• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is Dark Souls II really that disappointing?

Never touched Demon Souls and hated Dark Souls, yet I loved Dark Souls 2.

I reached a point in Dark Souls numerous times where I just felt trapped and confused and wasn't quite sure how to progress and what I was doing wrong. Friends very well versed in the game tried to help but it just resulted in me feeling even more frustrated. Also note I didn't play Dark Souls until about late 2012 so the game was well discovered then. I stopped playing shortly after beating The Gaping Dragon, the game just wasn't for me and I wasn't enjoying myself.

Whereas Dark Souls 2 I always felt like I knew what I needed to do, how to do and the best method for dealing with bosses and situations. I also found the DK2 world and location a whole lot more interesting than DK's locales. I also bought DK2 day one so it wasn't like there was anyone to refer to should I get stuck so I had to figure everything out on my own. I think DK2's greatest flaw is that it was so hyped up by the fanbase that it was impossible for it to meet their expectations of it.
 
Dark Souls was an almost impossible act to follow., so DS2 does get unfairly beat up on
And while it made some missteps, it is still an extremely entertaining game.
 
Kenzodielocke said:
Demon's Souls is a 9.3
Dark Souls is a 9.5
Dark Souls 2 is a 8.7
Click to expand...

I'd reverse Dark Souls and Demon's scores, but I can agree with this. Dark Souls 2 isn't terrible. But it's a bit disappointing after the first two "entries."
 
Brakke said:
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".
Click to expand...

You fight the same demon boss re-skinned 3 different times in 1. One of the later areas of 1 is just a bunch of bosses from an earlier part of the game used as standard enemies.
 
Alright fuck the analogy, but Dark Souls 2 disappointment comes from the idealogy they had going into the creation of the game.

Instead of making a game with interesting design they were more interested in finding a way to just make it harder. Something Miyazaki didn't want people to think of when it came to DS1.
 
Joey Ravn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, if you don't already have a PS4 I could see why you wouldn't want to get it. That's a lot of money for just one game. Still, having started the series with Demon's Souls I've managed to have that "lightning in a bottle" feeling twice. I'll take that chance with the same developers any day.
 
Courage said:
After having fun with Bloodborne this weekend (my first Souls game) I figured I'd look into the DS2 remaster coming out later next month, so I looked up some footage for Scholar of the First Sin and the last gen version. These videos mostly had a lot of negativity, with top comments on Youtube talking about how inorganic and lazy the game is, a lot of downvotes in every video, and even found a critique with almost 400k views on why it sucks.

As someone who hasn't played any of the Souls games other than some of Bloodborne, is it that drastically different of a game compared to its predecessors? To the point where I shouldn't even bother buying it? Are they improving anything or just slapping a 1080p/60fps tagline with some better lighting? Reviewers seemed to like it, but I'd rather hear from GAF.
Click to expand...

Yes. Don't listen to reviewers. It is primarily due to the team who worked in DkS2 being made of a different team.

The team that made Bloodborne made Demons Souls and Dark Souls and I would largely recommend those two over DS2.

Dark Souls was an almost impossible act to follow., so DS2 does get unfairly beat up on
Click to expand...

Thats a poor excuse considering how high DeS is held in the community even after Dark Souls or how DkS largely managed to live up to such high expectations.
 
Gorillaz said:
Alright fuck the analogy, but Dark Souls 2 disappointment comes from the idealogy they had going into the creation of the game.

Instead of making a game with interesting design they were more interested in finding a way to just make it harder. Something Miyazaki didn't want people to think of when it came to DS1.
Click to expand...

but DS2 is easier than DS1
 
Its the worst game in the series and a huge disappointment.



Still the 2014 GOTY though.
That's how good Souls games are.
So yeah, go for it.
 
As many already pointed out. Dark Souls II isn't bad, it is a very good game. But Dark Souls and Demon's Souls were great games. Given the sheer legacy of the previous titles, Dark Souls II was almost destined to disappoint people. But compared to other games, it is a very good game.
 
Courage said:
I also played Lords of the Fallen recently and found it to be pretty solid. If it's anything similar to that, I should probably be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Uh, then absolutely if you enjoyed LotF which was a mediocre to OK game.

DkS2 does not deserve half the hate it deserves. Just a few specific design decisions irked some people.

In fact, when taking the (amazing) DLC into account, it's a worthy successor to DkS1. Not as revolutionary and I get the preference for an interconnected world, but it's still got an amazing art style, great combat and enemy design. If you like any Souls game, it'd be a massive disservice not to try it out.
 
It's far from a bad game, but it doesn't hold up to its predecessors. In that respect, then, yes, it's a disappointment. Interestingly, though, I find it more fun to play than Demon's Souls (the first Dark Souls reigns supreme).
 
All three games are so good (and also each have some unique issues) that it's hard for me to give a definite favourite, though I'd put Demon's slightly behind the other two, but the Dark Souls 2 DLC in particular is the high point of the series for me and presumably the re-release is only going to make it better.

Edit: Also a lot of the comparisons were prior to patches that have fixed a lot of things in the game. Dark Souls 1 was also very different on release (and much more broken than DS2 ever was in some ways) compared to what it became by the time of the re-release with DLC.
 
If it had been anything other than a souls game (which invites unfavorable comparisons to DS1), it wouldn't have picked up anywhere near the flack it got.

I just finished it this week and, it is very good overall and, honestly, better at communicating its expectations to players than DS1. That having been said, the level design, some enemy design, and some multiplayer decisions lead it to be inferior to the previous game.

Everyone I know (not on the internet) starts their conversations about DS2 problems with a comparison to DS1 (or DeS, depending on if they played it or not).

Also, as has been said in the thread, the DLC areas (which are part of the PS4 package) are some of the best in the game. The bosses range from beautifully executed to kinda cheesy (if doing solo play anyway).
 
I definitely liked it but I was really disappointed with the severe lack of interconnectedness that made Dark Souls feel much more like a "real" world and not just a collection of areas.
 
Dark Souls 2 is a fine game. The comments of "it's clear Miyasaki didn't work on this! This is trash compared to his work." Don't sit right with me. Dark Souls 2 stands along side DS1 and Demons just fine.
 
It fixes a few of Dark 1's obvious design flaws and fails to live up to it in basically every other regard. It's a larger, but less creative and less densely packed game, and on the whole feels rather bland and samey.
 
Gorillaz said:
Alright fuck the analogy, but Dark Souls 2 disappointment comes from the idealogy they had going into the creation of the game.

Instead of making a game with interesting design they were more interested in finding a way to just make it harder. Something Miyazaki didn't want people to think of when it came to DS1.
Click to expand...

Eh, I think that is attributing too much to Miyazaki's design or intent. First, Dark Souls 1 was an imbalanced mess at launch that took a series of patches to smooth out, and second, complaints about the sequel are split between "It is way too easy" or "It is hard, but for dumb reasons."
 
When I first walked into the "hub" and realized it was on a nice cliffside in a sunlight-filled area, I knew this Souls game was not like the others.
 
Yes it was. The critic you posted nailed almost everything that is wrong with DaS2 from the point of a DaS1 and DeS fan. By any means DaS2 is bad game but when you compared it to DeS and DaS1 you can see all the shortcomings of DaS2.
 
I felt it was as good as the other two souls games aside from the level design. I loved me some Dark Souls 2 though enough to get a platinum for it.

I'll definitely be getting Scholar when it drops on PS4 even though I already own the PC version of DkS2 with the three DLC packs with it.

EDIT: The worst part of Dark Souls 2 to me was the inclusion of Soul Memory. Holy fuck that was a dropped ball.
 
Also, the changes in enemy placement for SotFS don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Way back in the original announcement thread I remember seeing someone likening them to a romhack, which I think definitely rings true. Some of the changes seem to have been made with the idea that more enemies = better design, which is really the opposite of what they should be doing. Why is the very first enemy you meet in the first proper area of the game an ogre with an instant kill attack? It just doesn't sit right with me.
 
Being someone that played all the souls games. I had a lot of fun with Dark Souls 2. Though that was on the pc version.
 
The only issues I had with the game were:
Too many bosses,most of which were forgettable
Too many bonfires
The levels were very short
 
It's still addicting as fuck, while it is a little less satisfying than the other two games. You'll probably have a good time, especially if you play it first.
 
I know it seems cheesy to say because we all know Miyazaki didn't make it but it really did come off as an imitation of a souls game. A good one. But one nonetheless.

When a series is a labour of love for someone, not anyone can just pick it up and do it.
 
Neoweee said:
Eh, I think that is attributing too much to Miyazaki's design or intent. First, Dark Souls 1 was an imbalanced mess at launch that took a series of patches to smooth out, and second, complaints about the sequel are split between "It is way too easy" or "It is hard, but for dumb reasons."
Click to expand...

boy was it ever. I abused the crystal ring shield HEAVILY until they patched that one out, and there never really was a fix for those enemies behind the stone door in the forest that will happily throw themselves off of a cliff, loading you up with XP.
 
Trakan said:
You fight the same demon boss re-skinned 3 different times in 1. One of the later areas of 1 is just a bunch of bosses from an earlier part of the game used as standard enemies.
Click to expand...

Who repeats? The Asylum Demon? I beat the game without ever fighting him in the lava zone, and re-fighting him in the Asylum is totally optional and inessential. And that one is even *kind* of interesting because the first encounter happens before you've customized your character at all, there's a super good chance your moveset is completely different by the time you return to the Asylum.

But like, even if 1 & 2 both have some recycling, it's still true that recycling in 2 is egregious, 1 has bosses unlike anything I've ever seen in any fiction, 2 doesn't have that.
 
It's much better than what most people want to give it credit for. The DLC areas (which are free on the ps4 and XB1 versions) are particularly pretty good, better than some levels/areas of Demon's and Dark Souls 1.

It has some flaws that are the result of trying to twist the Souls series mechanics to make it more unfamiliar to experienced players, the direct consequence of that is the huge backlash it gets on many communities.

I'd totally recommend it.
 
Brakke said:
Who repeats? The Asylum Demon? I beat the game without ever fighting him in the lava zone, and re-fighting him in the Asylum is totally optional and inessential. And that one is even *kind* of interesting because the first encounter happens before you've customized your character at all, there's a super good chance your moveset is completely different by the time you return to the Asylum.

But like, even if 1 & 2 both have some recycling, it's still true that recycling in 2 is egregious, 1 has bosses unlike anything I've ever seen in any fiction, 2 doesn't have that.
Click to expand...

This seems more like an admission that you need to experience more fiction. The bosses in dark souls were fun and all, but pinwheel and ceaseless discharge aren't exactly works of art.
 
Playing Bloodborne now (2 bosses down), crystallized an idea for me:

Dark Souls 2 is a game worried too much about what people didn't like about its predecessor:

Low level ganking in PvP means no early hidden high power gear, and soul memory, ruining high end PvP.

Complaints about backtracking and getting lost and not knowing what to do next lead to warp for the beginning and short linear areas.

Etc etc.

I enjoyed Dark Souls 2; I'll be picking up the PS4 version after I've beaten Bloodborne a couple times. But it's clearly insecure enough about some of the flaws of Dark Souls that it damaged the final game from the perspective of people who loved the first two.

Bloodborne, on the other hand, is, thus far (again I'm only 2 bosses in), super confident in itself and has a very clear vision of what it is that is good about this series.
 
It's my least favorite of the series, but it's still better than most games. I liked it a lot.

My main issue was the fact that the atmosphere wasn't as strong. Playing it on PC at 60fps was great
 
Mendax said:
since they aren't the same
Click to expand...

lol they are not. i can rehash 300 enemies and you can make 20 unique enemies and your game will be better than mine. name 3 enemies in dark souls 2 that are unforgettable or a level that you cant forget because it was cool
 
It's good but flawed in different ways than the other souls. I prefer Dark Souls 1, but I could see someone liking dark souls 2 more.
 
The biggest issue I have with DS2 is that the locations all feel like levels, rather than believable places. Dark Souls world design made the locations feel like they were real places, with a history. DS2 areas didn't really have that for me, so the game felt more 'gamey' and lost some immersion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dark Souls Demake - Bit Souls Demastered
1
248
Signalis replied
Dark Souls Trilogy Remakes Reportedly In Development
Rumor  2 3
100
108
RSMan replied
  • Poll
Dark Souls Path Tracing mod, yay or nay?
2 3
123
1K
Gp1 replied
That Descent II Soundtrack....
8
243
Darkmakaimura replied
Bloodborne Turns 11 and Dark Souls III Hits 10 on Shared Release Date
News 
11
239
MiguelItUp replied
Top Bottom