Support NeoGAF

[DrROBschiz]

It sold well and got great reviews
Im thinking its a minority that does not like the game

Its a game that I heavily criticised many times over from its release and have grown to love more and more with each playthrough

SOTFS does a great job of making the best out of what might have been the most challenging developed game From has taken on

I have a lot of respect for the so called B Team

 

[nynt9]

It's a good game but suffers from a lot of issues. Matthewmatosis' critique pretty much nails the big problems with the base game.

I disagree. A lot of his criticisms (not all) boil down to "but it has a different design philosophy from DS2 and it sucks because I refuse to learn how it wants me to play!"

I think the game is definitely maligned. It's objectively better than DS1 in several ways, and some of the criticisms are overblown. I like it more than DS1 overall. It's a more consistent experience where the second half of DS1 is borderline unfinished.

Two things really soured the reception of this game by fans. The lighting system change (to which the reaction was absolutely ridiculous) and the fact that it's made by a different team.

 

[Nev]

Best PVP, best build variety (dunno why the OP feels otherwise ). Also the most replayable in the series, great QOL improvements , easy to replay bosses, can still have invasions after defeating a boss, power stancing, amazing DLC. Best covenants , NG+ with actual changes, etc. Less linear than 3, never gets as low as the lowest of DS1.

A better game than 3 imo.

80% of the things you wrote there mean absolutely nothing when the foundation (gameplay) is bad.

Better PVP, more build variety, replayability, easy to replay bosses and powerstancing are literally worthless to me when the gameplay is mediocre -when not compared to the previous games- and utterly terrible when compared to ANY of the other games in the franchise. Like why the hell would I want to replay this with another weapon or build when all of them feel like complete shit?

I appreciate QoL improvements like being able to consume more than one soul at a time and the better covenants, but I don't care how convenient it can be to replay bosses when all of them are a joke or how cool it is to have new moves when dual-wielding when it just feels floaty, off, unresponsive and just bad.

I guess some people go for "the bigger the better", I'd rather take a "much smaller" game like Bloodborne with less weapons and build variety as long as it plays as good as it plays. Dark Souls II could have double the areas, weapons and build options and it'd still be the worst game in the franchise. Because the gameplay is by far the worst, and gameplay is king for me. I wish I could care more about other stuff that is ultimately pointless if the gameplay isn't good, maybe I would've enjoyed the game more if I had more tolerance towards bad gameplay and wasn't able to spot the dreadful downgrade as soon as I fight the first enemy.

 

[MUnited83]

The invasions after an area is cleared is something I really wish DS3 would have included...I was very disappointed this didn't make it in.

Yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever to remove it, and it basically makes invasions nearly impossible if you're on the recommended PVP SL level, since everyone on that level has finished the whole game already at that point.

80% of the things you wrote there mean absolutely nothing when the foundation (gameplay) is bad.

Better PVP, more build variety, replayability, easy to replay bosses and powerstancing are literally worthless to me when the gameplay is mediocre -when not compared to the previous games- and utterly terrible when compared to ANY of the other games in the franchise. Like why the hell would I want to replay this with another weapon or build when all of the feel like complete shit?

I appreciate QoL improvements like being able to consume more than one soul at a time, and the better covenants, but I don't care how convenient it can be to replay bosses when all of them are a joke or how cool it is to have new moves when dual-wielding when it just feels floaty, off, unresponsive and just bad.

I guess some people go for "the bigger the better", I'd rather take a "much smaller" game like Bloodborne with less weapons and build variety as long as it plays as good as it plays. Dark Souls II could have double the areas, weapons and build options and it'd still be the worst game in the franchise. Because the gameplay is by far the worst, and gameplay is king for me. I wish I could care more about other stuff that is ultimately pointless if the gameplay isn't good, maybe I would've enjoyed the game more if I had more tolerance towards bad gameplay and wasn't able to spot the dreadful downgrade as soon as I fight the first enemy.

The gameplay is great and it controls fine. Dark Souls 3 is full of terrible bosses that are easier than anything else on the series. I do know you love to shitpost about DS2 so eh.

 

[BRocknRolla]

I've played a huge number of hours of DS2 between the original release and Scholar of the First sin, and it remains for me a stark contrast to the quality of the rest of the series. That doesn't mean it's a "bad" game, but compared to just how good the other entries are, I find it very hard to look at it positively. But for the sake of it, here's my list attempting to be fair to the title:

Pros:
-Good performance (On PC at least)
-Varied environments (The lack of interconnectedness didn't really bother me.)
-Good art direction
-Interesting story beats. Some fascinating sequences there.

Cons:
-Mechanically, it doesn't feel right. Hit-boxes feel off, the number of magnetized enemy hits feels excessive, I don't feel connected to the environment; like I'm sliding around half the time. This is my overall biggest gripe, and why I think it fails in the face of the others.
-Enemies don't feel as diverse or interesting as the rest of the series. Just not as much fun to fight.
-Bosses were too frequent and too similar. Started to lose that sense of wonder and tension.

So ultimately my cons are the things I typically like most about the series. Since I feel they missed the mark here, Dark Souls 2 necessarily falls to the bottom of the bunch, and is the only game in the series I can say I don't think fondly of. It isn't to say the other games don't have their flaws, but Dark Souls 2 should have been better than it was. My reactions upon beating the games:

Demon's Souls = What a bizarre game. But I'm glad I played it.
Dark Souls = What an incredibly well made game! What a rush to beat too.
Dark Souls 2 = Well, at least I can finally say I beat it.
Bloodborne = Wow, I need to jump in with another character right now!
Dark Souls 3 = (I haven't beaten it yet, but I'm loving it so far.)

 

[Sami+]

Already posted but yeah really piggybacking on people saying that it just felt wrong, I had thought it was just my particular build preference that got fucked (which is why I sympathize with the sword and board bros who didn't like Bloodbourne) but I guess it was more general. In the 60 hours of it that I played (once solo, and again purely coop because my gf at the time wanted to give it a shot) I never truly felt comfortable with my movement.

I will say, playing coop with my ex was a lot of fun and did make the game enjoyable, but that applies to pretty much anything so eh. The mechanics on their own merits never felt right and no matter how much better the level design got in the DLC I couldn't bring myself to play it. It feels bad.

I've only played about 4 hours of DkS3 and I already feel right at home with my two handed axe as a Warrior.

 

[Mr. Crow]

Yes. It's not the best Souls game, but it's an amazing experience and I don't know why some people talk about it like a bad or mediocre game.

 

[SunBroDave]

Yes. It's a great game. Not Dark Souls 1 great, but still great.

 

[Robaperas]

Not really, for me it's a great game with an entertaining PvP, but a disappointing Dark Souls; I wanted more Dark Souls but the floaty sluggish movement (fixed a bit with the deadzone mod), disjointed areas, weird hit-boxes and uninspired bosses made it feel like a different game; I ended up playing like 40 hours of PvP until the dual katana mages appeared and haven't finished the main game yet, I will eventually though.

And, yes, there's a lot of hyperbole, it's not unplayable nor a bad game, it just feels like a disappointing sequel.

 

[DoubleTake]

80% of the things you wrote there mean absolutely nothing when the foundation (gameplay) is bad.

Better PVP, more build variety, replayability, easy to replay bosses and powerstancing are literally worthless to me when the gameplay is mediocre -when not compared to the previous games- and utterly terrible when compared to ANY of the other games in the franchise. Like why the hell would I want to replay this with another weapon or build when all of the feel like complete shit?

I appreciate QoL improvements like being able to consume more than one soul at a time, and the better covenants, but I don't care how convenient it can be to replay bosses when all of them are a joke or how cool it is to have new moves when dual-wielding when it just feels floaty, off, unresponsive and just bad.

I guess some people go for "the bigger the better", I'd rather take a "much smaller" game like Bloodborne with less weapons and build variety as long as it plays as good as it plays. Dark Souls II could have double the areas, weapons and build options and it'd still be the worst game in the franchise. Because the gameplay is by far the worst, and gameplay is king for me. I wish I could care more about other stuff that is ultimately pointless if the gameplay isn't good, maybe I would've enjoyed the game more if I had more tolerance towards bad gameplay and wasn't able to spot the dreadful downgrade as soon as I fight the first enemy.

Many people were instantly able to spot the difference in control when Ds2 came out. Even people like Jeff Green commented on how the game feels like youre not actually connected to the ground.

Those people were able to look past the huge gameplay downgrade in favor of the quantity approach. I dont see how in a series who's very foundation is the pinpoint combat and control. I certainly envy them.

Yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever to remove it, and it basically makes invasions nearly impossible if you're on the recommended PVP SL level, since everyone on that level has finished the whole game already at that point.


The gameplay is great and it controls fine. Dark Souls 3 is full of terrible bosses that are easier than anything else on the series. I do know you love to shitpost about DS2 so eh.

He/she is expressing an opinion much like others in this thread are. Try not to be so dismissive in an attempt to shield Dark Souls 2 from criticism. Many others, myself included share the opinion. Also what does easy bosses have anything to do with what he/she said?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I loved Bloodborne, hated DS2: SotFS, and loved DS3.

Haven't played DS or DaS1 so I may just not like the slower style of DS2 and Inpresume those two.

 

[GametimeUK]

I'd say so yeah including myself. I have replayed the other games multiple times and only Dark Souls 2 once. I definitely need to replay and change my perspective a little.

 

[Akuun]

Way too harsh. Is it flawed in some big ways? Yep. Is it a bad game? Hell no.

I'd say it's probably my least favorite Souls game but the fans take it way too far with bullshit like "that garbage B team that has no idea how to make games" or calling it a piece of shit. It's a game with mistakes in it but it's nowhere near worthless by any stretch of the imagination.

It's embarrassing every time you see someone take something that they weren't totally happy with and try their best to stomp it into the ground like it killed their entire family.

 

[wiibomb]

I think I should voice myself a little, I absolutely adore BB, may be because it was my first Souls game. Last February I started to look forward to play Dark Souls 1, and now I'm finishing the second DLC of Dark Souls 2 (I already finished the main game)

I think I will kind of address how I think about the same points you touch, I'm in a much cleaner mind than people in the tantrum of the release of DkS2 and the much hate it was thrown:

1) I don't think the "connecting world" aspect became so important as the area "connecting aspect" because as I interpreted DkS1, one of the things it made me personally awe was how the many areas inside it, except for some few like Tomb of the Giants or The Duke's Archives, have more than one way to initially enter, potentially altering the timeline in which they can be played, some can even be skipped altogether, like The Depths. This part added not only a replay value to DkS1, but also a variety in the gameplay it had on the origin. In this aspect I totally get that DkS2 is an inferior game to the other Souls.

Now, I haven't played DkS3 yet, but in BB, there is somewhat of a difference, the areas are not as connected as DkS1, in fact they follow more DkS2, but the areas themselves are bigger, and more intricate, they follow a maze like structure that connected several parts to a single area, with a lamp.

what I've come to realize after loving the DLC of DkS2 much more than the main game, is that the areas encourage a lot more of exploring, they aren't a corridor in a single direction, they act again like in DkS1 main game, like a big maze, but instead of many areas acting like a maze, the areas themselves are mazes, similar to BB. I believe From Software evolved the idea of the DkS2 DLC into what BB became.

2) The Fast Travel design didn't compromised much more than what the "checkpoint" placement did. BB for example follows more the line of DkS1, veeeery few lamps, but they make them enough to connect to all the little parts of an area, an example: Central Yharnam has only 1 lamp, but is so well positioned and the area is so well designed that only this lamp is needed, you can only warp here, but it never became an ordeal to get to another part in Central Yharnam, and also while BB has the same warping mechanic, some exploration is still required to get to where you need to go.

DkS2 in this regard is a lot weaker, and I only need to say this: "why an area needs to have 5 bonfires?" This is one of the questions I got when I was playing the game. I believe this has to do with how linear it was. I don't think the problem was the leveling in another area or how it breaks the immersion, it has to do with how much you have to give up by leaving the area by traveling back to where you want.

3) This is the point where I don't agree with, The builds in DkS2 further expands the builds made in DkS1, and whether the ATN did a lot of damage to magic/miracle builds in DkS2, the variety of the tools and the little touches (like casting time) made it better than what DkS1 accomplished. It is just a matter of finding a correct tool.

I found myself using far more weapons and tactics for my DkS2 run than what I ever used in my 2 DkS1 runs

4) The design... something here went wrong, you nailed what I felt, they never feel unique and rather look... bland.

5) The bosses weren't weird and that's what I think it hurt... Much of the Soul series revolves around the unexpected discoveries and how the player is surprised with bosses and their weird mechanics and turns. You won't surprise anyone with a Dragon Rider... well... what about TWO Dragon Riders? ...mmm.. nah



Another thing I believe hurt a lo DkS2, there is a constant inconsistency in the Lore, what is Nashandra? what does she really want? why is she proving us...

What are the Giants? anyone's guess because the game never really clarified this.

Even the opening cutscene shows a lot of things that we won't really know what is, remember DkS1 opening? That thing couldn't be more clear, it lays the path of the player to understand what is the state of this game.



DkS2 is a good game, I like it, but it is, of course, a let down from other Souls games, and I completely love DkS1 since I played it some months ago. I even love the DkS2 DLC.. but while I like DkS2, I don't love it...

 

[zma1013]

It has many issues but the biggest one of them is the "MOAARRRRRR EVERYTHING!!!" philosophy the game exercises. Their idea of challenge was quite often more enemies with no thought placed into it. More healing items. More bosses. More places. They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didnt stop to think if they should. Most of what they added feels like it was done without fully thinking about how it works or how it fits into the game.

Saying all of this and knowing it's my least favorite of the games, i have still put in over 200 hrs of it because i like the core souls gameplay.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

For all the disappointing things about it, Majula is still my favorite area in any of the games. That music is haunting.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

Ok

I jumped between DS2 and Bloodborne

Its an adjustment but not a hard one to make for a seasoned gamer

Of course it is an adjustment. I didn't say I hate the game, it is just too slow for me to place somewhere else apart from the bottom souls game.

The slower combat is ine of the reasons why so many complain about UGS slugginess on DS3. You could stunluck many enemies in DS2 because the enemies WERE slow. The much faster combat in DS3 means the UGS are left behind a bit, at least on PVE. Does not help that poise in 3 is as non-important as DS2.

 

[Neoweee]

Pretty much all "huge" RPGs have their share of substantial problems, and DS2 is no different, especially given how much longer it is than the rest of the series. The community's reaction strikes me as kind of insane when so much of the game's DNA is shared with the other five games, and there's a fairly clear continuity of ideas and design evolution from one game to the next.

It continues to be hilarious how the complaints dissipate little by little as more games in the series come out that double-down on the supposedly maligned aspects about DS2.

- Life Gems! (complaints mostly disappeared after BB).
- Warping from the start! (was one of the most prominent complaints near launch, now mentioned almost never after DS3 and BB).
- Boss fights against multiple enemies!
- Boss fights against humanoids!

What's next? Since DS3 took a whole bunch of DS2 design decisions and mechanics and ran with them, complaints have now started to focus more on the controls and general level design than ever before.

 

[MUnited83]

Many people were instantly able to spot the difference in control when Ds2 came out. Even people like Jeff Green commented on how the game feels like youre not actually connected to the ground.

Those people were able to look past the huge gameplay downgrade in favor of the quantity approach. I dont see how in a series who's very foundation is the pinpoint combat and control. I certainly envy them.

Because the pinpoint combat and control is still very much there? This is one of the dumbest complaints i've seen for DS2.

Definitely. There are some things DS2 does better that could have been incorporated into BB or DS3, I don't think anyone's denying that. It's just that those good things are secondary to some of us and completely irrelevant when the actual gameplay is so bad.

The actual gameplay is good, so, good try, but nah.

DS3 pretty much proved that a lot of things are "Fine as long Miyazaki does it".

Accurate. If it was Miyazaki made I would bet a lot of the "issues" people have with it would magically disappear.

 

[Zemm]

80% of the things you wrote there mean absolutely nothing when the foundation (gameplay) is bad.

Better PVP, more build variety, replayability, easy to replay bosses and powerstancing are literally worthless to me when the gameplay is mediocre -when not compared to the previous games- and utterly terrible when compared to ANY of the other games in the franchise. Like why the hell would I want to replay this with another weapon or build when all of them feel like complete shit?

I appreciate QoL improvements like being able to consume more than one soul at a time and the better covenants, but I don't care how convenient it can be to replay bosses when all of them are a joke or how cool it is to have new moves when dual-wielding when it just feels floaty, off, unresponsive and just bad.

I guess some people go for "the bigger the better", I'd rather take a "much smaller" game like Bloodborne with less weapons and build variety as long as it plays as good as it plays. Dark Souls II could have double the areas, weapons and build options and it'd still be the worst game in the franchise. Because the gameplay is by far the worst, and gameplay is king for me. I wish I could care more about other stuff that is ultimately pointless if the gameplay isn't good, maybe I would've enjoyed the game more if I had more tolerance towards bad gameplay and wasn't able to spot the dreadful downgrade as soon as I fight the first enemy.

Definitely. There are some things DS2 does better that could have been incorporated into BB or DS3, I don't think anyone's denying that. It's just that those good things are secondary to some of us and completely irrelevant when the actual gameplay is so bad.

 

[Wired All Wrong]

Yeah, I think so. DS2 is my favorite of them all. Put so many hours into that one. Loved co-oping bosses for hours on end and it was nice that there were changes in the NG+.

 

[KlytusImBored]

I've put more time into Scholar of the First Sin than any other game this gen so far. Almost done with the second DLC section. I think it's fantastic.

 

[Taruranto]

DS3 pretty much proved that a lot of things are "Fine as long Miyazaki does it".

 

[Sami+]

Ok

I jumped between DS2 and Bloodborne

Its an adjustment but not a hard one to make for a seasoned gamer

Not hard or impossible, just not one I feel compelled to make to be honest. At the time of release there were already two very similar games that were actually enjoyable, and now there's two more. I just don't see the reason in forcing myself to like it.

 

[Zombegoast]

So, if it's open ended but not as much as DS1 it sucks. But if it's even more linear than DS2 but done by (supposedly) in purpose then it's allright.

If it's done in a way where there is a lot to explore and areas being huge with optional areas to go with shortcuts being viable, then it's alright.


If it's done where you literally go in a straight line with no shortcuts with empty rooms,then it's not alright.

It's not that hard to spot the problems with Dark Souls 2.

 

[Nev]

Many people were instantly able to spot the difference in control when Ds2 came out. Even people like Jeff Green commented on how the game feels like youre not actually connected to the ground.

Those people were able to look past the huge gameplay downgrade in favor of the quantity approach. I dont see how in a series who's very foundation is the pinpoint combat and control. I certainly envy them.

Nah, despite many posters talking about gameplay downgrade even in this very thread, the game is "great" it's apparently "fine" and you're a hater if you don't think so.

Maybe Souls was never about gameplay anyways, it was always about huge amounts of content! It tried to go for the Skyrim public all along. Who cares about shitty controls and uninspired, bad enemy designs/encounters and terrible bosses when you have plenty of covenants, tons of different weapon skins with the same moveset and a lot of 5 minutes-long areas?

 

[ElFly]

Pretty much all "huge" RPGs have their share of substantial problems, and DS2 is no different, especially given how much longer it is than the rest of the series. The community's reaction strikes me as kind of insane when so much of the game's DNA is shared with the other five games, and there's a fairly clear continuity of ideas and design evolution from one game to the next.

It continues to be hilarious how the complaints dissipate little by little as more games in the series come out that double-down on the supposedly maligned aspects about DS2.

- Life Gems! (complaints mostly disappeared after BB).
- Warping from the start! (was one of the most prominent complaints near launch, now mentioned almost never after DS3 and BB).
- Boss fights against multiple enemies!
- Boss fights against humanoids!

What's next? Since DS3 took a whole bunch of DS2 design decisions and mechanics and ran with them, complaints have now started to focus more on the controls and general level design than ever before.

Lore relies too much on DS1!

DS3 directly brings back DS1 stuff; DS2 was much better about this by adding that people would forget and change the names of DS1 stuff. DS3 just ignores this and feels lazier.

 

[Jito]

Couldn't stand how many human like dudes in armour you have to fight. It just generally has lazy enemy and boss design compared to the other games.

 

[sora87]

It's definitely not bad, it just didn't hook me like the other games.

 

[DoubleTake]

Because the pinpoint combat and control is still very much there? This is one of the dumbest complaints i've seen for DS2.



The actual gameplay is good, so, good try, but nah.

This has been expanded upon a thousand times over. Roll away from an enemy while locked on and try press R1. See how long it takes you to pull off the action in Ds2 compared to Ds1 or Ds3 or Demons.

Unlock and roll and try to aim an attack away from the direction you rolled in Ds2. Compare that to Ds1 and Ds3. Come back to me and tell me your results.

It is less pinpointed and the animations and feedback for weapon swings are lacking in comparison to the other games. Nev even posted a video about this showcasing the faults. These things add up to make it feel much less weighty and more restricted than the other Souls games.

They also force the designers to make bosses with much slower and uninteresting movesets.

 

[Gorillaz]

Dark souls 2 being the Great Value version of a souls game is so hilarious because it is pretty accurate.

Yea it's not a bad game on its on merit but I never enjoyed it as much as the others.

 

[MUnited83]

Nah, despite many posters talking about gameplay downgrade even in this very thread, the game is "great" it's apparently "fine" and you're a hater if you don't think so.

Maybe Souls was never about gameplay anyways, it was always about huge amounts of content! It tried to go for the Skyrim public all along. Who cares about shitty controls and uninspired, bad enemy designs/encounters and terrible bosses when you have plenty of covenants, tons of different weapon skins with the same moveset and a lot of 5 minutes-long areas?

People who talk about "huge gameplay downgrade" are shitposting, that's clear as day. The controls are fine (better than DS1 actually). The enemy designs are good too, as well as the encounters. I mean, try as hard as you want to complain about "gank squads", but guess what, Myazaki the God-made DS3 is much worse in that respect so eh, as well as terrible bosses that present no challenge either.


I do love that you now just resort to "hurr durr gameplay is downgraded hurr durr, you only care about lots of content hurr durr". It's entertaining really, you are really running out of arguments on how to shitpost about DS2.

 

[RPG]

As someone that is currently playing through DS2 right now, these responses have me excited to move onto DS1, 3 and Demons.

Really enjoying what I've played so far and I can agree with some of the complaints (hit boxes, attacking out of roll). But overall, feels like a really solid game.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Definitely!

It's a very worthwhile game in its own right, that had the unfortunate part of following up a classic. Reminds me in many ways of TDK to TDKR or Bioshock to Bioshock 2.

I see too many people who haven't played it wanting to skip it cos of the overreactionary fan reception. It's definitely worth a playthrough.

 

[LogicStep]

Does the remaster address most of the issues the original game has? I'm considering getting it when it's on sale.

 

[Listonosh]

It is a heavily flawed game that relies way, WAY too much on meatgrinders because it is unable to deliver the notorious and overrated "Dark Souls Difficulty" otherwise. The whole marketing mechanic of "prepare to die" translated to a game that added so much bullshit just to try and get the player killed. Not to mention the utterly bizarre flow of the game, the awkward locations and the total lack of intricate details that make the other Souls games so rewarding to explare.

Exactly this.

While I personally played through it multiple times, I felt that the team that made this game focused entirely on the "Prepare to die" campaign, and thought they understood that Souls games were all about being super difficult. Sure, it's not an impossible game per se, but I'd say it's a largely unfair one, especially Scholar of the First Sin (seriously, fuck Heide's Tower). It's a constant "Oh, you wanted hard, WELL HERE!" moments where enemy placements were put in to dick you over, rather than focus on balanced gameplay. And the mechanics of losing health each time you died, or eliminating grind by permanently erasing enemies after a set amount of runs seemed absolutely ridiculous.

I can't say I hate the game, I'll probably replay it in the future again, but as a Souls game, it's definitely last on my list.

 

[Risette]

Definitely!

It's a very worthwhile game in its own right, that had the unfortunate part of following up a classic. Reminds me in many ways of TDK to TDKR or Bioshock to Bioshock 2.

I see too many people who haven't played it wanting to skip it cos of the overreactionary fan reception. It's definitely worth a playthrough.

Bioshock 2 is a good example. Great game on its own, better in some ways but worse in others.

But being a follow-up to an iconic gaming release means that people treat it like a cheap-knockoff pariah.

 

[ElFly]

I remember feeling the controls were different, but that feeling felt away by the time I reached Majula. I adjusted.

Can't imagine being so sensible to this.

 

[MUnited83]

This has been expanded upon a thousand times over. Roll away from an enemy while locked on and try press R1. See how long it takes you to pull off the action in Ds2 compared to Ds1 or Ds3 or Demons.

Unlock and roll and try to aim an attack away from the direction you rolled in Ds2. Compare that to Ds1 and Ds3. Come back to me and tell me your results.

It is less pinpointed and the animations and feedback for weapon swings are lacking in comparison to the other games. Nev even posted a video about this showcasing the faults. These things add up to make it feel much less weighty and more restricted than the other Souls games.

They also force the designers to make bosses with much slower and uninteresting movesets.

I've replayed DS1 and DS2 at the same time I was playing DS3.

DS1 is still the one with the worst controls, DS3 the best.

 

[Ferr986]

If it's done in a way where there is a lot to explore and areas being huge with optional areas to go with shortcuts being viable, then it's alright.


If it's done where you literally go in a straight line with no shortcuts with empty rooms,then it's not alright.

It's not that hard to spot the problems with Dark Souls 2.

Well, opinions I guess. In my eyes both failed to recapture the fully nature of Dark 1 level design, one with its 1 per 1 level design (although fixed on the DLC), the other with the open ended nature of progression.

I can give shit to both because of it. But some people ignore one of them for some reason.

And yeah it's easy to spot it's problems, and also to overblown them IMO. After all, all Souls got different kinds of problem, but I'm such a weirdo that enjoyed them all for their particular strengths.

 

[JackelZXA]

it was good but had problems that the other games didnt. it was fun but was missing some of what made the other games special. sotfs fixed alot but still left some problems (world layout, minibosses being treated as bosses just to pad out boss count in the first half of the game)

They also added a new final boss which was supposed to make the end of the game "better" but nashandra still kind of falls flat. (And the dlc just has a better nashandra in it anyways)

TBH, only half of the main game is that great, and the dlc's represent something better.

 

[Risette]

Exactly this.

While I personally played through it multiple times, I felt that the team that made this game focused entirely on the "Prepare to die" campaign, and thought they understood that Souls games were all about being super difficult. Sure, it's not an impossible game per se, but I'd say it's a largely unfair one, especially Scholar of the First Sin (seriously, fuck Heide's Tower). It's a constant "Oh, you wanted hard, WELL HERE!" moments where enemy placements were put in to dick you over, rather than focus on balanced gameplay. And the mechanics of losing health each time you died, or eliminating grind by permanently erasing enemies after a set amount of runs seemed absolutely ridiculous.

I can't say I hate the game, I'll probably replay it in the future again, but as a Souls game, it's definitely last on my list.

Gank squads are in every game, and the health loss after death is in both DS3 and Demons.

 

[DoubleTake]

People who talk about "huge gameplay downgrade" are shitposting, that's clear as day. The controls are fine (better than DS1 actually). The enemy designs are good too, as well as the encounters. I mean, try as hard as you want to complain about "gank squads", but guess what, Myazaki the God-made DS3 is much worse in that respect so eh, as well as terrible bosses that present no challenge either.


I do love that you now just resort to "hurr durr gameplay is downgraded hurr durr, you only care about lots of content hurr durr". It's entertaining really, you are really running out of arguments on how to shitpost about DS2.

Any person that uses "hurr durr" in a discussion isnt worth the time of day. You should learn how to come up with actual points to counter his feelings about Dark Souls 2 gameplay instead of resorting to generalities like "Its fine" give examples of what makes it fine.

This discussion was about Ds2 but you chose to bring in Ds3 and use its faults to somehow mitigate Ds2s. Get real.

I've replayed DS1 and DS2 at the same time I was playing DS3.

DS1 is still the one with the worst controls, DS3 the best.

Why.

 

[BRocknRolla]

People who talk about "huge gameplay downgrade" are shitposting, that's clear as day. The controls are fine (better than DS1 actually). The enemy designs are good too, as well as the encounters. I mean, try as hard as you want to complain about "gank squads", but guess what, Myazaki the God-made DS3 is much worse in that respect so eh, as well as terrible bosses that present no challenge either.


I do love that you now just resort to "hurr durr gameplay is downgraded hurr durr, you only care about lots of content hurr durr". It's entertaining really, you are really running out of arguments on how to shitpost about DS2.

There is clearly zero room for someone to have a conversation about these topics as far as you're concerned. If you blanket dismiss people's complaints, any game can be best in class.

 

[Mogwai]

We have discussed this to death. But I don't think fans were too hard on it. It had some critical shortcomings such as:

- Soul Memory
- The failure of combining Estus and Soul Gems
- The sluggish feeling when consuming Estus
- Bosses that were designed with summons in mind
- Bad treks to bosses (Darklurker, Ancient Dragon)
- Poor NPC quests
- Frigid Outskirts was terrible
- Shrine of Amana pre-patch was terrible

There's probably some points that I've forgot.

 

[zma1013]

Does the remaster address most of the issues the original game has? I'm considering getting it when it's on sale.

Not really. The game is still the same essentially but enemy placements and certain progression has been changed quite a bit. It still controls like it always did, the enemies still act like they always do, the levels are still the way they always were with the exception of a much needed shortcut in No Man's Wharf.

I'd say it's certainly worth replaying if you missed out on the DLC, since that is packed in and is good, but if you've already played vanilla and the dlc and are hoping for something substantially different, this isn't it.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Yes, they are. It easily has the best final 1/3 of any Soulsborne game.

Spoiler

Though I haven't finished DSIII yet so that could change.

 

[Toxi]

Dark Souls 2 is aight.

My biggest problem with the game is that many of the normal enemies (Like random hollows) have fucked hitboxes on their attacks that come out before the actual attack animation. It's a bizarre problem and is why you trade hits so much more often in Dark Souls 2 than the other games.

I think I'm enjoying Dark Souls 3 more so far, but I seem to be enjoying Dark Souls 3 more than a lot of other people did.

 

[Tiops]

People who talk about "huge gameplay downgrade" are shitposting, that's clear as day. The controls are fine (better than DS1 actually). The enemy designs are good too, as well as the encounters. I mean, try as hard as you want to complain about "gank squads", but guess what, Myazaki the God-made DS3 is much worse in that respect so eh, as well as terrible bosses that present no challenge either.


I do love that you now just resort to "hurr durr gameplay is downgraded hurr durr, you only care about lots of content hurr durr". It's entertaining really, you are really running out of arguments on how to shitpost about DS2.

Can I dismiss your argument as shitposting too? Or is it only possible for people that agree with you?

 

[LogicStep]

Not really. The game is still the same essentially but enemy placements and certain progression has been changed quite a bit. It still controls like it always did, the enemies still act like they always do, the levels are still the way they always were with the exception of a much needed shortcut in No Man's Wharf.

I'd say it's certainly worth replaying if you missed out on the DLC, since that is packed in and is good, but if you've already played vanilla and the dlc and are hoping for something substantially different, this isn't it.

I only played the first minutes of it.