(Not the) Sequel for Everyone
There are at least two different types of people that play Dark Souls. There are those of us that spend more time playing with the PvP aspect, and those of us that spend more time playing the PvE side of things. Dark Souls II excels in one area, and falters in another. For those of us that enjoy the PvP, and spend more time invading, hosting fights, and dueling, Dark Souls II is a wonderful experience that obliterates a large portion of the first game's problems and downfalls, while adding new elements that keep things interesting and fresh. For the others, well, it isn't so much an improvement.
Dark Souls was praised for it's intricate level designs. Areas often folded over themselves several times, had shortcuts, clever enemy placements, and generally contained a variety of interesting challenges and variety. Dark Souls II makes absolutely no effort to replicate this. Instead areas are mostly linear romps through "Castle A" or "Castle B." Sure, they're often wonderfully designed with beautiful architecture and unique environments, but that isn't enough. Dark Souls players know that isn't enough. It's part of what we loved about the first game, but it isn't nearly enough to make the game great. Some areas still have that, but they are few... actually, I am coming to some sort of realization here. The first game didn't have a lot of this either. Besides the Undead Burg, Blighttown, and the Depths... and maybe Sen's Fortress, Dark Souls 1 was rather linear and flat as well, it just hid it better. This game has four major spokes, like the second half of the first game. After you complete these four spokes, you're left to explore a lengthy fifth spoke. Then the game is over! In the first game, you played through a linear spoke as well, but nobody knew how to play Dark Souls well so it was incredibly difficult and weird, but really awesome. Now that everybody knows how to play the game, it's less difficult, less weird, and also less awesome. Which is bizarre, considering Dark Souls 2 is actually complete (whereas the first game obviously wasn't,) and this game has more enemy variety, more varied environments, and almost twice as many bosses. So, what am I saying? What does any of this mean?
It means nobody really knows a solid, good, perfect reason why Dark Souls 2 is worse than Dark Souls 1. I almost guarantee that if the games releases were reversed, where everybody played Dark Souls 2 before Dark Souls 1, this game would have gone down as one of the best games ever made. Then, Dark Souls 1 would have been the disappointment instead. It would feel primitive and inconvenient, boring and too same-y, unfair and tedious. Despite all the improvements that the second game has made, it is an inferior game because everybody already knows how to beat it. Everybody knows that you can circle around enemies for backstabs, press L2 at the right time to parry, and that you should let your shield down between attacks. Everyone knows how to handle two enemies attacking you at once, or how to run through an area without having to fight a single enemy on the way. It was actually a totally impossible task for From Software to replicate the experience of the first game. They could only make a complete, more polished product. And they did. And I love it.
But most people don't, and most people don't know why. Or they do, but their reasons are totally difference from somebody else's reasons and no true conclusion is ever reached.
So, in summary, if you liked Dark Souls 1, you might like this game. That's the best one can really do.
If you never played Dark Souls 1, then you will suffer pain, torment, and love at the hands of Dark Souls 2. You will eventually love Dark Souls more than any other game, and then, after time passes, you'll just go on understanding that other games just aren't as good as Dark Souls is, Dark Souls 3 will be released, and you will hate it just like we all hate Dark Souls 2. For basically no identifiable reason.
Except the DLC. The DLC is always exceptional.
