. And they're both linear corridors with loot cubbies. Both of them have a lot more in common with Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith than with Duke's Archives or Tomb of the Giants, IMO.

 

[daninthemix]

All things considered I think this is my biggest issue with the game. Part of DkS1's high replay value was getting to know the world better. If you picked the master key on your second run, you still discovered a few new shortcuts and ways to traverse through the game. For instance there's the realization that the Depths is completely optional and you can go straight to lower B'town.

Figuring out the world and how it connects is a game in itself, and that's a huge miss in DkS2. Not only is there the wheel-ish structure, but with the bonfire warping you may even forget how those few areas connect after a while. Those 2 factors contribute to the general feeling that DkS II is a bunch of levels duct taped together. For instance I found the transition from poison swamp to lava castle jarring as well. The structure in DkS II does not have the imagination DkS1 had.

I agree with this entirely, and yet I still enjoyed most areas of Dark Souls 2. Until clones start emerging onto the marketplace, there's simply nowhere else you can get this gameplay.

 

[Tex117]

I agree with this entirely, and yet I still enjoyed most areas of Dark Souls 2. Until clones start emerging onto the marketplace, there's simply nowhere else you can get this gameplay.

Lords of the Fallen seems to be taking a shot....To an extent.

 

[Dice]

There's a game that is universally lauded as one of the greatest games of the last console generation

Bolded bullshit. Saying stuff like this doesn't give me faith that you have any capacity to be reasonably open to simple differing tastes as valid.

and you don't like it. I ask you why, you say it wasn't fun. I ask you what about it wasn't fun, if maybe it was the difficulty, or maybe you didn't like losing progress, or maybe etc etc, and you say it just wasn't fun. That's not a satisfying or easily comprehensible answer. It doesn't really get us anywhere.

oh cruel fate

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Bolded bullshit. Saying stuff like this doesn't give me faith that you have any capacity to be reasonably open to simple differing tastes as valid.

Edge recently chose seven games to retroactively award 10s. Dark Souls features on the list along with the likes of GoldenEye, Resident Evil 4, and Red Dead Redemption. Eurogamer declared it the second best game of the last generation, after Super Mario Galaxy. It's been praised by every major gaming publication, declared a work of genre-defining brilliance by more than a few critics, and has been cited as an influence by tons of game developers. It's as universally praised as any game released in the last two console generations.

 

[Dice]

There are tens of thousands of people who don't like it, as with every game in existence, even Tetris. People naturally feel an obligation to celebrate what they like, but if they don't like something, it is most natural to go find something else rather than, for no reason, form some public enmity with people who do like it. That usually only happens if there is some direct rival game that they would want to get exposure instead, like Gran Turismo vs Forza or some such fanboy rivalries. DS is too unique for that to happen with it.

Beyond this, if every time someone passively expresses their dislike, others jump on their ass and badger them about it as has consistently happened with me and Dark Souls, I can well understand why they'd keep quiet about it and make it seem as though the positivity is universal. Yet I assure you I have had many people tell me they feel the same way, that DS is just not for them. I'm just saying universal acclaim is never true, and it is the kind of thing one claims to themselves to justify a feeling they don't need to justify. It's like an almost religious attitude of preference that I find very odd.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

I'm sorry to use this post as an example for the "flaws" that suddenly are very important in DS2 but in DS one are usually overlooked:

But don't you see the difference between the two?

Vendrick has no lines of dialog in vanilla DS2, Nashandra says very little of worth, Aldia, Pharros, and the Prince and Princess don't even show up. Those aren't really characters, they're just lore, like whoever that goddess in FFXIII is. Navlaan, Straid, Licia, Pate, Creighton, and Lucatiel are all characters who are basically irrelevant to the lore. Plenty of RPGs have neat NPCs and interesting backstories - that's not what made Dark Souls special. What made Dark Souls special was integrating the lore into the NPC storylines in such a way that you learned more about the world as you uncovered the stories of these individuals - and vice versa.

Artorias is comparable to Vendrick in that he has no dialog, and Siegmeyer doesn't have any lore relevance, but Solaire, Gwyndolin/Gwynevere, the Fair Lady and Quelana, Ciaran, Gough, Sif, and others are all actual characters in DS1 who are perfectly integrated into the worldbuilding.

Vendrick not having dialog in vanilla DS2 is suddenly a problem, while Artorias gets a free pass even when he doesn't even appear in vanilla DS.

Spoiler

Aldia (The Ancient Dragon), Pharros (The Rotten) and the Prince (The old Iron King) do appear in the game (according to the theories that many of us have thought by ourselves without the need to search for lore videos as many people in this thread claim), but they are "just" lore, yet many like to mention Solaire and his relevance to the lore even if he is not the Son of Gwyn (according to the interviews with Miyasaki and the fact that the God of War in DS2 is mentioned in item descriptions)...

Also, Ciaran and Gough don't appear in vanilla DS one.





Again, I'm sorry but I really think that there are many things that can be criticized but we are not using the same standards for both games.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

There are tens of thousands of people who don't like it, as with every game in existence, even Tetris.

"Universally praised" doesn't mean "there isn't a single person in the world who doesn't like it." Case in point: Metacritic classifies games that receive over a 90 as having received "universal acclaim." The expectation is that we're talking about critics, not Joe Blow, and that "universal" means "the overwhelming majority."

Beyond this, if every time someone passively expresses their dislike, others jump on their ass and badger them about it as has consistently happened with me and Dark Souls, I can well understand why they'd keep quiet about it and make it seem as though the positivity is universal. Yet I assure you I have had many people tell me they feel the same way, that DS is just not for them. I'm just saying universal acclaim is never true, and it is the kind of thing one claims to themselves to justify a feeling they don't need to justify. It's like an almost religious attitude of preference that I find very odd.

The positivity among industry professionals is universal. If your argument is that there's no such thing as universal acclaim based on a strict reading of the word "universal" that's a silly argument. Dark Souls is an extremely well-regarded game. That's not a "religious attitude of preference," that's just the truth.

You're free to think Dark Souls isn't for you. But if you're unwilling or unable to enunciate reasons for this stance you shouldn't feel surprised when people dismiss you.

 

[snesfanboy]

let's just all agree that everyone has different tastes

for example, the GTA series is universally well regarded but i find them boring, they don't click (only fun i've had with them is driving to '80s music with Vice City for a bit and Chinatown Wars on DS as a whole, which is the exception to the rule somehow) => maybe it's the structure of the game, since i don't get really along with Red Dead Redemption (which seems to be GTA structure in the Wild West), which i bought day 1, really wanted to like, but it just drizzled out)

i myself didn't find the Souls games boring (hell, i'm on my 4th character on DaS2 now as a DEX char and getting my ass kicked, dual wielding doesn't work for me, but that's another discussion) but if someone plays it and experiences boredom, so be it

not everything can be explained, i've had games before that i just didn't like, even when it was in a certain genre that i normally like => it can be artwork, it can be a control scheme, it can be a combination of a lot of things, when it doesn't click, it doesn't click

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

not everything can be explained, i've had games before that i just didn't like, even when it was in a certain genre that i normally like => it can be artwork, it can be a control scheme, it can be a combination of a lot of things, when it doesn't click, it doesn't click

But it can be explained. You just explained it. It can be artwork, it can be a control scheme, it can be a combination of a lot of things (things that you could enunciate further if you felt like it).

I don't begrudge the guy his right to dislike Dark Souls. I just find it really weird that he refuses to explain why.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I think its blatantly obvious that DkS2 has not been received near as well enough as DeS and DkS by the Souls fanbase. Some of these critique videos (in fact all of the ones I have seen) are made by huge Souls fans that have praised the other two games numerous times.

Just looking at the Neogaf poll/thread (Gaf has a big Souls base)

Votes as number best Souls game:

Demons Souls : .....372
Dark Souls : ..........403
Dark Souls 2 : ........82

Votes as worst soul game:

Dark Souls 2 : ........668
Demons Souls : .....210
Dark Souls : ..........61

I think that really says a lot.

 

[snesfanboy]

But it can be explained. You just explained it. It can be artwork, it can be a control scheme, it can be a combination of a lot of things (things that you could enunciate further if you felt like it).

I don't begrudge the guy his right to dislike Dark Souls. I just find it really weird that he refuses to explain why.

hmm, came out wrong, what i meant to say is that sometimes you come across a movie, a game or a song that you don't like and you look for the reason why and try to explain it and you just can't

i mean, sometimes it's easy and you can explain, like "shit, in this 3rd person adventure game when i press the right stick for camera movement, it's inverted, it can't be changed, i can't adapt to it, not for me"

but i've had games/movies/songs that seem to be right up my alley, it ticks all boxes, yet i don't like it, the reverse is true too (example : i'm not a RTS man, don't like it at all, but 1st Age Of Empires and Starcraft i enjoyed very much)

and as for his explanation, what i make from it is that he likes the lore, art design, he likes the control, but he finds it boring that if he dies 10 times, he has to do the exact same things, kill the exact same groups of enemies (that he didn't from before) in the exact same methodical way 11 times just to get back to the spot where he died and try again (of course, i may be completely wrong)

i liked it, i liked it because i got the feeling that i mastered a certain area (i'm gaming since the NES days but i've never been very good at games where quick reaction is required), i liked it to see how an area where i got stuck for 15hrs the 1st time, i breezed through in 2hrs without a sweat => this combined with the feeling that there's permanent danger (and yes, if you're playing cocksure and careless, you can still be killed by some mobs) and the atmosphere, makes me (and i bet a lot of other people) feel like a real badass

 

[jimi_dini]

If you're dying a lot and losing progress in a Souls game that is sort of evidence that you haven't really learned how to play them, isn't it? Skilled Souls players die infrequently.

That's not even the issue. If you don't play the game YOLO-style, then you simply won't die a lot. Dying is mainly a symptom for playing reckless.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

But don't you see the difference between the two?

Vendrick has no lines of dialog in vanilla DS2, Nashandra says very little of worth, Aldia, Pharros, and the Prince and Princess don't even show up. Those aren't really characters, they're just lore, like whoever that goddess in FFXIII is. Navlaan, Straid, Licia, Pate, Creighton, and Lucatiel are all characters who are basically irrelevant to the lore. Plenty of RPGs have neat NPCs and interesting backstories - that's not what made Dark Souls special. What made Dark Souls special was integrating the lore into the NPC storylines in such a way that you learned more about the world as you uncovered the stories of these individuals - and vice versa.

Artorias is comparable to Vendrick in that he has no dialog, and Siegmeyer doesn't have any lore relevance, but Solaire, Gwyndolin/Gwynevere, the Fair Lady and Quelana, Ciaran, Gough, Sif, and others are all actual characters in DS1 who are perfectly integrated into the worldbuilding.

Straid is very much tied to the lore. He developed many of the spells in the game. According to an item description, which was changed before final release, he defeated an 'ancient dragon' at one point. He was an ally of the king of Olaphis, who may have been the chosen undead of his cycle.

If you buy into the theories, the lovestruck prince and Pharros both show up in the game, as bosses.

Ciaran, Gough and Sif mostly became interesting characters with the DLC, and all of the DLC for Design II has not been released yet, so it's not really a fair comparison either.