Laiza

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,171
Name a single area in 2, besides Lost Bastille or Shulva that as complicated as 3's undead settlement,
3VIZbFv.jpg
I mean, the other posters already said it, but it bears repeating - Undead Settlement is a standout zone in DS3 and you already tried to rule out a comparable standout zone in DS2, which makes this comparison kind of shit.
And extending onto this, Profansed Capitol still has a lengthy side area that's completely optional. It's completley incomparable to 2's infamous corridor areas (like King's Passage)
2017_01_11_Profaned_Capital.png
You literally just described how Iron Keep, the Lost Bastille, and even Huntsman's Copse work. I'm not sure how a fork suddenly makes the Profaned Capital's terribly underwhelming design suddenly better.
 

ProZach

Member
Oct 27, 2017
74
You take your first few steps in DSII, notice the whack ass running animation, and realise the team had a shitty time making this game
 

regenhuber

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,303
And BB's first level being poorly designed is probably less popular opinion than Lady Maria being a bad boss fight...

Yeah, unless you talk to somebody who bought BB with no prior Souls experience LOL

I don't want to derail the thread, since it isn't about BB. But the replies I got to my hypothetical thread titles (I love BB) pretty much prove my point that BB, unlike DS2, has huge defense force among enthusiasts.

The Opencritic scores of the two games (DS2 88, BB 91) indicate that they were both pretty close in terms of "critical acclaim". Oh and I'm not even adjusting for time of release (BB dropped at the start of the gen, when not many great titles were out).

I'm not blaming anybody here for liking BB a lot more than DS2, I just find it odd that people here are so down on DS2 while they are defending BB to their death.

I don' know where you were but BB's blood vial system got criticized a lot.

and for your second point, I have no clue what you're talking about considering the beginning of bloodborne is probably one of the best part. Just because you disliked it doesn't mean it's a slog.

I'm glad you liked it, I personally hated it. No hard feelings.
 

Deleted member 8861

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,564
Honestly I feel like it really doesn't hold a candle to DS1. It's still a more-than-worthwhile game, but its parts just don't stick well together.
 

Pandy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,026
Scotland
First DS game I played on PC at 60fps, and consequently my best experience of the series.

Going from that to terrible frame-pacing on PS4 killed BB for me altogether (although I wasn't enjoying my time with it anyway).
 

RossoneR

Member
Oct 28, 2017
935
Level design s biggest flaw for me. Also i was going for platinum but on ng+ or ng++ was ganged by 3 black phantom npc in spider level. F this, never went back.
 

Agni Kai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
7,240
The moment in which your roll to dodge for the first time... It feels so much different compared to Dark Souls' roll. Mind you, I started to play DS2 right after DS1, so I felt the changes right away.

It's not a bad game nonetheless. The story is catchy, some bosses are quite cool to fight against and a few of them have quite the interesting fighting mechanics.
 

Slick Butter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,530
I actually consider 2 to control the best of the series. It feels weighty.
It's odd how we (not just you and I) perceive things so differently!
It's interesting because to me, Dark Souls 2, while slower than the rest of the series, feels very floaty. Things like rolling, sprinting, and swinging large weapons have much less impactful effects in DkS2 to me, whereas they feel VERY satisfying in the other four games.
 

SGTLoke

Member
Oct 31, 2017
31
North Carolina
Still say it's on par with Bloodborne
That is a factually wrong statement. While I love DS2, it being the second game in the series I played after Bloodborne, the two are nowhere close in comparison. Bloodborne being the king of the series, combat and atmosphere are the best and while you can say build variety lacks and I will agree, it is still far and away better than 2.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
Dark Souls 2 is an insult to the franchise and a stain in its otherwise spotless record. I can picture Miyazaki like "dammit guys, I leave for five minutes and you screw everything up!".
 
Nov 6, 2017
1,202
Dark Souls 2 is the only one I replayed twice so I guess that means its the best and I dislike all souls games, bloodborne included and sadly I could never finish DS1 so I'll exclude that in the following: DS2 > DS3 = BB. DS2 was a 8. The other 2 were 7.5.
 

Zukuu

Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,809
I had a great experience the first time going through it. The vanilla game is much superior to the SOTFS edition tho, with the exception of the addition of Aldia. All of the DLCs are terrible - flat out. There are only 2 bosses that are somewhat great and both belong to the second DLC, with Sir Alonne being the best "presented" boss there is. Dark Souls 2 falls a bit apart on subsequent playthroughs because you noticed what feels "off" more and more. Also, the objectives are very obtuse, so you don't have a real goal in this game for most of your playthrough, more often than not, you chase nonsensical and arbitaray things that make as little sense as going UP an elevator from a toxic wasteland to get to a lava pit. Like WTF.

That said, I still very much enjoy the game and had a blast playing it. Also, it's much better than Bloodborne.
 

InfiniDragon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,397
One, Dark Souls 2 is canon. Quit saying it isn't.

Two, it's a good but flawed game like all the SoulsBorne games. It's flaws are just different from the flaws in the other games in the series. It's still my favorite though because it has the best build variety, replay value and multiplayer/PVP options by a whole lot.
 

Deleted member 13628

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,098
DS2 uses some weird motion capture system that is the root of it's animation and hitbox problems. The other four games all have the same precise and weighty feel. DS2 always felt "floaty" and sluggish.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding art design. Graphics aside, the art in DS2 isn't dark and twisted like the other games. Seems more typical high fantasy with your usual kingdoms and forests, etc.

The level design was terrible. Not only the nonsensical ways they connect, but also the way they are designed. They feel more like obvious video game levels with pointless architecture designed to be "traps" for the player, like some Super Mario game (heck, there is one level that is on lava that is quite literally Bowser's Castle). Whereas in DS1 the locations all felt like believable places in a fictional world.

Enemies in DS2 are much more cheap, even when fighting individually. In DS1, DeS, and BB there is this sense that everyone in the game, be it NPC, player, or mob, is playing by the same rules. In DS2 that is thrown out the window. Enemies can spam physical attacks endlessly. They run faster than you. They have different movesets even when using the same weapon.

PvP was neutered and catered towards MLG types. I enjoyed the organic encounters I had in DS1 going through Anor Londo or the forest. The duels and battle royales running through levels were a lot more fun than "who can spam the strongest spell in 1v1 duel in a tiny square arena". Never liked that kind of pvp. I think I was invaded twice in my entire playthrough of DS2.

Overall I don't think DS2 is a bad game. I actually still had some fun with it and I'm sure it's miles better than most RPGs. But it was extremely disappointing nonetheless and didn't live up to my expectations. I never felt like I was playing a real sequel to DS1. Miyazaki and his team's absence was obvious. I felt like I was playing a game made by a different developer TBH.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
Dark Souls 2 is charming, customizable, and surprising in ways that Bloodborne and Dark Souls never were. DS2 was better than DS3, but Bloodborne is still king.
 

dom

▲ Legend ▲
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,568
I actually consider 2 to control the best of the series. It feels weighty.
This doesn't even make sense. A lot of heavier weapon animations look like the character is swinging a pool noddle around. Then there's the straight disconnect of the characters movement with relation to the ground.
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,717
The only part I disagree with is the fact that DS2 is on par with Bloodborne. While it may have been semi-inflammatory I stand by my statement, and the reasoning behind it. I do love DS2 it's just not anywhere close to Bloodborne.
You presented an opinion as factual. You may have meant it as a light-hearted comment but it can be obnoxious. Just sayin'.
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,717
Uhhh... how is "Dark Souls 2 sucks" an inflamatory comment in a "Dark Souls 2 sucks" thread? :D
The OP didn't even say the game sucked (though that'd be fine to say if that's your opinion), they presented criticisms in a reasonable way and even said the game was good. Calling it an "insult to the franchise" and mocking the devs as screw-ups is not in the same ballpark at all.
 

SGTLoke

Member
Oct 31, 2017
31
North Carolina
You presented an opinion as factual. You may have meant it as a light-hearted comment but it can be obnoxious. Just sayin'.
Fair enough, I'll admit to that as it was a light hearted comment about out two games I really enjoy one being my gotg. Appreciate the heads up as someone who is new to the posting game as opposed to lurking.

Edit: but it is Bloodborne>DS2 not DS2=Bloodborne and that is a scientific fact.
 

linko9

Member
Oct 27, 2017
437
I mean, most people agree with you OP, it's just that the dissenters are always a bit louder. Still a good game, but it's clear it was made by a different team who didn't totally understand what made the first two games great.
 

Mechaplum

Enlightened
Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,199
JP
I really liked the build variety but the combat is real let down. Felt disjointed, slow and with no momentum whatsoever like a choreographed dance. Additional issues with hitboxes, faulty controls and really really forgettable boss fights meant that I won't be replaying it. I had fun mind, and it's still a game worth playing but compared to the others is a let down.
 

Igniz12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,545
The myriad disappointments of Dark Souls III made Dark Souls II better in comparison, and the revamp in Scholar of the First Sin further improved the comparison. It's how I understand the resurgence of the second game within the community.

It's the Dark Souls game that has a lot of my favourite things in it (mmm, that Ultra Greatsword), but you can't overlook the flaws. I had a much more enjoyable time with it compared to Dark Souls III, though.

This is where im at too. Ds3 had a chance to knock it out the park and cement itself as the true Ds1 sequel but instead it brought its own baggage to the table. Ds3's failure to surpass evn ds1 meant it just only slighted bettered Ds2 which i consider very much the pariah of the series but i did enjoy my time with the game in the end. For me Ds3 is the even bigger failure but yet it is the game that closes resembles Ds1 so if given the choice i'd still play that over 2.


It's odd how we (not just you and I) perceive things so differently!
It's interesting because to me, Dark Souls 2, while slower than the rest of the series, feels very floaty. Things like rolling, sprinting, and swinging large weapons have much less impactful effects in DkS2 to me, whereas they feel VERY satisfying in the other four games.
Its quite fascinating how some ppl cannot seem to see the difference in the animation style of both games. One game feels punchy and crisp while the other feels floaty and soft but firm like wet tissue paper. Seeing the animation and hit reaction of the Guts ultra greatsword really drives the gulf in quality of both games as far as animation is concerned.


P.S I think ppl should give the Ds2 dlc a try even if they were somewhat letdown by the game. The 3 dlcs are fantastic and worthy of any Souls game. Unfortunately the combat is still kinda bad and makes some bosses a pain but I dont think its enough to drag the whole experience. Its extemely engaging content in a way the main game could never achieve.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
8,050
South Carolina
Dark Souls 2's biggest problems that hold it back from the other 4's heights are these three whoppers:

1. The afformentioned grotty hitboxes

5P00S3L.gif


Waaaaaaaaaaaaay more common in this game than others. Why? It's tied to your ADP stat. You need that over 20 (or can maybe fudge it as a caster with enough points in the cast-time stat) like the rest of the games. Most enemies must be hit clean or given HUGE berths like the above or the ogres who have launch SF4 Zangief on Live grab range.

You're basically stuck with a pure point sink to make the game less janky with none of the trade offs of fast/normal/fat roll. Speaking of stats run amok...

2. Fuckin' Soul Memory

So you are in the self-assigned process of Gittin Gud so that means you're coming back from wipes like a champ, perhaps farming up some more stones, arrows, etc. Guess what? You fucked yourself twice! Cuz now, your higher SM will make fewer people to PvE with at bosses you need help with AND the ones you may fight either from invasions or Safe N Sane PvP will have a MUCH higher Soul Level from not dieing as much! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Plus this makes a community-sourced "PvP range" for endgame that balances enough points for variety of playstyles with not having enough to go "jack and master of all trades" either. That shit is GONE here. Get your SL as high as possible as SM made it impossible to "stay" at an agreed-upon level (then you have Raw on top of that for extreme fuckery).

For the topper, they didn't get rid of it in later expansion packs, they made you wear a ring. Like, what? Is Microsoft circa W8 design this system?

3. AI designed around you getting hits when you're "supposed to", not when you can get away with it.

This is a BIG one I never see anywhere else but I noticed nearly immediately. AI is vehemently fixated on you not getting advantages via clever play. You know the old " dodge/block, 2 or 3 strikes, then get back" loose rule? Here it's enforced by immediate hits yet if you feign the hit or just hang near, they don't swing. Enemies also break old rules such as "enemies have stamina too" so don't expect to wear down or outlast sprinting, swinging beasts (topped off by the shitlords of the Dragon's Aerie who literally WONT stop swinging for the fences if allowed). Weathervane vertical swings that pivot on the downward to behave like a horizontal if you dare step a telegraphed big hit. High armor/high damage giant knight characters everywhere as that's a hard enemy to take (until you go mace/lightning). Gang Bang groups that aggro all at once even if you didn't do something stupid (including one particularly blatant one in the misty forest level where attacking a preta off to the side causes a host of 5 others to rush in from a hundred yards away, yet if you pull those, you get half of them). Even the "Binocular trick" was used against me in the Looking Glass Knight fight (an add's AI wandered off on the other side of the boss but after I cranked back for what shoulda been multiple casts only to have the add use the trick to beat cheeks over to whap me right as the first spell fired off).

Compare this to other Soulsborne games (and the GOOD bosses of DS2) and the best/hardest ones are those that are ravenous, relentless beasts clawing and slashing, or cool, disciplined duelists maneuvering for a clean hit on you. Play smart. Play quick. Play to win. It's an exceedingly different mindset that colors most of the PvE of this game. Frankly, it was like they were learning what they were driving TO rather than understanding what they had; it's like it took forever to realize "oh, Souls is about danger > difficulty" and get with that.

Don't even get me started on the broken SFX (enemies in jangly plate on a dead run make soft, must-concentrate-to-notice low noise, while your character is all SWOOSH SWOOSH CLANK CLANK with the slightest movement) or the aforementioned and still existant on PC lighting nerf that makes the game much brighter than any other Soulsborne game.
 

Deleted member 13628

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,098
This is where im at too. Ds3 had a chance to knock it out the park and cement itself as the true Ds1 sequel but instead it brought its own baggage to the table. Ds3's failure to surpass evn ds1 meant it just only slighted bettered Ds2 which i consider very much the pariah of the series but i did enjoy my time with the game in the end. For me Ds3 is the even bigger failure but yet it is the game that closes resembles Ds1 so if given the choice i'd still play that over 2.


Its quite fascinating how some ppl cannot seem to see the difference in the animation style of both games. One game feels punchy and crisp while the other feels floaty and soft but firm like wet tissue paper. Seeing the animation and hit reaction of the Guts ultra greatsword really drives the gulf in quality of both games as far as animation is concerned.

I agree. Both DS2 and DS3 were well below the other three games. DS3's only strong point over DS2 is that controls the way a Souls game should and it has a better visual design/graphics.

The best way I can describe why DS2 feels off in terms of controls is that in the other games it feels like your character is an actual 3D object that interacts with its surroundings and vice versa.
 

Luchashaq

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
4,329
Dark souls 2 is the only game of it's ilk I have finished simply because if I got stuck on a boss I could turn my brain off and mindlessly but permanently eliminate the trash between the bonfire and the boss.
 

FFNB

Associate Game Designer
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,312
Los Angeles, CA
I didn't enjoy playing it, and that's the worst criticism I can think to level at it, and the only criticism that matters to me, personally.

I wasn't having fun with it. I had a blast with Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Dark Souls 3. I did not have fun with Dark Souls 2. I didn't enjoy the combat, most of the environments, and the bosses I encountered before I stopped playing it. I kept coming back to it to try and see if there was something I just wasn't getting, but nope. I simply don't enjoy playing it. That's more than enough reason to write it off for me.
 

Skyball Paint

Member
Nov 12, 2017
1,669
I understand why some people love Dark Souls 2, but I can't enjoy it due to it having the worse melee combat in the series. It's a combination of character movement feeling downright sluggish compared to the rest of the series, the hitbox shenanigans that are unforgivable in a game of its difficulty level, and encounters that are seemingly designed to be as tedious, unless you love kiting swarms of enemies around. There's also the levels, which look and feel like they're from N64 platformers, as opposed to the strong sense of place you get from the best levels in the series. In Bloodborne, playing through Yharnam made me feel like I was lost in a massive, unfamiliar and hostile city. Iron Keep in Dark Souls 2 looks like the second Bowser level from Super Mario 64.

I do have one nice thing to say: The cliffs of Majula is maybe my favorite vista in a video game.
 
Last edited:

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
The OP didn't even say the game sucked (though that'd be fine to say if that's your opinion), they presented criticisms in a reasonable way and even said the game was good. Calling it an "insult to the franchise" and mocking the devs as screw-ups is not in the same ballpark at all.

I'll be blunt: are you disagreeing with me as a fan of the game, or warning me as a mod?
 

YukidaruPunch

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
143
Salvador, Brazil
Dark Souls 2 is about as good a game an inexperienced team trying to mimick its predecessor could make. I have nothing positive to say about it besides "people worked on it and did the best they could".

It's a game I utterly despise, unfortunately. I wish I didn't.
 

Sapo84

Member
Oct 31, 2017
311
PvP was neutered and catered towards MLG types. I enjoyed the organic encounters I had in DS1 going through Anor Londo or the forest. The duels and battle royales running through levels were a lot more fun than "who can spam the strongest spell in 1v1 duel in a tiny square arena". Never liked that kind of pvp. I think I was invaded twice in my entire playthrough of DS2..
I don't really understand this, DS2 PvP is pretty well balanced (well, after a year of patches but whatever), spells are viable but definitely not overpowered, melee usually has the upper-hand.
There is also a lot less backstab fishing and parries are not that easy to pull off (which is probably the complete opposing of catering towards MLG types).
There is also no newbie punish like DS1 PvP where you could be stunlocked to death after the first hit unless you know how to toggle escape.

And you didn't even need to play on any arena for PvP, in DS2 you could invade pretty much everywhere and find someone to fight, just like DS1 and DS3 (I still hate Bloodborne for its handling of PVP).
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,717
I'll be blunt: are you disagreeing with me as a fan of the game, or warning me as a mod?
The former, though you should be aware that "lazy devs" kinds of rhetoric is frowned upon here, and your post came close to that. Edit: note, there are plenty of posts in this thread criticizing DS2 and I disagree with them but I didn't single them out, I'm sure you can realize why.