The Matthewmatosis critique video

  • 109 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Hassun (1378 posts) -

This is the most accurate "review" of Dark Souls 2 I have seen to date.

I do not agree with every single point he brings up and I think he doesn't mention some of the other good things the game does but I have to say I agree with most of the issues which are highlighted in this video.

Everyone who has finished the game (as there are massive spoilers) and has 50 minutes to spare should definitely check it out and maybe add your thoughts on the game to this thread.

P.S. I am in no way affiliated with this person nor do I stand to gain anything from posting it here.

#2 Posted by mrcool11 (469 posts) -

I thought this said Matthewmorphosis and would be a Matt Rorie-looking custom character. Needless to say I'm incredibly disappointed.

Also, I believe this counts as youtube spam

#3 Posted by Domineeto (129 posts) -

This isn't a review, but I largely agree with the points made in the video. I also went into all Souls games blind with a similar build for each game and Dark Souls II was the biggest bummer. I probably sound like a drama queen but after finishing the game I spent the next two days moping around in depression. I haven't played it or thought about it much since but looking back at it, it is a very good game. It just lacks the vision and coherence the first two Souls games had. It won't stick with me as much as Dark Souls or Demon's Souls but I will probably play through a few more times on PC, I actually like some of the changes made to accommodate challenge runs and such so I'll probably try my hand at a few of those.

#4 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

I hate this overly nitpicky culture we have on youtube.

Nitpick nitpick nitpick. I'm not watching a god damn hour long video of a guy nitpicking his way through a game. If you dont like it, thats fine.

I like dark souls 2 more than dark souls 1. I think it's better in just about every way. if you disagree, thats fine. We're different people. But i won't suffer through an hour of some youtubers video just to hear him whine and nitpick things arent exactly what he wanted because i dont care.

#5 Edited by Sterling (2439 posts) -

He made some good points, but its nothing no on here hasn't already said. Hes not giving us any new information, nothing that most all of us souls fans are not already aware of. All that aside, I like 2 much more than 1.

#6 Edited by handlas (2697 posts) -

@clonedzero: He's nitpicking but then you say you didn't watch the video?

Most of his points are valid. Probably all of them. He's going in far more depth than I can understand since I don't pay enough attention to the story or anything. However, everything he says about it makes sense to how I felt while playing through it. I said before that I felt directionless through much of Dark Souls 2. I had no idea what my purpose was or where I should be going at certain points in the story. He explains why that is pretty well. And his points on the bosses are good. I pointed out the laziness of some of the bosses when the game came out... like completely rehashing two of them from DS1 and people disagreed with me somehow...

#7 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -
@handlas said:

@clonedzero: He's nitpicking but then you say you didn't watch the video?

Most of his points are valid. Probably all of them. He's going in far more depth than I can understand since I don't pay enough attention to the story or anything. However, everything he says about it makes sense to how I felt while playing through it. I said before that I felt directionless through much of Dark Souls 2. I had no idea what my purpose was or where I should be going at certain points in the story. He explains why that is pretty well. And his points on the bosses are good. I pointed out the laziness of some of the bosses when the game came out... like completely rehashing two of them from DS1 and people disagreed with me somehow...

I watched the first bit of the video and i could tell it was just going to be nitpick after nitpick. You can nitpick ANYTHING to death.

I felt directionless through most of dark souls 1, same as i did in dark souls 2. The souls games are directionless. Its sorta a thing.

Dark souls 1. ring two bells, then get a thingy, then kill 4 dudes then choose to light a fire or not. Dark souls 2. Kill 4 dudes, find the king, talk to hte dragon, go to the throne.

Both are rather direcitonless and vague. Acting like dark souls 1 had more direction is CRAZY and speaking in pure hindsight.

ALso laziness of bosses? You mean like reusing the same damn boss THREE TIMES in the same game like dark souls 1 does? asylum demon, stray demon, firesage demon? COME ON.

People have to stop acting like dark souls 1 was this perfect masterpiece when comparing it to dark souls 2. It's why i dont have the patience for this nonsense. Dark souls 1 shit all over itself in the post anor lando phase of the game. All the lord soul bosses were easy as hell, the lord soul zones were easy as hell and poorly designed. The whole last half of the game was badly designed in dark souls 1. Acting like dark souls 1 is a masterpiece when comparing it to two is the fastest way for me to not care about your opinion. Go ahead and have it, i just dont care.

#8 Posted by HeyGuys (535 posts) -

This isn't a review, but I largely agree with the points made in the video. I also went into all Souls games blind with a similar build for each game and Dark Souls II was the biggest bummer. I probably sound like a drama queen but after finishing the game I spent the next two days moping around in depression. I haven't played it or thought about it much since but looking back at it, it is a very good game. It just lacks the vision and coherence the first two Souls games had. It won't stick with me as much as Dark Souls or Demon's Souls but I will probably play through a few more times on PC, I actually like some of the changes made to accommodate challenge runs and such so I'll probably try my hand at a few of those.

I feel very much the same way you do. Taking a step back I can see how high the quality of the experience is, notice a lot of the refinements made to the game, and appreciate how much fun I had with the game, but I think Miyazaki was an auteur that left an impression on the previous games that couldn't be imitated.

#9 Edited by Domineeto (129 posts) -

@clonedzero: I think it's good we have this kind of content, it creates thoughtful discussion about a game. A lot of it is really bad and preachy and goes after easy targets (CynicalBrit and AngryJoe) but Matt and a handful of other guys are putting out some top quality stuff.

With that said, hopefully the directors take what they learned and how the community reacts to Dark Souls II and takes it to heart with the inevitable Dark Souls III. I'm even more excited to see what Miyizaki has on the burner.

#10 Edited by tourgen (4542 posts) -

multiple enemies during boss fights: Strength of DSII not a weakness. It's more interesting. You may have gotten comfortable fighting 1-on-1 and build your character to optimize for that. My issue is people sniveling about how unfair it is for them to have to face multiple enemies or trash+boss encounters. Oh wow, sorry the game isn't catering to your preferred playstyle dude. Whiner.

Most of the other points are standard youtube crybaby whining too. The multiple enemies knock is just the one that bugs me most.

EDIT: yeah he's right on about the level design and world design though. It's kind of a mess.

#11 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1782 posts) -

I more or less agree with the video, but I still like the game a hell of a lot. It is a shame though, how much if shows that the old team wasn't on board for this project.

#12 Posted by development (2425 posts) -

Dark Souls 2 should have had cars.

#13 Posted by golguin (3964 posts) -

My main problem with even attempting to watch someone critique the mechanics of a Souls game is that 99% of the time I know that I know more about it than the other person.

Without even watching the video the only real complaint I have concerning the combat system in Dark Souls 2 is that the hitboxes on some weapons are totally screwed up. You can't simply back up and move out of range anymore like you could in Dark Souls 1. You now have to dodge attacks that you know are out of range.

#14 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

I call bullshit.

He is just being critical for the sake of being critical. A lot of his points also apply to Dark Souls, yet he keeps using Dark Souls as a reference of how to do it 'right' by only giving examples that support his critique of Dark Souls 2, while not acknowledging those issues he has with it are very much present in Dark Souls.

To illustrate, I quote: 'The Royal Rat Authority has 4 rats in front of it simply to make the fight harder. If you kill the 4 rats, the fight is practically over'. After which he says this is an issue of 'If you can't make it good, make it difficult' philosophy.

Okay, guy. Capra Demon is the exact same boss fight as Royal Rat Authority. If you kill the 2 dogs, the fight is practically over, but because they are there and you can't be sure to kill them before you get killed by Capra Demon, it just becomes difficult.

Also, from seeing him play it just seems he never was clued in that shields aren't as effective as before. He says the two Dragonriders are difficult because it is hard to keep both of them on screen and you cannot attack Throne Watcher and Defender until you're defended against all their attacks. What? You can just dodge and then attack, then dodge again. With the Dragonriders, you can completely isolate the bow wielding one. Since they have low health, it isn't that hard of a fight. Again, both of these are just much, much better versions of the Smough and Ornstein fight.

Surprising that so many agree with this critique. I don't agree with most of it. Nearly all of it can be traced back to Dark Souls and a lot of it seems to be just his inability to adapt.

#15 Posted by Domineeto (129 posts) -

@zevvion: Never thought about it that way. I'm looking forward to trying the game out again soon. I liked Demon's Souls my first time around but the second time I didn't like it as much, maybe the opposite will hold true for Dark Souls II.

#16 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@zevvion said:

I call bullshit.

He is just being critical for the sake of being critical. A lot of his points also apply to Dark Souls, yet he keeps using Dark Souls as a reference of how to do it 'right' by only giving examples that support his critique of Dark Souls 2, while not acknowledging those issues he has with it are very much present in Dark Souls.

To illustrate, I quote: 'The Royal Rat Authority has 4 rats in front of it simply to make the fight harder. If you kill the 4 rats, the fight is practically over'. After which he says this is an issue of 'If you can't make it good, make it difficult' philosophy.

Okay, guy. Capra Demon is the exact same boss fight as Royal Rat Authority. If you kill the 2 dogs, the fight is practically over, but because they are there and you can't be sure to kill them before you get killed by Capra Demon, it just becomes difficult.

Also, from seeing him play it just seems he never was clued in that shields aren't as effective as before. He says the two Dragonriders are difficult because it is hard to keep both of them on screen and you cannot attack Throne Watcher and Defender until you're defended against all their attacks. What? You can just dodge and then attack, then dodge again. With the Dragonriders, you can completely isolate the bow wielding one. Since they have low health, it isn't that hard of a fight. Again, both of these are just much, much better versions of the Smough and Ornstein fight.

Surprising that so many agree with this critique. I don't agree with most of it. Nearly all of it can be traced back to Dark Souls and a lot of it seems to be just his inability to adapt.

I agree with this. It seems that he makes some criticism just to make them. Like in the very beginning of the video, he says about how the character is male to begin with and then is awkwardly replaced to the player's choosing. His arguments ? "Introduction depict your wife and child.". Uh no ? For all we know, it's a woman and a child, it could be a sister, a mother or any woman holding a children. "The player is male to begin with, you can see it by taking the cloth off". Yeah right, because having clothes that hide the gender count for nothing in the first place. "A decision that is retropedalled in the character choosing." Or... maybe it's a RP friendly way to introduce you to the game and the character creation mechanics... AND your primary mean to become human ?

Next "plot is played a lot poorly, in Dark Souls 1, you are asked to ring bells and when you do, you are asked to find the lordvessel to link the Fire, while in Dark Souls 2 you are told to break the curse and you don't know why." Just... Wut ? Yeah because in the begenning of Dark Souls, the prophecy is really cristal clear right ? Right ? Oh wait, no... It's speaking about "an undead that leaves the undead asylum to pilgrimmage... and someone in the asylum asks you to ring the bells." You know why ? Except, nope... you don't know why until halfway through the game and then it's just as poorly done than in Dark Souls 2.

He do some good points, bu nothing new and it's drowned under hypocritical criticism.

#17 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@myrmicus said:

@zevvion said:

I call bullshit.

He is just being critical for the sake of being critical. A lot of his points also apply to Dark Souls, yet he keeps using Dark Souls as a reference of how to do it 'right' by only giving examples that support his critique of Dark Souls 2, while not acknowledging those issues he has with it are very much present in Dark Souls.

To illustrate, I quote: 'The Royal Rat Authority has 4 rats in front of it simply to make the fight harder. If you kill the 4 rats, the fight is practically over'. After which he says this is an issue of 'If you can't make it good, make it difficult' philosophy.

Okay, guy. Capra Demon is the exact same boss fight as Royal Rat Authority. If you kill the 2 dogs, the fight is practically over, but because they are there and you can't be sure to kill them before you get killed by Capra Demon, it just becomes difficult.

Also, from seeing him play it just seems he never was clued in that shields aren't as effective as before. He says the two Dragonriders are difficult because it is hard to keep both of them on screen and you cannot attack Throne Watcher and Defender until you're defended against all their attacks. What? You can just dodge and then attack, then dodge again. With the Dragonriders, you can completely isolate the bow wielding one. Since they have low health, it isn't that hard of a fight. Again, both of these are just much, much better versions of the Smough and Ornstein fight.

Surprising that so many agree with this critique. I don't agree with most of it. Nearly all of it can be traced back to Dark Souls and a lot of it seems to be just his inability to adapt.

Next "plot is played a lot poorly, in Dark Souls 1, you are asked to ring bells and when you do, you are asked to find the lordvessel to link the Fire, while in Dark Souls 2 you are told to break the curse and you don't know why." Just... Wut ? Yeah because in the begenning of Dark Souls, the prophecy is really cristal clear right ? Right ? Oh wait, no... It's speaking about "an undead that leaves the undead asylum to pilgrimmage... and someone in the asylum asks you to ring the bells." You know why ? Except, nope... you don't know why until halfway through the game and then it's just as poorly done than in Dark Souls 2.

He do some good points, bu nothing new and it's drowned under hypocritical criticism.

Yeah, this left me all sorts of confused. He just writes off Dark Souls 2's plot by making it seem poor it himself. You can easily do the same for the first Dark Souls.

He is taking dialogue and item descriptions into account for the first Dark Souls and then proceeds to say that if you do not listen to all dialogue and read item descriptions in Dark Souls 2 it doesn't make much sense. What?

First, you have no idea why you need to ring the two bells or why the hell there are two of them in the first place unless you talk to several people and read some item descriptions. Also, why are you going to kill the four great ones? Because Frampt says something that makes it seem like a good idea? Why?

But then in Dark Souls 2, you very early on are told to kill 4 great ones because that will allow you to speak to Vendrick. But no, that doesn't count because you had to talk to Emerald Herald and then it isn't clear why you need to speak to King Vendrick? What? He makes no sense whatsoever with that segment. Both games have plots that aren't the most clear thing in the world. As with almost anything in his video though, he takes something in Dark Souls 2 that is also present in Dark Souls and says it's bad while not acknowledging it was in Dark Souls also.

It's really, really poor criticism.

#18 Edited by Yummylee (22030 posts) -

Hearing that this guy had trouble with the Prowling Magus and dual dragonrider boss fights already kinda negate his criticisms with the boss battles I think... I mean c'mon now, they're both two of the easiest boss battles in the game! His complaints also directed towards The Throne Defender & Watcher honestly just makes it sound like he's a guy who had trouble with the game, ergo it's poorly designed.

I can understand any sentiments directed at Dark Souls II feeling a little uninspired, but the way there's a sect of people out there making it sound like a total mess in comparison to the original Dark Souls is crazy. Dark Souls was far from perfect as well, and like @clonedzero mention, they even recycle a boss battle twice.

I should of course watch the whole video before I completely write off the guy's criticisms... but it's made for a pretty poor opening thus far to be honest.

Also, unrelated, but this guy sounds a lot like a monotone Danny O'Dwyer. O_o

EDITS!:

  • OK, I can definitely agree with the ridiculous amount of tracking that can happen with a lot of enemy attacks, that always seemed a bit out of whack.
  • Though his criticism about fighting multiple enemies is once again null & void because of how often it would still occur in previous Souls games. Fighting multiple skeletons (sometimes of the giant variety) in both Demon's and Dark Souls was very common, and there's scenarios like when you're facing like 6 painting guardians... that is unless you exploit their AI and pull them one by one, which is similar to his complaint about often hanging back and poisoning enemies in Dark Souls II.
  • Now he's criticising some placement of bonfires where you can run past enemies...? Like you couldn't also run past enemies in previous Souls games? It's just as easy to run past the enemies, for example, leading up to the Firesage demon... This basically sounds like a lot of revisionist history frankly.
  • Yes, it's unfortunate that a lot of NPCs once they reach Majula don't do very much; the blacksmith's daughter is a prime example, I'll definitely give him that.
  • Though the appearance of yet another Crestfallen warrior at this point just seems like something of an easter egg almost, and not due to any lack of creativity. He's practically a staple of the series. Plus I at least liked how he wasn't such a bitter ass in Dark Souls II and genuinely tries to help.
  • Yes, yes the world of Dark Souls II lacks the connectivity of Dark Souls; kind of old hat at this point. Still, it never bothered me personally all that much, as it evoked Demon's Souls in its more level-like structure as opposed to the world of Dark Souls. There's a lot of environmental variety all the same in any case.
  • Oh, comon now. The idea that you're blocked off by a bit of rubble and can't climb over it is a video game problem and not strictly a Dark Souls II one. Hell, I'm sure you could find similar such examples in the other Souls games. Like, doors that you can't break down even though your weapon is like something out of Greek mythology.
  • Jesus, I have never died against the archers positioned at the Sinner's Rise bonfire... I thought their placement right next to the bonfire was just more of the Souls games being a dick, but they were never really that much of a hassle to deal with.
  • The location of Hunstman's Copse's second bonfire is indeed really weird, so one more point to him.
  • /sigh... his complaint regarding the lack of areas to tackle in whichever order you want is nonsensical. Yes, the game attempts to direct you to the Forest of Fallen Giants first--no more so than Dark Souls steering you towards Undead Burg--but there's no reason why you couldn't instead head to Heide Tower, then go down the Hunstman's Copse tree of areas, if not No Man's Warf then taking you to Lost Bastille... besides first buying the blacksmith guy from Melentia anyway. And he even states that you can go down to the Grave of Saints and then ultimately through the Gutter if you so choose. It is very much within your power to actually choose to eventually beat the Old Iron King before facing The Last Giant.
  • Wait... what, now he's saying that Dark Souls is good for giving you areas that are going to be largely inaccessible due to ghosts or invincible skeletons? And that No Man's Warf isn't that difficult WHAT IN THE WHAAAAT. Man, that is just... man.

...I don't think I can watch any more of this to be quite frank >_>

#19 Edited by Yummylee (22030 posts) -

@zevvion: Yup, everything you've written regarding his criticisms towards the plot is spot on. I'm only 15 minutes in it but so far this all seems maddening. It all comes across like someone really enjoyed the original two Souls games, perhaps thought the third one was too similar, but instead of leaving it at that he tries to examine why DSII didn't give him the satisfaction as its predecessors

Any complaints that Dark Souls II is too similar to Dark Souls are valid and perfectly understandable. And that's what it sounds like all this video amounts to; the spark that was ignited via the two games isn't there anymore for him, and instead of accepting that he trails off and just makes up a bunch of his own criticisms (or at least criticisms that are just as valid in the prior games) so as to try and better understand his disappointment.

#20 Posted by Lyisa (372 posts) -

I haven't watched the video (if it didn't have spoilers I would have) but a lot of the complaints about Dark Souls II seem to be the same as the ones Demon Souls players had about Dark Souls. Maybe its just the way these games are constructed that provoke reactions like this, or maybe I'm just remembering those arguments wrong, but it seems really familiar.

#21 Edited by Draugen (663 posts) -

Lotsa nitpicking and personal opinions presented as fact. And alot of good points as well. I liked Dark Souls 2, but was never as engaged as I was by Dark Souls 1. Still, I manged to get to the end, which is more than I can say for Demon's Souls.

#22 Posted by EuanDewar (5023 posts) -

hope somebody makes an hour long critique video of this hour long critique video.

circle of fuck boys

#23 Posted by Jazz_Bcaz (271 posts) -

3 and a half minutes in, I'm not interested in a perspective that amounts to having has his nose squished up against the tree. The points are already incredibly tenuous, uninteresting and completely meaningless in the context of the wider experience, but whatever, he's welcome to blurt out an opinion.

Luckily everyone in this thread seems capable of spotting blatant double standards. I'm not saying there aren't problems with the game, but there are problems with the DS1 as well. I know the interconnectedness of DS1 is a marvel in retrospect, but remember how off putting that first funnel is. Consider the frequent advice to "stick with it" followed by the more frequent concession "I hated it at first too" we so often see. The divergent paths in DS2 are far more approachable in that they offer a new player practical options (while still offering a fairly clear direction), and diversity almost immediately. Sure it sacrifices something later on but they're both legitimate approaches.

#24 Posted by Humanity (9565 posts) -

I watched half of it and stopped because I was disagreeing with nearly all of it so there wasn't much point in going onward.

As many have pointed out, these are very much opinions supported by addressing certain issues from very specific and often one sided angles. Dark Souls 2 level design is just long dead-end hallways while Demons Souls was not? Hardly. Dark Souls 2 has interesting looking environments that are boring on the inside, and then you present Anor Londo as a counterpoint? The most boring and texture barren area of Dark Souls 1?

So on and so forth. Nitpicks about the story and direction. The one thing I do agree on is the overabundance of multiple enemy bosses, which is not something that plays out well with the Souls combat mechanics. The Tower Knight in Demons Souls was one of those moments where I fell in love with that game - this massive enemy and you have to take him down. If anything Dark Souls 2 suffers from having too many bosses. You end up fighting so many of these guys that the charm is gone. Boss fights were always something really special in the series, they were unique and didn't happen that happen so when you did finally get to that fog gate it was exhilarating every time.

To each his own of course. If someone had the time and energy they could make a video that exactly mirrors his by pointing out all the things Dark Souls 2 did right.

Online
#25 Edited by LackingSaint (1830 posts) -

Great video, I usually enjoy Matthewmatosis's videos and this isn't an exception. Really nailed down some of the problems I had with this game, especially the excessive use of movement-tracking that gave combat a far stronger feeling that I was just fighting computers and not real enemies. Also agreed in terms of the poorly-handled plot; Dark Souls was certainly vague, but it gave a sense of reverence to the main enemies and their place in the world as well as giving me a sense of what I needed to do and why. Dark Souls 2 just plonks down a lady who says I need to collect greater souls, and then leaves me to stumble upon major antagonists.

I think some of the people lampooning his "nitpicks" need to look up what a critique is. Matthew usually explicitly states whether a video is a critique, review or simply an overview. I fail to see how he could have done a detailed analysis of why he found the game disappointing without saying anything you could shrug off as "nitpicking", especially in a game with so many small-but-crucial elements.

#26 Edited by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@yummylee: I've made the terrible error of responding in the YouTube comment section. It is filled with people that will say anything just to be right. Just right now, I read a comment of a guy I was in discussion with when I said Royal Rat Authority should be compared to Capra Demon as the boss fight has similar mechanics and set up instead of Sif and eventually I told him it was easy to kill those rats anyway as they only take one hit, even from a magic caster with a sword. He replied: it took him 2-3 hits with a Zweihander +10 so that doesn't work.

... Jeez. Why did I step into this? I'm not as smart as I thought. And I thought I was nearing average, so this is saying a lot.

#27 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4847 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@zevvion: Yup, everything you've written regarding his criticisms towards the plot is spot on. I'm only 15 minutes in it but so far this all seems maddening. It all comes across like someone really enjoyed the original two Souls games, perhaps thought the third one was too similar, but instead of leaving it at that he tries to examine why DSII didn't give him the satisfaction as its predecessors

Any complaints that Dark Souls II is too similar to Dark Souls are valid and perfectly understandable. And that's what it sounds like all this video amounts to; the spark that was ignited via the two games isn't there anymore for him, and instead of accepting that he trails off and just makes up a bunch of his own criticisms (or at least criticisms that are just as valid in the prior games) so as to try and better understand his disappointment.

I enjoy Dark Souls 2. From a gameplay perspective I find it the best of the three; even considering niggling problems like enemy tracking and fucked hit boxes.

However I can't disagree with the guy about how the game doesn't feel quite right. It doesn't have the same spark that the other two games had. Demon's and Dark both had imaginative worlds that had rich lore. They also hinted at life and stories beyond the borders of Boletaria and Lordran. Dark Souls 2 doesn't feel that way. The world begins and ends with Drangleic and while there is passing mention given to other kingdoms, it doesn't feel as big as Dark Souls does. There is also little in the way of revelation as the NPC plots are straight forward, the lore is deliberately obtuse (as opposed to being pieces of a jigsaw puzzle), and the overall plot doesn't really do much.

The major problem, I think, is what the video creator said; Miyazaki built the world and the lore and then offered a small chunk of it as a game. Dark Souls and its mysteries never felt unsolvable, and I (and I'm sure many others) had the distinct impression that even if we weren't told everything, there were answers. Dark Souls 2 feels like nothing of the sort. It's obtuse because Souls fans like ambiguity, which I think is a fundamental misconception of what many people find appealing about the series to begin with.

While I definitely enjoyed my 100+ hours with Dark Souls 2, I can't help but feel that it's all rather mercenary. It's carefully crafted to appeal to Souls fans with stuff Souls fans (allegedly) enjoy (Solaire references! Punishing difficulty! Obtuse lore! Ambiguous plot! DRAGONS!), and it ultimately suffers for this.

#28 Edited by Hassun (1378 posts) -

To the few of you who did, there is no need to get rude. If you cannot make your point using logic and eloquence then consider not making it at all.

To everyone else, it's interesting to see such varied opinions. It's worth noting that, while the video might seem very negative, he does start off by saying he would rather play DSII than many other recent games. He just thinks it pales in comparison to the previous two Souls games. But I agree that he doesn't mention some of the improvements DSII has implemented.

As for myself, I think most of the problems he brings up are accurate. I know this can get a little too much "inside baseball" but these are my biggest problems with DSII:

  • The lack of level cohesion and logic in the level design (very accurately highlighted in the video).
  • The inferior NPCs and their stories.
  • The covenant system, one of the greatest additions to Dark Souls is not improved or expanded upon at all and still has massive problems. This is EXTREMELY disappointing.
  • The soul memory system is implemented incredibly poorly and ends up being worse than the soul level based multiplayer system from the previous games.
  • The whole deceiving prerelease footage debacle.

Going any deeper would be even more "inside baseball" so I will refrain from doing that.

There are definitely some good things DSII does as well and (unlike Matthew) I do want to address them:

  • NG+ and beyond is expanded upon, giving you a lot more reasons to keep playing the single player part of the game.
  • There are no obviously rushed/incomplete areas like in Dark Souls (Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith).
  • There is a lot of content, more than Demon's and Dark Souls.
  • Despite the deceiving prerelease footage, I feel we should not ignore that the game has some good art design and I appreciate technical improvements like cloth physics as well.

#29 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@oldirtybearon: I did agree with him that the world of Dark Souls II is crafted with less detail. There still is a good amount of detail, just not as much as Dark Souls. But for that matter, Demon's Souls didn't have it as much as Dark Souls did either if you ask me.

#30 Edited by Kaiserreich (709 posts) -

I can't take anyone who had trouble with Prowling Magus and the Congregation (aka Pinwheel jr.) serioulsy.

On a more serious note, I will agree with him on the soundtrack and the rat convenant. But many of his other points apply directly to Dark Souls 1 and he even acknowledges this at several points. So why keep holding Dark Souls 1 up as an example of better game design?

#31 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4847 posts) -

@zevvion: It's not the lack of detail that bothers me, it's the lack of a point. The majority of item descriptions and lore dumps in Dark Souls 2 refer to events that happened so long ago nobody remembers any of it. These little, vague hints at vague events that happened so long ago they have no bearing on the current story is just a waste. It's purposefully vague for the sake of being vague where as in Dark Souls if you came across a vague item description there was no doubt one, two, or even five different pieces that expanded upon an idea.

The interconnected nature of the world and lore was a big part of why Dark Souls felt like, well, Dark Souls. I remember being very disappointed when I decided to roll up my sleeves and dig into the "lore" of DS2. Most of it is one or two sentences of naval gazing with no rhyme or reason, and the few bits that seem juicy are soon robbed of any impact once you realize that nothing in them points to any relevance to the plot or circumstances found in Dark Souls 2's narrative. It's all for show, it's all smoke and mirrors; it's like a sitcom set in that while there is the illusion of something more to this world, looking at the set from the wrong angle reveals that it's a facsimile of life hosted on a soundstage. To me that's a big disappointment.

The pleasure I found in Dark Souls was a result of peeling the onion back until the core was exposed. The core of Dark Souls is that you're a pawn in a battle of wills between two asshole snakes who are both lying to and manipulating you for their own benefit.

Even now some 30+ days after release I still don't know what the core of Dark Souls 2 is. It's a pity considering the themes of Dark Souls 2 (memory and identity to name a couple) are rich and, if handled correctly, could offer poignant musings amidst the hacking and the slashing in a grimdark fantasy world. Keep in mind that I still really enjoyed my time with the game. I just expected something more.

#32 Posted by gike987 (1758 posts) -

I have not watched the video because I still want to play the game some day, but I have read this thread (I don't really care about boss spoilers). The world being incoherent and the linearity sounds extremely disappointing, enough to make me wait for a steam sale. The well realized world is the number one reason I liked Dark Souls. Unlike what seems like a large part of the people who played Dark Souls I didn't play it because it was a hard game. For me the combat always felt secondary to exploring an (for the most part) amazingly well designed and dangerous world.

At least now I can prepare myself for a disappointment when I finally play the game.

#33 Posted by Yummylee (22030 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@yummylee: I've made the terrible error of responding in the YouTube comment section. It is filled with people that will say anything just to be right. Just right now, I read a comment of a guy I was in discussion with when I said Royal Rat Authority should be compared to Capra Demon as the boss fight has similar mechanics and set up instead of Sif and eventually I told him it was easy to kill those rats anyway as they only take one hit, even from a magic caster with a sword. He replied: it took him 2-3 hits with a Zweihander +10 so that doesn't work.

... Jeez. Why did I step into this? I'm not as smart as I thought. And I thought I was nearing average, so this is saying a lot.

Just think of it as trial by fire, I guess. You maybe assumed that comments for a Dark Souls video would be more reasonable than the norm, but alas... 99.9% of youtube comments are truly complete and utter trash unfortunately, regardless of the subject at hand.

#34 Posted by Humanity (9565 posts) -

@oldirtybearon: The illusion of "sense" is still there as it always has been. Dark Souls was extremely vague and people pieced these vague assumptions together like a fine yarn. While Dark Souls 2 is even vaguer in certain respects, it does so in service of the new "story." I should mention that the story in these games has always been poor and played second fiddle to literally everything else. He makes a great point in separating lore from plot, as all three had been heavy on one and light on the other. Dark Souls 2 is supposed to be this mismatched quilt of eras building upon eras. The whole point seems to be that this is a cycle and it never ends. This is why it feels distinct and indistinct at the same time.

I will say that for the first time in a Souls game I thought the NPC's had a good reason to be there. They all have that great line of dialog "..why did I come here again..?" In previous iterations NPC's kind of hung around as if the world they were in still functioned when it didn't. It made very little sense for them to be there, to sell you goods. The NPC's in Dark Souls 2 I can understand and relate to, they are hollowing and in turn going mad. They don't know why they are there but they go through the motions because slowly reason is leaving them. I think Lucatiel is one of the strongest NPC's in the entire series.

As for the fanservice, I will agree that there is too much of it. I would have much preferred that this game wasn't linked to Dark Souls 1 at all and they came up with a completely new theme. No more bonfires, no more kindling. Make it all about ice, all about dreams, memory, I don't know whatever. But then again this is coming from someone who found Dark Souls 1 to be the weakest game in the series thus far and enjoyed it the least for a variety of reasons.

Online
#35 Posted by Scampbell (499 posts) -

I kinda enjoy the challenge of fighting multiple enemies, but I agree that it often seems like an excuse for not actually designing new challenges in Dark Souls 2. I can see the reason for doing a lot of guy-with-sword fights, since they constituted a lot of the best boss fight in Dark Souls, but it makes it feel like they cared more about pleasing their audience, than doing what was best for the game as a whole. There is definitely some good creative fights, such as the Demon of Song, The Duke's Dear Freja and the Executioner Chariot. Some less so but still interesting, such as Covetous Demon, Dark Lurker (Though I kinda hate that fight) and Flexile Sentry (at least in new game). Otherwise they are all fairly similar.

Though the weakest part of Dark Souls 2 and the part I like the least, is the bonfire system and the level design. To its credit, the worst part of Dark Souls 2's level design, is still better than the worst Dark Souls had to offer. On the other hand, the best of Dark Souls (Sens Fortress and Undead Burg) is so much better than the best of Dark Souls 2. Except in Iron Keep and a few other locations, the abundance of bonfires in Dark Souls 2 removes most of the tension of its predecessors (especially considering how 'travel' works), whenever I felt just the slightest bit of longing for a bonfire, one would be right around the corner, and most of the time I found it before I was even close to running out of Estus, or other healing items. As to the blocked off road syndrome, I definitely noticed a lot more invisible walls than I've done in the previous games, like the way it is impossible to get unto the stairs in the Covetous Demon's room. I get that they don't want you to go there, as it would make it impossible for the Covetous Demon to reach you, but then they shouldn't have made those stairs in the first place. Another one is the small underwater ledge in Shrine of Amana, where you are unable to lift your feet 10 inches to get to a small columned pathway with a sorcerer on it, and instead you have to go all the way around. And there are plenty of other times where the game makes ridiculous excuses for denying you access to certain areas. It seems to me that previous games paid a lot more attention to such details. Maybe it is simply due to the size Dark Souls 2, and obviously there are far worse offenders when it comes to such bad design, but the attention to such details is one of the reasons I love these games.

It is hard to explain, but when Matthewmatosis says that Dark Souls 2 lacks Soul, that kinda perfectly summarizes my feelings on this game. Demon Souls and Dark Souls felt like they had an underlying vision, Dark Souls 2 feels like an attempt to recreate the previous game, but without that vision.

Don't get me wrong, Dark Souls 2 is a great game and is in a lot of ways superior to its predecessors, in fact it is pretty amazing how well it is done, considering that practically no one who worked on the previous games, where part of the development team for Dark Souls 2. I hope if they are going to be the ones responsible for Dark Souls 3, that they have the confidence to add more Soul to it.

#36 Edited by DonChipotle (2781 posts) -

Dude's right. Dark Souls 2 is a disappointing game.

#37 Posted by pyrodactyl (2167 posts) -

@hassun said:

To the few of you who did, there is no need to get rude. If you cannot make your point using logic and eloquence then consider not making it at all.

To everyone else, it's interesting to see such varied opinions. It's worth noting that, while the video might seem very negative, he does start off by saying he would rather play DSII than many other recent games. He just thinks it pales in comparison to the previous two Souls games. But I agree that he doesn't mention some of the improvements DSII has implemented.

As for myself, I think most of the problems he brings up are accurate. I know this can get a little too much "inside baseball" but these are my biggest problems with DSII:

  • The lack of level cohesion and logic in the level design (very accurately highlighted in the video).
  • The inferior NPCs and their stories.
  • The covenant system, one of the greatest additions to Dark Souls is not improved or expanded upon at all and still has massive problems. This is EXTREMELY disappointing.
  • The soul memory system is implemented incredibly poorly and ends up being worse than the soul level based multiplayer system from the previous games.
  • The whole deceiving prerelease footage debacle.

Going any deeper would be even more "inside baseball" so I will refrain from doing that.

There are definitely some good things DSII does as well and (unlike Matthew) I do want to address them:

  • NG+ and beyond is expanded upon, giving you a lot more reasons to keep playing the single player part of the game.
  • There are no obviously rushed/incomplete areas like in Dark Souls (Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith).
  • There is a lot of content, more than Demon's and Dark Souls.
  • Despite the deceiving prerelease footage, I feel we should not ignore that the game has some good art design and I appreciate technical improvements like cloth physics as well.

You forgot the most important improvement. The same improvement people keep forgetting when comparing demon's souls to dark souls. It's way less broken. It might be easier overall but you can't just use the Caravela/Kelepek method to beat all the end game bosses this time around. Go back and watch breaking brad, the dark souls stream from Vinny and Patrick and tell me Demon's souls and dark souls are balanced properly. There is just way to much broken builds in both those games.

#38 Edited by bearshamanbro (284 posts) -

Was a great video. I think critical looks at the game do nothing but help push the game forward. Hope the DkS2 team at FROM see this, but I'm guessing they don't need to and are aware of many of the issues already.

My personal opinion is that many of these issues exist but are not drastic problems. DkS2 is a drop from previous entries, but not a big step down. It has changes for the better, and then some changes for the worse.

Agree with:

  • The level designs are not as well crafted as the previous 2 games. There are many fine intricate levels in DkS2 like No Mans Wharf, Forest of Fallen Giants, Lost Bastille, The Gutter and possibly a few more. There are quite a few, however, that are very linear. I think that's OK and the previous games had a fair share of linear levels but the balance in DkS2 may be a little off.
  • More than anything on the level design, just feel like there was nothing that reached the peak of the previous games. DeS had certain places like all of Boletaria Castle, 3-1 & 3-2, 4-1, 5-2 that were really tight and memorable. DkS had Sens, Blightown, Undead Burg, Anor Londo, Painted World as well. Each of those games had some ok levels but always had those few levels to hold up a masterful.
  • Last thought on the level design. I do think the lighting changes probably had a big impact on what we have in the final game. Atmosphere is a big component to the overall experience and it seems like many of levels where designed with the new lighting in mind. This surely affected atmosphere as well as gameplay.
  • Too many bonfires. Not many places in the game where I felt on edge from pushing on i.e. 5-2 in DeS or many places in DkS. Playing through the game is a series of short sprints and not many times of player endurance.
  • Cheap enemies. For the first time in a Souls game I had to resort to using range attacks at times. Many times in DkS2 I just got sick of dealing with it and resorted to range, i.e. Shrine of Amana, Mace guys in Dragon Shrine.
  • Hit boxes. For a game that has had such tight melee combat, this is definitely an issue. Totally mucks up the dodging and having to rely on the invincibility frames is not a good solution. This needs fixed going forward.
  • Plot (not lore): Good points.

Disagree with:

  • Linear levels: as mentioned above, it has more linear levels than previous entries but to say every level is a long tunnel with a dead end is not accurate.
  • The warping. Don't really have a problem with the warping. Like DeS, I think the warping gives the feeling of a bigger world. I thought the open world of DkS was clever but that it didn't make sense to have these extremely different areas all touching like that.
  • Humanoid type enemies. These were usually the best kind of enemies to fight, i.e. Allant, Penetrator, O&S, Artorias, etc. Would rather have more humanoid type enemies than other kinds of gimmicky bosses.
  • The lore critique. Lore is still being dissected and it's too early to really get a grasp on it yet. I think there are some really interesting things about the motivations of Aldia, Vendrick, Emerald Herald that are quite complex and haven't been explored enough. Took quite a while for DkS1 lore to really establish itself as well.
#39 Posted by Hassun (1378 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: Hmm I don't know, in its current state DSII is quite broken in terms of balance. Regular upgrade weapon scaling is terrible and inferior to infusions/buffs (which really sad because that's exactly the problem with the vanilla version of Dark Souls). On top of that spells are MASSIVELY powerful. Strong enough to kill a lost of bosses in 1-2 casts. So while the tank/bulldozer build is not as good, there are other builds which have taken its place.

#40 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@hassun said:

@pyrodactyl: Hmm I don't know, in its current state DSII is quite broken in terms of balance. Regular upgrade weapon scaling is terrible and inferior to infusions/buffs (which really sad because that's exactly the problem with the vanilla version of Dark Souls). On top of that spells are MASSIVELY powerful. Strong enough to kill a lost of bosses in 1-2 casts. So while the tank/bulldozer build is not as good, there are other builds which have taken its place.

1-2 casts was also present in Dark Souls for bosses. That's not new. Also, I think what @pyrodactyl is referring to, is that a tank with high STR can just hit the attack button and heal when low on health until the boss is dead for all major players. This strategy works for Nito, Seathe and Four Kings. Three of the four great bosses. And when I say attack until they are dead, I seriously mean attack until they are dead. That's all there is to it. That strategy doesn't work on any of the great bosses in DSII.

No, I'm not saying DSII is harder because of that, but they just have more to them than the great bosses in Dark Souls.

#41 Posted by Hassun (1378 posts) -

@zevvion: Yes I know what he meant, it's the tank/bulldozer build. Basically trading blows until one of you wins.

As for 1-2 casts being present in Dark Souls, outside of the horribly overpowered pyromancy I don't recall that being the case. High level spells seem more powerful in DSII overall as well. Casually doing 1000-1500 damage.

Speaking of pyromancy, it's sad that they have not really fixed it at all. Despite earlier talks about how they would.
Before release there was talk about spells being chargeable with weak and strong variations, pyromancy becoming a part of sorcery and no longer having the ridiculous 0 stats requirements (except attunement), lighting, wind and torches actually being a very important aspect of the game, etc.

#42 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@hassun: Well, yeah, but that is a different discussion though, isn't it? You can hardly take pre-release talk into account when criticizing the game post-release in this context.

But if we enter that discussion: they also said spells would be 'aimable' like bows. I believe that was even in the beta? I heard it was. They took it out for some reason, I'm not sure why. All a lot of 'what if' though. We have no idea if that would be better or worse. I actually think pyromancy in Dark Souls was a bit better. It didn't scale with anything except your pyromancy flame and I liked that. It gave my tanky build at least some variety as I had to put all points into STR, END and VIT. I liked the Crossbows for that same reason.

Pyromancies now are in sort of a limbo. They don't require any stats to use, but they do very low damage (except for a couple like Flame Swathe) unless you put points into those stats anyway. To compare, my FTH build with, at the time around 35 Faith, used one Lightning Spear to nearly kill the turtles in Iron keep. They had only a tiny bit of health left. With my tank build, I do only 200ish damage with Fire Orb. Which is approximately 15% of their health. I have it at +4 I think? I used all Fire Seeds I could find up until that point anyway. I am aware that Flame Swathe would do like 1000 damage, but it's an exception and only has 2 casts.

#43 Edited by Hassun (1378 posts) -

@zevvion:

Spell replenishment items are another absolutely terrible idea they brought back from Demon's, don't get me started on those.

Pyromancy in Dark Souls was terrible because it took no stat investment while also being massively powerful and the annoying tendency of nearly all enemies and bosses in the game to be weak to fire. Making it effectively better than sorceries and miracles at very little cost. In DSII they only half solved the problem by making pyromancies scale with intelligence and the flame instead of just the flame.

As for the finished product being different from what was talked about before. For things like the lighting engine and the importance of light and dark I think we can definitely accuse Bamco/From Software of false advertising. No matter what the reasons were for not including it in the final version.

#44 Posted by HeyGuys (535 posts) -

@humanity said:

I watched half of it and stopped because I was disagreeing with nearly all of it so there wasn't much point in going onward.

As many have pointed out, these are very much opinions supported by addressing certain issues from very specific and often one sided angles. Dark Souls 2 level design is just long dead-end hallways while Demons Souls was not? Hardly. Dark Souls 2 has interesting looking environments that are boring on the inside, and then you present Anor Londo as a counterpoint? The most boring and texture barren area of Dark Souls 1?

So on and so forth. Nitpicks about the story and direction. The one thing I do agree on is the overabundance of multiple enemy bosses, which is not something that plays out well with the Souls combat mechanics. The Tower Knight in Demons Souls was one of those moments where I fell in love with that game - this massive enemy and you have to take him down. If anything Dark Souls 2 suffers from having too many bosses. You end up fighting so many of these guys that the charm is gone. Boss fights were always something really special in the series, they were unique and didn't happen that happen so when you did finally get to that fog gate it was exhilarating every time.

To each his own of course. If someone had the time and energy they could make a video that exactly mirrors his by pointing out all the things Dark Souls 2 did right.

I guess it's a testament to subjectivity but I thought Anor Londo was one the best areas, maybe, in any video game I've ever played. Anor Londo emphasizes the cohesion of the level/world design by existing not just in and of itself but in contrast to everything you've seen until that point. Anor Londo works because of its excellently crafted blend of antiseptically clean, colorless architecture and the brilliant yellow-gold sun seeping through the spires and because the juxtaposition of the colors, the intact facade, and the appearance of order.

I agree about Dark Souls II suffering from boss overload, I'd have preferred a smaller number of bosses that were each very intense and challenging in different ways. A lot of the bosses in Dark Souls II seemed a little forgettable and didn't bring a lot to the table.

#45 Posted by Mycroft_Ampersand (82 posts) -

@heyguys:

@heyguys said:

@humanity said:
So on and so forth. Nitpicks about the story and direction. The one thing I do agree on is the overabundance of multiple enemy bosses, which is not something that plays out well with the Souls combat mechanics. The Tower Knight in Demons Souls was one of those moments where I fell in love with that game - this massive enemy and you have to take him down. If anything Dark Souls 2 suffers from having too many bosses. You end up fighting so many of these guys that the charm is gone. Boss fights were always something really special in the series, they were unique and didn't happen that happen so when you did finally get to that fog gate it was exhilarating every time.

I guess it's a testament to subjectivity but I thought Anor Londo was one the best areas, maybe, in any video game I've ever played. Anor Londo emphasizes the cohesion of the level/world design by existing not just in and of itself but in contrast to everything you've seen until that point. Anor Londo works because of its excellently crafted blend of antiseptically clean, colorless architecture and the brilliant yellow-gold sun seeping through the spires and because the juxtaposition of the colors, the intact facade, and the appearance of order.

I agree about Dark Souls II suffering from boss overload, I'd have preferred a smaller number of bosses that were each very intense and challenging in different ways. A lot of the bosses in Dark Souls II seemed a little forgettable and didn't bring a lot to the table.

I think that the increased number of bosses in Dark Souls II comes out of From's emphasis in this installment on the interactive portion of the series - pvp and co-operative play. A lot of the changes (covenants, being invaded whether human or hollow for example) and much of the pre-release talk that I heard about the game surrounded the online segment. I would imagine that in Dark Souls most people were placing summoning signs in front of bosses and just co-oping bosses with people multiple times therefore Dark Souls II has a lot of bosses as a result of that behaviour.

Although, I will say that I have seen a lot of summoning signs placed near bonfires at the start of levels in Dark Souls II much more often than I ever have in Dark Souls (for whatever that is worth).

#46 Posted by Kaos999 (56 posts) -

Nothing funnier than people spitting out their opinions as if they were facts. Can't we just accept that what you like about the souls games someone else probably hates?

I don't understand the hate for items/bonfires you never have to use. Why are you mad they provided options to the entire fanbase? That you can completely ignore? Is everyone suppose to play the game like some horror survival mode because that turns you on?

So you all complaining about the lighting would rather the fps suffered even more just so you can ooh and aah at the damn shadows? They didn't just drop it because they wanted to troll you, its simply a matter of not being able to have your cake and eating it too.

Unless you just started gaming you know you cant have both on consoles, devs have to choose between performance and visuals and since we have so many pixel pixies gameplay usually loses. Glad they chose otherwise.

DS2 is better in almost every way mechanically.

#47 Posted by Zevvion (2072 posts) -

@kaos999: Yes, we can accept that fact. What is harder to accept is the arguments of why. Among them are misinformed beliefs and straight up lies. For instance, I defeated Royal Rat Authority just yesterday and you can actually, purely melee, kill the 4 rats before Authority even jumps onto the battlefield. This guy's video goes into detail how you need pyromancies to defeat the 4 rats before Authority kills you and you need to get lucky. What? That's just misinformed. Then, when I point out you can kill them easily, there are people saying they take at least 3 hits from a Zweihander +10 with 40 STR. What? That's just lying. Minimum requirements unupgraded Zweihander wouls still be a one-hit kill.

This is one example of a lot of his critique that is misinformed or rooted in dislike for the game that isn't founded as he draws comparisons between the previous two titles that suffered similar or the exact same issues. If he doesn't like it, that's totally fine. And no, he doesn't even have to explain why not. But if he chooses to, he should do it with valid points. As should everyone else.

#48 Posted by Hassun (1378 posts) -

@kaos999 said:

Nothing funnier than people spitting out their opinions as if they were facts. Can't we just accept that what you like about the souls games someone else probably hates?

...


DS2 is better in almost every way mechanically.

Nothing funnier indeed...

@zevvion said:

For instance, I defeated Royal Rat Authority just yesterday and you can actually, purely melee, kill the 4 rats before Authority even jumps onto the battlefield. This guy's video goes into detail how you need pyromancies to defeat the 4 rats before Authority kills you and you need to get lucky.

First of all, that's not exactly what he says. Second of all, how many times have you beaten the Royal Rat Authority? I have also beaten the boss purely with melee attacks but killing all the dogs before the boss arrives actually did take some luck because they are quite fast and do not attack in the same pattern every time. That being said, that's not the point he was making about the boss to begin with. What he was talking about was how the boss is like the Sif fight from Dark Souls but made harder by adding a bunch of regular enemies (something which quite a few DSII bosses do in either NG or NG+). The point is that even though the fight is harder, it's not nearly as memorable as the Sif boss fight and that just adding a bunch of regular enemies to the boss battle does not necessarily make it better.

Again, that's not to say I agree with every point he makes (and it's not like everyone should). E.g. I do not agree with him about the combat in Souls games being designed for 1v1 fighting. I understand why he thinks that though. The lock-on system simple has never been very good. His reliance on it is causing him a lot of problems, especially when it comes to fighting multiple enemies. Is that a fault of the games? Sure, the lock-on system could be a lot better and the more games it takes to improve it, the bigger the issue becomes. But you're not exactly forced to actually constantly use the lock-on system, in fact it's often better to only use it very sparingly.

#49 Posted by len1444 (36 posts) -

Three problems I'm having with the game so far:

1. Unfair punishment for dying: For a game that is so much about dying, it seems backwards to now punish that player with less health and when playing the game with half health some bosses can oneshot you and it becomes frustrating to move forward. What happens when the player runs out of effigies and lifegems?

2. Hitboxes: Some attacks straight up don't hit where they're supposed to, biggest example being smelter demon whose hitbox seems 4-5 times larger than his weapon. Makes it frustrating that I die to something that doesn't exist.

3. Recycled enemies/themes: Belfry gargoyles are straight up the same boss fight with a few more gargoyles. Ornstein straight up has a clone in this game. It's not just the enemies either, the storyline seems almost the exact same with the 4 lord souls and the same exact setup with a different setting.

#50 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

This guy is what I call a *Redshirt Guy*. Unless you are a *Redshirt Guy* yourself, you'll likely not give a crap about his concerns. Hell, I'm a *Redshirt Guy* myself at times, but usually only when it comes to Battlefield. Normally, I just want to enjoy the games I play, and there's so much to enjoy in Dark Souls 2, why would I spoil it for me by focusing on what I find bad? I wouldn't.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.