The Matthewmatosis critique video

  • 110 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@len1444 said:

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.

1 - Demon Soul, you didn't played it. It was even more punishing for dying. On Dark Souls 2 you lose a little bit of your maximum health each time you die, until reaching 50%. It is supposed to represent the slow hollowification that comes with death and it's a good exemple of a gameplay respecting its lore. In Demon Souls, you dropped to 50% of your max help the first time you died, because it was the default health of the Soul Form (equivalent of Hollow Form in Dark Souls). Worst, depending on the tendencie of the world where you were, you could drop below 50, reaching 25% in extreme cases (Dying while human would shift your world toward dark tendencie, making ennemies stronger and lowering your max health in Soul Form. Additionnaly, if your personnal tendencie wath dark too, by being evil and killing innocent NPCs, that maximum health in Soul Form also dropped).

2 - Nothing to say here, hitbox are weird.

3 - Recycling boss/themes/NPC is nothing new. Belfry Gargoyle is a shoutout from the previous gargoyles, who where already a shoutout from the Manhunters from Demon Souls. Some NPC have this too : Mild mannered Pat = Trusty Patche = Patches the Hyena. Orstein comes back as a loved boss here once again. Vestaldt is a shoutout from a NPC from Demon Souls (don't remember the name), who got another shoutout in the Phantom Leeroy Lucatiel is a shoutout from another warrior girl who searched for her brother. Lautrec was already a shoutout from another killer knight from Demon Souls and he is back as some serial killer disguised as a knight. Vendrick is reminiscent of Gwyn. and you could point out many, many things like this.
But you can either think about it as lazy writing, but I don't.
As for the story that you call "the same", I don't quite agree. Sure, you have the four Lord Souls, sur those who hold them are reminiscent of those who held them in the previous game... but considering the central theme of Dark Souls 2 is reincarnation, that's no surprise. And that alone isn't enough to say "story is the same !". It's not... so not the same story.

#52 Posted by Nicked (258 posts) -

Didn't watch the whole thing since I'm still trucking through the game, but I think he should put more effort into considering Dark Souls 2 as a response to Dark Souls 1, rather than a traditional sequel. He makes a lot of great points, but goes a little too far playing arm-chair designer.

One example is the tracking on enemy attacks. In Dark Souls 1 it's very easy to strafe and backstab, or block, wait for the enemy weapon to rebound and attack. As such I've found rolling to be a much more necessary thing, whereas you can get through a lot of 1 without rolling.

I definitely still think that Dark Souls 1 is more efficiently designed, seems to have better bosses and characters, and overall has a cooler world. But so far I'm enjoying many of the changes. Having to fight groups of enemies in 2 has been a good challenge so far.

I think these kinds of changes were wholly necessary because if it were too similar to Dark Souls 1 it wouldn't be as fun. I already know how to play Dark Souls 1 in a mechanical sense. So, if Dark Souls to Dark Souls 2 were more like Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 3, it would probably be very boring. That's what I mean in terms of the game being a "response" instead of a traditional "sequel".

I guess my feeling is that I don't think his discreet observations are wrong--he generally makes fair points--but in my opinion multiple enemies, tracking attacks, and even the branching paths have been compelling changes (though maybe not objectively "better" changes). Maybe my mind will change as I get further along though.

#53 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@golguin

  • HUD indicator when using the dual wielding stance.

  • A way to get out of stunlock/changes to poise damage.

  • The Old Sun ring and ring of thorns are a terrible idea. (Mostly patched now.)

  • Healing in PVP, miracles compulsory for all invaders?

  • Nerf Havel's armour.

  • Spell replenishment items are a bad idea. As are health replenishment items.

  • Movement too loose/not tight enough.

  • Too many messages, they could be halved and there would still be plenty.

  • Showing you how many bonfires there are even in places you have not visited just for entering Drangleic Castle is a bad idea.

  • Allowing you to compare store items with held items before buying.

  • Blocking seems to create too much pushback. This is fine for big heavy weapons but not so much for lighter ones.

  • Damage scaling on weapons is imbalanced like it was in vanilla Dark Souls, especially for dexterity.

  • Sceptic's/simpleton's spice should be heavily nerfed or removed.

  • Navlaan's assassination quest should not be possible to complete without killing.

  • The Ring of Life/Soul protection are too powerful (but Soul Memory kind of ruins that anyway).

  • The Soul Memory system is not working correctly.

  • Elizabeth's Mushroom needs to be made unavailbe during multiplayer interaction.

  • Estus healing should be cancelled when hit during the heal.

  • Sin system needs an overhaul.

  • Multiple covenants are kneecapped (e.g. Blue Sentinels and Brotherhood of Blood).

  • Hit/hurtboxes often seem inaccurate.

  • Incorporating anti-cheating measures.

  • Nearly all the bosses in DSII are weak to lightning, just like nearly all bosses were weak to fire in Dark Souls.

  • Being fully revived after just one co-op session is a bad change. It was much better before the patch when multiple successful co-op sessions were required and you got less hollow gradually. Now effigies are barely needed.

#54 Posted by Skyrider (380 posts) -

@hassun said:

@golguin

  • Being fully revived after just one co-op session is a bad change. It was much better before the patch when multiple successful co-op sessions were required and you got less hollow gradually. Now effigies are barely needed.

This was never a feature, actually, twas but a glitch. Co-op was never supposed to return you to human, regardless of how many times you succeeded.

#55 Posted by JasonR86 (9724 posts) -

Having not finished it yet, DS2 seems like the easiest of the Souls games to get into. The idea that enemies disappear after they are killed so many times is a huge thing for a new player. It lays the foundation for how to grind for levels. Basically, grind until the enemies disappear, fight the boss, and repeat. That mechanic was a really cool idea.

#56 Edited by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@skyrider: Yeah I heard about that but instead of incorporating it as a feature they incorporated the crappier one we have today.

#57 Posted by golguin (4042 posts) -

@hassun said:

@golguin

  • HUD indicator when using the dual wielding stance.

  • A way to get out of stunlock/changes to poise damage.

  • The Old Sun ring and ring of thorns are a terrible idea. (Mostly patched now.)

  • Healing in PVP, miracles compulsory for all invaders?

  • Nerf Havel's armour.

  • Spell replenishment items are a bad idea. As are health replenishment items.

  • Movement too loose/not tight enough.

  • Too many messages, they could be halved and there would still be plenty.

  • Showing you how many bonfires there are even in places you have not visited just for entering Drangleic Castle is a bad idea.

  • Allowing you to compare store items with held items before buying.

  • Blocking seems to create too much pushback. This is fine for big heavy weapons but not so much for lighter ones.

  • Damage scaling on weapons is imbalanced like it was in vanilla Dark Souls, especially for dexterity.

  • Sceptic's/simpleton's spice should be heavily nerfed or removed.

  • Navlaan's assassination quest should not be possible to complete without killing.

  • The Ring of Life/Soul protection are too powerful (but Soul Memory kind of ruins that anyway).

  • The Soul Memory system is not working correctly.

  • Elizabeth's Mushroom needs to be made unavailbe during multiplayer interaction.

  • Estus healing should be cancelled when hit during the heal.

  • Sin system needs an overhaul.

  • Multiple covenants are kneecapped (e.g. Blue Sentinels and Brotherhood of Blood).

  • Hit/hurtboxes often seem inaccurate.

  • Incorporating anti-cheating measures.

  • Nearly all the bosses in DSII are weak to lightning, just like nearly all bosses were weak to fire in Dark Souls.

  • Being fully revived after just one co-op session is a bad change. It was much better before the patch when multiple successful co-op sessions were required and you got less hollow gradually. Now effigies are barely needed.

That vast majority of the things you listed here are not problems. The only legitimate problems on your list is damage scaling for weapons, Soul Memory, and hit detection on certain weapons. You can't really be serious about a HUD indicator letting you know when you are in a power stance. The indicator is you holding the weapons in the stance.

#58 Edited by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@golguin: The HUD indicator is a minor thing which I would definitely like, especially when you are using the power stance for fists/caestus.

I think the other points are DEFINITELY problems and I do not see how they wouldn't be. Some are way more serious than others. Some are poor design choices, others are straight up things which do not work.

And this is not even mentioning all the problems which I do not think they can fix, like the shoddy level cohesion or the misleading prerelease footage.

#59 Posted by golguin (4042 posts) -

@hassun said:

@golguin: The HUD indicator is a minor thing which I would definitely like, especially when you are using the power stance for fists/caestus.

I think the other points are DEFINITELY problems and I do not see how they wouldn't be. Some are way more serious than others. Some are poor design choices, others are straight up things which do not work.

And this is not even mentioning all the problems which I do not think they can fix, like the shoddy level cohesion or the misleading prerelease footage.

  • "Too many messages, they could be halved and there would still be plenty."

    Is that what you would DEFINITELY call a problem?

#60 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@golguin: Definitely.

When pretty much every single secret area or illusionary wall in the game has multiple messages in front of it then you're really killing the exploration.

This brings me to another one, having to press the action button to access multiple of the secret areas is a TERRIBLE idea. That is some Wolfenstein 3D bullshit right there.

#61 Edited by Humanity (10060 posts) -

@hassun said:

@golguin: Definitely.

When pretty much every single secret area or illusionary wall in the game has multiple messages in front of it then you're really killing the exploration.

This brings me to another one, having to press the action button to access multiple of the secret areas is a TERRIBLE idea. That is some Wolfenstein 3D bullshit right there.

I think both you and Golguin make some serious assumptions on how the game is meant to be played purely from how you yourself choose to play it. Sadly the game won't cater to everyone. There are some overlapping complaints that you can objectively labeled as problematic, the hitboxes for instance, but other than that it's all a matter of perspective. I mean just this other thread I was reading how Golguin thinks the real game is hidden behind the Company of Champions covenant along with some other complaints about how easy the game was for a "Veteran player" - somewhat eye-roll inducing statements to me. But then again I don't play these games like him so thats fine, I'm glad the added challenge for those that seek it is there. You don't like the messages because you would rather uncover the secrets for yourself, while I really enjoyed and appreciated every time I found one that pointed me to a completely arbitrarily placed hidden wall. I'm glad for that because I don't want to be 'that guy' that is hugging every surface in every room mashing on the A button. So I'm happy someone else figured it out. Personally I think adaptability is stupid and poise is fucked and magic is overpowered again etc etc, but whatever, I take what I can get. I just think it's important to understand that no one is really right or wrong in a lot of these instances.

Online
#62 Edited by SirOptimusPrime (2030 posts) -

I agree with a few things (such as phantom hitboxes being really bad in this entry) but overall don't really give a shit about most of these.

All I know is that spices are really, really, *really* good in PvP. It requires almost no build constraints for sl 150 and below builds. I say this having spiced both Resonant Weapon and GRS into 10 int - combine RW with a dark weapon and it's just a bull in a china shop, especially with wakeup games + GRS baits.

Then I get to someone who knows what they're doing and my gimmicks fall into nebulous nothings. Or my SM got too high and it's a sl500 havel monster, to which I just hope the arena gives me the bridge so I can push them off.

#63 Posted by Karkarov (3273 posts) -

@hassun said:

@golguin: Definitely.

When pretty much every single secret area or illusionary wall in the game has multiple messages in front of it then you're really killing the exploration.

This brings me to another one, having to press the action button to access multiple of the secret areas is a TERRIBLE idea. That is some Wolfenstein 3D bullshit right there.

Right because you want to bash it with your weapon in a game where you can only swing that sword 40 times before it breaks. Also hate to bust it to you but 80% of your complaints can be leveled on Dark Souls 1 as well. Not to mention every other From RPG made OTHER than Dark Souls 1 has you using the action button for opening hidden doors, save one or two. If course these doors aren't illusions though, they are just secret doors. So it makes even less sense to bash them with a weapon.

Meanwhile you want to play spoiler free? Why are you playing online to begin with? Oh and .... why are you reading messages? You can always just walk by them.

#64 Posted by Lyisa (390 posts) -

I just finished the video and I don't think some of the problems he brings up are really that big of issues (for me). Also this post might contain spoilers. So don't read this.

His issues with level cohesion and flow seems really contradictory. If the levels were designed with fast travel from the beginning, why do the levels need to automatically flow back to the beginning? The game uses bonfires functionally as shortcuts. With some exception you don't need to pay or open gates anymore because there is a bonfire on the other side. The only place where I can see this being a problem is for console players who don't enjoy fast load times, but I played it on pc and I thought it made getting around really smooth. Finding the way to open up the other paths from Majula doesn't take very long to find from another path either. You could probably find the dull ember within two hours of play, and the guy who wants it a half hour later.

Consequently, on my first playthrough I ended up killing The Rotten before any other Greater Soul boss because I felt like I was going the wrong way for The Lost Sinner and I felt like it had the easiest path. I was also really curious of what those items in the pit in Majula were and naturally was led to that area.

Healing items in the game work really well. In Dark Souls 1 I ended up using humanity as my primary source of healing because it was more convenient than using my estus flask. Humanity, regardless of your estus level, always healed you completely and quickly. Moving to lifegems, a really slow regeneration item, was a nice change to that if they wanted the estus flask and agility stat to matter. You could like the design better in Dark Souls better, sure, but Dark Souls 2 gives estus healing the proper weight in deserves. I don't use the regeneration ring or the ring of evil eye, I always thought they were useless, so I can't really comment on their inclusion.

On the bosses themselves: I felt like they were fitting for this game. Thematically I didn't feel like a spider with a laser beam was all that out of place where you fight it given the enemies you fight before that. Royal Rat Authority didn't seem all that different than Capra Demon in Dark Souls in terms of awkwardness. A lot of the bosses in Dark Souls, by the same rules as Dark Souls 2, are just bad. There are three Asylum Demon variants, the Taurus Demon, Four Kings, Capra Demon, Ornstein and Smough, Nito, Sif, Quelaag, Iron Golem, and Artorias. Some of those fights are hard just to be hard, some of them should be considered boring by the same standard Dark Souls 2 is held to. I'm not saying every boss in Dark Souls 2 is fantastic, some have issues, but Dark Souls bosses weren't fantastic either. Does anyone even remember Gaping Dragon? If so, why? What about Ceaseless Discharge? I remember him because of how hilarious I think speedrun strats for his fight are.

I thought the story was okay. I felt like a lot of it was reliant on you finding and following the stories of other characters (some of whom I found really interesting) and what they go through. Some people might not like having story relevant information hidden, I thought it was alright, but it is there and you need to pay attention to it.

PvP is a mixed bag for me. On one hand I think its a lot more interesting than it was last game, I got invaded a handful of times and invaded a handful of times and it was a mixed bag of success and fail on a wide range of specs. Strangely haven't ran into anyone pulling out the Santier's Spear or Dual Avelyns specs, which I hear are incredible. I feel like, unless you're prepared for it, magic can be really strong and hard to pressure as melee (having been on both sides of it), but timing dodges on it seems a lot easier than dodging some greatsword swings. A particular case was me getting invaded in huntsman's copse and just getting destroyed by somebody who predicted my spell casts well, compared to some rats who summoned me in Grave of Saints (which seems like a poor camping spot). My biggest issue has been some of the hitboxes on weapons seem longer than I thought they'd be, leading to dodging everything instead of exploiting what I thought was a miss. I don't think thats a small issue, I think thats a serious balance issue that probably won't get fixed, but hopefully they look into it.

Overall I don't see myself going back to play Dark Souls 1 now that Dark Souls 2 is out. I think its a much better experience overall. I think Dark Souls 1 is fantastic, but this just makes steps in what I see as the right direction. I actually have trouble figuring out what people expected out of Dark Souls 2 to hate it so much. For me the places where it was easy still had the tension of being dangerous, and the places where it was hard I felt like maybe I was doing something wrong and could correct myself (Ancient Dragon). I think magic builds are a tad bit boring, and a bit too universal (if you're going sorcery, you may as well pick up a few hexes, and consequently miracles). Some of the bosses get really trivialized by the presence of magic or lightning in general and the places where these things aren't strong are few and far between. This isn't really a unique problem to this game (Dark Souls had pretty awesome magic as well) but its certainly noticeable.

I'm also not sure that this is the right place to put this anymore considering it doesn't address points from the video entirely and starts to dwell on my personal views of the game. Its also longer than I originally intended to write about it. I also don't mean to say that the issues from the video aren't legitimate, they are, but they aren't issues I personally had because I don't value the same things as he does. I'm not a Dark Souls super fan (despite how much of it I played and experienced) so my reverence for the older game isn't as deep as his. People get into these games for personal reasons and if this one isn't serving your interest than you tots shouldn't be playing it and I don't think anyone could blame you for voicing that.

#65 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@humanity: Considering all the weird mistakes and more importantly beginner's mistakes I am seriously thinking DSII was made by a B-team. We already know for sure that the director of Demon's and Dark did not work on it. With the recent news about Project Beast I think this could mean DSII is the Gears of War: Judgment or God of War: Ascension of the Souls games.

@siroptimusprime: Spices are near downright broken. Especially because the spells are not even weaker because of it (except for your scaling of course).

#66 Edited by SirOptimusPrime (2030 posts) -

@hassun: yeah spices need a massive overhaul, but PvP isn't (nor do I think it should really be) From's focus. I'd rather a SM reworking to make anything but the arena - the chugginest place around - valid for specific SL builds

Also just learned that roll parrying works just as well as backstep parry. A+ job on that one, From.

#67 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@lyisa:

I think you misunderstand his issues with the level cohesion. The problem with them is that the layout often makes absolutely no sense while it almost invariably made perfect sense in Dark Souls. The interconnectivity between levels in that game was MASTERFUL. In Dark Souls 2 you take multiple stairs and then an elevator down in Heide Tower and then somehow end up at sea level while Heide Tower is pretty much at sea level.

Or you go to Earthen Peak, take an elevator UP and end up in the lava world on Iron Keep. It makes no sense whatsoever.

@karkarov:

Right because you want to bash it with your weapon in a game where you can only swing that sword 40 times before it breaks.

This is where the brilliant invention of rolling comes into play, you roll into it, you break it. Just like with the vases and boxes. Just like you could do in the previous game. I can understand that you don't want to be hitting everything with your weapon because of the durability changes but turning the game into Wolfenstein 3D because of that is a terrible solution to that problem.

Also hate to bust it to you but 80% of your complaints can be leveled on Dark Souls 1 as well.

No you cannot. And even if you could, that would not excuse this game. This is not Dark Souls, this is Dark Souls 2. You do not want the same mistakes to return.

A good example of this is the covenant system. A brilliant idea which was sadly pretty poorly executed in Dark Souls. You'd expect to improve this in Dark Souls 2 right? But they didn't.

Another good example is the weapon scaling problem. Vanilla Dark Souls had this problem where elemental weapons were way more powerful than regular ones. Then they patched it, making it better although you could argue they went a bit too far and made most elemental weapons too weak. Then DSII comes along with the exact same problem? That's not cool.

If you keep repeating past mistakes it's only normal for people to start forgiving those mistakes less and less.

#68 Posted by Lyisa (390 posts) -

@hassun: I don't misunderstand that part of it, I just didn't address it. Its not an issue for me because for all I care you could just teleport between the levels and I would be 100% okay with it. I think the levels themselves are cool and cool looking. I mostly wanted to address traversal.

I also don't think its an important part of critique any more than say, Lost Izalith for not having any enclosure. It just serves as a reminder that time constraints, cuts, and decisions all need to be made and everyone has to make sacrifices. If its something that breaks the game for you you have every right to be upset about it. The actual connections to Iron Keep could have been really bad, unfinished in time for the game, or they did Iron Keep and liked the design, but had no place in the game to put it when they had to finish the game.

For people who this is a legitimate issue I think knowing it is important for the information to get to them, but as a piece of consumer advice its hurt by the spoilers in the video.

I think what bothers me about the tone of the video is that it sounds like hes speaking as somebody who had a say in the development in the game, when nobody outside of From probably knows what happened over the course of its development. I'm not saying pointing out the problems is wrong, its the right thing to do, but the tone itself is very much of, "They should have done this, and this, and these games did it this way, so why not keep it the same?" It sounded overall as somebody who came in excited for a Dark Souls sequel without really knowing what they wanted from it, got it, and realized that wasn't it.

#69 Posted by Cybertification (206 posts) -

I don't understand how a criticism is less valuable just because the mistake was made before. If Dark Souls 1 had huge problems(which it did), shouldn't Dark Souls 2 try to fix them?

#70 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@lyisa: The end user shouldn't really have to care about how hard the development was. They pay for the finished product and should expect one at that. Like Jeff has said before, you can't really take the development into account for that stuff.

Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith were clearly rushed and unfinished areas in Dark Souls. But the development does not excuse those faults. The game has plenty of faults and problems. I certainly wouldn't put it on a pedestal.

His general sentiment is that it seems like for ever step forward an other step was taken backward. He also still really likes the game, even with its faults.

It's also worth mentioning that the video is in no way consumer advice. It's just a critique of DSII made by a fan of the Souls games. I do not agree with all of his points either (but certainly most of them).

#71 Posted by Fattony12000 (7559 posts) -

Is that Danny O'Dwyer!?

#72 Posted by Lyisa (390 posts) -

@hassun: I'm not saying you should care about development issues, I just don't have any other thoughts on the matter. Like I said, its not an issue for me. They're just levels. Clearly you have lots of thoughts on it, and thats fantastic, but what I was addressing was totally different in my long post addressing the video, an issue I did have a handful of thoughts on.

And yes, thats what he said, but his tone didn't match the words, especially when armchair developing. I don't honestly care if he actually likes the game or not, but the impression he leaves with his tone and method of criticizing leave a lot to be desired.

For the most part if I didn't address it I either don't care about it or agreed with it.

The Iron Keep thing is just getting funnier and funnier to me, really. It sounds like something somebody would say as a piece of trivia during a speedrun.

#73 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@lyisa: Yeah it seems I misunderstood what you were trying to say in your original post. I thought you meant the level interconnectivity. My bad.

For a fun trivia there is an even funnier one as well: The gate to Drangleic Castle which only opens with the 4 big souls or 1 million earned souls during that playthrough has pretty much no use and leads to the same road as the one which is blocked off by just a few pieces of rubble. That's just hilarious to me. You have to go through all that trouble just because you can't get around those few stones barely blocking the road.

#74 Posted by Humanity (10060 posts) -

@hassun: Like I said, perspective. You really think the interconnectivity between the areas in Dark Souls 1 was masterful? Well there you go.

Online
#75 Edited by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@humanity: I think that is proven fact, you can analyse the levels in an editor and see how well they are made to fit together. That's not a matter of opinion. I'm not sure what you mean with perspective.

Also wanted to share this recent video showing off the power of the Climax hex and the chameleon spell/silver talisman. (Check out the dual Avelyn damage at 3:08 too!)

#76 Posted by Humanity (10060 posts) -

@hassun: It was workable. Fine. Average I guess. You went into a cave and you were in underground caves. You went into a castle and you were in a castle. None of the areas really double backed on themselves in extremely clever ways and most places like Lost Izalith, Anor Londo, sewers, and everything surrounding Tomb of Giants was drab and boring with lifeless lighting and boring textures.

Will you argue that your taste is objectively better than mine? Anor Londo is the most boring place in all of that game and looks like they ran out of time to make it look better. Some say it's wonderful - I say to each his own but thats just crazy talk to me.

Online
#77 Edited by Lyisa (390 posts) -

@hassun: Theres some fairly interesting stuff on the tablets in there, but it serving no purpose isn't really trivia, its just a gate. There are dozens of those in the game.

Edit: If I remember correctly Dark Souls 1 is artificially gated in two different spots purely because they want you to see other content before continuing on. Its no different than that.

#78 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@lyisa: It's an extremely important gate which locks the path to Drangleic Castle until you have met certain requirements. Having a gate that important just be a side door because the normal path to the castle is barely blocked by some random rubble makes no sense whatsoever. The Shrine of Winter has King's Symbol doors levels of importance.

@humanity: You misunderstand. I'm not talking about how much I like or dislike each area. I'm talking about how those areas are all logically connected to each other, creating a cohesive world. DSII lacks this because the different areas are not connected to each other logically.

#79 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@hassun said:

@lyisa: It's an extremely important gate which locks the path to Drangleic Castle until you have met certain requirements. Having a gate that important just be a side door because the normal path to the castle is barely blocked by some random rubble makes no sense whatsoever. The Shrine of Winter has King's Symbol doors levels of importance.

@humanity: You misunderstand. I'm not talking about how much I like or dislike each area. I'm talking about how those areas are all logically connected to each other, creating a cohesive world. DSII lacks this because the different areas are not connected to each other logically.

It appear that it deosn't make sense at first, but what doesn't make sense to me is the fact that some path to the royal castle would be blocked for everyone, except for some "powerfull souls". I mean, the kingdom was inhabited and people must have been entering and leaving Drangleic Castle pretty often. So the main passage makes sense. The fact that it became blocked after the ruin of the kingdom can be just bad luck... or it was done on purpose by those who wished only strong people to reach the castle. The Shrine itself appear to be a secret place, designed to open only for the worthy. We can't actually read the knowledge it inhabits, but there is three beheded serpent's statue (primeval serpents, anyone ?) and scriptures on the walls. Maybe it was specifically disigned to let enter only the King himself (after all, so far he is the only one who would held the power of the four old souls). Just my two cents on the subject...

#80 Posted by Hassun (1827 posts) -

@myrmicus: It seems that if it was blocked on purpose, they should have probably done a better job at blocking it. The importance of the shrine makes sense, I wish it was used for something more important that a side entrance though. It's also in a very awkward location in general.

#81 Posted by dudeglove (8273 posts) -

Matthewmatosis is on the ball, and to add to his criticisms: one of you fuckers defend the Pursuer. I fucking dare you to defend that tacticool piece of garbage enemy design.

I recently finished the game on the PC (earlier today, in fact) with a month hiatus in between, and I am somewhat underwhelmed. Maybe I played it "the wrong way", who knows? But I played various sections in a variety of ways, and none of it was outside the realm of what was available to me in-game (i.e. not through any nefarious cheat engining). Sometimes I arguably cheapened the experience with summonings and I often wondered if a basic HP buff to enemies and bosses was a sensible move on the team's part (or rather the AI just ends up so goddammned borked dealing with multiple sources that it ends up retarded). PvP ganking may have gone, but it's reincarnated itself in the form of taking every single enemy on a trip to pound town with PvE.

DS2 needs patched in several ways. For one, literally who the hell thought it was a good idea that you either had to get to NG+ and/or inflate your soul memory to over 1 million to get infinite orbs? I get where they're coming with regarding soul memory, but invasions and jolly co-operation have lost so goddamn much of their appeal since DS1.

On the upshot, I'm glad there's way more options in combat, but even then there's major balance issues with weapons (e.g. durability, why is strike so goddamn OP etc.). Obligatory DS community vid to close.

#82 Posted by John1912 (1966 posts) -

Got to 1m28s in before I called WHINER and decided this was a waste of my time! I mean really? Hes upset he got a generic male character model as a place holder?! For the 3 whole mins it takes to walk around, get bored, and go generate your character?!

#83 Posted by Zevvion (2361 posts) -

@dudeglove: What's wrong with the Pursuer? Also, I'd have to disagree. The online component in Dark Souls II is lightyears ahead of Dark Souls.

#84 Posted by nasp (415 posts) -

you know im not going into why dark souls 2 is way better than the other games,because i all ready have in other dark souls 2 posts.i will say this every criticism for the most part either happened in the previous games like others said,or there just nitpicks and are not really much of a problem in the game.the main flaws people bring up are level design,boss design,pvp,recycled bosses and so on.none of these problems are any worse then the previous games,in fact all of them are way better in dark souls 2 then the previous games.dark souls 2 was way harder than the other games even after beating the other two(which by the way dark souls 2 is the only game in the series that ive died over 15 times in the whole game)so i dont know why people say its easy.ill just end with this ive beaten demon souls once and thought it needed more to the game.i beat dark souls and thought it was better but ng+ was way to easy so i got bored.ive beaten dark souls 2 5 times now because its way better and ng+ actually gets harder so i didnt get bored.also i actually like the pvp enough to play it.

#85 Posted by dudeglove (8273 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@dudeglove: What's wrong with the Pursuer? Also, I'd have to disagree. The online component in Dark Souls II is lightyears ahead of Dark Souls.

For the latter, my argument is that the improved summonings (at least on PC) have actually made the PvE part of the game something of a breeze. Getting humanity back and ganking the crap out of bosses is not difficult at all. It's probably a dumb argument to make, but when a boss or enemy AI is confused between three different sources of aggro and wanders about kind of looking confused, it detracts from the experience. Yes, it's much better, but I'd really have liked to have seen them react to an increased player count by changing behavior, not just bigger numbers for HP and damage.

For the former, I can't think of a single area in the game where the Pursuer fits in at all, and all it does is inspire a lot of aggravating questions. For instance:

- Why am I fighting a futuristic gliding robot-looking dude who flies in on an eagle in one spot, but then teleports in at other places? Why doesn't he just teleport everywhere? Why does he/it fly in on the fucking eagle? Also if the eagle is helping out the Pursuer, why does the (supposedly same bird) take me to the Lost Bastille? Am I now the Pursuer after beating the Pursuer? Why is the Pursuer (probably residing) in the Lost Bastille in the first place? Why does nothing else i.e. the other guards at Bastille, in the Lost Bastille look like the Pursuer? He is completely apart from every other enemy design in the game.

- Is there only meant to be one Pursuer or multiple Pursuers? How come a second one teleports into the Smelter Demon arena at the Iron Keep?

- Why doesn't the Pursuer walk properly like almost every enemy? Why is it doing this stupid one-knee-forward anime robot bullshit pose at all times?

- Why does the Pursuer have a shitload of weapons on its back, but doesn't use any of them during the fights?

- Why does the Pursuer not pursue me indefinitely? Why is it that if I stand just a few feet away from the two main areas he's encountered in the main game, he decides to teleport away? I don't have a dictionary to hand, but I'm pretty sure that's not the definition of a "pursuit".

It's arguably the worst boss in the Souls series, with the exception of the Capra Demon, who was similarly poorly placed, but to clarify my issue isn't where we fight him, it's why we're even fighting him in the first place. I have my own cynical theories as to why the Pursuer's there (basically boils down to a combination of poor planning, money, time and "someone was a fan of super robot anime and wanted to put it in a game"), but I really need a decent argument for it.

Other games, like Resident Evil, have had enemies that pursue you throughout the length of the game before climaxing with a big encounter. Was that what they were going for here, but then gave up halfway through? Because it sure as hell comes off as a half-baked idea.

#86 Edited by nasp (415 posts) -

@clonedzero said:
@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.

thank you for this post and your other post.its nice to see im not the only one who sees the double standards and hypocrisy that people have had comparing the two games.dark souls 2 isnt a perfect game no game is perfect,but the problems people have with this game are not new to the souls series and are actually improved over the previous games.i mean i actually wanted to play this game more than once which i did.i actually want to do pvp in this game.all things which never happened in the other games.just watch when bloodborne comes out it could be better than all the other souls games and people will once again find problems and say its not that good.in fact they will probly say dark souls 2 is better because every souls game thats come out has been said to be worse than the previous game in the series when it first comes out.when dark souls came out everyone i saw was saying it sucked and demon souls was way better,and now that dark souls 2 is out people act like dark souls is jesus christ of gaming which is not the case.

#87 Edited by nasp (415 posts) -

@dudeglove said:

@zevvion said:

@dudeglove: What's wrong with the Pursuer? Also, I'd have to disagree. The online component in Dark Souls II is lightyears ahead of Dark Souls.

For the latter, my argument is that the improved summonings (at least on PC) have actually made the PvE part of the game something of a breeze. Getting humanity back and ganking the crap out of bosses is not difficult at all. It's probably a dumb argument to make, but when a boss or enemy AI is confused between three different sources of aggro and wanders about kind of looking confused, it detracts from the experience. Yes, it's much better, but I'd really have liked to have seen them react to an increased player count by changing behavior, not just bigger numbers for HP and damage.

For the former, I can't think of a single area in the game where the Pursuer fits in at all, and all it does is inspire a lot of aggravating questions. For instance:

- Why am I fighting a futuristic gliding robot-looking dude who flies in on an eagle in one spot, but then teleports in at other places? Why doesn't he just teleport everywhere? Why does he/it fly in on the fucking eagle? Also if the eagle is helping out the Pursuer, why does the (supposedly same bird) take me to the Lost Bastille? Am I now the Pursuer after beating the Pursuer? Why is the Pursuer (probably residing) in the Lost Bastille in the first place? Why does nothing else i.e. the other guards at Bastille, in the Lost Bastille look like the Pursuer? He is completely apart from every other enemy design in the game.

- Is there only meant to be one Pursuer or multiple Pursuers? How come a second one teleports into the Smelter Demon arena at the Iron Keep?

- Why doesn't the Pursuer walk properly like almost every enemy? Why is it doing this stupid one-knee-forward anime robot bullshit pose at all times?

- Why does the Pursuer have a shitload of weapons on its back, but doesn't use any of them during the fights?

- Why does the Pursuer not pursue me indefinitely? Why is it that if I stand just a few feet away from the two main areas he's encountered in the main game, he decides to teleport away? I don't have a dictionary to hand, but I'm pretty sure that's not the definition of a "pursuit".

It's arguably the worst boss in the Souls series, with the exception of the Capra Demon, who was similarly poorly placed, but to clarify my issue isn't where we fight him, it's why we're even fighting him in the first place. I have my own cynical theories as to why the Pursuer's there (basically boils down to a combination of poor planning, money, time and "someone was a fan of super robot anime and wanted to put it in a game"), but I really need a decent argument for it.

Other games, like Resident Evil, have had enemies that pursue you throughout the length of the game before climaxing with a big encounter. Was that what they were going for here, but then gave up halfway through? Because it sure as hell comes off as a half-baked idea.

um pinwheel is by far the easiest and worst boss in the series.capra demon was horrible too so i agree with you there.bed of chaos is a joke of a boss.guess which game all these bosses are in.pursuer is a good boss,in fact there isnt a boss in dark souls 2 i dont like.unlike dark souls which has atleast three horrible bosses.

#88 Posted by dudeglove (8273 posts) -

@nasp: You've not answered any of my questions, and your opinion doesn't justify Pursuer's existence or its quality. Pinwheel made sense from a lore perspective, so did Bed of Chaos - whether you consider them "hard" or not is not my argument. The Pursuer has no business being in DS2. It's a bad design that doesn't fit with the surroundings, and whether or not it's a "good" boss is hugely debatable, because its move set is extremely limited. Part of me suspects the developers knew this, which explains why they are ballistas all around the boss arena in FoG, allowing you to cut the fight short if need be.

#89 Edited by nasp (415 posts) -

@dudeglove: wasnt trying to answer any of your questions, i only was talking about the bosses since you said pursuer was arguably worst boss in the series.so i said bed of chaos,pinwheel,and capra demon were horrible bosses to show that dark souls had way worse bosses.as for the questions you had for pursuer none of them matter to me i dont play souls games for the story or lore and dont care if the game makes sense .so if you think pursuer shouldnt be in the game from that standpoint i wont argue with you.however i play the game for gameplay alone which is why i said i like pursuer and hate the three bosses from dark souls even if there lore makes sense.

#90 Posted by Zevvion (2361 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@dudeglove: What's wrong with the Pursuer? Also, I'd have to disagree. The online component in Dark Souls II is lightyears ahead of Dark Souls.

For the latter, my argument is that the improved summonings (at least on PC) have actually made the PvE part of the game something of a breeze. Getting humanity back and ganking the crap out of bosses is not difficult at all. It's probably a dumb argument to make, but when a boss or enemy AI is confused between three different sources of aggro and wanders about kind of looking confused, it detracts from the experience. Yes, it's much better, but I'd really have liked to have seen them react to an increased player count by changing behavior, not just bigger numbers for HP and damage.

For the former, I can't think of a single area in the game where the Pursuer fits in at all, and all it does is inspire a lot of aggravating questions. For instance:

- Why am I fighting a futuristic gliding robot-looking dude who flies in on an eagle in one spot, but then teleports in at other places? Why doesn't he just teleport everywhere? Why does he/it fly in on the fucking eagle? Also if the eagle is helping out the Pursuer, why does the (supposedly same bird) take me to the Lost Bastille? Am I now the Pursuer after beating the Pursuer? Why is the Pursuer (probably residing) in the Lost Bastille in the first place? Why does nothing else i.e. the other guards at Bastille, in the Lost Bastille look like the Pursuer? He is completely apart from every other enemy design in the game.

- Is there only meant to be one Pursuer or multiple Pursuers? How come a second one teleports into the Smelter Demon arena at the Iron Keep?

- Why doesn't the Pursuer walk properly like almost every enemy? Why is it doing this stupid one-knee-forward anime robot bullshit pose at all times?

- Why does the Pursuer have a shitload of weapons on its back, but doesn't use any of them during the fights?

- Why does the Pursuer not pursue me indefinitely? Why is it that if I stand just a few feet away from the two main areas he's encountered in the main game, he decides to teleport away? I don't have a dictionary to hand, but I'm pretty sure that's not the definition of a "pursuit".

It's arguably the worst boss in the Souls series, with the exception of the Capra Demon, who was similarly poorly placed, but to clarify my issue isn't where we fight him, it's why we're even fighting him in the first place. I have my own cynical theories as to why the Pursuer's there (basically boils down to a combination of poor planning, money, time and "someone was a fan of super robot anime and wanted to put it in a game"), but I really need a decent argument for it.

Other games, like Resident Evil, have had enemies that pursue you throughout the length of the game before climaxing with a big encounter. Was that what they were going for here, but then gave up halfway through? Because it sure as hell comes off as a half-baked idea.

1. The Pursuer was created by Aldia. The guards in Lost Bastille are undead Royal Soldiers. They have no relation to Aldia's creation. I don't dare say why The Pursuer flies around on the bird but there are theories. As with all Souls games, none can be confirmed. But it's not a surprise that the Pursuer has a different look and design as he was a creation.

2. There are multiple ones, that much is clear. You fight two of them in the throne room of Drangleic Castle in NG+. Again, only theories, but as he was created, it's not unreasonable to think there can be more of him.

3. He hovers as is within his power. I honestly think the one knee forward thing is just a design choice as to how he hovers. Don't think it holds any significance.

4. No idea. He is equipped for hunting down cursed ones. He chooses to fight you without those weapons. It's just design I guess.

5. I'm with you on this one, but the obvious answer is gameplay design. Why do any enemies suddenly back of when you reach a very specific line? The Taurus demons were described as fierce enemies that hunt down the undead. Yet, they also backed off when you reached a certain line. Doesn't make any sense in the world, but it's always been that way for gameplay purposes. To be honest, I'm not one for forcing everything to make sense in the narrative if it means it doesn't make sense in terms of gameplay.

I don't know, you can ask why you're fighting certain bosses in the entire Souls series without being able to find a conclusive answer. It's not limited to the Pursuer. I do think that the Pursuer is a well designed fight though. He is challenging until you learn his attack patterns, which is key for Dark Souls bosses. I don't think he's anywhere close to being the worst boss in the Souls series. I would go as far as to say it's not even arguable. Bed of Chaos is the first thing that should come to mind. Then there is the poor Capra Demon as well. Both those bosses are product of being difficult because of design, not because they pose a challenge themselves, which is counter to great Dark Souls bosses.

Even not counting those, there still is Four Kings and Seathe. Putting on (curse resistant) armor and hitting the attack button until you win is not great boss design. Even within Dark Souls 2 there are far worse bosses to name. What about Covetous Demon? It's only slightly better than Four Kings, but it's so marginal it barely matters. He has a fun and interesting mechanic to him but you'll probably never see it. What about Old Iron King? A stationary target that also has the most telegraphed attacks out of any enemy in the game?

I get your issue with the Pursuer, but he is a well designed boss (in terms of gameplay, not visual). Especially when compared to some others in the series.

#91 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@dudeglove: You do realize all your statements on the pursuers are matters of opinion, rigged with ignorance conveniently filled with worse-possible-explanation, right ? Thus, saying no one can defend him for how poorly YOU find him is just forcing it down our throat.

#92 Edited by Lysergica33 (542 posts) -

I agree with most of what this guy has to say to be honest. While I think the gameplay is a lot more functional in many respects I also think it is far less cohesive as a piece of art, and it's clearly from Miyazaki not having much of a hand in its creation. And frankly, if it ain't Miyazaki, I ain't interested. After coming back to DS2 after playing a bit of DS1 again on PC at 1080p60, it was like a bad joke and a poor imitation.

#93 Edited by dudeglove (8273 posts) -

@myrmicus said:

@dudeglove: You do realize all your statements on the pursuers are matters of opinion, rigged with ignorance conveniently filled with worse-possible-explanation, right ? Thus, saying no one can defend him for how poorly YOU find him is just forcing it down our throat.

First off I make plenty of legit points. If you don't like reading more than a paragraph of text, that's your problem. At least @zevvion has had the decency to correct me on certain matters (e.g. that the Pursuer was created by Lord Aldia, but from a lore standpoint that seems to kind of exacerbate matters i.e. why don't I see a Pursuer in Aldia's Keep or the Dragon Shrine? Why does a Pursuer appear in the Iron Keep which belonged to a previous king that Aldia seemingly has no relation to?), whereas both yourself and another previous poster have just fired back at me without bringing anything to the table.

Secondly "rigged with ignorance"? I think you mean "riddled with ignorance", but please! I've played the game almost twice through, read plenty of interviews as well as watch various videos by streamers and other content creators on YouTube among all the other stuff. I might not know every item description backwards or be a parry king, but I certainly know a fair amount about all aspects of the Souls' series from the mechanics of PvP to the lore than most.

Fine: how's about this in favor of the Pursuer? At least you can parry the piece of crap, and he has a huge sword. The same can't be said for The Lost Sinner (arguably a smaller but longer-looking sword), The Smelter Demon (bigger looking sword except slower and on fire), the Flexile Sentry (multiple smaller swords/maces), the Ruin Sentinels (spindly looking halberd-holding jerkoffs), the Looking Glass Knight in Drangleic (similar size, annoying shield, big sword), the Old Dragonslayer (Ornstein 2.0), any of the three Dragonriders you encounter, or any other humanoid boss of similar stature to the Pursuer, but that only goes to highlight that the Pursuer is an exception to the rest of the game, rather than the rule. If anything he should have remained a standard enemy, and not a boss.

You mean the breaking the pots to get the hollows out or when he swallows you? The former I saw in a co-op session at least twice. It was neat as a distraction, but the Souls games have a tendency to telegraph what might happen during a boss encounter before you get near the boss. Having played through that half-baked Sen's Fortress knockoff Earthen Peak a few times, I don't really recall seeing hollows-trapped-in-pots anywhere else other than the boss room, either before or after that section. There's also really no indication that you're going to fight an ugly slug pig thing either.

To everyone reading potentially thinking I'm intentionally being a complete asshole by daring to have a contrary opinion, I should clarify that Dark Souls 2 isn't a terrible game, and both DeS and DkS are not without their problems at all (for reasons too long to list), but the whole point about sequels is to improve on the previous iteration, not trample over their legacy like the Matthewmatosis vid points out in the original post and do it seemingly "just because". Say what you will about Dragon God of DeS and DS1's Bed of Chaos, at least people still talk about them several years on. I highly doubt they'll say the same about The Rotten (if he's weak to fire WHY IS HALF HIS ARENA ON FIRE?).

#94 Posted by nasp (415 posts) -

@dudeglove: you said a sequel needs to improve on the previous game.i agree which is why i like dark souls 2 way better because it improved in pretty much every aspect.also correct me if im wrong but it seems like your biggest problem is you dont like the lore in dark souls 2.bed of chaos is talked about still because of how famous it was of being a horrible excuse of a boss.rotten may not be talked about for years to come but thats way better than having bosses in the game so bad you talk about them for a long time.i do realize alot of things dont make sense in dark souls 2 i wont argue with you there.however you have to realize that while you may think there a big deal,to me and alot of other people there just nitpicks.while i dont disagree with some of your points i also dont think they make the gameplay worse which is the most important part of the game.i mean why would i care that he doesnt use the weapons on his back or that he does that robotic anime bullshit as you called it.i play the game for the gameplay and the challenge which dark souls 2 did way better imo.

#95 Edited by Zevvion (2361 posts) -

@dudeglove: You are here talking about the Pursuer. I don't see how that differs from people talking about Bed of Chaos. Where Bed of Chaos is mentioned, utterly terrible is also mentioned. 'At least they are still talking about it' is not necessarily a pro. Nothing in Dark Souls II is as awful as Bed of Chaos, so looking at it like that we might say they improved upon the first game.

It's clear we are of differing opinions and that is fine. I can see where you are coming from. You are looking at it more lore-critical than I am. I am searching for good gameplay and that is certainly in here. I'm not swayed by some stuff that doesn't make much sense to me. I have to say that there was stuff in Dark Souls that didn't make a ton of sense to me either.

Just as a side note, the singers in Shrine of Amana apparently have the power to repel certain creatures with their voice. It is assumed this is why Nasshandra was unable to pass through the Shrine of Amana and sent you to do it. Perhaps the Pursuer was also susceptible to this? Just an hypothesis. Doubtful it's actually explained somewhere.

#96 Posted by nasp (415 posts) -

@zevvion: ive noticed looking at my posts and your posts on dark souls 2 that we say the exact same thing.hopefully with both of us saying the same thing they get the point lol

#97 Posted by dudeglove (8273 posts) -

@nasp: If all you want from a Souls game is some vague description of a "challenge", then good luck finding it. I've not encountered anything that's produced nearly the same amount of terror or ingenuity as Sen's Fortress, the Tomb of Giants, or the Tower of Latria. In terms of "gameplay" - and I still don't know what you mean by that - the tracking on enemy attacks, even supposedly slow heavy ones, is absolutely ridiculous (just try dodging any projectile attack). The curving arrows effect is way more awful than DS1. Meanwhile, the hit boxes on everything leave a lot to be desired, while the animations of certain enemies (the exploding mummies in Lost Bastille are especially twitchy when scrutinized up close) aren't all that hot either. And yes, the lore was absolutely a big deal in the previous games. If you read the interviews and other material about it, Hidetaka Miyazaki was fully aware of what sort of world he was creating and at the same time wanted both his artists and the players to come up with their own ideas, experiences and stories the same way he did when he read Western fantasy novels, but due to his poor understanding of English, he had to fill in a lot of the gaps.

@zevvion said:

Nothing in Dark Souls II is as awful as Bed of Chaos, so looking at it like that we might say they improved upon the first game.

Just as a side note, the singers in Shrine of Amana apparently have the power to repel certain creatures with their voice. It is assumed this is why Nasshandra was unable to pass through the Shrine of Amana and sent you to do it. Perhaps the Pursuer was also susceptible to this? Just an hypothesis. Doubtful it's actually explained somewhere.

I'm gonna go ahead and speculate that the "puzzle boss" was probably a failed Miyazaki idea, hence it not appearing again in DS2. I think the issue was brought up in the Design Works translation for DS1, but I'm not sure (Gwyn parrying definitely was). I'm not sure it was wholly a good thing that it didn't come up once more. Yes, the Dragon God and Bed of Chaos were kind of terrible, but at least it mixed things up and attempted to bring some form of spectacle. About the closest thing it comes to in the sequel is the Giant Lord boss, which can be done in either about two minutes through a combination of knowing what you're doing and not getting hit by those giant firebombs, or ends up requiring several runs due to shitty random number generation.

As far as what's been speculated, the Milfanito (sp?) shrine maidens are able to repel/soothe "The Dark", and the notion is that as the warped enemies in the Shrine are somehow born of the dark (possibly?), they're made docile by the singing (or maybe the fireflies do it or something).

[Personally I thought the lizardmen were incomplete dragon covenant members/Aldia experiment rejects.]

Seeing as Nashandra is a reincarnation of Manus, she could not venture too far into the shrine as she was subdued by the singing, which sort of explains why there's a captured Milfanito at the top of Drangleic tower on the way to the Looking Glass Knight. However, that part bugs me too, as it also doesn't make all that much sense(!) If Nashandra is after the King/Throne, is the Looking Glass Knight on her side or not? If it isn't, why isn't it dead already? If it is, why is it in your way? The way Nashandra tries to stomp your ass in the finale doesn't really justify the presence of the LGK in the castle, because if anything she wants you (and even says so) to get as far as possible to disrupt all the traps Vendrick has laid in her way. But whatever, you guys aren't all that into the lore aspect, but I still find it hugely significant that if they didn't take as much care with the world and its lore, it's likely they didn't put as much care into other aspects of the game.

#98 Posted by Zevvion (2361 posts) -

@dudeglove: You're forgetting Executioner's Chariot. If you ask me, that boss relies on the same principle as Bed of Chaos (environment triggering), except it's actually a pretty well designed boss fight. Unlike Chaos of said Bed.

#99 Edited by nasp (415 posts) -

@dudeglove: well like i said i never had a problem with the areas you mentioned or the whole games in there entirety.i didnt think dark souls 2 was that hard either but i died more in dark souls 2 then the other games.when i say i play it for the gameplay im talking just playing the game.like combat,exploration,and lvling etc.basically i just like playing the game and dont care about the story or the lore.thats how i am with games in general.if the story is good thats a extra,but i mainly care about the gameplay in the game and how fun is it to play.i dont have a problem with the tracking.i never have problems dodging projectiles or attacks in general.havent had a problem with hitboxes either.i will agree with the exploding guys.i fully realize the lore is a big deal.ive seen all the interviews,ive seen everything thats connected to the series.ive been playing the series since the first one,i just dont play the souls games or any game for that matter for the story or lore.i just like playing games.diablo 3 is a great example,horrible generic fantasy story but i still love diablo 3 because of the loot and coop and gameplay in general.

#100 Edited by nasp (415 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@dudeglove: You're forgetting Executioner's Chariot. If you ask me, that boss relies on the same principle as Bed of Chaos (environment triggering), except it's actually a pretty well designed boss fight. Unlike Chaos of said Bed.

agree its way better than bed of chaos.i actually think that boss fight is probably the worst boss in dark souls 2.ide still take it over bed of chaos,pinwheel,or capra demon though.

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.