I see alot of people who dont like this game as much as demon souls or dark souls make the argument that both those games are challenging but fair and if you play correctly and not hack and slash they not that difficult of games. Now for dark souls 2 i see alot of people say this game is hard just to be hard unlike demon souls or dark souls 1 and it does not actually add to the game. I have also heard the bosses are no where near as creative and all they do is throw alot of enemies at you at same time as boss just to make it harder. I have not played it my self but this is just from reading up on this game i have yet to play.

This was video i was watching start at 2:30

Sounds like the diablo 3 of the series good game but not up to the past games.

No people are crazy it is just as good as Dark Souls and Demons Souls if not better. I really liked it because it feels like a mixture of Dark and Demons. People forget all of the terrible bosses in Dark Souls. So yea if you like the Souls games play it! I think my preference is Demons Souls, Dark Souls 2, and then Dark Souls. Dark Souls 2 does not have the Bull Shit areas like the Crystal Caves and its dark area is not as annoying as Blightown.

Disappointing probably isn't quite the right word, but that game has a lot of flaws that even casual Dark Souls fans will notice. It's still one of the best games of 2014.

The B team made a great effort, but they just don't compare to Miyazaki and his team. Here's to Bloodborne being a masterpiece which i'm positive will be the case.

Not being as good as the other 2 doesn't make it a bad game.

It's all relative. It's still better than most games out there and worth playing.

Like Feathered says- it's one of the best games from last year.

Uh Dark Souls 1 is by far the cheapest of all the Souls games. Like I have said on this forum many times I don't recall Dark Souls 2 relying on passages that were paper thin in multiple locations, invisible walkways, archers firing lances from so far away they wouldn't even load on screen, or ass loads of lava being patrolled by dinosaurs that one or two shot you. If I had to rate all the souls games up to this point Dark Souls 2 would not be the one on the bottom and the vast majority of it's critiques are coming from gaming hipsters who say Dark Souls 1 is the greatest because it is popular to do so while they also can't be bothered to even try Demon's Souls to begin with.

Long story short. Dark Souls 2 is a great game. If you liked Dark Souls 1 or Demon's Souls you will like it. Unless of course an illogical map layout is your idea of a make of break game feature.

And PS: The guy who made that video is the last person you should talk to about anything relating to a Souls game.

I haven't finished Dark Souls 1, but that game has an excellent sense of place and geography and the lore seems a lot more interesting. Plus the bosses and areas tend to be a lot more interesting visually.

That said, if you want to talk about pure gameplay - level design and mechanics and feel and balance - Dark Souls 2 (a game I have finished) is much better.

It's still a good game, but it's hard for me to even consider it in the same franchise as Demon's and Dark. It's just missing a creative vision. It feels like fanfic of Dark Souls.

Dark Souls 2 is a great game! I don't feel that it lives up to the original, but there is still a lot to love. Personally the lore in 1 felt more in tune with the world. You are cast into this world of mythical figures that you have to battle against to some unknown end. The stat management, digging for lore, and the amazing scope of the world. That's what made DS1 great.

...and you kinda just do it again in 2. So:

this, basically.




And fuck the Royal Rat Authority. Forever.

Really every video i have watched and posts say Dark souls 2 is cheap and other 2 games are fair.

It's still a great game. It's not perfect, but neither are the other two Souls games.

I'd personally rank it below Dark Souls 1, but I still loved my time with it and am planning to go back for a second round once it's released for PS4.

Dark Souls 2 is... fine. In a vacuum it would be one of the greatest games ever made, but Dark Souls proper creates such a great, living world that is put together so seamlessly (save maybe for Anor Londo) you really start to see it as a real place. I can effortlessly draw the entire world map of DS1 in my head, from the Ash Lake to Sen's Fortress, but DS2 is muddled and meandering. Uninspired.

I don't especially find DS2 difficult*, but it's so derivative that, once you get good at Souls style combat, I don't see why you would have extend difficulty with the mechanics and systems.

*Except for the Smelter Demon. Fuck the Smelter Demon.

Edit: @bcooper21: I also really don't know what makes encounters "fair" or not. Ornstein and Smough in DS1 aren't fair after the co-op player base has fallen off and you have to fight them alone. That run up to the final boss in Demon's Souls is definitely not "fair". The framerate in Blighttown in DS1 is not fair. The Smelter Demon in DS2 isn't fair.

But them's the breaks. It's Souls.

Dark Souls 2 is a great place to start if you've never played a souls game, then play Demon's or Dark Souls, both also great. They all have their terrible parts..

It was the best game in 2014.

It is the worst souls game.

THIS GAME OWNS. ANYONE WHO CANNOT SEE THAT IS A FOOL.

It's a good game. Don't listen to anyone else. I had fun playing it just like I had fun playing the other two. The only difference with 2 is that it's more accessible but that's not a bad thing. People who say 1 is better are wrong because each games is better and worse in a lot of ways.

@bcooper21: a good chunk of the reaction against ds2 came from people who loved dark souls and hadn't played demon's souls. soul memory was one thing that put people off, the map being spread out was another, and the re-focus on co-op was, inadvertently, through the perhaps enhanced difficulty of soloing, another. those people can make videos all they want. but for me, who played all three on day one, ds2 is the best game because it has the better co-op environment (and i feel the difficulty was built around that), and a higher degree of character customization, as well as more solid mechanics. but the important thing here - a wave of internet opinion is never worth relying on, by all means make your own mind up.

@hh: Can you extrapolate on the co-op? I mean obviously the co-op mechanics are way better because they work consistently, instead of when the stars align and hell freezes over like in 1. However, when it comes to content, I really can't get behind 2 as a more fun co-op game. With the small arenas and generally single target centric nature of most bosses, they just don't feel designed to be played with multiple players for any reason other than to make it easy, like a skip button. If only the dragon bosses were any good, then maybe I could be more into it. :/

Though I'll give credit where it's due, at least none of them are 100% broken in co-op (looking at you Moonlight Butterfly).

@tobbrobb: sure.

when i played through it i felt like all of the mid-level bosses were there to facilitate relatively inexperienced players being able to handle what to do after one or two attempts, with or without help, and then being able to put their own summon signs down relatively quickly, in the first playthrough, and help out in the same way. those bosses encouraged people to learn to help with, rather than rely on, co-op play. that's what happened to me, i never felt confident enough in earlier souls games to expect other players to rely on me, but this time i was put on a path that felt a lot more rewarding than playing alone, and by the end of my first playthrough i was able to help with all the bosses, the upper tier of which felt designed to require co-op to beat, without a great deal of frustration at least, like the three sentinels in Lost Bastille.

likewise for difficult sections like the shrine of amana, which i had no issue with the first time through as i had, by chance, a magic shield spell on hand, which negated all of that ranged damage. Thus before that section was nerfed i spent several evenings guiding players through, and it was one of the best gaming experiences i've ever had. I feel like the backlash about that section would never have occurred if players had been more willing to summon.

using a souls game as a proving ground or a point of pride seems to me to be misinterpreting the whole enterprise, in the case of ds2 in particular, especially when it results in demanding unnecessary nerfs on the internet. the soul memory mechanic was well established from the get-go and it was clear the game wanted to move away from the arrogance of griefers and show-offs, which dark souls, not at all by design, cultivated. solo the stuff if you want, but electing to miss out on co-op amounts to missing out on the real fun of the game as I experienced it.

@hh: That makes a lot of sense. In the original, the early bosses (taurus and capra) were incredibly unfriendly for co-op play and borderline traumatizing for new players in solo. So I definitely see your point of the early game bosses in 2 cultivating more confidence and will to let yourself be summoned and setting up the gateway for co-oping later on, which DS1 one really didn't at all. That is also very much in line with the intent and theme of the summoning system to begin with. Community helping community. My point of view where I'm looking for a Monster Hunter style bossrush experience with friends is sadly not supported in the same way, but I suppose in an either or they made the most fitting choice for the game.

Shrine of Amana I just think is a drag of unfun gameplay. Nerf or buff it all they want, I just know I don't want to be there more than a couple of minutes alone or with friends. >.>

using a souls game as a proving ground or a point of pride seems to me to be misinterpreting the whole enterprise, and in the case of ds2 missing the point of the game, especially when it results in demanding unnecessary nerfs on the internet.

Not sure what you are referencing here? What does pride have to do with the nerfing. Wouldn't someone who used the game as a badge of pride want it to be harder?

@tobbrobb said:

at the time i read a lot of complaints about certain parts of the game and certain bosses being too hard, complaints from players who wanted to solo everything. when dark souls became really popular it seemed like there was a culture of elitism surrounding it, among all the new players, like it was used as a differentiator - only 'hardcore' players could handle it, going into ds2 with that mindset caused a lot of people to ignore summoning completely, it was a point of pride to be able to handle the game alone. amana would not have caused such a stink if players just summoned and learned immediately, by watching their co-op buddy, what strategies (relying on your shield alone wasn't going to cut it this time) were being used to get through it, but a good section of them refused, and demanded nerfs instead.

@bcooper21: I edited the grammar in your thread title. Your post probably needs some tidying as well. I have to throw this up here as a reminder, taken from our forum rules:

Posts that are difficult to understand due to poor grammar, excessive misspellings, or other legibility issues may be edited or deleted. Posts made in languages other than English will also be deleted, as the moderation staff has a limited ability to discern which of these posts fall within the forum guidelines.

This time is fine, but please keep this in mind when posting in future. Thanks.

In a word, YES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOuwY3Ty1WI

@hh: But. But. It was totally doable solo. It was frustrating and tedious, but it wasn't impossible. How does a thought process even go from taking pride in your solo-play expertise to asking the developers to make it easier for you... Though I suppose it's a somewhat legitimate complaint if you are a less skilled player in an offline environment, but that is not how the game was designed to be played...

I always play the games solo first, but I at least have the sense to know that It's my own fault some sections are harder than they should be.

Ah whatever, people and their egos are silly things.

@tobbrobb: i think the problem in amana's case was that the standard shield was, for the first time, rendered useless, and many players had built shield-centric characters, so making that section a smooth experience involved either relying on other players or re-jigging your character, which would have required a bit of backtracking and time etc.

Dark Souls 2 is an incredible game, people (like Patrick on GOTY) were overreacting to the fact that it is not as impressive as the original. Anyone who liked a Souls game should like 2 as well, it might not be as great as the others, but its still better than most videogames. Sort of reminds me of the reaction to Uncharted 3, which was a great game in its own right, but not as mindblowing as 2 in its time.

About it being cheap or not, I don't think it was "worse" about this kind of stuff than the other games. Honestly, once I upgraded my weapon to the max and got a nice set of armor, the later half/third of the game was the easiest time I've had on a Souls game, with a lot of boss fights ending on the first to fifth try.

@hh: No idea what you guys are on about, on my first playthrough which was shield centered I had shield for each element(since you can carry as much stuff as you want) and I recall having something quite efficient for that section and I figured armor was pointless so I breezed through that section with my naked magic shielded lady without much issue. The only difficulty was noticing those guys burried under water. Though after a death or two you can quite easily spot them and their patterns. Now some people I know kind of ditch health and stamina and go all out on other stats(attunement? really?), they deserve their fate.

@gamefreak9: sure, but if you didn't have a shield with high magic resist it would have required going back to find one, possibly upgrading it etc. also did you play at launch? that section was nerfed dramatically quite early on, within the first couple of weeks i think.

@gamefreak9: I don't neccessarily think shields are bad for that section, definitely not anymore at least. I just think it sucks butt walking through the water and getting needled by projectiles, it turns into a 3D bullethell game that plays like shit, with murky pitfalls under the water and assholes to push you into said pits. Nier did the awful bullethell section better, which is a thing I rarely get to say.

Though I just want to point out that Amana has gone through mutliple revisions, where vanilla was by far the hardest. If you first played it on PC you haven't seen what the initial bitching was actually about. Without decently specific preparation (that you had no idea you needed to prepare for) it felt like a pretty cheap area. Without a magic shield, ranged weapon or a solidly excessive buffer of health/damage it's a huge hassle to play. (poor rogue wannabes)

@hh: I did play at launch. Having to backtrack in Dark Souls is basically part of the gameplay, especially when they give you the teleport option from the very beginning. Like checking all the vendors shields and upgrading them probably takes a maximum of 5 minutes. Its very common for me at least to go into a boss fight poke around with different weopons and then go and get the appropriate equipment(if necessary), the three guardians for instance I needed a blunt weopon, this became routine once I figured out that the death ring was repairable since my first playthrough was + difficulty via champions covenant it was actually very affordable to experiment.

@gamefreak9: yeah, i love it when an rpg forces me to restrategize, but many players, my brother is one, only have limited hours to play and get easily frustrated when they come up against a wall that requires backtracking and rethinking to go around (5 mins is a bit of a stretch, even if you know exactly where to go). i happened to have a build that was suitable for amana first time through, and it was my favorite section of the game, both because of the atmosphere and because i got summoned there so often, and got a lot of appreciative emotes after successful runs.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. Dark Souls is not a difficult game. It is challenging, but not difficult. It took me 120 hours to beat it the first time. People beat it in under 55 minutes. People beat it at level 1. People beat it using a guitar controller. People beat it unarmed. The genius of the design of Dark Souls is that there are so many different ways to play it and succeed. The same can be said of Dark Souls 2. I just don't think Dark Souls 2 is as interesting a setting and the lore in that setting is not as compelling.

Dark Souls 2 is a great game , the only mishaps could be the not so awesome sauce bosses , but still are far better than 99% of bosses out there so there is no lose-lose in getting this game ... also do fuck smelter demon >:3

Your first Souls game is the best Souls game.

I do think that the bosses in Dark Souls II are a bit less creative and there's an overabundance of them compared to the previous Souls game. Then again, I thought the exact same thing about Dark Souls.

The gameplay itself is pretty much identical, only there are a few improvements which reward experimantation attempts. The ability to realocate your points gives the games tremendous value and doesn't put you in a position of having a worthless character because the game didn't tell you that certain stats are terrible (me in Dark souls).

I liked Dark Souls II and thought the difficulty was fine.

People just want to be hipsters about everything.

Hey hey hey! You people in here are forgetting one of the cardinal rules of the internet. Everything is either literally the best thing ever and is why humans walk this earth, or is literally poop from a butt that you should feel terrible for liking.

Get it straight people, nuance is not to be tolerated.

Dark souls 2 is better than the first in almost every aspect except one thing... bonfire traveling.

Allowing players to travel between bonfires as soon as they play the game is a huge mistake.