@tobbrobb: sure.
when i played through it i felt like all of the mid-level bosses were there to facilitate relatively inexperienced players being able to handle what to do after one or two attempts, with or without help, and then being able to put their own summon signs down relatively quickly, in the first playthrough, and help out in the same way. those bosses encouraged people to learn to help with, rather than rely on, co-op play. that's what happened to me, i never felt confident enough in earlier souls games to expect other players to rely on me, but this time i was put on a path that felt a lot more rewarding than playing alone, and by the end of my first playthrough i was able to help with all the bosses, the upper tier of which felt designed to require co-op to beat, without a great deal of frustration at least, like the three sentinels in Lost Bastille.
likewise for difficult sections like the shrine of amana, which i had no issue with the first time through as i had, by chance, a magic shield spell on hand, which negated all of that ranged damage. Thus before that section was nerfed i spent several evenings guiding players through, and it was one of the best gaming experiences i've ever had. I feel like the backlash about that section would never have occurred if players had been more willing to summon.
using a souls game as a proving ground or a point of pride seems to me to be misinterpreting the whole enterprise, in the case of ds2 in particular, especially when it results in demanding unnecessary nerfs on the internet. the soul memory mechanic was well established from the get-go and it was clear the game wanted to move away from the arrogance of griefers and show-offs, which dark souls, not at all by design, cultivated. solo the stuff if you want, but electing to miss out on co-op amounts to missing out on the real fun of the game as I experienced it.
Log in to comment