Support NeoGAF

[King Gilga]

Because the majority played DkS1 as their first Souls game. It was a new and fresh feeling for them and DkS2 had no chance to replicate this. Just like DkS1 couldn't replicate Demon's for me.

Demons was my first souls game, but DS1 still had the feeling for me.

I'd rate DS2 over demons tbh, but console performance/limitations probably really soured my experience with demons while I played both darks on PC.

 

[Yoshichan]

I played Demon's first, and Dark Souls is my favorite. I went into Dark Souls 2 very confident that it would replace Dark Souls 1 as my favorite. I have no series fatigue. I replay all 3 very regularly and never get tired of any of them. I just finished a Demon's Souls playthrough a couple hours ago.

I'm identical to you in that regard. I play through all games regularly (I stop after Ornstein and Smough).

This "system" of mine obviously has exceptions, just like anything else.

 

[Sanctuary]

Yep. in every DSII thread there are complaints from people that were just blown away by DaS and were looking to replicate that "feeling" with the sequel- and came away disappointed because DSII (like most sequels) is "more of the same, but different."

If you played DeS first, you kind of got that out of the way when you played DaS- and the game's flaws are more easily noticed the first run through. These players seem be more more forgiving of DS2, since "third game in the series" doesn't quite have the impossible expectations of "sequel to the greatest game ever!!"

Maybe for some, but stop projecting your own feels as though it applies to "everyone" or even "most". The only thing I can say about the "whatever game you played first" is that that game would be the hardest. Those that played Dark first would go on and on about how much harder it was than Demon's (when they actually got around to playing it), but for those that played Demon's first, it was the other way around.

Also, the O&S fight is so horribly overrated in difficulty. I just don't understand. I keep seeing all of these "I died 40 times!" horror stories and just don't know what these people were doing.

 

[eot]

When did I say that? DkS2 has massive flaws. Just nowhere near as bad flaws as becoming an utter turd after 50% in.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

50%?
The bad areas are Demon Ruins, Lost Izalith and maybe Dukes / CC. That's not 50% of the game. Even less when you count the DLC.

 

[Daedalux]

As a big fan of the Souls series it was worth my time with it.
Like the other people said, is not as good as the rest of the Souls games but it's pretty good.

Can't forget Majula's view, it was a pretty gorgeous horizon.

 

[JudgmentJay]

When did I say that? DkS2 has massive flaws. Just nowhere near as bad flaws as becoming an utter turd after 50% in.

That's an exaggeration. O&S is more like 60% through, and there's plenty of good content post-Anor Londo. The only stand-out bad area is Lost Izalith. I feel like you must have had a traumatic experience to make you this hyperbolic about the end-game of Dark Souls. Did you get gangbanged by dragon butts on release week or what? You can tell us.

 

[Derpyduck]

I tried playing DS2 on 360 but the performance really bothered me so I stopped. I'll be picking it up on PS4 next month. How does the DLC work? Is it for after the main game or does it integrate into it?

 

[toddhunter]

Darklurker is a standout boss, it is by far the best in the game.

See I had to look up who that was!

A good boss, but it also highlights the problem with DS2, which is how you get to Darklurker by going through some really bland areas fighting one or two enemies. And then in the DLC they gave you a whole area and boss which was doing exactly the same thing.

There is nothing "bad" about it, but it just isn't as good as some of the stuff they did in the past.

That's an exaggeration. O&S is more like 60% through, and there's plenty of good content post-Anor Londo. The only stand-out bad area is Lost Izalith. I feel like you must have had a traumatic experience to make you this hyperbolic about the end-game of Dark Souls. Did you get gangbanged by dragon butts on release week or what? You can tell us.

Lost Izalith, Demon Ruins and CC were all really rushed. This is before you even mention the last area, which is a corridor filled with one enemy type. You can add in Blight Town for other reasons and to me DS1 was clearly an unfinished/rushed game.

I blame Namco.

 

[kpaadet]

I don't get the complaints about NPCs. Gavlan, Shalquoir, Vengarl, Creighton, Licia, Navlaan, Ornifex, Straid, Lucatiel, Agdayne were all pretty cool and/or memorable.

Gavlan is the best NPC of the entire series. You know it. *nods*

I've put 200+ hours in DS2 yet I still had to goggle who Gavlan was, and no none of those NPCs comes close to Maiden in Black, Ostrava, Sage Freke, Patches, Solaire (he almost got too popular for his own good), Siegmeyer or Big Hat Logan.

 

[Sami+]

In this thread, we get to know who has played DkS as their first Souls game.

What's your expectation exactly for people who started with Demon's back in 09?

 

[Holden]

I'm identical to you in that regard. I play through all games regularly (I stop after Ornstein and Smough).

This "system" of mine obviously has exceptions, just like anything else.

YOSHI PLS,

sure that underground shit can be pretty fucking bad

but CMON, the rest is pretty legit, dukes archive is alright, tomb is alright, DLC is amazing

edit: rip

 

[Yoshichan]

50%?
The bad areas are Demon Ruins, Lost Izalith and maybe Dukes / CC. That's not 50% of the game. Even less when you count the DLC.

Great Hollow, Ash Lake, Valey of Drakes, New Londo, Dukes Archices, Crystal Cave, The Catacombs, Tomb of Giants, Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith are all either extremely rushed, unfinished (LOL VALLEY OF DRAKES, NICE HUB BRO) or just overall shitty.

 

[Manmademan]

Maybe for some, but stop projecting your own feels as though it applies to "everyone" or even "most".

I don't recall saying it applies to everyone, or most. Simply that these people DO exist and it is most certainly an issue. I agreed with a different poster who noticed that the same pattern happens in every DS2 thread and it is very easy to spot.

One of the first things I said is that all three games are very close to each other, and each one does certain things better that the other two don't. There's no issue with thinking Dark Souls is the best of the three, or that demon's is, or that Dark II might be. any of these positions are defensible.

However, when someone comes in praising DaS to high heaven and trashing DarkII for being "utter shit", its usually clear what's going on.

I've put 200+ hours in DS2 yet I still had to goggle who Gavlan was, and no none of those NPCs comes close to Maiden in Black, Ostrava, Sage Freke, Patches, Solaire (he almost got too popular for his own good), Siegmeyer or Big Hat Logan.

The bolded doesn't seem plausible. Gavlan has a VERY distinctive VA and says his name all the goddamn time. I was hearing that voice in my sleep for weeks!

Spoiler

MANY DEAL! MANY THANKS! GAH HA! HAHA HAHAHAAH

 

[Revolutionary]

In comparison to the first two, absolutely. Still a good game though.

 

[Neoweee]

I think people have a skewed perspective when it comes to discussions 50+ hour RPGs. None of the games in that genre are "perfect". All have notable flaws, and as games get bigger and bigger it gets harder to be consistent in quality, to have good pacing, and to be well balanced. Ultimately, preferences come down to which issues bother a person less than others, or which mechanical/design preferences a person has, or their experiences and expectations that you can't assume other people will share. I think all of the Souls games are flawed games, but they do so much right that it comes down to which flaws bother me less.

People can post those same two GIFs over and over to demonstrate DkS2 horrible hit detection, and I agree those things are flaws. They just bother me less than the overall balance issues in the first two games, or the low-lows of some really bad levels, or the rampant clipping, or performance issues, or abusable terrain in boss fights of the first two games.

Great Hollow, Ash Lake, Valey of Drakes, New Londo, Dukes Archices, Crystal Cave, The Catacombs, Tomb of Giants, Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith are all either extremely rushed, unfinished (LOL VALLEY OF DRAKES, NICE HUB BRO) or just overall shitty.

Hey now, Ash Lake is some cool shit. Sure combat in the zone centers around the Great Hydra of Sand Clipping, but the area looks really nice.

 

[Afrocious]

See I had to look up who that was!

A good boss, but it also highlights the problem with DS2, which is how you get to Darklurker by going through some really bland areas fighting one or two enemies. And then in the DLC they gave you a whole area and boss which was doing exactly the same thing.

There is nothing "bad" about it, but it just isn't as good as some of the stuff they did in the past.



Lost Izalith, Demon Ruins and CC were all really rushed. You can add in Blight Town for other reasons and to me DS1 was clearly an unfinished/rushed game.

I blame Namco.

Those areas you had to get through to actually get to fight Darklurker honestly can't be summarized by pointing out 'one or two enemies'.

Those were the most difficult, and quite tense moments in the entirety of vanilla Dark Souls 2 due to how you had to spend humanity just to get to these areas, and the NPCs being quite aggressive. Not that I'd want the whole game to be that way, but I enjoyed how tough they were and what it meant dying in those areas.

One does not just run up to fight the Darklurker.

 

[VaultBoy101]

It's only (slightly) disappointing in comparison to the first Dark Souls. Compared to every other game being released these days, it's phenomenal.

 

[Clear]

I honestly think the remaster is going to change a lot of people's opinions. Its very obvious to me that they ran into technical issues working on PS360 and as a result had to severely compromise in places.

From what's been shown so far the changes in enemy placement make the world a lot more logical from a lore-sense (Heide Knights in ToF... who'd a thunk it) and should sharpen up the gameplay by offering more tactical variety.

 

[correojon]

I haven't played the dlc yet, but DS2 is a very good game on its own. All the negativity comes when you compare it to DS1: the huge open interconected world, better combat mechanics, better bosses, much better level design...DS1 has lows, but the high points out the game far outshine the most memorable parts of 2. DS2 is a more polished game, everything is allright but it doesn't reach the peaks DS1 does.

 

[Sami+]

Yep. in every DSII thread there are complaints from people that were just blown away by DaS and were looking to replicate that "feeling" with the sequel- and came away disappointed because DSII (like most sequels) is "more of the same, but different."

If you played DeS first, you kind of got that out of the way when you played DaS- and the game's flaws are more easily noticed the first run through. These players seem be more more forgiving of DS2, since "third game in the series" doesn't quite have the impossible expectations of "sequel to the greatest game ever!!"

Me and my best friend both started with Demon's. Demon's is my all time favorite game, in fact. We had both beaten it five times before Dark Souls came out.

I think Dark's atmosphere and story falls short of Demon's, so I still prefer the first game. I'm hoping Bloodborne surpasses it. Regardless, I still adore both games. As far as I'm concerned they're my two favorite games.

Dark Souls II cocks up everything I liked about the first two games. It's not fun at all as a result. I would go so far as to say that I would absolutely prefer more of the same over what we ended up getting. I think the new stat system is a joke, I think the new roll system is a great example of bad game design, the level design is awful compared to the first two games, combat feels slower than its ever been before, 90% of the threats are trash mobs, and some levels are particularly horrendous and even worse than the absolute worst levels from the first two games (Shrine of Amana and Dragon Whatever with the Spinny Hammer Bros).

Oh, and it's ugly. It's really ugly like 70% of the time because they sabotaged their own game with the lighting shit both from a game design and graphical perspective.

 

[Randam]

did countless playthroughs on dark souls 1 on ps3 and steam.
played thorugh dark souls 2 one single time.
didn't even beat all the optional bosses.
never went into ng+.



you should play dark souls 1 op.
PC version isn't that demanding.

 

[Manmademan]

Hey now, Ash Lake is some cool shit. Sure combat in the zone centers around the Great Hydra of Sand Clipping, but the area looks really nice.

It's not cool if you end up down there without the lordvessel.

 

[toddhunter]

Those areas you had to get through to actually get to fight Darklurker honestly can't be summarized by pointing out 'one or two enemies'.

Those were the most difficult, and quite tense moments in the entirety of vanilla Dark Souls 2 due to how you had to spend humanity just to get to these areas, and the NPCs being quite aggressive. Not that I'd want the whole game to be that way, but I enjoyed how tough they were and what it meant dying in those areas.

One does not just run up to fight the Darklurker.

Like a lot of Souls things, "it depends".

Demon Souls has some tough bosses unless you know a little bit of magic...then they are absolutely trivial.

With those areas, I struggled my first time as a mage, but coming back later with a big fuck off sword and it was "same old tactics" time as you destroy them all one by one. Oh and humanity is never really an issue either, you have tonnes of it.

But all that aside, it was doing the same thing in the DLC which really got me.

It's only (slightly) disappointing in comparison to the first Dark Souls. Compared to every other game being released these days, it's phenomenal.

That is the bottom line.

 

[bengraven]

This is one of those games that gets a few weeks of "DS2 is fucking awesome" and a few weeks of "DS2 is a bad/disappointing game". Reminds me of when ME2 came out.

 

[finalflame]

No. Dark Souls II was a fantastic game, and, in many ways, improved upon the first.

However, it lacked a lot of the depth and fantastic world building present in the first game. The story also left a bit to be desired, but like all Souls games, it was still pretty captivating and raised a lot of questions.

I haven't played the DLCs yet, but I hear those are fantastic. I was a huge fan of the first game and played it when it came to PC, and honestly was quite thrilled with DkS2 and had a great time. Anyone saying it was a a huge let down is far exaggerating.

 

[IbukiLordSA]

If people find Dark Souls 2 disappointing then wait till they get a hold of Bloodborne lol. I thought Dark Souls 2 was great.

 

[DaciaJC]

lol what a joke of a post. It's a known fact that DkS1 doesn't hold up after Anor Londo. If you're denying that then you're not aware of what 'good game design' is.

I think the consensus is that Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith are shit (and they are, no doubt), not that every post-Lordvessel area is trash. New Londo Ruins is a great self-contained level with a unique and rather terrifying boss; the Catacombs/Tomb of the Giants leg is perhaps the most challenging in the game and provides a distinct set of challenges; and Duke's Archives/Crystal Cave, while pretty short, at least provide a different aesthetic to anything else found in the game. I do hate that the first encounter with Seath is a forced death, though, easily one of the worst parts of the game.

 

[Spinx]

Only redeeming thing about DkS2 is the DLC. I don't even want to think about the base game. No baller side sword in the game is unforgivable.

Best NPC in the "series" is Biorr, of the Twin Fangs.

 

[Randam]

SThis is before you even mention the last area, which is a corridor filled with one enemy type.

there is a reason for that, you know that!?

 

[Neoweee]

It's not cool if you end up down there without the lordvessel.

I know that suffering.

That's my ultimate argument for Fast Travel near the start of the game. Without it, the game punishes exploration. I got to both Ash Lake, Tomb of Giants, and Demon Ruins before I had the Lordvessel.

It was horrible. Never again. Glad to see both teams at From learned lessons from Dark Souls 1.

 

[Sanctuary]

I don't recall saying it applies to everyone, or most. Simply that these people DO exist and it is most certainly an issue. I agreed with a different poster who noticed that the same pattern happens in every DS2 thread and it is very easy to spot.

If you played DeS first, you kind of got that out of the way when you played DaS- and the game's flaws are more easily noticed the first run through. These players seem be more more forgiving of DS2, since "third game in the series" doesn't quite have the impossible expectations of "sequel to the greatest game ever!!"

I guess "you" could mean anyone, but the way it's written implies everyone, especially when you add "these players".

 

[Manmademan]

No. Dark Souls II was a fantastic game, and, in many ways, improved upon the first.

However, it lacked a lot of the depth and fantastic world building present in the first game. The story also left a bit to be desired, but like all Souls games, it was still pretty captivating and raised a lot of questions.

I haven't played the DLCs yet, but I hear those are fantastic. I was a huge fan of the first game and played it when it came to PC, and honestly was quite thrilled with DkS2 and had a great time. Anyone saying it was a a huge let down is far exaggerating.

This is my one big complaint about the game. The story in the souls games has always been a sort of a "piece it together yourself" sort of affair, but Dark 2 really seems to go out of it's way to obscure what actually happened to a ridiculous degree.

 

[Kusagari]

Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith is a billion times worse than anything in 2.

The original Dark Souls is a better game, and Demon's is too, but people really over exaggerate how bad 2 is.

 

[Manmademan]

I guess "you" could mean anyone, but the way it's written implies everyone, especially when you add "these players".

interpret that as "it could be anyone" but not "everyone 100% of the time"

 

[Afrocious]

I'm also surprised how more folks aren't panning Dark Souls 2's Soul Memory.

Oh man, I can tell you horror stories about fighting Havel fucks.

 

[Fitts]

It's the worst of the series but still better than 99% of the games released over the past few generations. It's worth your time and, honestly, I'd recommend playing it before Demon's or Dark 1 because it gives you nowhere to go but upward in overall quality.

 

[Skii]

lol what a joke of a post. It's a known fact that DkS1 doesn't hold up after Anor Londo. If you're denying that then you're not aware of what 'good game design' is.

Dark Souls 2 is essentially as rushed as everything after Anor Londo in DS1. Even then, the Duke's Archives, New Londo and the Catacombs have far more "soul" than any location in DS2.

It is so far off the mark, it is actually amazing. I still like the game and it's easily one of the better games out there but it completely misunderstood the point of a Souls game. The fact that you defend it so vehemently is astounding considering you're such a big advocate of Demon's Souls.

I see this way too often and these words make little sense to me outside of level design.

The director of the game thought difficulty was the main appeal of the Souls game and designed the entire game around that. This meant the story, level design, environment, atmosphere etc. suffered massively as they weren't the main focus of the game. They went for difficulty over making an interesting, captivating game.

 

[Kieli]

In this thread, we get to know who has played DkS as their first Souls game.

Demon's Souls is sitting in my garbage can as we speak.

 

[Yoshichan]

I'm worried for Bloodborne.

My expectations for that game is reaching close to DkS1 and that is not healthy.

 

[Meia]

i never had problems with DS2's mechanics or hit boxes like people claim, so i never quite understood what that was all about

Here is the main problem I had with this game's design: We take things away from the player and then give them back to them in order to feel stronger.


Let's look at the stats. Now, in Dark Souls 1, each stat did different things, but some weren't as important as others. In Dark Souls 2, they approached with the idea of adding benefits to some stats to make them more appealing. This is good game design. Then they took away things from the base game to give them back to the player piecemeal as they gain more stats. This is bad game design.


"We'll remove a fair bit of the invincibility frames from the roll going from Dark Souls 1 to Dark Souls 2, but give only some of them back the more points they raise their "Agility" stat, which is raised by adding points to some of the weaker stats from Dark Souls 1."

"We'll give the attribute Attunement the ability to give more spell casts to spells instead of just adding more spell slots, but we'll lower the amount of spell casts the same spells had in Dark Souls 1."

"We'll make the weapon progression idea easier/require less farming by not having multi colored types of upgrade stones, but we'll make the best weapons you get the very first ones you see in the game."

"Faith spells were somewhat weak in Dark Souls 1 while early Magic spells were really good, let's do the complete opposite in this game!"


Dark Souls 2 is FULL of shit like this.

 

[Kalnos]

I'm also surprised how more folks aren't panning Dark Souls 2's Soul Memory.

Oh man, I can tell you horror stories about fighting Havel fucks.

I mean, soul memory is probably one of the most legitimate criticisms of the game along with no red eye orb and suspect hitboxes but.... Dark Souls 1 was full of Havel spamming fucks as well. PvP in these games is usually a pretty terrible race to the bottom to see who can do the cheesiest shit.

 

[Spinx]

Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith is a billion times worse than anything in 2.

Shaded Woods, Earthern Peak, No Man's Wharf, Aldia's Keep, Harvest Valley, Brightstone Cove Tseldora. All worse to me.

 

[Afrocious]

Dark Souls 2 is essentially as rushed as everything after Anor Londo in DS1. Even then, the Duke's Archives, New Londo and the Catacombs have far more "soul" than any location in DS2.

It is so far off the mark, it is actually amazing. I still like the game and it's easily one of the better games out there but it completely misunderstood the point of a Souls game. The fact that you defend it so vehemently is astounding considering you're such a big advocate of Demon's Souls.


The director of the game thought difficulty was the main appeal of the Souls game and designed the entire game around that. This meant the story, level design, environment, atmosphere etc. suffered massively as they weren't the main focus of the game. They went for difficulty over making an interesting, captivating game.

But Dark Souls 2 was far more streamlined than the preceding entries. I can't buy the argument that Dark Souls 2 was made to be harder when you have stuff like Souls 1's first encounter with Seath and the entirety of Sen's Fortress. Not to say Souls 1 is flawed from Sen's Fortress, but still.

 

[Sanctuary]

It's the worst of the series but still better than 99% of the games released over the past few generations.

Whenever I read comments like this, it just makes me think about how downhill modern gaming has gone. Which isn't to imply the game is "not good", but if this were the 90s or early 00s, it would merely be a good game in a sea of good games. That's not nostalgia or an "I grew up on" story either.

Shaded Woods, Earthern Peak, No Man's Wharf, Aldia's Keep, Harvest Valley, Brightstone Cove Tseldora. All worse to me.

I was sitting here trying to think of areas in Dark Souls 2 that I liked less than Lost Izalith, but then decided not to actually think about it and moved on. I actually do dislike all of those areas more. The first time through they aren't that bad, since you don't really know what to expect, but they are seriously lousy on replays.

 

[harpingon]

I liked it. Some of the dlc not so much. But loved my coop sessions in ds2. Didn't get summoned as a blue as often as I'd have liked. Hate reds

 

[TheMink]

10/10 game. Dark Souls 1 is a 13/10 though and since no such metric exists, DS 1 is a 10/10 and DS 2 is a 7/10.

 

[mxgt]

Demon Ruins/Lost Izalith is a billion times worse than anything in 2.

I'd take them any day over Brightstone Cove Tseldora or Shrine of Amana

 

[Manmademan]

Here is the main problem I had with this game's design: We take things away from the player and then give them back to them in order to feel stronger.


Let's look at the stats. Now, in Dark Souls 1, each stat did different things, but some weren't as important as others. In Dark Souls 2, they approached with the idea of adding benefits to some stats to make them more appealing. This is good game design. Then they took away things from the base game to give them back to the player piecemeal as they gain more stats. This is bad game design.


"We'll remove a fair bit of the invincibility frames from the roll going from Dark Souls 1 to Dark Souls 2, but give only some of them back the more points they raise their "Agility" stat, which is raised by adding points to some of the weaker stats from Dark Souls 1."

"We'll give the attribute Attunement the ability to give more spell casts to spells instead of just adding more spell slots, but we'll lower the amount of spell casts the same spells had in Dark Souls 1."

"We'll make the weapon progression idea easier/require less farming by not having multi colored types of upgrade stones, but we'll make the best weapons you get the very first ones you see in the game."

"Faith spells were somewhat weak in Dark Souls 1 while early Magic spells were really good, let's do the complete opposite in this game!"


Dark Souls 2 is FULL of shit like this.

Didn't Dark Souls 1 have one stat that was entirely useless to dump any points at all into? I'm pretty sure it did.

 

[JediLink]

Dark Souls 2 is amazing, dude. I'm replaying it right now and having a great time with it. It's really only disappointing if you go into it expecting the second coming of Christ. If you play it with more reasonable expectations (i.e. a great game), not only will your expectations be met, but you'll probably even be surprised in some ways.

 

[fedexpeon]

Only if you compared it to DS.
But if you are comparing it to other game, it is a great game.

The problem with DS2 is its horrible overworld design.
There is barely any inter-connected path and boring boss fights.
The worse one being the stupid Ancient Dragon, literally pure luck based on AI.
And the lore is just bad...I barely remember the King name, King Vestadjalgjdalg-something?