Augemitbutter
Member
that's why we need more severe penalties for disconnecting so this can be avoided.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What did Dark Souls 2 do that makes it mediocre?
- Thread starter JohnnyFootball
- Start date
that's why we need more severe penalties for disconnecting so this can be avoided.
DaciaJC
Gold Member
I though Executioner Chariot was fairly well-designed. One of the easier fights in the game, but for a gimmick boss, rather fun.
Oh also the game was really frustrating and unfair at times.
These fuckers:
I find these little nitpicks to be pretty funny. So let me get this straight dude, you find the ogre/hippo dudes and giant knights in Dragon Shrine are just too hard. "OMG, this is too hard! I could easily run by or avoid them. But I'm going to complain that they're too hard." They were too hard to fight and because of these easily avoidable enemies you have to complain about it and say Dark Souls 1 is better.
But this was okay to you:
You never fight enemies like that before. You can't block. It's possible to kill one of them with a compound bow but it will take a long while to do so. It's very easy to dodge and fall to your death or panic and run off. And if you die, it'll take you a good 5 minutes to get back to that spot and try again. And even if you've done it before it's easy to fuck up and die.
Not trying to pick on you but every time I read a post by a dude who disses Dark Souls 2 for blank reason, I can easily find something just as bad if not worse in Dark Souls 1. Just saying.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I could never get into Demon's or Dark Souls, but absolutely loved BB. Trying to decide whether or not to get DS2 on PS4. The problem is that I don't whether I liked BB more than DeS/DS because I gave it more time, or if it was because I liked what was different about it compared to the first two.
Dark souls 2 is in no way mediocre. It is still better than most games out there and is probably in my top 20 games of last gen.
However it's just when comparing it to the other souls games that you notice some of it's flaws. The problem is that the souls games (and bloodborne) set such a high standard, not that dark souls2 was mediocre.
However it's just when comparing it to the other souls games that you notice some of it's flaws. The problem is that the souls games (and bloodborne) set such a high standard, not that dark souls2 was mediocre.
[Call-Me-G]
Banned
But this was okay to you:
You never fight enemies like that before. You can't block. It's possible to kill one of them with a compound bow but it will take a long while to do so. It's very easy to dodge and fall to your death or panic and run off. And if you die, it'll take you a good 5 minutes to get back to that spot and try again. And even if you've done it before it's easy to fuck up and die.
Not trying to pick on you but every time I read a post by a dude who disses Dark Souls 2 for blank reason, I can easily find something just as bad if not worse in Dark Souls 1. Just saying.
God. Anor Londo Archers were atrocious. Every time I passed them, I felt like a very lucky guy.
Btw, Anor Londo is the best location in the Souls.
I think Dark Souls 1 gets away with a bunch of broken stuff just because the rest is so fun. There's also the macho factor, where getting past these broken areas is a test for the player, so we ignore they are broken.
Other than these archers, capra demon comes to mind -that boss fight is only interesting cause of the dogs; most of the time you will die to them, and then it is a long run back to him-, and of course the ghosts in new londo hitting you from inside the walls.
Those make stuff like the homing lazors in shrine of amana seem fair, but I think the difference between the anor londo archers/capra demon is that shrine is a long area that overstays its welcome, while you never have to deal with the archers / capra demon again once you get past them.
(still bitter they patched the homing lazors of amana to having way less tracking)
Plus, anor londo archers can be exploited by using posion arrows
Zombegoast
Member
What does that even mean? Usually when a sequel that is not as good as it's predecessor and successor usually means it's not a good game. I'm not seeing the same response in the DA:O vs DA:I thread. Nor when people bring up DMC2, Other M, post Silent Hill 3 or any games where the quality of the sequel has degraded and Dark Souls 2 is no different.
Dark Souls 2 tries to combine mechanics from Demon's and Dark Souls and fails at it, it is the slowest out of the other games and they reused bosses in multiple occasions.
Sequels are supposed to improve the ideas of it's predecessors not make it worse. I fail to see the defense of how this is a good game but a bad souls game. If it was a different IP from a different developer, then I may agree.
FairXchange
Member
The amount of variety and content in Dark Souls 2 makes it god-tier in my opinion. SotFS has so many changes, there are new items in new game+, so many ways to co-op and invade. The game is quality through and through.
TBF, almost everything can be broken with poison arrows.
Arrows in gral make the souls games way easier, and I am happy bloodborne did away with long range projectiles entirely. OFC Blood still has poison knives for when you need to deal with some weird shit, but they are rarer.
cm osi
Member
But this was okay to you:
You never fight enemies like that before. You can't block. It's possible to kill one of them with a compound bow but it will take a long while to do so. It's very easy to dodge and fall to your death or panic and run off. And if you die, it'll take you a good 5 minutes to get back to that spot and try again. And even if you've done it before it's easy to fuck up and die.
Not trying to pick on you but every time I read a post by a dude who disses Dark Souls 2 for blank reason, I can easily find something just as bad if not worse in Dark Souls 1. Just saying.
nah, not really. anor londo archers killed lots of people (me too) because most of the players don't pay attention. the first ramp is protected and you can stand there, look at the area and the timing. then you just need to rush to ther archer on the right, the one on the left can't hit you and you're left with a swordman that can fall down with 1 hit. once you know how to do it you can do that even at low level.
not really the same of those infinite stamina giants
anyway my pick is torches. dark souls 2 implements torches, the point is? nothing. you don't need them, and there's no dark zone where you really have to use them. there's the gutter, but it's doable without them. in this aspect BB did it better (of course BB has a better engine), but bb did it better, i had the torch equipped most of the time
John Kowalski
Banned
Why did everyone have so much trouble with the archers? They weren't that hard. Get close bit by bit, grab close range aggro, and the dude just falls by himself.
SkylineRKR
Member
By what sort of measure is this game mediocre?
Yes, its not as good as DS1. But DS2 is still a lot of value for money and one of the best action adventures/RPG out there.
The areas do feel more lifeless and throwaway, level design isn't as tight. But I think gameplay is the best tbh, its just that you need to level ADP which is a bit cheap but DS2 hands out souls like candy.
Yes, its not as good as DS1. But DS2 is still a lot of value for money and one of the best action adventures/RPG out there.
The areas do feel more lifeless and throwaway, level design isn't as tight. But I think gameplay is the best tbh, its just that you need to level ADP which is a bit cheap but DS2 hands out souls like candy.
Zombegoast
Member
You never fight enemies like that before. You can't block. It's possible to kill one of them with a compound bow but it will take a long while to do so. It's very easy to dodge and fall to your death or panic and run off. And if you die, it'll take you a good 5 minutes to get back to that spot and try again. And even if you've done it before it's easy to fuck up and die.
Not trying to pick on you but every time I read a post by a dude who disses Dark Souls 2 for blank reason, I can easily find something just as bad if not worse in Dark Souls 1. Just saying.
A very, very easy to solution to get past by them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZl_C44qx1A
[Call-Me-G]
Banned
I disagree. You can also progress in BB without any torches. Even if it's more comfortable to use them in certain areas.
SoapNickTavish
Member
I only got into the Soul games recently, but the world interconnectivity of 1 far surpasses that of 2, however I've come to really love 2 for it's gameplay improvements and DLC, especially with the Scholar of the First Sin version.
Dark Souls can be the worst Souls game and one of the best games released in its time period simultaneously.
Being the "worst" of three great games doesn't make it bad, just because it isn't as good as its predecessor doesn't mean it can't be a good game overall.
It's really not difficult to figure out how this works.
Neff
Member
They're cool.
And yeah, incredibly useful in The Gutter/No-Man's Wharf, and handy to mark your progress, because the game is so huge. I use them a lot.
I use the torch in two places in BB- in that Central Yharnam dark house with the dude in the wheelchair, and the Upper Cathedral Ward area with the wolves.
Totally, completely, and utterly disagree. The Anor Londo archers are a beginners trap. It will take a lot of trial and error to get by them. Even if you've looked at a Let's Play you still need good timing to get through it. I've beaten those archers many times (I just rush the right one, get up close and melee him up close and stun him with an R2 attack).
By comparison, the Knights in Dragon Shrine can be ran by, and you can even block their attacks and still run by. You don't have to fight them except maybe 1 or 2 and that's if you want some loot. You fight similar enemies early on in the game so you have that familiarity with how to fight them.
Kombatologist
Neo Member
I earned platinum on Demon's Souls and 1K'd Dark Souls on both 360 and PC because I loved them both enough to play through them over and over again, whereas I could only bring myself to play through Dark Souls 2 once (I have yet to play the DLC). Make of that what you will.
I enjoyed Dark Souls 2, but the challenge wasn't really there for me. There were a lot of interesting bosses, but only a few gave me trouble. The rest I killed on my first try. To be fair...
I also wasn't a fan of the limited enemy respawns. I think they did this so you couldn't grind levels, making later areas easier. Still, if you're like me and enjoy farming every item in the game, the limited respawns hinder that. I'm not sure if that carried over to Scholar of the First Sin or not.
I enjoyed Dark Souls 2, but the challenge wasn't really there for me. There were a lot of interesting bosses, but only a few gave me trouble. The rest I killed on my first try. To be fair...
I never joined the covenant that makes the game harder.
I also wasn't a fan of the limited enemy respawns. I think they did this so you couldn't grind levels, making later areas easier. Still, if you're like me and enjoy farming every item in the game, the limited respawns hinder that. I'm not sure if that carried over to Scholar of the First Sin or not.
DS2 is nowhere comparable to DMC2 and DA 2. Those two games are just bad games even standalone.
DS2 is just a fantastic game that happens to be slightly inferior to its prequel.
Torches are useful in the SOTFS version. You can't actually see shit in the Gutter.
Also, Anor Londo archers are not broken enemies, but broken positioned. Is as cheap difficulty as a DS2 gank.
PapaEmeritus
Member
I don't think it's mediocre at all.
The torch mechanic in DS2 is more prevalent in SotFS. The graphical downgrade on PS360 made them basically useless outside the gutter.
For such an easy way, the dude gets hilariously close to being forced into a fall, and he obvs died just before trying this dumb stint.
It was a really good game. The least frustrating of all the Souls games for me. The only thing I would say for sure DS1 did better was the map. The first one had a much better map that linked across various areas. That's not to say Dark Souls 2 doesn't have a good map, but it's much more linear. If you didn't play the first you won't be expecting this. Otherwise, it's a great game.
cm osi
Member
darklurker
ruin sentinels
with my posts i'm not saying the game is mediocre, i loved it. but lost of things could have been better. the same thing with BB, the covenants are really lacking (i hope they expand them if they make some dlc)
Polioliolio
Member
I could parrot what everyone is saying, which could be disputed.. such as humanoid bosses, etc etc.
Really, it just feels like Fan Fiction.. which it essentially is, because the creator was off making Bloodborne.
Really, it just feels like Fan Fiction.. which it essentially is, because the creator was off making Bloodborne.
Zombegoast
Member
I do it every time. Once he pulls out his sword, just run back.
Kombatologist
Neo Member
I died sooo many times from those ghosts in and around that building in New Londo Ruins during my very first playthrough, but I'd hardly call that area broken. Once you figure out where they all are, it's pretty easy to lure them out in groups.
Teletraan1
Banned
I am no pro player but I found the hitboxes to be worse in this game. The first Dark Souls seemed very tough but fair. I never felt cheated, if I executed properly I was rewarded. I can't say the same about DS2. Overall that is a minor gripe in a game that I died a lot in anyway. Bosses weren't as good either so that just magnified my first gripe.
Dark Souls 2 is a COOL game, and it's VERY GOOD. Dark Souls 1 is a Masterpiece. The quality of the games is different. DS2 does good stuff to combat and all that, but the game isn't artistic. It's an A game, but Miyazaki's games are S class. (They're something special)
People hating on DS2 feels hyperbolic or petty at times, though.
People hating on DS2 feels hyperbolic or petty at times, though.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Oh also the game was really frustrating and unfair at times.
These fuckers:
I disagree, can't lie. I mean I know its subjective but they're some of the most predictable enemies in the game. Especially the cyclops. Wait for it to do the double swipe then fall to the ground, then once he's on the floor get behind him and he's likely do that move where he tries to sit on you, use that time to get your hits in. Rinse and repeat.
SweetJohnnyCage
Member
On it's own, Dark Souls 2 is an OK game. Probably a 7/10. When compared to its predecessors, it drops to about a 4/10 for me. Here are some bullet points:
1) Story is vague for the sake of being vague. It was like the story team took a quick poll of fans of DeS and DS and asked them what they liked about the story. People said "I liked that you had to figure it out for yourself with item descriptions and NPC dialogue", but all From heard was "I liked that you had to figure it out for yourself." The NPC dialogue in 2 is extremely weak. No one knows why they're doing what they're doing, and offer no serious explanation to anything. It's incredibly frustrating to come into this game expecting the lore to be told in similar fashion to the past two Souls titles, only to find out that there is no concrete base of a story for your imagination to build on.
2) Most zones have one entrance and one exit, with very little reward for exploration. The worlds of Demon's Souls and moreso in Dark Souls were like big knots. You'd travel along different paths for hours, stumble upon a locked door or an elevator, go through, and be back at the beginning of the game. Even Bloodborne did this perfectly. There was no big "Ah ha! It's the beginning of the level/game!" moment in DS2. DS2's map was built like a tree. Majula is the trunk, and all the other areas are branches on the tree. Nothing comes back to the trunk, it just keeps extending until you reach the end of the branch.
3) Warping was great in DS1, but you didn't get it until halfway through the game. Because of this, you were still very much connected to the world and understood how it all came together. By the time you got warping, there were very few places left for you to explore, so having a warp didn't ruin the immersion of the world. Plus, you could only warp to select locations. In DS2, you were able to warp from the very beginning of the game, and to any bonfire location in the game. There were also an excessive amount of bonfires in the game, removing the risky feeling of running out of healing items after being away from one for so long. By the time you ran out of healing items, you were almost certainly about to come up to another bonfire.
4) Way too many humanoid bosses. Not enough nightmarish creations like in DS1 and DeS. Also, Double Dragonrider? Really?
5) Phantom hitboxes. While yes, this was patched within the first couple weeks of the game's launch, many of us (myself included) played this game at midnight the first day. Can't tell you how much time I wasted on The Pursuer because of his random hitbox bullshit. It made the game incredibly frustrating to play at times.
---
With all of this being said, the way DS2 handled NG+ was phenomenal. I was disappointed that Bloodborne offered nothing new in the way of loot, enemy placement, boss difficulty, etc, in NG+. Hopefully that changes since it was different teams working on the game, but it was a pretty big blow to me.
Also, the DLC for DS2 was incredible. It took all those points I made and invalidated them. It felt like the main game and DLC teams were completely different. Very labyrinthine dungeon design, cool enemies, awesome bosses, great atmospheres and story, I could go on and on.
Again, DS2 is not a terrible game by any means. In the Souls series, it gets a "meh" from me. As a standalone title, it's great and will be a challenge for many people. I just always steer people away from making DS2 their first Souls experience.
1) Story is vague for the sake of being vague. It was like the story team took a quick poll of fans of DeS and DS and asked them what they liked about the story. People said "I liked that you had to figure it out for yourself with item descriptions and NPC dialogue", but all From heard was "I liked that you had to figure it out for yourself." The NPC dialogue in 2 is extremely weak. No one knows why they're doing what they're doing, and offer no serious explanation to anything. It's incredibly frustrating to come into this game expecting the lore to be told in similar fashion to the past two Souls titles, only to find out that there is no concrete base of a story for your imagination to build on.
2) Most zones have one entrance and one exit, with very little reward for exploration. The worlds of Demon's Souls and moreso in Dark Souls were like big knots. You'd travel along different paths for hours, stumble upon a locked door or an elevator, go through, and be back at the beginning of the game. Even Bloodborne did this perfectly. There was no big "Ah ha! It's the beginning of the level/game!" moment in DS2. DS2's map was built like a tree. Majula is the trunk, and all the other areas are branches on the tree. Nothing comes back to the trunk, it just keeps extending until you reach the end of the branch.
3) Warping was great in DS1, but you didn't get it until halfway through the game. Because of this, you were still very much connected to the world and understood how it all came together. By the time you got warping, there were very few places left for you to explore, so having a warp didn't ruin the immersion of the world. Plus, you could only warp to select locations. In DS2, you were able to warp from the very beginning of the game, and to any bonfire location in the game. There were also an excessive amount of bonfires in the game, removing the risky feeling of running out of healing items after being away from one for so long. By the time you ran out of healing items, you were almost certainly about to come up to another bonfire.
4) Way too many humanoid bosses. Not enough nightmarish creations like in DS1 and DeS. Also, Double Dragonrider? Really?
5) Phantom hitboxes. While yes, this was patched within the first couple weeks of the game's launch, many of us (myself included) played this game at midnight the first day. Can't tell you how much time I wasted on The Pursuer because of his random hitbox bullshit. It made the game incredibly frustrating to play at times.
---
With all of this being said, the way DS2 handled NG+ was phenomenal. I was disappointed that Bloodborne offered nothing new in the way of loot, enemy placement, boss difficulty, etc, in NG+. Hopefully that changes since it was different teams working on the game, but it was a pretty big blow to me.
Also, the DLC for DS2 was incredible. It took all those points I made and invalidated them. It felt like the main game and DLC teams were completely different. Very labyrinthine dungeon design, cool enemies, awesome bosses, great atmospheres and story, I could go on and on.
Again, DS2 is not a terrible game by any means. In the Souls series, it gets a "meh" from me. As a standalone title, it's great and will be a challenge for many people. I just always steer people away from making DS2 their first Souls experience.
BrianRoyale
Member
Overall it's still a good or great game. For me I think it being a direct sequel hurt it the most. It had to try to come up with new things but also reference DS1, but if you played DS1 there really aren't any "AH HA!" moments in it cause you know the origins of the story, it's just the next cycle.
However it was still fun to play, and in fact I think it's great you have to chance to play this before DS1 or DeS because story wise it might be a whole lot more fun. Plus you get the best part of the game which is all the DLC and it's included in the base cost of the game.
However it was still fun to play, and in fact I think it's great you have to chance to play this before DS1 or DeS because story wise it might be a whole lot more fun. Plus you get the best part of the game which is all the DLC and it's included in the base cost of the game.
nailbombxx
Member
Good game, but it lacks the "magic" that made the predecessors so special in everyone's minds that it just seemed disappointing. I think it's pretty much more of the same, but not as well done or memorable.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
There are numerous well presented videos online OP. There's so many things this game disappointed in, from the level design all the way to online.
CantTrickMe
Neo Member
The game is solid. It's got a lot more color in the map designs than Bloodborne and the RPG elements are more visible. Dont let people try to argue against it. It's a great game in it's own right with tons of secret doors and different paths to explore. I find it really said that it gets compared to the other souls games when in fact the whole series should be considered fantastic. It does a real disservice to From Software to say it's bad or not as good. I suggest playing it.
Iva Demilcol
Member
Whoever tells you that DS2 is a mediocre game is lying to you.
It was a disappointing game to some people, but that's all.
It was a disappointing game to some people, but that's all.
Anor Londo archers were the biggest pile of shit in the series, no doubt. Terrible, terrible idea.I find these little nitpicks to be pretty funny. So let me get this straight dude, you find the ogre/hippo dudes and giant knights in Dragon Shrine are just too hard. "OMG, this is too hard! I could easily run by or avoid them. But I'm going to complain that they're too hard." They were too hard to fight and because of these easily avoidable enemies you have to complain about it and say Dark Souls 1 is better.
But this was okay to you:
You never fight enemies like that before. You can't block. It's possible to kill one of them with a compound bow but it will take a long while to do so. It's very easy to dodge and fall to your death or panic and run off. And if you die, it'll take you a good 5 minutes to get back to that spot and try again. And even if you've done it before it's easy to fuck up and die.
Not trying to pick on you but every time I read a post by a dude who disses Dark Souls 2 for blank reason, I can easily find something just as bad if not worse in Dark Souls 1. Just saying.
Red Liquorice
Member
OP, play the bloody game and make up your own mind. The whole series is awesome, play them all.
SweetJohnnyCage
Member
I honestly didn't find them difficult, and never die to them. Trying to block one arrow will give you a clear indication that it's the wrong thing to be doing. It's clear you shouldn't attempt to fight them at the same time, and with one archer blocking the path with the other one firing arrows behind you, it's clear that you should kill the one behind you first. Parrying these knights is pretty easy.
Ummmmmm, I'm not so sure since this
Also exists... I hate the Bed of Chaos (and Lost Izalith for that matter) so much.
Skellig Gra
Member
Absolutely nothing. Just because its not the pinnacle of the series doesn't make it somehow mediocre.
Lux R7
Member
Oh you, you and your intelligent comment. How dare you.
DustyVonEric
Member
Not this again... It's funny. On Game Informer's podcast, they spoke directly about this and praised Bloodborne for its consistent atmosphere and environmental design to tell the story. They said its consistency made the world seem real and alive, while applauding the game for not falling into the trap of adding colorful areas when it wouldn't make sense just for the sake of mixing things up and adding more.
Then there's Dark Souls 2; where even diehard Souls fans can see the step back from Dark Souls 1's interconnectivity and world layout. That DaS2 team's motto seemed to be "More is better!". They negatively affected combat with excessive group ambushes and adds. They added more bosses but with crap originality. And they jammed areas into the world where it didn't belong or make sense to the community.
Bloodborne stays streamlined, tearing away all the excess bs from hollow rag armor drop # infinity, to slight weapon variation illusion loot, to bloated stats, to colorful fanciful environments that don't belong and succeeds as a fun game with great storytelling.
DS2 on the other hand suffers from what Stephen King diagnosed himself as having sometimes... diarrhea of the mouth. Saying (or in DaS2's case: adding) too much when less, but better would do.
That's a pretty awful solution. I like how he had to pick up his blood stain before his second attempt.
It's much easier to just roll under the arrow and force him to pull out his sword.
Pretty much. DS1 was a masterpiece, but it had plenty of flaws, especially in the second half.
If DS2 did something wrong I guess it was "it didn't have Miyazaki name behind it", beause there is a clear personality cult behind him that allows people to see past certain flaws.