lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Dark Souls II really that disappointing?
- Thread starter Courage
- Start date
lol
No, it's not disappointing at all. It's easily the most refined Souls game mechanically, it allows for the largest variety of builds, it has the best online implementation, and it has the largest amount of content in terms of levels, bosses, equipment and spells.
The world design is not as strong and cohesive as in Dark Souls 1, but that's a complaint at a very high level and despite it DS2 is still my favourite overall.
The world design is not as strong and cohesive as in Dark Souls 1, but that's a complaint at a very high level and despite it DS2 is still my favourite overall.
The vast majority of fans didn't find it tedious. It added to the challenge as there was numerous short cuts to different areas and you had to decide which one was best to reach firelink shrine or Andre for example.
I don't think you really understand the problems that I'm talking about. You seem to be going after small things that were ever slight oversights or were mistakes that were rectified in DS1 whilst I'm criticising the entire game design, philosophy etc.
And btw, I don't have rose-tinted glasses on. DS1 does have problems like the poor level design after Anor Londo, frame rate in certain areas and so on but they aren't remotely comparable to the issues in DS2 which are far worse.
And for the record, Demon's is my favourite of the series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9bpSQgecYM
This is another great video similar to the Matthewmatosis review that points out some of the disappointing aspects of this game.
As others have said...it's a good game still, great even compared to most other games out there. It is just disappointing as a sequel to Demon's Souls/Dark Souls.
This is another great video similar to the Matthewmatosis review that points out some of the disappointing aspects of this game.
As others have said...it's a good game still, great even compared to most other games out there. It is just disappointing as a sequel to Demon's Souls/Dark Souls.
Soyongdori
Member
It's much better than DS1. Better boss fights, better areas, better combat mechanics, better NPCs, and better music. Need I remind that pvp in DS was broken as hell? It was basically backstabbing to win.
TheHeretic
Banned
I don't think they ever fully realised the promise of Demon's Souls - DS 1 & 2 are flawed in different ways. The mechanics of the games are impenetrable and convoluted, the experience of playing them is always in a strange flux between challenge and frustration.
Dark Souls had terrible design choices as well - the Capra Demon (which belies the idea that "if you die its your fault", its clearly a setup to frustrate the player with artificial difficulty), nonsense like the Bed of Chaos, having a play-through effectively ruined with curse stacking. Dark Souls 2 just played with the dials a little, had too many samey bosses and had an aggressively up and down difficulty curve, sort of like the first one.
Dark Souls had terrible design choices as well - the Capra Demon (which belies the idea that "if you die its your fault", its clearly a setup to frustrate the player with artificial difficulty), nonsense like the Bed of Chaos, having a play-through effectively ruined with curse stacking. Dark Souls 2 just played with the dials a little, had too many samey bosses and had an aggressively up and down difficulty curve, sort of like the first one.
Soultaker0220
Member
After investing 100h+ in every soul game I can honestly say the game is great. Sure it aint as good as original dark souls and for that matter demon souls. But it is still a great game in my opinion , I had a blast playing it for so many hours and will Play it again on ps4 after I'm tired of bloodborne.
Nah
In fact I like it better than DS1 which as much as I loved it felt a bit half baked in a lot of areas and stuff, where as DS2 it seems a lot more thoroughly made. IMO Mechanically it is improved, Bosses feel a bit more challenging and are great from a set piece perspective but are maybe a little less interesting from a conceptual standpoint. Lots of enviromental variety, more weapons and fashion souls options, more builds, more secrets and unlockables, more NG+ stuff and just more content all around. The DLC is pretty good and has more of the intertwining level layout and shortcuts like the first half of DS1 had, which was one thing I thought it had over DS2.
In fact I like it better than DS1 which as much as I loved it felt a bit half baked in a lot of areas and stuff, where as DS2 it seems a lot more thoroughly made. IMO Mechanically it is improved, Bosses feel a bit more challenging and are great from a set piece perspective but are maybe a little less interesting from a conceptual standpoint. Lots of enviromental variety, more weapons and fashion souls options, more builds, more secrets and unlockables, more NG+ stuff and just more content all around. The DLC is pretty good and has more of the intertwining level layout and shortcuts like the first half of DS1 had, which was one thing I thought it had over DS2.
I'm really wondering how people actually got cursed in Dark Souls 1 as those frog things largely telegraphed their moves and you pretty much had to be standing in the curse for quite a bit of time for it to actually build up all the way. I've never even come close to being unintentionally cursed in the game by the frog thingies in all my playthroughs. I was quite surprised to hear about so many people having issues with it. Was there something else that could curse you that I just don't know about?
1) It depends on the stats & humanity at the time, so you may have had a relatively favorable build/gear/condition.
2) It got nerfed into the ground after a few patches, so people that played early had a vastly different experience than later players.
3) If you don't even know a curse is a thing, or what the symbols mean, you won't be as cautious as you should be.
I probably have over 500 hours in Demons Souls/Dark Souls 1, and have yet to complete Dark Souls 2. It doesn't have the allure that the previous had. The world is boring. The characters are uninspired. The progression feels like a chore. It's just overall disappointing.
Looks like Bloodborne is picking up the pieces.
Looks like Bloodborne is picking up the pieces.
DoubleTake
Member
People need to read this: Dark Souls 2 Design Works Translation
Explains why a lot of Dark Souls 2 feels so disjointed and uninspired compared to the originals.
For me Dark Souls 2 is a disappointment when I compare Drangleic Castle to Anor Londo. How one feels like an actual place where the other feels like a video game.
World Design. Too many bonfires, not enough shortcuts.
Enemy/Boss Design
Unnecessary changes to stats, like agility.
Soul Memory
Character movement. Too floaty, not enough weight to attack animations.
Forgettable NPCs
Each of those areas felt like a step back from the originals and why it feels like a disappointment in my eyes.
Saying that, its not a bad game at all and worth a play, but doesnt really capture what makes DeS and DaS1 masterpieces.
Explains why a lot of Dark Souls 2 feels so disjointed and uninspired compared to the originals.
For me Dark Souls 2 is a disappointment when I compare Drangleic Castle to Anor Londo. How one feels like an actual place where the other feels like a video game.
World Design. Too many bonfires, not enough shortcuts.
Enemy/Boss Design
Unnecessary changes to stats, like agility.
Soul Memory
Character movement. Too floaty, not enough weight to attack animations.
Forgettable NPCs
Each of those areas felt like a step back from the originals and why it feels like a disappointment in my eyes.
Saying that, its not a bad game at all and worth a play, but doesnt really capture what makes DeS and DaS1 masterpieces.
SnipeyMcGee
Member
Had a great time with Dark Souls 2, though it's not nearly as good as the first.
SunBroDave
Member
To be fair, the Three Kings DLC for Dark Souls 2 is fantastic. It's 12-15 hours that's probably better than anything in the base game
12-15 hours seems short for it. Especially so if you consider NG++ content for the amount of time spent.
hokagespit
Member
i love them all for their specific charms
demons for beings so archaic, dark, and of course original
dark souls, for running with it, that perfect honeycomb world
dark souls II, the combat has so many refinements, and it is still fun to explore in a game this style.
demons for beings so archaic, dark, and of course original
dark souls, for running with it, that perfect honeycomb world
dark souls II, the combat has so many refinements, and it is still fun to explore in a game this style.
pseudocaesar
Member
When I first played it I loved it but thought dark souls 1 was better. I'm replaying dark souls now and I actually prefer a lot of what 2 does more, such as lifegems, travel from the start, etc. The world of dark souls is built a bit better but as a game i think I prefer 2 now. I'm looking forward to the remaster.
SunBroDave
Member
This man speaks the truth. And for all the changes from DS1 to DS2 that weren't so great, DS2 did NG+ content so so much better
Interesting. I played primarily on the ps3. I'll probably go pc for the updated version and try to roll a different character.
Soyongdori
Member
I disliked Anor Londo. Basically a huge area that had potential but the devs didn't use the area well. It was basically empty. Emptiness everywhere. It looks great, sure. But they could've used the area more efficiently. The number of enemies in Anor Londo is lesser than the amount of enemies in Undead Burg.
Mechanics and build balance don't matter?
I'd say the whole rehaul on magic was pretty beneficial and mattered a ton.
the black pearl
Member
No, its just some people fought them over cautiously, they didnt know what fog did, and wound up getting cursed.
Aeriscloud
Banned
I don't really think it was disappointing, there are a lot of great additions. I love costume souls too, so it's great for that.
for real tho, Anor Lando is probably my favorite place in both Dark Souls just because of the overall artstyle I like the whole castle and knight look makes it seem like a city that just got out of his golden age
the black pearl
Member
Some people are too cautious. They draw out the fight and eventually fuck up because of it.
DoubleTake
Member
So youre of the belief that DaS2's take in Drangleic Castle with 12 enemies in one room with 5 behind doors that open when you kill an enemy near them is better design philosophy? Ill take a reduced amount of intelligently placed enemies, than tons of enemies with little thought put into their placement.
TheHeretic
Banned
The improvements in the combat system in DS2 were welcome, but they were undermined by the developers drive to make the game harder by throwing more enemies at you. When you are fighting more than one enemy at a time the combat system starts to buckle, why the DS2 team thought doing it constantly was a good idea is beyond me.
If anything the series would improve if they set out to reduce the difficulty a little, so we can get rid of the really aggravating battles - fighting 6 gargoyles at a time is just silly. I also think the wild difference in how challenging the game is using melee vs magic (in Dark Souls magic made most areas easier, and a few sections harder than anything a melee user would face) is a problem, admittedly a hard one to solve.
the black pearl
Member
That ledge your supposed a walk across in Anor Londo is so stupid. There are a few things that are hard to find in that game if your playing online and that was the worst.
Soyongdori
Member
Ummm no. Never implied that... Anor Londo is overrated as fuck, since the area constantly gets praises from people. I'm assuming people like that area just because it looks pretty. The place is one giant empty area that is pretty to look at. If that is how we judge areas, then I'd say Boletarian Palace is a much better area than both Anor Londo and Drangelic Castle combined, since it is one giant continuous area with many NPCs and enemies, including a dragon on the outskirt of the palace. The boss area where you fight False King overlooking the entire destroyed palace through the balcony pretty much triumphs Anor Londo alone.
The game is great, it is just difficult to top Demons and Darks, thats all. I plan to double dip when the PS4 version gets released. There were aspects of 2 that I thought were better than the original, and vice versa.
This is a great way to put it.
Manmademan
Member
I'm on board with that. The area is big and pretty to look at, but incredibly empty.
The archers being one of the few enemies that ARE there doesn't help. Those things are a massive pain in the ass your first time through.
If not for S&O the area would be VERY forgettable. In terms of level design the game peaks at sens fortress then goes sharply downhill.
I tried playing it for the third time because of the BB hype and there are just small things that annoy me, that are probably mostly from the fact that I'm not as great at those games.
- enemies follow you so long, I tend to then get into real trouble because there suddenly is a trog of 7 things that want to kill me
- everything has a slash that goes BEHIND them enough to hit me when I roll to get their back.
it means that I have to use more distance. more distance means more time to get IN THERE again (when I use a smaller weapon) and BAM, I get hit.
- just bigger groups in general that all go ape shit when they find you
I personally dig the one-on-one stuff where I can move a bit and then get a backstab. Dark souls 2 seems to be "NOT SO FAST!" on that playstyle.
Again, these things are rooted in me being unable to adapt / being too old.
- enemies follow you so long, I tend to then get into real trouble because there suddenly is a trog of 7 things that want to kill me
- everything has a slash that goes BEHIND them enough to hit me when I roll to get their back.
it means that I have to use more distance. more distance means more time to get IN THERE again (when I use a smaller weapon) and BAM, I get hit.
- just bigger groups in general that all go ape shit when they find you
I personally dig the one-on-one stuff where I can move a bit and then get a backstab. Dark souls 2 seems to be "NOT SO FAST!" on that playstyle.
Again, these things are rooted in me being unable to adapt / being too old.
sublimit
Banned
Well first of all did you liked it?Did you got the DLC?
Personally i have around 280 hours on DS2 (PS3) mostly thanks to PvP and i haven't bought the DLC so it's one extra reason to get the game for PS4.Especially since many people that i trust are saying that the DLC is the best part of the game (in terms of level design,lore and bosses.) The superior framerate is also another reason of course (although the game's framerate was totally playable on PS3 too)
DS2 was worse than the previous games in pretty much every aspect of the game (except online) but i'd still recommend it to anyone that liked the previous Souls games or in general likes "Gamer's Games".
Except for the perfomance and graphics,it´s not even close to the first game.
Still a great game with a lot content but the fact that i only finished this game twice tells me something was wrong with it imo.
The "Crown of the old iron king" was the exception,it´s like they remembered how to do cool level design again,i didn´t even bother to finish the other 2 dlcs.
Still a great game with a lot content but the fact that i only finished this game twice tells me something was wrong with it imo.
The "Crown of the old iron king" was the exception,it´s like they remembered how to do cool level design again,i didn´t even bother to finish the other 2 dlcs.
SnakeLinkSonic
Member
It's arguable that the entire last third of the game is noticeably weak in comparison to everything up to defeating O&S and acquiring the Lordvessel.
DaleinCalgary
Getting the shaft
I liked it but only got about 1/2 way as it looked like crap on my new 55". Yes I'm a gfx whore.
Fbh
Member
As a big Demon Souls and Dark Souls fan I liked Dark Souls 2 a lot and had a ton of fun with it.
It's definitely the weakest of the 3 but it's still an excellent game.
And knowing Miyazaki wasn't directing it I never expected it to be better than DS1, so I never really considered it to be dissapointing
It's definitely the weakest of the 3 but it's still an excellent game.
And knowing Miyazaki wasn't directing it I never expected it to be better than DS1, so I never really considered it to be dissapointing
These changes were good and appreciated, of course, but the Souls games have always been about world design for me. The mechanics are obviously the primary means with which the player interacts with the game's spaces, but in Dark Souls 2 those spaces are vastly less interesting on both an immediate, visceral level (the enemy placement, the amount of mobility the game allows you in any given situation, and how this kind of thing relates to how combat situations play out) and a broader one (the way that enemy placement and overall level can tell stories and covey information about the immediate area and wider world in which they're set).
Here's an excellent critique of the first Dark Souls 2 DLC that focuses on environmental design and touches on a lot of the issues I had with the game: The Lay of the Land: A Critical Look at Dark Souls 2's DLC, Part 1
Poimandres
Member
Better boss fights - Most strongly disagree
Better areas - Most strongly disagree
Better combat mechanics - Maybe
Better NPCs - Most disagree
Better music - Ehhh
I can see why people have DS2 as their favourite. In a lot of ways it is the most solid game in the series, lacking the first-game jank of Demon's and rushed second half of Dark 1. But I just don't think it can touch the heights of either game. Some of the things you prefered for Dark 2 like boss fights and areas... these are exactly the things commonly pointed out as being inferior!
But you know, there's an argument to be made for each game being the best in the series and I'm totally cool with that. I wonder where Bloodborne will fit in?
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Of course, it was very solidly designed, and had some great areas, enemies, bosses, etc. There was just nothing that really made it stand out compared with it's predecessors. There was nothing new, unique, or exciting about it. In that regard, it was disappointing.
Silent Chief
Member
I prefer the NPCs in 2 as well.
DS2 had better covenants. The Bell Keepers, the Rat King, even the Pilgrims of Dark was interesting. I didn't bother invading, but I killed hundreds for the Rat King, for the Princess, for the Prince. Yes!