-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Dark Souls II really that disappointing?
- Thread starter Courage
- Start date
I LOVE demons and dark souls and was very disappointed with DKs2 yo the point where I didn't finish. I did put 100 hours into it but stopped.
It has a better multiplayer aspect but that's the only thing it does better imo. The world is my biggest complaint. It does not feel like an interconnected world like DKs1 or the interconnectivity in the levels of DS.
The boss fights are pretty disappointing compared to the other two as well.
It has a better multiplayer aspect but that's the only thing it does better imo. The world is my biggest complaint. It does not feel like an interconnected world like DKs1 or the interconnectivity in the levels of DS.
The boss fights are pretty disappointing compared to the other two as well.
Veritigo_X
Member
To me it was. I played and loved Demon's/Dark Souls and found Dark Souls II to be a huge step back for the series. I've gone through countless new games and different builds in both Demon's/Dark but felt content calling DaSII done after one playthrough. It isn't series fatigue either since after beating DaSII I went right back into DaS to make a new build. It felt like it was more inspired by Dark Souls rather than being a full fledged sequel.
I've been playing it nonstop since Friday, gotta take a break to study for a midterm.
justjustin
Member
I'd highly recommend it. Starting with Demon's Souls, each iteration has incrementally worse level design with increasingly more variety, better combat and more ways to explore the world. I played the games in order as they were released and it's my favorite in the series.
Well your disappointment depends on your expectations but yeah, it was pretty damn disappointing for me. However, I didn't for a second regret pre-ordering it. It's still a good game, it's just that the two before it were leaps and bounds better crafted, and the downgrade did its reception no favors either.
Astral/H3X
Member
Okay now this is cool. Something to look forward to later on when Scholar comes out on PC.
It is less organic, areas are very different from each other, but that also means more diversity.
Overall I like it more than Dark Souls though, it feels better to play. It's a better game, Dark Souls is a better world. If that makes and sense.
Hope the same team works on Souls 3, the DLC promises something great in store
Overall I like it more than Dark Souls though, it feels better to play. It's a better game, Dark Souls is a better world. If that makes and sense.
Hope the same team works on Souls 3, the DLC promises something great in store
Mendax
Member
no you can't; there are more, and more diverse, environments and enemies in 2
I loved Demons and Dark Souls. Amazingly well designed games, from mechanics to level design.
DS2 was such a disappointment. It's the same core mechanics but the level design is dreary: linear, uninteresting, uninteresting NPCs, uninteresting encounter design. I don't know how to explain it to you. There's just not much thought put into areas. They're so straight forward and bland. I wasn't excited exploring them. Going back to them wasn't rewarding. I don't plan to ever play it again.
I went back to DS1 and that first rest area in Firelink Shrine. It just works so well. It feels so organic and yet perfectly balanced as a gameplay area. You walk up the ramp/stairs to that first little area leading into Undead Burg. The NPC encounters are so well designed while also being visually evocative. It's so perfect.
And that's not just one area. It's most of Dark Souls, from Darkroot Garden to Anor Londo. Does it have "bad" areas? Yes. But with only rare missteps, it's otherwise consistently excellent.
I didn't buy the DLC packs for DS2, which I've been told are better than everything in the main game.
ShyGuy0504
Member
Not to me.
I really liked Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and had just as much fun with 2.
I really liked Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and had just as much fun with 2.
Red Liquorice
Member
Bloodborne as your first Souls game, why worry about being disappointed by DS2? Most people who were disappointed by DS2 were existing fans of the series who felt some of the changes made were detrimental to the strong formula the series had built (it also introduced a lot of good things too).
It's a fine game, play it and enjoy it.
It's a fine game, play it and enjoy it.
Kwansu Dudes
Member
I enjoyed it a lot even though the level design isn't as good as the previous 2. It's not as bad as some people say it is and is a great game on its own.
Excellent analogy.
The first thing that bummed me was the lighting downgrade, then when I bought it, the character felt slow, and clunky to control (had to download a fix for this), the world looked a bit dull, with just a few good looking areas, and gameplay wise, the abundance of mobs to make the game hard in a "cheap" way; also the 60fps on pc made parrying unreliable.
Aside from that, it was a good game, with an improved PvP over it's predecessors.
I'd play 2 first and leave Demon's Souls last, because to me, it's the better game of the 2.
test_account
XP-39C²
I played it for 300+ hours and i enjoyed it a lot.
The majority of the non-DLC areas were extremely uninspiring-both visually and from a design stand point. The DLC kind of makes up for it, so you might as well get Scholar of the First Sin which comes with all DLC.
MickeyKnox
Member
Lords of the fallen is a burning dumpster full of human shit compared to Dark Souls 2.
It was so fucking bad it actually re calibrated my perspective on DS2.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
I agree with this. Sold it after 2 hours of playing.
Loved it. It seemed like a bulleted list of fixing the mechanics and balance issues I had with Dark Souls 1, but at the expense of some level design and lore. The branching structure and brand of non-linearity really added replayability.
Mechanically, I found it superior. I just don't understand arguments why having roll invincibility as a separate stat from roll distance is bad.
It actually did build variety correctly. Magic, Sword & Board, and light Dex all play very differently, and are all pretty close in terms of PvE difficulty.
Yup. Boss count, area count, # of different enemies, # of weapons, # of armor sets are all MUCH higher in SotFS than in Prepare to Die.
Mechanically, I found it superior. I just don't understand arguments why having roll invincibility as a separate stat from roll distance is bad.
It actually did build variety correctly. Magic, Sword & Board, and light Dex all play very differently, and are all pretty close in terms of PvE difficulty.
Yup. Boss count, area count, # of different enemies, # of weapons, # of armor sets are all MUCH higher in SotFS than in Prepare to Die.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Veritigo_X
Member
People are talking like the PS4 release fixes a bunch of things. I thought it just added all the DLC. What exactly is changed? If it's better than what I played in the original DSII I'll pick it up once I'm tired of Bloodborne (lol).
I personally wouldn't recommend it, but, hey: to each their own.
Dark Souls was my first game of the Souls series, since I'm a PC player and getting a PS3 never even crossed my mind. I got all the Achievements for it on PC, and clocked around 200 hours across all of my playthroughs. Naturally, before it came out on PC, I was extremely hyped for Dark Souls II. I was even considering buying a PS4 almost a year in advance just for Bloodborne!
Then DkS2 came out.
I couldn't enjoy it, there was nothing for me in that game. Not the enemies, not the combat (lovely degrading at 60 FPS, FROM!), not the lore, not the world... nothing. The forced invasions in key areas of the game was the pinnacle of everything I found to be wrong with the game. I honestly couldn't finish it. And with that I was done with the Souls series. Screw Dark Souls II, screw Bloodborne. I had a magnificent time with Dark Souls. I rather treasure those memories than force myself to play a game I don't like just because "it's a Souls game".
(I never played the DLC and I don't plan on getting the "enhanced" edition, naturally.)
Dark Souls was my first game of the Souls series, since I'm a PC player and getting a PS3 never even crossed my mind. I got all the Achievements for it on PC, and clocked around 200 hours across all of my playthroughs. Naturally, before it came out on PC, I was extremely hyped for Dark Souls II. I was even considering buying a PS4 almost a year in advance just for Bloodborne!
Then DkS2 came out.
I couldn't enjoy it, there was nothing for me in that game. Not the enemies, not the combat (lovely degrading at 60 FPS, FROM!), not the lore, not the world... nothing. The forced invasions in key areas of the game was the pinnacle of everything I found to be wrong with the game. I honestly couldn't finish it. And with that I was done with the Souls series. Screw Dark Souls II, screw Bloodborne. I had a magnificent time with Dark Souls. I rather treasure those memories than force myself to play a game I don't like just because "it's a Souls game".
(I never played the DLC and I don't plan on getting the "enhanced" edition, naturally.)
It's a great starting point for those new to the Souls games because it is generally more forgiving and less rigid in it's rules than Demon's Souls/Dark Souls. Other than that I consider it rather mediocre in comparison to the previous games.
My main gripe is the dull level design in a lot of the main game and the pushover bosses in many of the areas. The dlc does go some way to fixing these things but as a whole I definitely found DS2 to be the weakest of the series.
My main gripe is the dull level design in a lot of the main game and the pushover bosses in many of the areas. The dlc does go some way to fixing these things but as a whole I definitely found DS2 to be the weakest of the series.
Better performance and I think they have also moved around enemy encounters to spice things up a bit. Probably a load of other things as well but we will have to wait to see if they make much of a difference.
Gaming Bliss. Never did the DLC and sold the original for $5 less than I paid after getting the Platinum, so I'm getting SotFS before I'm even done with Bloodborne.
Veritigo_X
Member
You know Dark Souls II was made by different people than Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne, right?
So Dark Souls sucks? I'm not getting this analogy.
Nothing in Dark Souls 2 even holds a candle to the Gaping Dragon. That thing was weird and menacing and surprising. How many Dark Souls 2 bosses are "dude with shield and weapon" or "multiple dudes with shield and weapon"?
Every single Demon boss was unique. Dark Souls 2 has "now there's two of this guy".
So every game in the series is terrible?
Regurgitated
Banned
The graphical downgrade killed it for me. I love good lighting in games and when it was stripped out I lost so much hype I never got around to even buying it.
Mendax
Member
player count up to 6, revised enemy spawns, additional enemies, weapon and armor balancing, extended soul memory brackets (via items i think?) etc. + the dlc adds new locations, bosses, weapons and armor
its gonna be good
I really should have seen this backfire coming
Of course. But I'm not setting myself up for a 460 disappointment. I never had the desire to play Demon's Souls, even if it was developed by the same people who later made Dark Souls. I rather think that Dark Souls was lightning in a bottle for me than taking my chances with another game in the same genre.
- Better performance (1080p, 60fps, but some dips to the fifties).
- The better textures that were already used in the PC version.
- More enemy variety in each zone (Heide Knights in Heide, and their behavior changes when you beat a certain boss, a Troll/Ogre in FofG, Basilisks and a Dragon in Heides)
- Patrolling enemies
- Longer chase distances from enemies.
- Some areas have outright more enemies.
- Better contrast between light and dark (at least in some areas)
- More dynamic lighting effects
- Some DoF effects
- Revised item placement (Grand Lance or something in FofG?). My guess is that a lot of DLC gear gets merged into the main game.
- New repeat BP invader, The Forlorn, in many zones.
- Shortened load times, unless the events showing the PS4 version had SDDs installed.
We've really only seen three of the first zones (two paths from the main town, basically).
Oh please. There's simply way more bosses, and you're being extremely selective to ignore Dark Souls 1's "Here's a boss. Here's the same boss later with a different moveset. Here's the same boss a third time with a different moveset." DkS2 has 40 bosses compared to the original's ~20 or so. Of course there will be more overlap and less distinction at times, but people act like it is far more flagrant than it is.
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Seriously its still really great, it just doesn't have the lore/atmosphere/ level design of the previous games. Most "casual" souls fans won't really understand why its considered the worst in the series.
Veritigo_X
Member
Thanks guys. I'll keep an eye on it. Probably won't get it until it's ~$20 anyway. I'm really disappointed to read the words "soul memory" and have it not followed by the words "gone for good".