@Rafaelfc said:

@Terramagi said:

@Rafaelfc said:

Everyone that complains that people that want an easy mode are close minded are being as close minded if not more. The onus is on the developer to make a meaningful experience out of the easy mode and to not cheapen the game for everyone else.

I personally don't want an easy mode, but it's not the end of the world possibility people make it out to be. At least it isn't as bad in theory, guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, how dare we want to keep the unique game we enjoy good so that you might enjoy it.

It's not like there's a long list of precedents of this exact thing causing games to turn to complete shit.

Man, we are so fucking close-minded and entitled wanting to preserve this nature habitat. Let's just bulldoze it and build a fucking Target that everybody can enjoy.

This is just trolling, but hey here's a response anyways.

It's not like they are patching in an easy mode on Dark Souls. That game is what it is.

They are making a new game (both Dark Souls 2 or Miyazaki's next game) and that game may in fact warrant a difficulty selector, as it could be going for a different kind of experience than Dark Souls.

And no there is not a long list of precedents as far as From Software is concerned, it's not like they were bought by EA, so chill the fuck out.

Bottom line is I trust From Software to do what is best for their game and to keep making awesome games, but not the same game over and over. People didn't know they wanted a Souls like game until From Software came along with Demon's Souls. Who's to say they can't make another game that people don't know they want? I would prefer that than having Dark Souls 3000: even souler

That's pretty much what I wanted to say. They made two of those games and they were surprisingly successful and popular and now they want to try something different. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing and it doesn't mean that those who liked the first two game won't get anything out of it. Maybe it'll be a total trainwreck but I think they totally deserve the benefit of the doubt.

@Rafaelfc said:

@Terramagi said:

@Rafaelfc said:

Everyone that complains that people that want an easy mode are close minded are being as close minded if not more. The onus is on the developer to make a meaningful experience out of the easy mode and to not cheapen the game for everyone else.

I personally don't want an easy mode, but it's not the end of the world possibility people make it out to be. At least it isn't as bad in theory, guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, how dare we want to keep the unique game we enjoy good so that you might enjoy it.

It's not like there's a long list of precedents of this exact thing causing games to turn to complete shit.

Man, we are so fucking close-minded and entitled wanting to preserve this nature habitat. Let's just bulldoze it and build a fucking Target that everybody can enjoy.

This is just trolling, but hey here's a response anyways.

It's not like they are patching in an easy mode on Dark Souls. That game is what it is.

They are making a new game (both Dark Souls 2 or Miyazaki's next game) and that game may in fact warrant a difficulty selector, as it could be going for a different kind of experience than Dark Souls.

And no there is not a long list of precedents as far as From Software is concerned, it's not like they were bought by EA, so chill the fuck out.

Bottom line is I trust From Software to do what is best for their game and to keep making awesome games, but not the same game over and over. People didn't know they wanted a Souls like game until From Software came along with Demon's Souls. Who's to say they can't make another game that people don't know they want? I would prefer that than having Dark Souls 3000: even souler

This industry has proven time and time again that it has absolutely zero idea how to approach a middle-ground. I trusted IO to not fuck up Hitman, here we are. I trusted Bioware not to fuck up Mass Effect AND Dragon Age, here we are. I DIDN'T trust Capcom not to fuck up Resident Evil, and I was right about that one, so while we're in the same place I feel a little smidgeon of self-satisfaction with that.

You are either lying to yourself or completely and willingly ignorant if you think FROM is any different. Make a great thing, dumb it down to appeal to the masses, and fuck it up. This is how this industry works. It is not trolling to point it out. It's just stupid, because words clearly have absolutely zero bearing on your opinion and you don't want to be educated. You don't care about the atmosphere of Souls games. You don't care about the online impacts. You don't care about the experience as a whole. You're happy being ignorant, and destroying what other people like. You just want yours, and fuck everybody who would care to deny it to you. Well you know what? You have the entire industry catering to your "got mine" attitude. You'll probably have the Souls franchise too in time, but until you DO and the people who DO enjoy the Souls games for what they are are proven completely correct, you will be told how completely wrong you are.

@rebgav said:

@Lysergica33: I don't know that I'd put much faith in the suggestions of a CG trailer, as far as the importance or handling of the story. Checking the early trailers for the past two games, there was a lot of early gameplay and a lot of bullshot rendering going on, making an all CG trailer at least allows them to avoid giving false impressions about the look or the features of the game.

I content myself with the fact that we don't know what Miyazaki is actually working on right now, so he could be working on a new IP or the next really new Souls game so currently I can write off DS2 as a potentially interesting experiment.

Sure, I know it's just a CG trailer, but I'm trying to look on the positive side here. I think this CG trailer says a lot about their intentions for this game, there's a definite shift in mood, and while that seems to be worrying the majority of Souls fans I'm simply trying to keep an open mind. But yeah, it's too early to really make any judgement calls.

@Terramagi said:

@Rafaelfc said:

@Terramagi said:

@Rafaelfc said:

Everyone that complains that people that want an easy mode are close minded are being as close minded if not more. The onus is on the developer to make a meaningful experience out of the easy mode and to not cheapen the game for everyone else.

I personally don't want an easy mode, but it's not the end of the world possibility people make it out to be. At least it isn't as bad in theory, guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, how dare we want to keep the unique game we enjoy good so that you might enjoy it.

It's not like there's a long list of precedents of this exact thing causing games to turn to complete shit.

Man, we are so fucking close-minded and entitled wanting to preserve this nature habitat. Let's just bulldoze it and build a fucking Target that everybody can enjoy.

This is just trolling, but hey here's a response anyways.

It's not like they are patching in an easy mode on Dark Souls. That game is what it is.

They are making a new game (both Dark Souls 2 or Miyazaki's next game) and that game may in fact warrant a difficulty selector, as it could be going for a different kind of experience than Dark Souls.

And no there is not a long list of precedents as far as From Software is concerned, it's not like they were bought by EA, so chill the fuck out.

Bottom line is I trust From Software to do what is best for their game and to keep making awesome games, but not the same game over and over. People didn't know they wanted a Souls like game until From Software came along with Demon's Souls. Who's to say they can't make another game that people don't know they want? I would prefer that than having Dark Souls 3000: even souler

This industry has proven time and time again that it has absolutely zero idea how to approach a middle-ground. I trusted IO to not fuck up Hitman, here we are. I trusted Bioware not to fuck up Mass Effect AND Dragon Age, here we are. I DIDN'T trust Capcom not to fuck up Resident Evil, and I was right about that one, so while we're in the same place I feel a little smidgeon of self-satisfaction with that.

You are either lying to yourself or completely and willingly ignorant if you think FROM is any different. Make a great thing, dumb it down to appeal to the masses, and fuck it up. This is how this industry works. It is not trolling to point it out. It's just stupid, because words clearly have absolutely zero bearing on your opinion and you don't want to be educated. You don't care about the atmosphere of Souls games. You don't care about the online impacts. You don't care about the experience as a whole. You're happy being ignorant, and destroying what other people like. You just want yours, and fuck everybody who would care to deny it to you. Well you know what? You have the entire industry catering to your "got mine" attitude. You'll probably have the Souls franchise too in time, but until you DO and the people who DO enjoy the Souls games for what they are are proven completely correct, you will be told how completely wrong you are.

You attacked me for no reason, not just pointing something out and that is trolling. This is slightly better, though still, attacking me for no reason. You are right in saying I don't want to be educated, because i'm not ignorant as you state, but i'm open for arguments and to hear out other people's perspectives.

I played Dark Souls, I beat Dark Souls. I never used a FAQ, I ever only read people's messages in game, and tried again and again different ways to do things, until I got it. It took me 80 hours to beat it first time through, but I got it. I loved every second of it and it was one of the most singularly awesome experiences I ever had with a game. Dude I love the atmosphere and sense of place the game has. I LOVE ME SOME DARK SOULS.

However, they are pushing the Souls games forward and will try different things. If it will pan out or not only time will tell. All we can do is argue about it, and no if you ask me I DO NOT want them to fuck up the next Dark Souls. I don't think it needs to be streamlined or dumbed down for a wider audience, because I think the audience for this game knows better.

Yes making things more casual is a shitty side of this industry, there is a larger discussion here that isn't limited to only games and that is endless iteration of an idea will ultimately make that idea lose it's original appeal. Repeat the same formula too much and it becomes boring, change it too much and you lose what was interesting in the first place. If they keep making Dark Souls over and over they will run that formula into the ground and if they change it too far from what it originally is they will fuck it up.

There is no easy answer for this, and i'm not defending that they broaden the appeal of Dark Souls, but also it's not all just about a difficulty option.

P.S.: Just stop pointing fingers dude, it doesn't make you any more or less right, just makes you look childish specially because you make some very good points.

A lot of people in here coming across like self-entitled dicks, but I'll try to explain why Dark Souls works to people like @Rafaelfc .

The truth of the matter is that people aren't into Dark Souls because it's "ZOMG HARD" but because they enjoy the feeling of tension they get when facing the unknown. In Dark Souls, the world is ambivalent. Indifferent. The world doesn't care about you, or your quest. The enemies are just as strong as you are, and have access to all of the same abilities you do. It's because of this nihilistic lens that the game can enforce a sense of dread. That the game can truly end with you failing your Undead Mission. There's a very real reason as to why the game tells you you're nobody special, that you're one of a thousand, ten-thousand undead who have made pilgrimage to Lordran over centuries. All of this is done to reinforce the notion that you're nothing. Nobody. That you don't matter. All of this is in service of making the player believe that every inch of progress they make can and will likely be lost. It's in service of building tension in the player.

Think about it, if the game keeps telling you that you're just another wanderer/whatever you roleplay your Undead to be, and that you've got nothing inherently different or special about you, then you would be more inclined to believe in your own frailty, wouldn't you? That you are fragile, that you need to be cautious lest some monster royally ruins your shitty day. There is something to what players describe as a "rush of achievement," and that's fair, but where that sense of accomplishment comes from has everything to do with the journey to the destination, and nothing at all to do with the accomplishment itself. If killing Gwyn means anything to anybody, it's because they spent the last 40+ hours living and dying by their own wits, and that despite the game world being indifferent, despite the game telling you that you mean nothing, that you're unimportant, stabbing that asshole right in the heart is your moment of catharsis. It can be a potent feeling.

And it's also a feeling you can lose if FROM decides to design Dark Souls II around people who aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and dig into the game. While I personally don't want an "easy mode" in the next title, I also understand and appreciate that there are definitely ways to improve the experience. The opening tutorial tells you how to perform actions, but it doesn't explain why these things are necessary. Item descriptions hint at what they do, but until you figure it out for yourself you'd have no idea otherwise. Those are genuine flaws that should be addressed in the next title.

Above all else, though, the game needs to remain indifferent to the player in order to preserve that sense of tension (and ultimately, that catharsis). If the next game can do this, remain ambivalent but also balance that ambivalence with fairness, then I think we might have a game that anyone can enjoy. Sure Dark Souls would lose that "only for us" stigma that some users in this thread cling to like it was fucking oxygen, but I'm okay with that. Ultimately I want Dark Souls II to be as successful as possible, because I want a Dark Souls 3, 4, 5, 6, and on and on until the wheels falls off. And I think that's possible if FROM finds the right balance between ambivalence and fairness.

Blighter Town.

@Rafaelfc said:

Everyone that complains that people that want an easy mode are close minded are being as close minded if not more. The onus is on the developer to make a meaningful experience out of the easy mode and to not cheapen the game for everyone else.

I personally don't want an easy mode, but it's not the end of the world possibility people make it out to be. At least it isn't as bad in theory, guess we'll have to wait and see.

It isn't close minded when a game like Dark Souls is for a specific audience (and audience that is less and less catered to). An audience that wants a series strongest point of being punishing but rewarding, not holding your hand and not telling a story in a linear fashion. This audience has much of a "right" to have games cater to them as any other audience of gamers. The only reason to add an easy mode is to cater to an audience that already has plenty of games to fill their void. Dark Souls isn't a game for everybody and it shouldn't, every game doesn't need to be.

@Moblin: I loved Tomb of the Giants! Wasn't THAT hard. I can't stand Sen's Fortress. I always have a tough time there, for whatever reason.

@Zeik said:

@Hailinel said:

@OneManX said:

Looks good, but Dark Souls 2? No new name...?

The only reason the name was changed the first time was because Sony owns the Demon's Souls name.

Dark Souls was also set in a completely new world. My guess is that this one isn't going to be, which to be honest is a little disappointing.

@dabe said:

I don't want Dark Souls II. I'd rather they named it "INSERT WORD" Souls and have it unrelated (or only tangentially so).

I agree with dabe. But what I really want is the game to sell like hot cakes so that we keep getting bigger more and better; I think this time around they are trying to take advantage of brand recognition for the masses, which they couldn't do after Demon's Souls because of the Sony and Atlus rights. Also they're able to build off the same mythos this time around. Anyway, call it "Tim" for all I care, just give me more.

@golguin said:

@Morbid_Coffee said:

There were things that were better than others in PVP, but everybody who says it was unbalanced or cheap and only about running behind guys for backstabs is totally forgetting what Dark Souls PVP was actually like.

Why is this the first time I've seen that? That is the true Dark Souls PVP.

I love you for showing that to me.

@Terramagi said:

@Animasta said:

@Morbid_Coffee said:

More level design like the first half of the game.

Less level design like Lost Izalith.

yeah. I stopped at the library level because the level design just became too... ugh. I dunno. Wasn't as tight?

game definitely shifts after you get the lordvessel.

I'd say Duke's was one of the best post-Lordvessel areas.

New Londo was pretty good too. Very well laid out.

Tomb of the Giants was when they started phoning it in.

And Lost Izalith? You can tell it was the last level they designed because there's gaping holes in the background geometry.

@Moblin said:

Am i the only one who liked Tomb of the Giants? A pitch black level and all you see is the eye's until you get your lantern. I thought it was awesome!

What??? Tomb of the Giants? Lost Iz and the path to Gwyn maybe, but hey, those were very short sections of the game and because of that I had no problem with the laziness of the design. But Tomb of the Giants? No. And having access to the Tomb area right by the first bonfire...pure genius.

@Terramagi: AMEN!

@familyphotoshoot said:

No more backstabs. Lagstabbing and backstab fishing completely ruin PvP. Parry and riposte only, please

I agree partially, but it kept you careful, it should stay in and just be modified. I'm thinking maybe make the BS zone a little smaller and limiting the huge damage bonuses to weapons that are balanced for BS use and maybe not so good for other purposes. But I also think another trade off system would be great - like a ring or back-armor that greatly reduces BS damage but would cost you a ring slot or other armor benefits. Or if you give up your shield by two handing your weapon, having your shield on your back should block BS. Or both - those things would have added a lot more variety to the PVP without removing an important mechanic.

@potatomash3r said:

1. Improve the multiplayer connection in the game, as it is now - PvP is a hit and miss (mostly miss) with horrendous lag.
2. I hope covenants are more involved with one another, like having small skirmishes between dark moon blade and dark wraiths.
3. More NPC invasions would be awesome.

• Dedicated servers with cross-platform play to avoid splitting the community.
• A PVP warzone with huge battles like up to 8 on 8.
• NG+ exclusive unannounced BP invasions with randomized surprise placements in each level to make the game different, harder, more surprising and more rewarding each +++ play-through.
• I've always wished you could change your stats. It should be freaking hard though so it isn't abused - like buying back a stat point could cost 10x as much as a new statpoint at the same Soul Level.

I would like to see more of a difference between the character classes in the late game. It was kind of a bummer to me that all characters end up basically the same no matter what class they start. Better balancing that allows you to min/max stats besides the typical VIT/END path and makes more play styles a viable option would be nice.

Maybe throw class specific attributes and/or abilities into the mix? Some way to customize your gear or create a unique look would be cool too.

That's about all I can think of besides technical stuff (framerate, net code, etc.).

@JackSukeru said:

I want a new universe, doesn't matter if some of the concepts from Dark Souls 1 carry over, such as bonfires or you being Undead, I want them to abandon all lore of that universe and start anew. If they don't, then that's fine so long as they properly expand the lore rather than leaning too hard on the old stuff.

Less predictable enemy AI, make it harder to bait attacks or run from at least some of the enemies.

Keep parry, limit backstab to certain weapons, not sure if this would work out well but I'd like to see it.

I also want it to be prettier, doesn't have to be by a lot. I just want to see some particle effects and some fog in places to thicken the atmosphere somewhat.

I've been thinking about it, and what they really should do is make parry only possible with a secondary weapon. It makes more sense, and it would give DW a real role. At the same time they could also remove the default stun on block and add a timing window deflect for shields to give you to the traditional stun, maybe something where you pressed/released the block button a the correct timing as it would only punish you if you hit the timing wrongly on one side of the timing.

I'm pretty happy they're making a new one. 
 
I think only thing that really needs to be improved has been mentioned but it's dual wield viability. Well, online functionality could be improved as well. Come to think of it some of the enemy placement could be better adjusted. I guess there's a few things they could look out for really. 
 
I guess mainly improvements, though. I do hope they find some interesting things to add to it but don't change the base formula to much. A lot of the fun is not understanding whats going on. 
 
The mythos behind the game being incredibly punishing is a little bit overstated and may have caused some to overlook it or even be afraid to play it. With patience, really, its not THAT bad and is incredibly fun to play.

@Ares42 said:

@JackSukeru said:

I want a new universe, doesn't matter if some of the concepts from Dark Souls 1 carry over, such as bonfires or you being Undead, I want them to abandon all lore of that universe and start anew. If they don't, then that's fine so long as they properly expand the lore rather than leaning too hard on the old stuff.

Less predictable enemy AI, make it harder to bait attacks or run from at least some of the enemies.

Keep parry, limit backstab to certain weapons, not sure if this would work out well but I'd like to see it.

I also want it to be prettier, doesn't have to be by a lot. I just want to see some particle effects and some fog in places to thicken the atmosphere somewhat.

I've been thinking about it, and what they really should do is make parry only possible with a secondary weapon. It makes more sense, and it would give DW a real role. At the same time they could also remove the default stun on block and add a timing window deflect for shields to give you to the traditional stun, maybe something where you pressed/released the block button a the correct timing as it would only punish you if you hit the timing wrongly on one side of the timing.

Hm, how about giving the second weapon in dualwielding a move with a small windup that puts you in a auto counter state for a few seconds but makes you move and turn slower while becoming vunerable to jumpattacks, like what the Balder Knights have?

I don't think I would mind removing parrying with a shield so long as I instead could quickly smash someone in the face with it for low damage. Maybe small shields would be able to hit someone really fast multiple times but wouldn't stagger them?

More boss fights like Artorias and Gwyn. So dodge-tastic and fun.

I also really hope they don't put in another 'puzzle boss' like Bed of Chaos or Dragon God. I loved Dark Souls but those 'fights' felt lazy and easy.

@CornBREDX: Maybe it's not a good enough reason, but from that trailer it seemed like they were signaling that DW will be a real option this time. It also looks like they are getting dedicated servers so that should help with online functionality.

@Amethus said:

More boss fights like Artorias and Gwyn. So dodge-tastic and fun.

I also really hope they don't put in another 'puzzle boss' like Bed of Chaos or Dragon God. I loved Dark Souls but those 'fights' felt lazy and easy.

I'm pretty sure the director openly said he regret Bed of Chaos. I really think/hope they will move away from that style of boss.

It can just be more dark souls and yeah fix the online matchmaking. The real thing i want for the sequel is for it to stay dark souls.

Whenever you get a break out hit the next step always seems to be how to sell this to even more people. Which means make a game everybody can play and get into.

Personally I actually preferred the stage based system from Demon's souls to the open world experience from Dark souls. It was very well done in dark souls, they way everything interconnected and you open up new shortcuts and stuff, but I just liked it more in demon's souls. Sometimes things being more video gamey is actually better.

I know that will never happen though, Souls series goinga be an open world game from here on out.

The big thing would deffinatly be improving multiplayer connectivity. Coop multiplayer the lag didn't really factor in a lot, but in pvp I would get and get got by so many bullshit backstabs even though we are facing eachother and things like that. I really loved the idea of the Darkmoon blade covenant, but in the end I didn't really get into it very much because the pvp felt kind of unplayable sometimes. The coop stuff like the Sunlight warriors all worked very well though, praise the sun.

If there is no praise the sun emote in DS2 then From has done us all a great disservice.

@ExplodeMode said:

@CornBREDX: Maybe it's not a good enough reason, but from that trailer it seemed like they were signaling that DW will be a real option this time. It also looks like they are getting dedicated servers so that should help with online functionality.

@Amethus said:

More boss fights like Artorias and Gwyn. So dodge-tastic and fun.

I also really hope they don't put in another 'puzzle boss' like Bed of Chaos or Dragon God. I loved Dark Souls but those 'fights' felt lazy and easy.

I'm pretty sure the director openly said he regret Bed of Chaos. I really think/hope they will move away from that style of boss.

The director of Dark Souls did say that, however Dark Souls 2 has a new director, which is where most of the 'fear' for the sequel is coming from. Miyazaki is practically god for the hardcore fans because he tends to make the right decisions, now that he has stepped down, the first thing the new director addressed was that he wants to make the story/lore more apparent and give the game a more casual mode. In theory 'puzzle' bosses are easier than encounters that rely more on attack animation awareness/positioning and well timed dodges....so puzzle bosses could be more common...ugh.

@oulzac said:

@Twiggy199 said:

Seems to me that most of the people posting in this thread don't have a clue what souls, as a game, is all about.

"Make it control better" i say, fuck you, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Better level design", fuck you, you don't know what you're talking about.

"I want to be able to play with my friends when i want, where-ever i want", fuck you, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Make it easier", Why the fuck would they put in an easy mode when there last version of the game (correct me if i'm wrong) was called PREPARE TO DIE EDITION!.

If you didn't like any of the above then why the hell are you talking about, fuck me, even THINKING about this sequel!.

I think I love you.

Something had to be said.... love you to.

@HerbieBug said:

Having a lesser difficulty in a game hurts nothing. It only allows less dedicated players to see all the hard work the developers put in on designing content that they otherwise wouldn't have seen. Is this year's XCOM "ruined" by having an easy setting? Absolutely not. Nor does its presence take anything away from the accomplishments of the people who manage to beat it on impossible-ironman. Settle down.

Telling someone to settle down is a poor way of discrediting their opinion. You should refrain from doing so in the future.

Dark Souls must not have an easy mode as the game is about overcoming adversity. Having an easy mode cheapens the experience by diluting the challenge. I would feel less empowered by my victory knowing other, less experienced players overcame the same challenges but with much less effort. Dark Souls is not a game like Mass Effect where the gameplay takes a back seat to the story, acting as a barrier to the next chunk of story content. It's quite the opposite with every element of the game in service of the gameplay.

The difficulty is supposed to be a shared experience, a gold standard. Adding an easy mode would bypass all that and go against everything Dark Souls is about.

If you have a few minutes you would be doing yourself a favor by checking out EpicNameBro's video on why Dark Souls should not have an easy mode.

@Tesla said:

I would like to see more of a difference between the character classes in the late game. It was kind of a bummer to me that all characters end up basically the same no matter what class they start. Better balancing that allows you to min/max stats besides the typical VIT/END path and makes more play styles a viable option would be nice.

That's...not true at all. Aside from the sorcery/miracle/pyromancy attack types, you still have the light/heavy armor differentials as well as the range/speed differentials for physical weapons.

@Turambar: While you are correct, to me that still is a flaw. Sure you can use any of the combos you mentioned, but my biggest issue is you can do any of those combinations no matter what class you pick. And even though you mentioned different ways to create a play style, they all boil down to some form of a red mage: you have to be proficient in melee and have some sort of magic to back you up.

Keep in mind, when I say late game I'm not talking about super-expert level late game. I've dropped a couple hundred hours on Dark Souls and haven't beaten it once. My highest level dude is somewhere around 60. So if I'm totally wrong that's probably why, that was just the impression I got from my experience.

@Tesla: I think @Turambar and I just have different expectations of those combinations.

The Souls series, and IIRC the King's Field series, isn't about arbitrary class barriers like traditional D&D based games. They're about overcoming adversity with whatever feels right in your hands, whether that be an Epee or a Zweihander, no matter your class. Learning how to use those weapons properly is far more satisfying than saying, "I'm a knight, so I get to use big swords!"

You could probably wax philosophic on how the struggle from the downtrodden weakling to specialist is some kind of... something, I dunno. Either way, it's really empowering to know the exact ranges of a weapon and how to abuse a roll's invincibility window + frame interrupting to make your sword swing, effectively, about five times longer.

EDIT: I also played a lot of PvP, so take that into account. Though I do think this applies to PvE as well.

@Tesla said:

@Turambar: While you are correct, to me that still is a flaw. Sure you can use any of the combos you mentioned, but my biggest issue is you can do any of those combinations no matter what class you pick. And even though you mentioned different ways to create a play style, they all boil down to some form of a red mage: you have to be proficient in melee and have some sort of magic to back you up.

Keep in mind, when I say late game I'm not talking about super-expert level late game. I've dropped a couple hundred hours on Dark Souls and haven't beaten it once. My highest level dude is somewhere around 60. So if I'm totally wrong that's probably why, that was just the impression I got from my experience.

Having some degree of proficiency in melee combat will always be a requirement in the case of PvP, sure. For PvE, place enough points into attunement and you have enough soul arrows and spears to get you from one bonfire to another. The same is true for pyromancy, though miracles are more defensive in nature so melee would always be a requirement for that path.

Even just looking at melee though, at lv 60, you won't have enough points to make use of both Dex and Str weapons. You have to pick and choose, and both have vastly different play styles. Add in the armor you wish to wear and roll speed you want to achieve, and suddenly you need to make a decision between havel's ring or something else that gives far more utility.

The irony of your statement is that it's not until the super end game (say, NG+2 or so?) that you actually have gotten enough SLs to go down multiple paths fully. Otherwise, you're always leaving yourself lacking in some department. My current SL 40ish strength build with its heavy armor and giant weapon is a far cry from my equally melee oriented spell sword who, even at SL120, depends on a dex weapon and weapon buffing miracles as well as light armor.

@arch4non said:

@HerbieBug said:

Having a lesser difficulty in a game hurts nothing. It only allows less dedicated players to see all the hard work the developers put in on designing content that they otherwise wouldn't have seen. Is this year's XCOM "ruined" by having an easy setting? Absolutely not. Nor does its presence take anything away from the accomplishments of the people who manage to beat it on impossible-ironman. Settle down.

Telling someone to settle down is a poor way of discrediting their opinion. You should refrain from doing so in the future.

Dark Souls must not have an easy mode as the game is about overcoming adversity. Having an easy mode cheapens the experience by diluting the challenge. I would feel less empowered by my victory knowing other, less experienced players overcame the same challenges but with much less effort. Dark Souls is not a game like Mass Effect where the gameplay takes a back seat to the story, acting as a barrier to the next chunk of story content. It's quite the opposite with every element of the game in service of the gameplay.

The difficulty is supposed to be a shared experience, a gold standard. Adding an easy mode would bypass all that and go against everything Dark Souls is about.

If you have a few minutes you would be doing yourself a favor by checking out EpicNameBro's video on why Dark Souls should not have an easy mode.

Settle down! D:

@HerbieBug: Quit being so bad at Dark Souls.

@arch4non: You...! You monster!

*runs off sobbing* :'(

Better system for the coop, so it's easier to play with friends. That's really about it everything else is pretty good but they could always tweak the invasion stuff as well.

@Tesla said:

@Turambar: While you are correct, to me that still is a flaw. Sure you can use any of the combos you mentioned, but my biggest issue is you can do any of those combinations no matter what class you pick. And even though you mentioned different ways to create a play style, they all boil down to some form of a red mage: you have to be proficient in melee and have some sort of magic to back you up.

Keep in mind, when I say late game I'm not talking about super-expert level late game. I've dropped a couple hundred hours on Dark Souls and haven't beaten it once. My highest level dude is somewhere around 60. So if I'm totally wrong that's probably why, that was just the impression I got from my experience.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that is just completely wrong. I wont explain all the intricacies of PVP at different soul levels since you simply haven't experienced that part of the game yet, but I'll just say that the variety of competitive builds is pretty big and the recent DLC simply made it bigger with the addition of the new sorcery, item nerfs, and the PVP SL brackets.

My two builds (SL 111 and SL 48) can best be described as pyro dex except that my SL 111 can wield the Great Lord Greatsword and Uchigatana and win without the use of my pyro regularly. My SL 48 uses her Uchi as the finisher to my parrying/riposte style since opponents at that SL range aren't really strong enough to OHKO me with any kind of attack.

@golguin: Sure your level 111 guy doesn't have to use any magic, but he probably has a few sorceries and miracles collected along the way in addition the the pyromancies. My biggest point remains that character class as a concept in any game is rendered moot when any class can become anything. I think they should give each class some unique attributes that have an effect on your talent tree progression throughout the whole game. Either that or remove the classes all together.

I think it would make for a more interesting game if there were trade offs. Say you had the choice to make your pyromancies more powerful but you're effectiveness with swords was decreased. You now have the possibility for two types of pyro dex characters where there was only one before. If there were modifiers like this similar to the Traits in Fallout games with good and bad side effects, I think it would allow for a lot more specialization and diversity in the characters.

I hope they finally get around to making enemy targeting not be semi broken half the time, oh unless of course, that somehow detracts from the core gameplay elements! In that case never mind FROM don't fix anything I mean I don't want to be seen as a pussy because I want some things to work smoother!

@rebgav: You'd be surprised how many people don't have any issues with the targeting and would literally not change a single thing.

@rebgav: You paraphrase me incorrectly when you say I suggest "adding restrictions". I'm talking about adding more player choice. Having the option to choose Fallout style traits is not restricting anyone, as you can simply say "no thanks" and be on your way.

With that said, adding certain restrictions can improve the game. Let's say Pyromancer class gets an attribute or spell or something (independent of stats) that no other class gets. And some other class gets some kind of dex based sword buff. Now, if you want to make a pyro dex guy you have a choice to make. A choice that will force you to consider how you play: I like fire and swords...but which do I like more?

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is make the classes matter, or take them out. But to me, having character classes in your game implies some kind of difference between the classes. It goes beyond stats too, how cool would it be to have the story change based on your class? Give the people that picked the Depraved some kind of cutscene or story nugget

It seems odd that I find myself in a thread whose subject is hypothetical changes for a sequel, and I am met not with brainstorming and spitballing ideas back and forth. Instead it is people telling me the status quo is fine.

As long it's more Dark Souls, cool.

To be clear, I am not suggesting my examples as specific things that need to be in the game. They are merely examples, as I am forced to go into detail since people keep misunderstanding me.

All I want is them to give each class more of a unique identity to differentiate them, however they choose to do it. Give them backstory, unique stories, unique talents, whatever. I'm not suggesting a complete overhaul, just switch it up a bit.

Yes the system is just fine in Dark Souls. The good thing about that is it will always be there for you to enjoy it. For sequels, I would much rather any game developer try new things and stumble than just rehashing past success.

@rebgav said:

A Dex-Pyro does have a choice to make, does he put his souls into upgrading that flame and buying more pyromancies or does he spend the souls on his build and his melee weapon? Does he specialize in Greater pyromancies or Chaos pyromancies? Does he spec his weapon towards plain damage or elemental damage or bleeding? The conflict is inherent to the economy, as everything costs the same currency which is in limited supply at the higher levels due to the costs scaling.

When I say they can add more player choice, that is not equivalent to saying there currently exists no player choice. I am fully aware of everything in this paragraph.

They can do better. The hunter class could *gasp* be proficient enough at ranged combat to survive with that as her main attack. A damage dealing class should be able to dual wield weapons more effectively. There are improvements to be made, the system is not perfect.

@rebgav said:

Do they need to take the classes out, given that they already don't matter? As I said before, they exist to tutorialize. That is their function. People complain that the mechanics of the game are obfuscated, in this particular instance players are given a wealth of information about basic character builds.

Characters do have their own stories and their own skills, their own identities, which are acquired through play and the choices you make. If you really want to role-play a character type then the information is in the game to allow you to do that, you only need to find the information and collect the gear and give your character the proper abilities. The options are there, it's up to you to mold the character as you see fit.

Once again, I'm not sure why you think I deny any of this. All of what you say is true, and all of what you say can be improved upon. Classes can continue to be a tutorial while still having unique traits not found in other classes. Adding the latter does not negate the former. Characters do have stories, but that aspect can be fleshed out to the point where multiple playthroughs with different classes provides a more unique and varied experience than it currently does.

scaled co-op

I can't take this...

@Tesla: I feel like I already talked about this in this thread (might've been the other one), but I think you've misunderstood what the classes in the Souls games are about. First let's just make one thing clear, there are no real classes in these games. You say either dump it or improve it, and they already dumped it. No matter what character you play you can do anything and everything, if there were classes this would be untrue. Actually adding real classes would go against much of what the core philosophy of the game is.

The purpose of the class choice at the start is only to give you a platform to start the game with that allows you to play the first few hours of the game even if you don't know how to create a viable character, and giving you the same choice of playstyle for that period as if you knew how to mold a character. In Demon's Souls you had the choice of going Deprived and starting as a clear sheet to be molded, but the problem with making that the only choice is that then they need to dump every single possible choice on you straight away or almost every new player would just go with the first thing they find. Can you even imagine anyone would go with a main pyromancer build considering you have to beat 3 bosses before you even know it's a possibility ?

Would you feel more comfortable with it if they just called it "Starting Pack" instead ?

@Tesla said:

@golguin: Sure your level 111 guy doesn't have to use any magic, but he probably has a few sorceries and miracles collected along the way in addition the the pyromancies. My biggest point remains that character class as a concept in any game is rendered moot when any class can become anything. I think they should give each class some unique attributes that have an effect on your talent tree progression throughout the whole game. Either that or remove the classes all together.

I think it would make for a more interesting game if there were trade offs. Say you had the choice to make your pyromancies more powerful but you're effectiveness with swords was decreased. You now have the possibility for two types of pyro dex characters where there was only one before. If there were modifiers like this similar to the Traits in Fallout games with good and bad side effects, I think it would allow for a lot more specialization and diversity in the characters.

My SL 111 character has every spell in the game, but that doesn't mean I invested the stats into faith or intelligence to use them. You are absolutely wrong in thinking that any class can become anything at the drop of a hat. Every starting character at the beginning of the game has the potential to become anything the player wants at the start of the game, but roads start to close off to you as you increase your soul level and start to make decide what weapons you'll want to use and what type of spells you'd like to able to use effectively.

The trade off is that specializing in one particular combat decision (strength, dex, faith, intelligence, health, and endurance) is what makes you unique to other people. My choices on my SL 111 character means that I am much weaker than I normally would be if I had known what I wanted to be when I first created this character. I put points into a variety of stats that are of no use to me. I have 8 attunement slots that were very useful in PVE, but are essentially useless in the way I PVP.

I want to emphasize that if you have only experienced PVP as high as SL 60 you have no idea what you are talking about. Builds take shape at SL100-120 for PVP. This talk of unique class attributes on a talent tree show a gross misunderstanding of the PVP that actually happens in the game.

@Tesla said:

@rebgav: You paraphrase me incorrectly when you say I suggest "adding restrictions". I'm talking about adding more player choice. Having the option to choose Fallout style traits is not restricting anyone, as you can simply say "no thanks" and be on your way.

With that said, adding certain restrictions can improve the game. Let's say Pyromancer class gets an attribute or spell or something (independent of stats) that no other class gets. And some other class gets some kind of dex based sword buff. Now, if you want to make a pyro dex guy you have a choice to make. A choice that will force you to consider how you play: I like fire and swords...but which do I like more?

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is make the classes matter, or take them out. But to me, having character classes in your game implies some kind of difference between the classes. It goes beyond stats too, how cool would it be to have the story change based on your class? Give the people that picked the Depraved some kind of cutscene or story nugget

It seems odd that I find myself in a thread whose subject is hypothetical changes for a sequel, and I am met not with brainstorming and spitballing ideas back and forth. Instead it is people telling me the status quo is fine.

Let's not talk about hypothetical situations with the Pyromancer and lets talk about reality. Here is the reality. If your character wants to use pyromancy and you have not invested 40-45 dex stat points into your character you are not going to hit anyone. Let's assume you do want to use pyromancy effectively and you've made the stat investment. Your are currently aiming at SL 60 and you want to use a weapon to fight effectively. What type of scaling weapon are you going to use? How many attunement slots are you going to have? What pyromancy spells are you going to attune? How high will you make your endurance stat to combine with equipment to decided on a slow, medium, fast, or flip dodge? How much vitality will you sacrifice in making these decisions?

We are talking reality so I'd like to hear from you what you would actually do.

@rebgav said:

The rest of your argument is "they should add more stuff and make improvements" which is utterly banal. Of course they should do those things, no-one is arguing against that.

When I say they should add more story context to the character classes, and you respond by saying it is already there and leave it at that, you are in essence saying no improvements need to be made. How unfortunate you had to resort to insults too, this will be our last communication.

@golguin said:

Let's not talk about hypothetical situations with the Pyromancer and lets talk about reality. Here is the reality. If your character wants to use pyromancy and you have not invested 40-45 dex stat points into your character you are not going to hit anyone. Let's assume you do want to use pyromancy effectively and you've made the stat investment. Your are currently aiming at SL 60 and you want to use a weapon to fight effectively. What type of scaling weapon are you going to use? How many attunement slots are you going to have? What pyromancy spells are you going to attune? How high will you make your endurance stat to combine with equipment to decided on a slow, medium, fast, or flip dodge? How much vitality will you sacrifice in making these decisions?

We are talking reality so I'd like to hear from you what you would actually do.

Why are we talking reality and not hypothetical? This is not a thread about Dark Souls...this is a thread to discuss hypotheticals in Dark Souls 2. I said what I wanted in the sequel. I'm not wrong, you aren't right. It's all opinions and conjecture and I'm more interested in thinking about possible ways to change the game for the sequel, not pull out my Dark Souls dick and measure it with you.

I hope they dumb it down and make it more English.

@golguin said:

I want to emphasize that if you have only experienced PVP as high as SL 60 you have no idea what you are talking about. Builds take shape at SL100-120 for PVP. This talk of unique class attributes on a talent tree show a gross misunderstanding of the PVP that actually happens in the game.

I bow to your superior knowledge and skills oh wise golguin. I should think twice before opening my mouth next time eh? Well done putting me in my place.

@Tesla said:

@golguin said:

Let's not talk about hypothetical situations with the Pyromancer and lets talk about reality. Here is the reality. If your character wants to use pyromancy and you have not invested 40-45 dex stat points into your character you are not going to hit anyone. Let's assume you do want to use pyromancy effectively and you've made the stat investment. Your are currently aiming at SL 60 and you want to use a weapon to fight effectively. What type of scaling weapon are you going to use? How many attunement slots are you going to have? What pyromancy spells are you going to attune? How high will you make your endurance stat to combine with equipment to decided on a slow, medium, fast, or flip dodge? How much vitality will you sacrifice in making these decisions?

We are talking reality so I'd like to hear from you what you would actually do.

Why are we talking reality and not hypothetical? This is not a thread about Dark Souls...this is a thread to discuss hypotheticals in Dark Souls 2. I said what I wanted in the sequel. I'm not wrong, you aren't right. It's all opinions and conjecture and I'm more interested in thinking about possible ways to change the game for the sequel, not pull out my Dark Souls dick and measure it with you.

You are wrong in asserting that class variety does not already exist in the game and proposing a "solution" for class variety that actually limits what people can do is a bad idea. No one is stopping you from brainstorming ways to improve combat, story, level design, or whatever, but if you propose something to fix an issue without fully understanding the issue to begin with then of course people are going to call you out on it.

In an earlier example you mentioned the "hunter class" as not being proficient enough at ranged combat to have that as her main weapon. I've been killed by people who free aimed their bow and whittled me down to nothing. The Avelyn crossbow is a favorite among a bunch of builds because it's so successful in combat. People already use ranged weapons to kill bosses that are too dangerous at close range. No one is going to say that ranged classes are useless, but it would be nice to have special techniques associated with bows like the special attacks found in melee weapons.