This game is extremely easy...wtf is going on? Anyone agree?

I've completed Demon's Souls- Pretty damn hard game. Difficulty is a bit overstated sure, but not an easy game. Demands your attention constantly and punishes you for blinking an eye. Lives up to reputation.

I've completed Dark Souls- Boy does this one live up to its name...This is the one where I'd say the difficulty isn't exactly overstated. You really gotta fight to adapt and some areas are a BITCH like the tomb of the giants and Blight Town. Very difficult game.

I've completed Bloodborne- Easiest of Miyazaki souls but man the combat is so quick and with no shields, bosses can so easily fuck you up. Hordes of enemies don't help either. Can be a pretty tough time.

But.......this game is just.....what the fuck? I seriously feel like I'm going insane. Nearly EVERY boss can be easily taken care of by blocking and strafing. You know how many bosses have killed me in this game? Three. I've counted from the list and I've killed 15 bosses in the game. Those other 13 bosses went down with absolutely NO trouble what so ever. I haven't been "grinding" by the purest definition at all. I go through an area, kill all the enemies, and cash in souls. If I die, I kill the same enemies over again sure. I'm over 20 hours in, about soul level 120 with a +10 broadsword sure but EVERY NORMAL ENEMY for the past 5-7 hours has been going down in 1-2 hits. Every boss I've fought after the Pursuer(the second one I fought) have been total pushovers despite 2 others killing me.

I'm seriously completely baffled. Am I the only one who thinks this game is piss easy? And I don't just mean easy for a Souls game, I mean for the past 10 hours or so, this has been one of the easiest games I've played in recent memory...in general. The hell is going on?

Everyone keeps telling me stuff like "oh they rebalanced it for the Scholar version, bro"......No, I really don't believe that for a second. That can't have made the game this much easier.

EDIT: I should note the first few hours WERE pretty difficult. The Forest of fallen giants was kind of a tough time. Souls worthy for sure. But once again- after the pursuer, the game has been a TOTAL cake walk.

They should remove shields in the next game and make parries timed. They could do it so that you can stay in the defensive position by holding the defense button, but the enemies will adjust and find another opening, making a timed parry more effective. Everything in these games is timed, so I don't see why parries shouldn't be.

I don't even use shields anymore. At all.

This is why. Bloodborne is by far the most challenging of all these games. But because of the order you played the games your perception of them is skewed. Demon's and Dark are about similar in difficulty, but since you played those first they seem harder. Then you got around to Bloodborne, and since you now were much more proficient with these games you didn't have that hard of a time with it (making it comparatively easier than your first time through Demon's/Dark). Then we come to Dark 2. Sure, it's probably the least challenging of them all, but the reason you find it bafflingly easy is because not only have you become very proficient with these games, you've gotten the perception that the most challenging one of them all is below average in difficulty. So when compared to Bloodborne Dark 2 sorta just becomes a joke.

Having that said, if you haven't played the DLC before (like I hadn't) there are some more challenging fights there. However most of them rely on "breaking" the rules.

@ares42: Well I'll just correct you and say I played Bloodborne before Dark Souls. I just didn't order my write up that way. And I strongly disagree that Bloodborne is the most challenging. Not having a shield doesn't mean it's definitively the most challenging.

I definitely see how playing the other 3 could make DSII seem very easy though...that may add to it.

@frostyryan: Bloodborne is more forgiving of mistakes due it's quicker and more accessible healing, but as far as not making mistakes it's much more challenging. So it sorta depends on how you define difficulty.

How you played the DLC in DS2? I think it's harder than the main game. Also, the Darklurker is a bitch if you are a melee build.

Personally, I found Dark Souls much easier than Dark Souls 2, but that's just because I played DS2 first. Everyone talks about how the Four Kings are hard. I beat them on my first attempt only using like 4 estus. I also beat Gywnn on my second try. He is outrageously easy to parry.

Also, I literally couldn't disagree more with the below. Just because you don't like playing with shields doesn't mean that they should remove that option for people who do. Bloodborne PvP is complete and utter garbage in large part because they removed build diversity from the game by pulling half the customization options (shields, magic, bows, crossbows, separate armor pieces, equip load, etc.). I don't want to fight people wearing the exact same armor as me, using the exact same weapon as me, and playing with the exact same play style as me x3 in a row.

#2 Edited by Ezekiel (711 posts) - 57 minutes, 18 seconds ago

They should remove shields in the next game and make parries timed.

I don't even use shields anymore. At all.

@bceagles128: Agreed with that last part. I'm getting kinda tired of this notion that has cropped up recently that there is only one "right" way to play the Souls games, and everyone who does otherwise is playing it wrong.

I personally like using shields. Not because I'm incapable of playing without one, but because I actually enjoy the slower, more methodical playstyle that you get with a shield. There are plenty of fast paced action games out there already, I don't need the souls games to be one.

As you said, it's kinda why I haven't been able to get into Bloodborne, because now the game is basically telling me there is only one right to play it, and it's not that interesting.

@zeik: @bceagles128:I don't like that about Bloodborne either. A martial artist should be able to defend their self. That's why I said it should be timed.

If they wanna keep shields, they should at least fix the ridiculous way the characters carry them. You'd crush your hand and tire yourself carrying a shield with a fist. I hate that so much that it's one of the main reasons I stopped using them. It looks terrible. Unless it's small, like a buckler. Link has been doing it right since Ocarina of Time.

It's hardly the only (or most) ridiculous piece of equipment in the game. Sure, it would be nice if they considered some of that, but it's hardly reason to take them out of the game.

I was going to object loudly, but having finished none of the souls games this is the one i got farthest in before sort of stopping playing it. never really got stuck like i did in Dark Souls or *shudder* Bloodborne.

guess my opinion means shit but w/e.

@ezekiel: Carrying a shield with a fist is the primary way people used shields for a super long time man. Enarmes to strap the shield on your arm didn't really replace shield bosses that you held with a fist until the kite shield and they didn't fully replace them. Enarmes were more for freeing up a hand when riding than anything else. Heater shields like Hylian Link uses are just so iconic people think all shields used enarmes.

Also, yeah Dark Souls 2 is pretty easy if you level up too much and they make it way too easy to level to super high levels way to early. It definitely gets harder later, especially the DLC. A lot of the bosses are pretty easy though and that doesn't really change until the DLC.

I didn't know that. But think about this: If a giant, like almost any boss in Dark Souls, were about to hit you, would you rather take the blow squarely on your fist or on your forearm. You'd either twist your wrist or break your hand. It's unrealistic either way, but the forearm would still make a big difference, visually. I'm not that surprised by what you said, since most weapons weren't that big.

Sounds like by the time you got to DSII, you had the formula down to a science. Your edit saying the first little bit gave you some challenge kind of nails it on the head. The Pursuer fight is usually where people get the build they want up and running, and for a Souls veteran - especially after Bloodborne - that means you're fully prepared to face anything the game throws at you.

I'm curious if you've reached the Shrine of Amana (sp?) yet. I thought that area perfectly encapsulates the idea of having to change your strategy and adapt. There's no hiding behind your 100% physical damage shield, and your movement speed is impared with enemies sometimes coming from all sides. Though I haven't gotten there in Scholar yet, so I dunno if they changed the enemies. All the rebalancing I've seen in Scholar has been streamlining the experience or changing enemies to fit the area better, there's no place I can think of yet that has been actually easier. Hell, most of the time it's made it a bit tougher than the original.

DS2 isn't the hardest souls game out there, but I can tell you from experience having only played maybe half of the original before coming to this one, it provides a decent challenge. I can also say that going from beating number 2 a few times, I went back and took care of the original with no problem whatsoever, completely destroying the areas that originally gave me trouble. I can only imagine after playing through three of these types of games that the more accessible one feels like a child's toy to you, but I'm at a loss to think of any other non-souls games in the last 5 years or so that still demand my attention and patience like DS2.

@frostyryan Have you played any of the dlc for Dark Souls 2? I'd say it has some of the toughest boss fights out of the whole series. I get the impression they took the criticisms you have on board when designing them.

I've found it much harder due to dealing with multiple enemies from the start. Maybe because I'm not used to that kind of combat yet. Dark Souls used it sparingly and, when it did they used fodder enemies you can just whack through.

@frostyryan: I think that you underestimate how good you've gotten at these games.

The thing with the souls games is that there is quite literally nothing like it in the gaming arena. The skills that make you good at the souls game can be acquired in pretty much no other game, at least from my experience.

And there are concepts that, when properly understood, make these games much easier and simpler than when you try to tackle them for the first time. Dodge and wait for openings. Don't overextend. Get familiar with your weapon moveset. Know when to call it quits.

You subconsciously learn these concepts while playing a game. That's why the first souls game tends to be the hardest one, and, by extension, 'the best one'.

The pattern of 'the first few hours are difficult but then it becomes much easier' is true for all of them, I think. By that time your character has decent stats and you have chosen and focused on a preffered playstyle, not to mentioned having upgraded your equipment.

I also think that DS2 was easier than the ones before it, but that's because I did play the ones before it. Had I jumped in at DS2, who knows?

Just my thoughts.

I'm about ready to blush at all the "maybe you're really just that good" type comments haha.

But yeah I totally see why being trained by Miyazaki souls just made me be this good at what's honestly a very well made imitation of a souls game to me. The areas pretty much being straight lines don't help either. I feel like I'm unintentionally doing a very successful speed run.

But doesn't it say something that Dark Souls was kicking my fucking ass even after completing Demons and Bloodborne but this is dirt easy for me? It's a combination of all your answers but I think 70% of the reason is just that...this game is easy.

This was only true for Demon's for me. Don't know if it was just me but it felt like Dark Souls kept throwing me curve balls. Bloodborne too.

Still though. DSII is very extreme in what you're saying. I at least remember having trouble in Demons....You know what, I'm gonna hate myself if I end up having trouble at sometime soon. I'm taking my situation for granted right now, haha

You're just a superior fencer, Mitsuru-senpai.

Honestly, I find it kind of strange that Dark Souls is the game that you had so much trouble after playing Demon's Souls and Bloodborne. When Dark Souls first came out it was a pretty common complaint from Demon's Souls vets about how the game was easier. I can't say I breezed through the game, but barring a couple encounters I'm pretty sure I had the least trouble of any game in the series.

Hardcore fans of the Souls series and their scattershot opinions (and snobbishness about difficulty, frankly) is funny to view as someone who only casually likes the games.

Both my friends who are hardcore fans of the series said Bloodborne is by far the easiest one.

If you are just looking at the bosses than Dark Souls 2 just a lot more gimmie fights than Demon Souls and the first Dark Souls. Flexile Sentry, the Prowling Magus, and just looking at the list of bosses on the wiki you quickly see a theme. A lot of big guys that you hug and hack away at, which might be a symptom of trying to squeeze so many areas into the game. However, fights like the Covetous Demon just felt unnecessary. The DLC bosses where pretty fun, especially the "Old Iron King" bosses, so hopefully you will enjoy that more.

Though I mean Dark Souls has it's fair share of weak bosses too, all of the lord soul bosses are pretty bad imo. Bloodborne's bosses felt really samey to me, but that might just be because of a lack of build variety. I think people tend to forget a lot of the easy fights in Dark Souls, because for a lot of people it was their first and they just remember the Minatour as being impossible.

@artisanbreads: You should tell them to go back and play Dark 2 again. They'll probably have the same reaction as OP. I know I had =)

I wouldn't call this game "extremely easy", but I do find it easier than Dark Souls 1. Part of that is due to playing 1 before 2 so I was familiar with the general pace of gameplay how the systems work. The rest is due to most the bosses in 2 being easier than 1. I haven't done the DLC in 2 yet, maybe the difficulty will pick up there as it did in 1.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that at least part of the idea that you have about this game being easier is based upon the attitude that you seem to have about it. This comment in particular sticks out at me, that somehow DSII isn't a "real" souls game and it must therefore, as only an "imitation", be inferior (and part of being an inferior Souls game is being easier?).

I can't speak about your own experiences with the game compared to the others nor can I dispute whether you personally like or dislike the game as those are both personal opinions and therefore indisputable as far as I am concerned. I guess it is just that some of your comments (perhaps I am carrying over from lurking in over threads as well) come closer to the notion that DSII is objectively a badgame rather than personally not liking it. Maybe I am being too sensitive from seeing some people screaming about "B team" instead of criticising the game's actual flaws.

DSII did some things better than the two previous games, some things about the same and some things worse in my opinion. I think that all four games, including Bloodborne, all do certain things very well and others in a range of mediocre to poor - it simply depends on personal preference as to which one does the things that you like and therefore the flaws can be overlooked.

Ultimately, I think that DSII's greatest achievement may simply be making so many people completely forget all the flaws that exist in DeS and DSI.

Edit: Sorry @frostyryan this ended up being longer than intended and most of it isn't actually directed at you or your specific comments. It certainly isn't meant to attack you, so I hope that it doesn't come off that way.

You screwed up by not joining the Company of Champions covenant the moment you stepped foot in Majula. Information before the game game out said that veterans of the Souls series needed to join that covenant for a game play experience that would be geared towards their experience.

I did that and had a great experience. Bosses really come alive when you actually need to dodge and learn their movese because they can and will kill you in 1-3 hits. I chronicled my experience in the Company of Champions. Are you in? thread. Bosses that were fairly simple in the normal game became quite challenging like a certain duo towards the end of the game.

I'll also say that some of the DLC bosses in DS2 are the hardest bosses from the Souls games. One boss in particular essentially forces you to fight him solo because summoning 1 or 2 buddies scales him to outlandish levels. He's also one of the few bosses in the series that's been created to fight groups of people thanks to his moveset.

haha maybe but kinda just backs up my point!

I don't know I found bloodborne to be the easiest of these games by far except for the starting area where it is the hardest, I probably died less than 25 times on my first playthough... blind and offline. Dark Souls 2 isn't super hard or super easy, it is probably the most "balanced" challenge wise of all of them. Dark 1 isn't that bad either when it isn't being heinously cheap with stupid crap like invisible paper thin walkways, off screen missile fire, giant areas filled with lava, or poison, or petrifying enemies, etc etc etc. Demon's Souls is probably the hardest overall without breaking the cheap barrier.

@zeik:*head spins* SAY WHAT? I'm always constantly reminded of how subjective so many things in this series is because I always hear the OPPOSITE of what you just said.

@mycroft_ampersand: I referred to it as a Souls imitation because the game definitely feels like different from the other 3. The controls are a little too responsive, the enemy bosses are usually humanoid, some of the subtlety is gone(the old women telling you you're going to lose your souls over and over again was pretty dumb,) the areas are very linear and yes, the game is a little too easy.

I know what you're probably thinking- He thinks all these things are flaws but that's just what the game is. No, actually I'm only calling it a Souls imitation because of all these things but that DOESN'T mean I think these things make the game bad or necessarily even worse than the other three. If I didn't say so before, I actually still love this game and think it's great. It's very different and I appreciate it but if you gave me this not telling me it was non-Miyazaki, I would come back to you STILL suspicious something is amiss.

@golguin: Uuuhhh I shouldn't have to join a covenant in order to play the game some "correct" way for a Souls veteran. Besides, I think I did join that covenant at first...

@frostyryan: To be clear, I haven't played enough of Bloodborne for it to really qualify, and the main reason Demon's Souls was so hard was because it was the first game I played, but yeah. I'm actually trying to remember the areas that were major obstacles my first time and only a few come to mind: Capra Demon, those fucking archers in Anor Londo, Orn & Smo, and the Bed of Chaos. Everything else was reasonably straightforward. Not "easy", but not a significant hurdle either.

If you include the DLC then Artorias is a huge asshole too.

@zeik: Oh by the way, how do I even access all the DLC? It's all there in scholar. I know it's all crown of the ___ king or something

@frostyryan: That makes perfect sense. In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by imitation. It was probably reactionary on my part simply due to the number of people who seem to confuse "I don't like x game" with "x game is bad".

I believe that we may have the same feeling about the game being "off" without Mizazaki. One of DSII's biggest problems, in my opinion was that no one person stepped in to fill that void in direction and therefore a lot of the design decisions (including art, story and lore) come across as being decision by committee or consensus. Therefore the game feels less focused and areas disconnected from one another - a little bit as if the areas were designed and completed by separated teams and then glued together afterwards. The other games have their own design problems, in my opinion, but it is much clearer that they are the product of a singular vision so they feel more cohesive.

you access the DLC by beating the bosses and going to those DLC entrance locations they block off. The first is behind "The Rotten", the second is behind the "Iron King", and the last is at the Shrine of Winter which you pass through going to Draengleic Castle.

The Company of Champions was advertised by the developers as the way for Souls veterans to play Dark Souls 2. Are you saying the game should have been scaled to Company of Champions levels for all players? Players were given the choice to join or not with the understanding that it would make the game more difficult. Most people immediately backed down after joining because they found the game unplayable in that state. People that felt that game was too easy adjusted the game through those means provided.

Dark Souls 2 was very unique in that it gave players control over how hard the game should be through the Company of Champions and Bonfire Ascetics. I'm just surprised that you wouldn't take advantage of the systems in place to increase the difficulty. Killing normal enemies in 1 or 2 hits is not a normal thing especially if you are walking into new areas and that still holds true.

These were my stats after killing every boss (optional bosses as well) in the vanilla version of the game back on the 360. Reading through my boss impressions a lot of them were easy even in the Company of Champions and my level limited, but imagine how bad of a time I would have had if I used all those souls to level up.

@golguin: It was advertised by developers?........but not in the game. The game doesn't stop you and tell you to join that covenant if you want a more difficult experience, does it? Why am I at fault for not keeping up with something "advertised by developers" and just playing the game? That makes no sense. Yes I know about burning an item to make enemies tougher but that's cheap as hell. Cash in an item to make the game tougher? Bloodborne does that much better with the Insight system because the game gets harder in subtle ways without it telling you.

This also highlights a big problem with DSII in that it feels like difficulty is so forced and unnatural. Hard for the sake of being hard. The first two souls games were only difficult to get you sucked into the world and atmosphere. I'm reading up on this company of champions and the inner souls fan in me is just kinda bothered by it. "Being a member of this covenant substantially increases the game's difficulty level by making every enemy deal more damage (up to 50% in some cases, especially bosses), have more HP, and have approximately 20% damage resistance"

I don't like this. I don't like the idea of artificially increasing difficulty for the sake of it. That doesn't feel like a focused experience to me. That's not what souls is to me.

The game does tell you that joining the covenant will provide a more difficult experience. The exact text upon interacting with the Victor's Stone and selecting yes to every question is...

"This will set you upon an arduous path. Okay to join this covenant?" YES
"Are you prepared to join this covenant?" YES
"Join the Company of Champions covenant?" YES
"Entered covenant."

You yourself mentioned that you did enter the covenant at some point so you read that text. I don't see how you could read that and not think it's going to make the game harder.

Because if the Souls series is know for anything, it's how forthcoming it is with information. People complained so much pre-release about the developers wanting to add difficulty options, so the covenant and the ascetics exist because of that. They didn't exactly hide the covenant either, and it pops up a warning message about the difficulty before you join it, so yeah you can easily find this information by just "playing the game". I sure did and I never knew it existed beforehand.

Also, Bloodborne's insight system actually changes like, 10 enemies total in the entire game, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.

Someone else hit the nail on the head when they described this as snobbery. I guess it's to be expected at this point.

I completed bloodborne yesterday and immediately started playing scholar of the first sin and went and called the first boss on the first try without levelling up once, it felt a bit strange, I can't speak for the rest of the game but I'm definitely finding it easier than bloodborne so far!

I'm pretty sure that's experience. I just finished Dark Souls, the first one, for the first time. I've killed the majority of the bosses on the first try. Only two took me more than three tries. I used an upgraded battle axe and a shield for the whole game, far from the best equipment. And I never used ranged combat in any way. The game took me 22 hours to beat without a walkthrough (I missed two areas without any bosses and one special boss in Anor Londo).

On the other hand, Dark Souls II was the hardest for me. It was also the first one I played. It's that simple. Souls games are hard to learn, but they're not hard when you know how to play them.

Maybe Demon is the exception, but Dark Souls was easier thank two from my experience.

Having played all these in "proper" succession, I had most trouble with Demon's Souls (probably cus it was my first time doing anything like this game), Dark Souls was slightly easier than Demon's, then DS2 was a fair challenge but I was feeling like a pro veteran by then, then Bloodborne being the easiest by far, and DS2:SotfS being slightly harder than Bloodborne again.

All in all I feel the hard part in these games is giving them your full attention. If you can, they're not hard at all.

There were some sections where the difficulty was harder. Iron Keep, for one, had a lot more Alonne Knights in that one area after beating Smelter Demon. Iron Keep became more annoying in SotFS. The Gutter was just as annoying as the original DS2. The other parts of the game were stupid-easy. All they did is replaced some enemies with others, have a bunch more Pursuers appear in Lost Bastille, changed how you get the key in Aldia's Keep, changed a couple spots where Lucatiel can be found and summoned, redid how the Heide Knights acted after beating The Dragonrider, and placed a drake at the lever platform of Blue Cathedral. Magic isn't OP in SotFS either.

To me in difficulty it goes Dark Souls > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls II > Bloodborne. DS2 was pretty tough in fits and starts, but not that consistent. Bloodborne was just kind of a mash fest besides like 5-7 bosses.

@golguin: Sorry, I mistaked it for another covenant. Hell, I didn't even know about the stone you're talking about. I still stand by what I said about just making the game harder though. I don't like that

@teddie: I see what you're saying but I still just hate the general idea of just....making the game harder. It should just....be.

And my "they should have told me" argument was just to counter golguin's notion that it was somehow my fault that I never entered that covenent to make the game harder. I really shouldn't have to do that. I enjoy how obtuse this series is, don't get me wrong

I find it completely ridiculous that someone can complain that a game is too easy when you have 100% control over the game's difficulty through the leveling system. If you think it's too easy, DON'T LEVEL UP SO MUCH. In fact, go ahead and start as deprived and see how far you can make it through the game as SL1. If you do that, I'm pretty damn sure that you will find it too difficult. From there, finding the right difficulty is simply a matter of determining how much to level. It's really not that complicated.

I.....don't know what to say to this.

It's a common thing in the Souls series to restrict your level. We mostly do it to stay at a specific PVP range, but the Souls games ALWAYS provide more souls than you need to beat the game. People will say, "I didn't over level. I just used the souls I naturally picked up from bosses and from killing enemies. I didn't grind through the same area multiple times."

Unfortunately for you and others that's exactly how you end up over leveled. DS2 is especially bad because the souls gained during the DLC will skyrocket your level. I remember during Patrick's playthrough of DS1 people kept telling him he was over leveled for all the boss fights and he would counter that the game shouldn't be giving him all those souls to level up if it would cause that difficulty imbalance.

Think about the opposite problem though. Would you rather be given plenty of souls and choose not to level up or be given inadequate souls and have to grind out several hours before every boss? The power is always in the hands of the player. It's the reason why Souls veterans leave Vitality alone until they start getting 1-2 shotted. It's a wasted stat if you're good enough to avoid damage so you don't pump it. That's how in Bloodborne you end up with bosses that can one shot you in the normal game and Chalice Dungeons. If you're not aware of the practice so can easily cap Vitality at 50 and never have to worry about any boss move EVER.

You control your difficulty with level and the other systems in DS2. If your power is outpacing what the game can dish out I don't know why you'd continue to make yourself even more powerful and then wonder why the game can't keep up. Before it even get's suggested the answer is no, enemies should not scale to your level.

I think it's all the Bonfires. One every 5 minutes, makes dying feel almost inconsequential.

Dark Souls 1 for liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiife.

@golguin: That's genuinely an interesting perspective I didn't think about. To be fair, I was never exactly "complaining" about the game being so easy for me, just baffled. I played this the same way I played the other souls games and this one is drastically easier. That was super confusing for me. What you say is very interesting though